Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Home , Hydrofoil, Passenger load factor, Scow

U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics October 2003

Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

October 2003

U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics Our mission: To lead in developing transportation data and information of high quality and to advance their effective use in both public and private transportation decisionmaking.

Our vision for the future: Data and information of high quality will support every significant transportation policy decision, thus advancing the quality of life and the economic well-being of all Americans.

To obtain Transportation Statistics Annual Report and other BTS publications Mail: Product Orders Bureau of Transportation Statistics U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, SW, K-15 Washington, DC 20590

Phone: 202-366-DATA [press 1] Fax: 202-366-3197 Internet: www.bts.gov

BTS Information Service E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 800-853-1351

Recommended citation U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transportation Statistics Annual Report, BTS03-06 (Washington, DC: 2003)

All material contained in this report is in the public domain and may be used and reprinted without special permission; citation as to source is required. Acknowledgments

U.S. Department of Produced under the Transportation direction of: Wendell Fletcher Norman Y. Mineta Assistant Director for Secretary Transportation Analysis

Project Manager Kirsten Oldenburg

Editor Marsha Fenn Bureau of Transportation Statistics Major Contributors Kathryn Tsibulsky Deborah Johnson Rick Kowalewski Felix Ammah-Tagoe Maha Khan Deputy Director Anthony Apostolides Janice Lent Jonaki Bose William Mallett William J. Chang David Chesser Getachew Mekonnen Associate Director for David Chien Jeffery Memmott Information Systems Martha Courtney Craig Morris Scott Dennis Nagaraj Neerchal John V. Wells Kay Drucker Long Nguyen Chief Economist Ron Duych Ken Notis Bingsong Fang Lisa Randall Jeremy Wu Mary Field Elizabeth Roberto Acting Chief Statistician Chester Ford Joy Sharp Lee Giesbrecht Matthew Sheppard Bruce Goldberg Brian Sloboda Jason Goodfriend Deepak Virmani Xiaoli Han Jie Zhang Elijah Henley

Other Contributors Report Layout, Bill Bannister Production, and Don Bright Cover Design Michael Cohen Lorisa Smith Dorinda Edmondson Ashton Alvis Pat Flanagan Alpha Glass Chip Moore Peg Young

Preface

ongress requires the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) to Creport on transportation statistics to the President and Congress. This Transportation Statistics Annual Report (TSAR) is the ninth such report prepared in response to this congressional mandate, laid out in 49 U.S.C. 111 (j). In addition to presenting the state of transportation statistics, the report focuses on transportation indicators related to 15 topics. Most of these topics are specified in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. The BTS publication, National Transportation Statistics (NTS), a companion to this annual report, has more comprehensive and longer time series data than could be accommodated here. NTS is available both in print and online at www.bts.gov.

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY Summary of Transportation Indicators (Chapter 2) ...... 3 Summary of the State of Transportation Statistics (Chapter 3) ...... 14

CHAPTER 2 TRANSPORTATION INDICATORS Introduction ...... 21 Section 1: Productivity in the Transportation Sector Labor Productivity in Transportation ...... 22 Multifactor Productivity ...... 24 Section 2: Traffic Flows Passenger-Miles of Travel ...... 26 Domestic Freight Ton-Miles ...... 28 Geography of Domestic Freight Flows ...... 30 Section 3: Travel Times Scheduled Intercity Travel Times ...... 34 Urban Highway Travel Times ...... 36 U.S. Major Air Carrier On-Time Performance ...... 38 Amtrak On-Time Performance ...... 40 Section 4: Vehicle Weights Highway Trucks by Weight...... 42 Vehicle Loadings on the Interstate Highway System ...... 44 Merchant Marine Vessel Capacity ...... 46 Railcar Weights...... 48 Section 5: Variables Influencing Traveling Behavior Daily Passenger Travel ...... 50 Travel by Purpose ...... 52 Travel by Mode ...... 54 Vehicle Ownership and Availability ...... 56 Section 6: Travel Costs of Intracity Commuting and Intercity Trips Household Spending on Transportation ...... 58 Cost of Owning and Operating an Automobile ...... 60

vii Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Cost of Intercity Trips by Train and Bus ...... 62 Average Transit Fares ...... 64 Commuting Expenses of the Working Poor ...... 66 Airfare Index Research Data...... 68 Section 7: Availability of Mass Transit and Number of Passengers Served Transit Passenger-Miles Traveled ...... 70 Transit Ridership ...... 72 Transit Ridership by Transit Authority ...... 74 Lift- or Ramp-Equipped Buses and Rail Stations ...... 76 Section 8: Frequency of Vehicle and Transportation Facility Repairs Commercial Motor Vehicle Repairs ...... 78 Highway Maintenance and Repairs ...... 80 Rail Infrastructure and Equipment Repairs...... 82 Transit Vehicle Reliability...... 84 Lock Repairs on the Great Lakes Saint Lawrence Seaway System...... 86 Intermittent Interruptions of Transportation Services ...... 88 Section 9: Accidents Transportation Fatality Rates ...... 90 Years of Potential Life Lost from Transportation Accidents ...... 92 Transportation Injury Rates ...... 94 Motor Vehicle-Related Injuries ...... 96 Economic Impacts of Motor Vehicle Crashes ...... 98 Section 10: Collateral Damage to the Human and Natural Environment Key Air Emissions...... 100 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 102 Oil Spills into U.S. Waters...... 104 Hazardous Materials Incidents and Injuries ...... 106 Section 11: Condition of the Transportation System Transportation Capital Stock ...... 108 Highway Condition ...... 110 Bridge Condition ...... 112 Airport Runway Conditions ...... 114 Age of Highway and Transit Fleet Vehicles...... 116 Age of Amtrak, Aircraft, and Maritime Vessel Fleets ...... 118 Section 12: Transportation-Related Variables that Influence Global Competitiveness Relative Prices for Transportation Goods and Services ...... 120 U.S. International Trade in Transportation-Related Goods ...... 122 U.S. International Trade in Transportation-Related Services ...... 124

viii Table of Contents

Section 13: Transportation and Economic Growth Transportation-Related Final Demand ...... 126 Transportation Services...... 128 Section 14: Government Transportation Finance Government Transportation Revenues ...... 130 Government Transportation Expenditures ...... 132 Government Transportation Investment ...... 134 Section 15: Transportation Energy Transportation Sector Energy Use...... 136 Transportation Energy Prices ...... 138 Transportation Energy Efficiency ...... 140

CHAPTER 3 STATE OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS Freight Data ...... 145 Passenger Travel Statistics...... 153 Air Transportation Statistics ...... 158 Transportation Economic Data...... 161 Geospatial Data ...... 164 Existing Geospatial Data and Data Programs ...... 166 Conclusion ...... 167

APPENDICES Appendix A: Acronyms and Glossary ...... 171 Appendix B: Tables...... 191

Chapter 1 Summary

Summary

n this edition of the Transportation Statistics Annual Report, the I Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) has focused on transportation indicators related to 15 specific topics (chapter 2) and on the overall state of transportation statistics (chapter 3).

SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION INDICATORS (CHAPTER 2) Chapter 2 contains transportation data and information on the following topics:1 1. productivity in the transportation sector, 2. traffic flows, 3. travel times, 4. vehicle weights, 5. variables influencing traveling behavior, 6. travel costs of intracity commuting and intercity trips, 7. availability of mass transit and number of passengers served, 8. frequency of vehicle and transportation facility repairs, 9. accidents, 10. collateral damage to the human and natural environment, 11. condition of the transportation system, 12. transportation-related variables that influence global competitiveness, 13. transportation and economic growth, 14. government transportation finance, and 15. transportation energy Each of these topics is represented by a series of key indicators in chapter 2. The indicators are presented graphically; supporting data tables are in appendix B (see box 1).

1 Topics 1 through 12 appear in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, under 49 USC 111(c)(1). Some of the topic names, however, have been shortened in this report.

3 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

BOX 1 About the Data in this Report

The data in this report come from a variety of sources— period. Because of the differing availability of data principally, from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics among all the indicators included, it has not been pos- and other operating administrations of the Department of sible to use the same span of 10 years for each indica- Transportation. However, other sources are federal gov- tor without sacrificing timeliness. Instead, the data span ernment agencies, such as the U.S. Census Bureau, a decade up to the year of most recent data available Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Environmental when this report was prepared. (More information Protection Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, and Energy about data in the report can be found in the introduction Information Administration. To supplement government to chapter 2.) sources, the report occasionally uses data and information from trade associations, such as the Association of In this summary chapter, full data sources are not pro- American Railroads and American Public Transportation vided. However, the data here are from chapter 2, Association. Data from any of these sources may be where full citations are given in the text and graphs. subject to omissions and errors in reporting, recording, Corresponding tables in appendix B also contain and processing. Sample data are subject to sampling source information. The data here are presented in the variability. Documents cited as sources in this report same order—by topic section—as they appear in chap- often provide detailed information about definitions, ter 2 enabling easy access to data sources. Also not methodologies, and statistical reliability. present in this chapter are complete definitions, which can vary across data sources. To be consistent, when trend data are used in this report they are shown, if possible, for at least a 10-year

1. Productivity in the Transportation Sector since it takes into account changes in several dif- Labor productivity in the for-hire transportation ferent inputs, not just labor. Rail is the only services and petroleum pipeline industries transportation sector for which multifactor pro- increased 20 percent between 1990 and 2000 ductivity estimates are currently available. BTS compared with all business, which increased 23 has a project underway, in consultation with the percent. Among the modes, railroad and local Bureau of Labor Statistics to develop multifac- trucking increased the most, by 65 percent each tor productivity indicators for all modal sectors. from 1990 to 2000. The labor productivity of Class I bus carriers, which fluctuated over the 2. Traffic Flows period, increased the least (16 percent). Tracking the volume and geographic flow of traf- The multifactor productivity of all private fic on America’s roads, rails, airports, and water- business sectors combined increased 8 percent ways helps to ensure that transportation between 1990 and 1999, while the multifactor infrastructure is properly maintained and has productivity of the rail transportation subsector adequate capacity to meet the demand. The vol- increased 30 percent. ume of passenger travel is measured by estimating the number of miles traveled per person for each These two indicators of economic productiv- mode (see box 2). This method takes into account ity—multifactor and labor productivity—differ. the distance traveled by a vehicle and the number Labor productivity relates output to labor input, of people in the vehicle. Freight is measured in while multifactor productivity relates changes in ton-miles, the movement of one ton of cargo the output to changes in a set of inputs, such as cap- distance of one statute mile. Each of these volume ital, labor, energy, materials, and services. measurements allows for comparisons across Economists generally consider multifactor pro- modes, although these comparisons are affected ductivity to be a more comprehensive indicator by data-collection methods and definitions.

4 Chapter 1: Summary

3. Travel Times BOX 2 Data on Passenger-Miles of Travel Most Americans experience some type of travel delay while driving their personal vehicle or Two national estimates of passenger-miles of travel traveling on a bus, train, or airplane. These (pmt) are available; they differ in coverage, methodology, and other factors. The 2000 pmt data present- delays can be costly for individuals, businesses, ed in this section come from the Bureau of and the transportation industry. A multitude of Transportation Statistics (BTS) publication, National Transportation Statistics 2002 (NTS). BTS compiles factors can affect travel times. these data for NTS annually, primarily using mode- by-mode data derived in various ways by BTS and In a 2003 study, BTS found that between others. For instance, pmt for large air carriers and 1995 and 2002, scheduled trip time (including intercity trains are estimated from ticket sales and connection time, where necessary) had increased trip lengths; for transit, the data are reported by transit authorities. Each method used to estimate these in 63 percent of 246 rail city-pairs, in 68 percent pmt has differing strengths and weaknesses, as dis- of 261 air city-pairs, and in 46 percent of 250 cussed in NTS in the Accuracy Profiles for table 1–34 (available at http://www.bts.gov/). intercity bus city-pairs. For those using personal vehicles, highway Later, in the section on Variables Influencing Travel Behavior, is a presentation of 2001 pmt data from the travel times increased in 70 of 75 urban areas 2001 National Household Travel Survey, jointly con- (93 percent) between 1990 and 2000. In 2000, ducted by BTS and the Federal Highway Administration. As survey data, they are collected it took 39 percent longer, on average, to make a using a single methodology. This provides a coher- peak period trip in urban areas compared with ence and comparability not available with the NTS the time it would take if traffic were flowing data. However, these data are not collected annually, limiting their use for trend analyses. Another differ- freely. ence between the NTS and NHTS data is the extent of their coverage among modes. It is to be expected, Just over 82 percent of domestic air flights then, that because of methodological and coverage arrived on time in 2002, compared with 75 per- issues the NTS and NHTS data will differ. cent in 1996. Late flights amounted to 16 percent of flights in 2002, down from 23 percent in Passenger miles of travel (pmt) in the United 1996. Over this period, late, canceled, or States totaled an estimated 4.7 trillion in 2000, or diverted flights peaked at 1.6 million in 2000, about 17,000 miles for every man, woman, and declining to just below 942,000 in 2002. child. Over the decade, 1990 to 2000, pmt Seventy-seven percent of Amtrak trains arrived increased 24 percent. Excluding gas pipelines, all at their final destination on time in 2002, com- modes of freight transportation combined gener- pared with 72 percent in 1993. Over these years, ated nearly 4.0 trillion domestic ton-miles in short-distance trains—those with runs of less 2000, 20 percent more than in 1990. than 400 miles—have consistently registered bet- In addition to studying freight and passenger ter on-time performance than long-distance volumes, it is also important to track changes in trains—those of 400 miles or more. the geographic and modal distribution of freight and passenger travel in order to anticipate and 4. Vehicle Weights alleviate areas of high congestion. Truck, rail, Vehicle traffic affects the longevity of infrastruc- and waterborne freight flow maps help planners ture. Traffic, on a given highway segment, can to pinpoint potential problem areas in the trans- be measured by average weights and numbers of portation system. vehicles. Another approach to assessing highway pavement stress is by estimating vehicle loadings on the nation’s highways. Aircraft

5 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

landing weights can affect airport pavement, as Meanwhile, the average capacity of all types of can the weight of rail equipment on rail tracks. vessels calling at U.S. ports grew 4 percent. For maritime infrastructure, especially ports, The average weight of each freight railcar vessel size (often expressed in deadweight tons remained fairly constant—ranging from 63 to (dwt)—a measure of cargo capacity), rather 67 tons—between 1991 and 2001. However, than weight, can be of concern. As larger water- this relatively steady average weight of a loaded borne vessels are added to the worldwide mer- railcar masks countervailing trends among chant marine fleet, U.S. ports may have to selected freight commodities. Between 1991 and expand to accommodate larger ships or decide 2001, for instance, the average weight of a car- to specialize in handling cargoes that are not load of coal was 110 tons in 2001, up from 99 affected by changes in vessel size. tons in 1991. Coal represented 46 percent of rail The number of trucks in the U.S. truck fleet freight tonnage in 2001. grew 23 percent between 1992 and 1997.2 In the Heavy category (over 26,000 pounds), the 5. Variables Influencing Traveling Behavior number of trucks grew 37 percent during the Results from the 2001 National Household period, while medium trucks (between 6,001 Travel Survey,5 sponsored by BTS and the and 19,500 pounds) increased 14 percent. Light Federal Highway Administration, show that the trucks, which include sport utility vehicles daily non-occupational travel of all people in the (SUVs), minivans, vans, and pickup trucks, rep- United States totaled about 4 trillion miles, an resented 86 percent of the truck fleet in 1997. average of 14,500 miles per person per year. On The number of light trucks increased by 24 per- a daily basis, the average person traveled 40 cent between 1992 and 1997, however, the miles, 88 percent of it in a personal vehicle.6 strongest growth occurred among SUVs (93 per- Overall, people took 411 billion daily trips in cent) and minivans (61 percent). 2001, an average of 1,500 trips per person Large combination trucks3 made up only 6 annually or about 4 trips per day. The largest percent of traffic volume in urban areas in 2001 number of daily trips (45 percent) were to shop, but accounted for 77 percent of urban Interstate to visit doctors and dentists, and for other fam- highway loadings. In rural areas, they repre- ily and personal business. Commuting—trips sented 17 percent of traffic and 89 percent of made to and from work—accounted for 15 per- rural Interstate loadings in 2001. Between 1991 cent of all personal trips in 2001. The average and 2001, large combination truck traffic vol- length of these trips was 12 miles. ume grew from 14 percent to 17 percent on One key factor affecting travel behavior is rural roads, while remaining the same on urban household vehicle availability. Slightly less than Interstate highways. one-third of households had one personal vehi- The average capacity of containerships calling cle available for use in 2001. A little more than at U.S. ports increased 9 percent to nearly one-third of households (40 million out of 107 40,000 dwt between 1998 and 2001.4 million households) had two vehicles and

2 These data, from the Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey conducted every five years, were the most recent available when this 5 See box 2 on page 5 for a discussion about pmt data. Full report was prepared. details of the 2001 National Household Travel Survey are in chap- 3 Large combination trucks weigh more than 12 tons and have 5 ter 2, section 5. or more axles. 6 Comprises cars, vans, SUVs, pickup trucks, other trucks, recre- 4 1998 is the first year for which data are available. ational vehicles, and motorcycles.

6 Chapter 1: Summary

slightly less than one-quarter had three or more new method of computing price indices for air vehicles available. Almost 8 percent of house- travel. Preliminary data from this research are holds (8.5 million) had no vehicle available for presented in chapter 2. This research might one use. People in these households tend to take day serve as a model for producing price indices fewer trips and travel shorter distances each for other modes, enabling better cross-modal year than people in households with at least one comparisons. vehicle available. 7. Availability of Mass Transit and Number 6. Travel Costs of Intracity Commuting and of Passengers Served Intercity Trips There were approximately 7,500 transit agen- On average, U.S. households spent $7,406 (in cies in the United States in 2001. However, chained 1996 dollars) on transportation in 2001. about 70 percent of the U.S. population is This represented 21 percent of all household served by just 580 of these agencies. Transit use expenditures. Only housing cost more (31 per- continues to be concentrated in specific markets, cent). On average (median), half of the working such as communities where households do not poor spent almost 10 percent of their income own cars, in certain large cities, and in lower (based on current 1999 dollars) on commuting income households. Approximately 40 percent expenses in 1999. This is over twice the percent- of all daily transit trips are work related.7 age of income that the median of the total popu- There were 46.5 billion urban transit pmt in lation spent on commuting (4 percent). 2001 compared with 37.5 billion in 1991, an Driving an automobile 15,000 miles per year increase of 24 percent. As they have historically, cost 50¢ per mile in 2001, or 16 percent more buses had the largest pmt share in 2001, generating than it did in 1991, when total costs were 43¢ 19.6 billion pmt or 42 percent of all transit pmt. (in chained 1996 dollars). For those using tran- While transit ridership was somewhat stag- sit, the average fare remained about the same nant between 1991 and 1996, it grew steadily between 1990 and 2000 (in chained 1996 dol- between 1996 and 2001 to 9 billion unlinked lars). Increases in fares per passenger-mile for trips,8 an increase of 19 percent. Bus ridership some modes of transit were offset by lower fares comprised the majority of unlinked trips (5.2 bil- per passenger-mile for other modes. lion) in 2001. However, rail transit ridership, On average, intercity trips via Amtrak cost 20¢ with almost 3.5 billion trips in 2001, posted the per revenue passenger-mile in fiscal year 2000, up strongest growth (39 percent). Since at least 33 percent from 15¢ per revenue passenger-mile 1996, approximately 77 percent of all unlinked in fiscal year 1993 (in chained 1996 dollars). transit passenger trips (6.9 billion trips in 2001) Meanwhile, average intercity Class I bus fares have been made within the service area of only rose 27 percent, from $21 to $26, between 1990 and 2000 (in chained 1996 dollars). As these data show, it is not always possible to 7 The datum in this sentence is from the 2001 National Household Travel Survey (see section 5 in chapter 2 for more infor- compare the travel costs of intracity and intercity mation). The balance of the data in this summary of section 7 are trips because not all mode travel costs can cur- from the Federal Transit Administration’s National Transit Database and National Transit Summaries and Trends, 2002 draft. rently be measured in the same way. However, Full citations are available in chapter 2. BTS statisticians, in collaboration with the 8 For a discussion of linked vs. unlinked trips, see section 7 in Bureau of Labor Statistics, are investigating a chapter 2.

7 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

30 such authorities. New York City transit alone truck inspections. Over 2.0 million roadside accounted for 30 percent of all trips in 2001. truck inspections were completed in 2001, up The nationwide fleet of ADA9 lift- or ramp- 25 percent since 1990. The percentage of equipped transit buses increased to 87 percent inspected trucks taken out of service declined (to 58,785 buses) in 2001 from 52 percent of from 34 percent in 1990 to 23 percent in 2001. the bus fleet in 1993. In 2001, 50 percent or Work zones on freeways cause an estimated 1,374 rail transit stations were ADA accessible. 24 percent of the nonrecurring delays on free- These stations serve passengers traveling via ways and principal arterials. The level of fund- automated guideway transit, cable cars, coming applied to highway maintenance is an muter rail, heavy rail, inclined plane, light rail, indirect measure of the amount of maintenance monorail, and the Alaska Railroad. activity and, thus, presence of work zones on highways. Funding for highway maintenance 8. Frequency of Vehicle and Transportation increased by 15 percent (in constant 1987 dol- 10 Facility Repairs lars) between 1990 and 2001. Pavement resurfacing represented just over half (51 percent) of Data are not readily available to properly char- the miles of federal-aid roads undergoing feder- acterize the frequency of repairs for vehicles and ally supported construction or maintenance in infrastructure of all modes. Partly, this is 2001, up from about 42 percent in 1997.11 because vehicle operations for many modes are in the private sector; and, as it affects profitabil- Class I railroad companies maintained nearly ity, this operational information can be confi- 170,000 miles of track in 2001, down from dential. For passenger cars, actual repair nearly 200,000 miles of track in 1991. frequency data and resultant disruptions are dis- Throughout the 1990s, rail companies replaced persed among car owners. However, some pri- an average of 743,000 tons of rail and an aver- vate organizations do collect and analyze car age of 12.2 million crossties each year. Railroads repair data on a model/year basis. also periodically replace or rebuild locomotives and freight cars. On average, new and rebuilt In some cases where repair data are available, locomotives made up 4 percent of Class I rail- making the link to service interruptions can be road fleets between 1990 and 2001. problematic. In other cases, maintenance cost data are available (e.g., airlines and highways). Transit service12 interruptions due to mechan- But, again, the connection between costs and ical failures remained relatively level from 1995 frequency and, thus, interruptions of service are through 2000,13 averaging between 18 and 19 not clear. Annual data are available on U.S. mechanical problems per 100,000 revenue domestic vessel fleet capacity, but capacity vehicle-miles. results from market and other factors as well as repair downtime. 10 Instead of chained 1996 dollars, constant 1987 dollars are used Most of the vehicle repair data for the trucks here because the Federal Highway Administration publishes its and buses operated by the nation’s nearly data accordingly. 600,000 motor carriers are not public informa- 11 1997 is the earliest year for which these data are available. tion. A surrogate measure is data on highway 12 See detailed definitions of the type of transit equipment included in this section in chapter 2. 13 Data prior to 1995 and later than 2000 were collected using dif- 9 ADA refers to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of ferent definitions of what constitutes an interruption of service and 1990. are not comparable.

8 Chapter 1: Summary

Natural disasters, accidents, labor disputes, An estimated 3.1 million people suffered terrorism, security breaches, and other unfore- some kind of injury involving passenger and seeable incidents can result in major disruptions freight transportation in 2001. Most of these to the transportation system. Although a com- injuries, about 98 percent, resulted from high- prehensive account of these unpredictable inter- way crashes. However, injury rates for most ruptions has not been undertaken nor data highway vehicle types declined between 1991 compiled on them, numerous studies and other and 2001. One exception was the rate for light analyses have sought to evaluate the effects of truck occupants, which rose 15 percent, from 50 individual events on the transportation system. per 100 million pmt in 1991 to 58 per 100 mil- Terrorist attacks and security alerts have lion pmt in 2001. affected transportation services for decades. After A BTS analysis of motor vehicle-related injury the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, all data for 200114 shows that there were sharp commercial flights scheduled for September 12 peaks in injuries associated with youth. For were canceled. Many flights were canceled during motor vehicle occupants and motorcyclists, the the remainder of the month and the months that peak spanned ages 15 to 24 years; for pedalcy- followed. Two years later, air passenger traffic clists and pedestrians, the peak spanned ages 10 has not fully recovered; however, other factors, to 14 years. Young males exhibited a substan- such as an economic downturn, may have con- tially greater peak in serious injuries than young tributed to the decrease in traffic. females. In addition, the percentage of injuries classified as serious was greater for motorcy- 9. Accidents clists (20 percent of all motorcyclist injuries were serious), pedestrians (19 percent), and ped- Crashes involving motor vehicles and other trans- alcyclists (10 percent) than it was for motor portation accidents in the United States result in vehicle occupants (7 percent). tens of thousands of fatalities and millions of injuries each year. The number of fatalities and Motor vehicle crashes in the United States injuries per year represent a common means for cost an estimated $231 billion in 2000 (in cur- evaluating the safety of each transportation rent dollars), about $820 per person or 2 per- mode. Dividing the number of fatalities by popu- cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The lation and injuries by passenger-miles traveled largest components of the total cost (26 percent can enable useful comparisons across time and each) are market productivity—the cost of fore- modes. However, care must be taken in doing so, gone paid labor due to death and disability— because definitions of fatalities and injuries vary and property damage. by mode. While transportation accidents amounted to There were 45,130 fatalities related to trans- approximately 6 percent of the deaths of those portation in 2001, almost 16 fatalities per under age 65 between 1991 and 2000, these 100,000 U.S. residents. This is a decline of 11 fatalities represented 10 percent of the total percent from 18 fatalities per capita in 1991, when there were 44,320 fatalities. Nearly 93 14 This analysis was based on data from the U.S. Consumer percent of all transportation fatalities in 2001 Product Safety Commission’s National Electronic Injury Surveillance System. Due to methodological differences, these data were highway-related. are not necessarily consistent with other injury data in this report that come from the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System.

9 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

15 years of potential life lost (YPLL) during this to 6,936 teragrams of carbon dioxide (CO2) 16 period. People who die from transportation equivalent (TgCO2Eq). Of this, 27 percent accidents tend to be younger on average than were emitted by transportation. Nearly all (97 victims of other causes of death. percent) of CO2 emissions—the predominant GHG—are generated by the combustion of fos- 10. Collateral Damage to the Human and sil fuels. Transportation was responsible for 31 Natural Environment percent of all U.S. CO2 emissions in 2001. Transportation CO emissions grew 24 percent As people travel and freight is transported, dam- 2 between 1991 and 2001. age can occur to the human and natural environment. Although most available environmental Transportation-related sources typically data is limited to these movements, transporta- account for most oil spills into U.S. waters tion’s impact on the environment is not. It can also reported each year to the U.S. Coast Guard. For occur when transportation equipment and fuels instance, transportation’s share of the total vol- are produced and infrastructure is built, during ume of oil spilled between 1991 and 2000 var- repair and maintenance of equipment and infra- ied from a high of 97 percent (in 1996) to a low structure, and when equipment and infrastructure of 77 percent (in 1992). The volume of each are no longer usable and are discarded and dis- spill varies significantly from incident to inci- mantled. The extent of damage throughout these dent. One catastrophic incident can, however, life cycles of transportation fuel, equipment, and spill millions of gallons into the environment. infrastructure can vary by mode. In all cases, Transportation firms reported more than actual impacts on the human and natural environ- 17,700 hazardous materials incidents in 2001.17 ment are dependent on ambient levels or concen- These incidents resulted in 7 deaths and 143 trations of pollutants and rates of exposure. injuries, compared with annual averages of 21 Transportation vehicles and vessels in 2001 deaths and 445 injuries between 1991 and emitted 66 percent of the nation’s pollution 2001. During that decade, the number of from carbon monoxide (CO), 47 percent of reported hazardous material incidents increased. nitrogen oxides (NOx), 35 percent of volatile However, much of the increase may be attrib- organic compounds (VOC), 5 percent of partic- uted to improved reporting and an expansion of ulates, 6 percent of ammonia, and 4 percent of reporting requirements. sulfur dioxide. Highway vehicles emitted almost all of transportation’s share of CO emissions in 11. Condition of the Transportation System 2001, 80 percent of the NOx, and 75 percent of Two major components of the transportation all VOC. With the exception of ammonia, trans- system—vehicles and infrastructure—are prone portation air emissions have declined since to deterioration due to wear, aging, and damage. 1991. Another component, capacity, is important to Transportation emissions of greenhouse gases understand to aid planners in meeting the (GHGs) grew 22 percent between 1990 and demands for travel and shipping affected by, say, 2001, while total U.S. emissions rose 13 percent congestion. Measures of the net capital stock of

16 Including sinks, net U.S. emissions totaled 6,098 TgCO Eq in 15 YPLL, which is computed by adding up the remaining life 2 2001. See section 10 in chapter 2 for more information on sinks. expectancies of all victims at their deaths, is a measurement that accounts for the age distribution among different causes of injury 17 See this section in chapter 2 for a definition of a reported inci- mortality and other common causes of death. dent.

10 Chapter 1: Summary

the transportation system—the value in dollars of bridges were either structurally deficient or of vehicles, infrastructure, and other compo- functionally obsolete. At the nation’s commer- nents—provide comprehensive indicators that cial service airports, pavement in poor condition combine system condition (quality) with capac- declined from 5 percent of runways in 1990 to ity (quantity). This measure gives a sense of the 2 percent in 2001. For the larger group of sev- amount of money invested in the system over eral thousand National Plan of Integrated time and allows for comparisons across modes. Airport Systems airports, poor conditions Highway-related capital stock (highway existed at 5 percent of runways in 2001, down infrastructure, consumer motor vehicles, and from 10 percent in 1990. trucking and warehousing) represented the The age of various transportation fleets is majority of the nation’s transportation capital another measure of condition, although not a stock in 2000 (at $2,166 billion, in 1996 very precise one. The equipment in air, rail, chained dollars). Rail also represented a sub- highway, water, and transit transportation fleets stantial portion of transportation capital stock; varies widely in terms of scheduled mainte- although, it was still less than one-sixth of high- nance, reliability, and expected life span. way-related capital stock. The combined value Additional information, such as fleet mainte- of privately owned capital stock for other modes nance standards, actual hours of vehicle use, of the transportation system, including rail, and durability, would provide a more thorough water, air, pipeline, and transit, is less than the means for analyzing the condition of a vehicle value of consumer motor vehicles alone. All fleet and comparing fleets across modes. highway-related capital stocks increased Because of improvements in the longevity of between 1990 and 2000. In-house transporta- passenger cars, the median age of the automo- tion grew 81 percent, while transportation serv- bile fleet in the United States has increased sig- ices (a component of all modes) rose 83 percent. nificantly since 1992. The median age of the Individual data on vehicle and infrastructure truck fleet,18 by contrast, began to increase in condition are collected by several operating the early 1990s but has been declining since administrations of the U.S. Department of Trans- 1997 as new purchases of light trucks have portation, such as the Federal Highway increased substantially. Administration and the Federal Aviation The age of transit vehicles varies by transit Administration. These data reflect qualitative eval- and vehicle type. For instance, ferryboat fleets uations of the pavement and associated structures. have aged, while the average age of full-size The condition of highways, bridges, and air- transit buses has decreased between 1990 and port runways have all improved in recent years. 2000. Similarly, the age of the U.S. maritime flag The percentage of rural Interstate mileage in vessel fleet varies by vessel type. While 28 per- poor or mediocre condition declined from 35 cent of the overall U.S. flag vessel fleet was 25 percent in 1993 to 14 percent in 2001. years old or more in 2000, 50 percent of tow- Moreover, poor or mediocre urban Interstate boats and 43 percent of tank and liquid barges mileage decreased from 42 to 28 percent during were 25 years old or older in 2000. this same period. Of the nearly 600,000 road- The average age of Amtrak locomotives and way bridges in 2001, 14 percent were deemed railcars has declined by a year between 1990 structurally deficient and 14 percent functionally obsolete. Ten years earlier, about 40 percent 18 This includes all truck categories: light, heavy, and heavy-heavy.

11 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

and 2000. Of the 20,028 Class I freight locomo- chandise trade deficit in transportation-related tives in service in 2000, 37 percent were built in goods exports and imports, totaling $82 billion 1990 or later. While these data on rail equip- in 2002. ment are publicly available, data on the condi- U.S. trade in transportation services in 2002 tion of infrastructure are not released by the totaled $105.4 billion (in current dollars). The nation’s private railroads. United States had a surplus in transportation Finally, the average age of all U.S. commercial services from 1990 through 1997. Then, aircraft was 13 years in 2000, up from 11 years between 1997 and 1998, imports increased 7 in 1991. While the average age of aircraft percent while exports decreased 5 percent, belonging to the major airlines was also 11 years resulting in a $4.6 billion deficit. This deficit in 1991, it was a year younger than the fleet continued to grow, reaching $13.9 billion in average in 2000. 2002. Since competitiveness implies advantages in 12. Transportation-Related Variables That exporting certain products, these measures indi- Influence Global Competitiveness cate the relative U.S. position in transportation- Transportation contributes to economic activity related goods and services. While these and to a nation’s global competitiveness as a measures are good indicators of export perform- service, an industry, and an infrastructure. It ance, they only indirectly measure the relative affects the price competitiveness of domestic competitive position of the United States, goods and services because final market prices because several other factors besides trade influ- reflect transportation costs. ence competitiveness. A central concept that underpins trade among nations, sectors, indus- The United States had relatively lower prices tries, and firms is comparative advantage. for transportation goods and services in 199919 Comparative advantage in trade occurs when than 15 out of 25 Organization for Economic trading partners seek to benefit from the ability Cooperation and Development countries. to produce goods or services more efficiently or However, the nation’s top two overall merchan- cost-effectively than other countries. The impli- dise trade partners, Canada and Mexico, had cation of this concept is that no country has a lower relative prices in 1999 than the United comparative advantage in the production of States. every good and service. In this sense, competi- The United States traded $300 billion worth tiveness refers to the advantage one country may 20 (in current dollars) of transportation-related have over other nations in exporting certain goods (e.g., cars, trains, boats, and airplanes products, with the ultimate goal being the and their related parts) in 2002 with its part- improvement of the country’s prosperity and ners, more than twice the nominal value of these standard of living. commodities in 1990. As is the case with overall international trade, the United States had a mer- 13. Transportation and Economic Growth 19 1999 is the most recent year for which comparable interna- Transportation comprises a sizable segment of tional data were available at the time this report was prepared. the U.S. economy. Total transportation-related 20 All dollar amounts in this section are in current dollars. While it is important to compare trends in economic activity using con- final demand rose by 37 percent between 1990 stant or chained dollars to eliminate the effects of price inflation, and 2001 (in 1996 chained dollars), from it is not possible to do so in this instance (see notes on chapter 2 figures and corresponding tables in appendix B). $719.8 billion to $984.1 billion. This meas-

12 Chapter 1: Summary

ure—the value of transportation-related goods 2000, this amounted to $93.6 billion and and services sold to the final users—is a compo- accounted for nearly 63 percent of the total. nent of GDP and a broad measure of the impor- Gross government transportation investment,23 tance of transportation to the economy. In including infrastructure and vehicles, is a measure 2001, the share of transportation-related final of the building of new public transportation capi- demand in GDP was 11 percent, the same as in tal. As a major component of the nation’s total 1990. transportation capital stocks, gross investment The contribution of for-hire transportation has risen steadily over the last decade from $59.0 industries to the U.S. economy, as measured by billion in 1990 to $76.0 billion in 2000, an their value-added (or net output), increased (in increase of 29 percent (in 1996 chained dollars). 1996 chained dollars) from $181 billion in 1990 to $270 billion in 2001. In the same time period, 15. Transportation Energy this segment’s share in GDP fluctuated slightly, Transportation energy use rose 22 percent increasing from 2.7 percent in 1990 to 3.0 per- between 1991 and 2001, to 28 percent of the cent in 1999 before declining to 2.9 percent in nation’s total energy consumption in 2001. Still, 2001. This is also a component of GDP but can- transportation energy use has grown more not be added to transportation final demand slowly than GDP over the decade, indicating because the two measures reflect different that the U.S. economy is gradually becoming approaches (supply-side and demand-side) to less energy intensive and, thus, less vulnerable to assessing the relationship between transporta- changes in energy prices. Highway vehicles con- tion and the economy. sumed an estimated 81 percent of transportation sector energy in 2001. 14. Government Transportation Finance Transportation fuel prices experienced Governments collect revenues and spend money short-term fluctuations (in 1996 chained dol- on transportation-related infrastructure and lars) between 1992 and 2002. However, per equipment. Federal, state, and local government capita vehicle-miles traveled (vmt) for all transportation revenues targeted to finance modes of transportation increased in almost 21 transportation programs increased 38 percent every year. For instance, between 1991 and from $82.2 billion in 1990 (in 1996 chained 2001, per capita highway vmt rose about 1 22 dollars) to $113.6 billion in 2000. percent annually, while that of large air carri- Spending on building, maintaining, operat- ers grew 3 percent. ing, and administering the nation’s transporta- Passenger travel overall was 5 percent more tion system by all levels of government totaled energy efficient in 2000 than in 1990, mainly $149.0 billion in 2000 (in 1996 chained dol- due to gains by domestic commercial aviation. lars). Among all modes of transportation, high- (Improved aircraft fuel economy and increased ways receive the largest amount of total passenger loads resulted in a 32 percent gain in government transportation expenditures. In commercial air passenger energy efficiency between 1990 and 2000.) Freight energy efficiency (ton-miles/BTU) declined 7 percent from 21 See this section in chapter 2 for detailed descriptions of the government revenues included. 22 All dollar values in the summary of this section are expressed in 23 See this section in chapter 2 for detailed descriptions of trans- 1996 chained dollars. portation investments.

13 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

1990 to 2000. The decline in freight energy effi- shipment costs, the nodal connections through ciency occurred as a result of a 2 percent aver- which freight passes, and infrastructure and age annual growth rate in ton-miles paired with equipment used to sustain freight flows. a relatively rapid average annual growth rate of Options to improve freight data center 3 percent in freight energy consumption. around enhancing the Commodity Flow Survey. They include changing from the current five- SUMMARY OF THE STATE OF year cycle to more frequent data collection and TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS expanding coverage. Other approaches focus on (CHAPTER 3) standardizing the universal bill of lading and using information technologies to aid in collect- Chapter 3 presents an overview of the state of ing data. transportation statistics. It focuses on five core areas: freight, passenger travel, air transporta- 2. Passenger Travel Statistics tion, economic, and geospatial data. Each sec- A much-valued feature of American life is the tion provides an analysis of why these data are ability to travel from place to place with relative important, a review of existing data, and possi- ease, at a reasonable expense, and in a minimal ble options for filling crucial data gaps. amount of time, whether it is across town, cross country, or to a foreign destination. Americans 1. Freight Data average 1,500 trips annually, covering an aver- Changes in freight transportation reflect the age of 14,500 miles per person.24 dynamic nature of the national and global Many kinds of data are needed to evaluate economies and continuing improvements and (and forecast) this demand for passenger travel innovations in technology. Alterations in the and how well the supply meets the demand. mix of manufactured products, shifts in global Data are needed for the different modes of production and trade patterns, and growing transportation and at various levels of detail, domestic demands from industry and consumers including geographic scale. Questions that help all affect freight transportation and related data evaluate the needs of current and future travel- needs. ers include why people travel, how and when The consensus among the transportation they travel, what their origins and destinations community on collected freight data is that they are, how long travel takes, and how much it are often too out of date to capture current costs. Travel data, in combination with other developments and despite progress, there are types of data, can also be used to assess the costs many missing pieces to the freight picture. and benefits of travel, including transportation Furthermore, data are often not comparable safety and its environmental effects. across modes. Current data collections include There are three main types of passenger travel the Commodity Flow Survey and the Carload data: survey, regulatory/administrative, and Waybill Sample; data on waterborne commerce, operations/industry data. Each type provides air freight, and motor carriers; and data cover- different levels of detail in terms of coverage, ing international shipments. Despite the wealth periodicity, and geography; and each possesses of these data, important gaps remain in data on freight flows, origins and destinations of shipments, commodities shipped, transit times, 24 These data are from the 2001 National Household Travel Survey. See chapter 2, section 5.

14 Chapter 1: Summary

different strengths and weaknesses. The princi- from more than 240 domestic and foreign air- pal survey—the National Household Travel lines serving the United States. Survey (NHTS) and its precursors—has been The federal government’s use of air transport conducted periodically. The 2001 NHTS, con- data supports policy initiatives and interna- ducted by BTS and the Federal Highway tional air service negotiations, monitoring of air Administration (FHWA), asked 26,000 house- carrier fitness, allocating airport improvement holds nationwide about their daily non-occupa- funds, ensuring the provision of essential air tional travel, as well as about long-distance trips services, setting international and intra-Alaska (trips of 50 miles or more one way) taken dur- mail rates, and safety and security analysis. ing a 4-week period. Other agencies’ uses of the data vary. For Other surveys that provide travel data include instance, the Department of Labor uses aviation the long form of the decennial census (U.S. data in their computation of productivity and Census Bureau), Survey of International Air consumer price indices. The Department of Travelers (Department of Commerce), General Justice uses data to monitor the collection of Aviation and Air Taxi Activity Survey (Federal customs service fees and for anti-trust cases. Aviation Administration), airline passenger Other uses range from airport planning, traffic Origin and Destination Survey (BTS), and Vehicle forecasting, and development of tourism initia- Inventory and Use Survey (FHWA). Regulatory tives by state and local governments; travel and administrative sources of passenger data planning by the general public; planning and include the National Transit Database (Federal marketing by the travel and tourism industry; Transit Administration) and the Highway and forecasting and analysis by airlines. Performance Monitoring System (FHWA). The The four main categories of airline statistics Federal Transit Administration collects data from that now exist, financial, operational and traffic, transit authorities; FHWA, from state depart- pricing and fees, and safety, provide different lev- ments of transportation. Industry sources that els of detail in terms of coverage, periodicity, and release operations data include the American focus. The federal government collects the major- Public Transportation Association (transit), ity of publicly available aggregated airline statis- Amtrak, and airline associations. tics directly from air carriers. The Air Transport Options to improve passenger travel data Association reports member data on a quarterly include: expanding coverage of key existing and monthly basis on airfares, a cost index, and datasets to additional modes, improving the speci- passenger and cargo traffic. The International ficity of intercity bus and rail data, enhancing data Civil Aviation Organization collects international on rural transportation, collecting data on popu- air data covering 188 countries. lations with special needs, and working on the Options to improve air transportation data detail and completeness of existing travel datasets. include implementation of current BTS research on computing price indices for air travel, com- 3. Air Transportation Statistics bining traffic data on air taxis and corporate jets Airline traffic and financial statistics were first with information from the National collected by the federal government in the 1930s Transportation Safety Board for conducting for use in monitoring and promoting the fledg- exposure/risk analysis, expanding the collection ling air transport industry. Today, the U.S. of on-time statistics to smaller carriers and inter- Department of Transportation (DOT) collects a national flights, and allowing collection of variety of air passenger and freight statistics flight-specific air transportation data.

15 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

4. Transportation Economic Data Options for improving transportation economic Transportation economics refers to industry per- data include: further development of the BTS air- formance on key economic measures such as fare price index, expansion of the Transportation prices, quantities, productivity, and externalities. Satellite Accounts data to additional modes and It looks at not only how the industry performs services, augmentation of capital stock data, and directly in meeting the needs of its customers, but development of multifactor productivity measures also how it affects the economy as a whole, based for modes other than railroads. on, for example, measures of employment, output, and international competitiveness. 5. Geospatial Data Currently available economic data fall into Geospatial information technologies have several categories: prices, quantities, investment, become increasingly useful decisionmaking tools productivity, externalities and regulation, and for the transportation industry and agencies impacts of the economy. Price may be the meas- responsible for transportation planning and asset ure on which customers most often focus. Good management. Previously used only by expert passenger travel price data exist for some modes operators on specialized mainframe systems, they but not for others. Some data are available for are now available for desktop systems and dis- freight movement but are limited in a number of tributed computing services that give nontechni- ways. Quantity data measure the level of mobil- cal users access to spatial analytical tools. ity that transportation enables. Again, the avail- BTS creates, maintains, and distributes ability of these data vary between passenger geospatial data (on rail and highway networks, travel and freight and among modes. airports and runways, ports, and Amtrak sta- Investment data relate to both the capacity and tions) by state, county, congressional district, condition of the system. Capital stock data are and metropolitan statistical area boundaries. available for the private transportation sectors The National Bridge Inventory maintained by but not for publicly owned sectors. Productivity FHWA contains information describing loca- measures how effectively economic inputs are tions and conditions that can be displayed car- converted into output. Two forms are used: labor tographically and analyzed. In partnership with and multifactor productivity. While data for the the DOT Office of Intermodalism and FHWA, former are widely available, only railroad indus- BTS developed GeoFreight,25 a tool enabling try multifactor productivity data are available. analyses of the intensity of infrastructure use for intermodal facilities (e.g., airports, seaports, and Measures of the costs of external effects of truck-rail interchanges). transportation (e.g., on safety, congestion, and the environment) are important in determining Key areas for future geospatial data and stan- whether various kinds of regulation of trans- dards development critical for transportation portation are appropriate. Data on the physical analysis include land-use planning, employee- quantity of most of these externalities are avail- based travel pattern analysis, and fine-grained able. Exact locations, costs, actual impacts, and data on infrastructure and operations critical to other data are less available. transportation safety and security analysis.

25 In earlier versions, this tool was called the Intermodal Bottleneck Evaluation Tool (IBET).

16 Chapter 1: Summary

Specific areas include: integration of bridge, tun- CONCLUSIONS nel, and transit data in the National While a wealth of data exist to inform stake- Transportation Atlas Database; development of holders about the state of transportation, much a North American Transportation Atlas work remains to be done. Data need to be col- Database; and expansion of a current web- lected or collected differently, relevant linkages based mapping center to enable customers to among datasets need to be established, and data generate interactive maps and spatial analysis. need to be analyzed and offered in ways useful for stakeholders at all levels of government and the private sector.

Chapter 2 Transportation Indicators

Introduction

he Transportation Equity Act for the 21st all the indicators are in appendix B at the end of TCentury1 charged the Bureau of Transpor- the report. Appendix table numbers correspond tation Statistics (BTS) with compiling, analyzing, to the figures numbers in this chapter. and publishing a comprehensive set of transportation statistics, including information on: About the Data in the Report ■ productivity in various parts of the transportation sector; For consistency, most trend indicator data are shown over at least a 10-year period. Because of the differing ■ traffic flows; availability of data among all the indicators included, it has not been possible to use the same span of 10 ■ travel times; years for each indicator without sacrificing timeliness. ■ vehicle weights; Instead, the data span a decade up to the year of most recent data available when this report was prepared. ■ variables influencing traveling behavior, There are some instances where less than 10 years of data are presented—either because the data are not including choice of transportation mode; comparable over the period or are not available. ■ travel costs of intracity commuting and With a few exceptions, trend data involving costs have intercity trips; been converted to 1996 chained (“real”) dollars to elim- ■ availability of mass transit and the number inate the effect of inflation over time. Appendix B provides both 1996 chained dollar and current dollar value of passengers served by each mass transit tables. Throughout the report, results of percent calcu- authority; lations have been rounded up or down, as appropriate, to a whole number. Average annual percentage ■ frequency of vehicle and transportation facil- change calculations have been made using a logarith- ity repairs and other interruptions of trans- mic formula to account for compounding over time.1 portation service; Data in this report come from a variety of sources: ■ accidents; principally, from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and other operating administrations of the ■ collateral damage to the human and natural Department of Transportation. However, other environment; sources are federal government agencies, such as the U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Economic ■ the condition of the transportation system; and Analysis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, and Energy Information Administration. ■ transportation-related variables that influ- To supplement government sources, the report occa- ence global competitiveness. sionally uses data and information from trade associations, such as the Association of American Railroads For this report, BTS has added three additional and American Public Transportation Association. Data topics: transportation and economic growth, gov- from any of these sources may be subject to omissions and errors in reporting, recording, and process- ernment transportation finance, and transporta- ing. Sampling data are subject to sampling variability. tion energy. Each of these topics is represented by Documents cited as sources in this report often provide detailed information about definitions, method- a series of key indicators. Data tables supporting ologies, and statistical reliability.

1 The formula is: Average annual rate = Exp [(LnY–LnX)/ (n–m)] –1, where Y is the end year value; X is the initial year value, n is the end year, and m is the initial year. 1 49 U.S. Code 111(c)(1).

21 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Labor Productivity in Transportation

abor productivity (output per hour) in the local” increased 18 percent, and Class I bus car- Lfor-hire transportation services and petro- riers rose 16 percent. leum pipeline industries increased by 20 percent Comparing annual growth rates is another from 1990 to 2000. This compares with an way to interpret changes of labor productivity increase of 45 percent for all manufacturing and over time. For overall business, labor productiv- 23 percent for the overall business sector (figure ity grew at an average annual rate of 2 percent 1). Labor productivity, a common and basic pro- between 1990 and 2000. Labor productivity in ductivity measure, is calculated as the ratio of rail transportation—where productivity has output to hours worked or to the number of full- been affected by consolidation of companies, time employees. more efficient use of equipment and lines, The growth of individual transportation sub- increased ton-miles (output), and labor force sector labor productivity between 1990 and reductions—increased by 5 percent annually. 2000 varied (figure 2). Compared with the over- Labor productivity of local trucking also grew at all business sector, several transportation modes 5 percent annually. had considerably higher rates of increases in The lowest annual labor productivity growth labor productivity, and some lower, over the rates were for pipelines (3 percent), trucking same period. Railroad labor productivity except local subsector (1.7 percent), and air increased 65 percent, as did local trucking, while transportation (1.8 percent). Bus carriers’ pro- pipeline productivity grew 38 percent. On the ductivity grew 1.5 percent but with considerable other hand, labor productivity in air transporta- fluctuation over the period of analysis.

Section 1: Sector Transportation in the Productivity tion increased 19 percent, “trucking except

22 eto :Productivity in the Transportation Sector Section 1:

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

FIGURE 1 Labor Productivity of Major Sectors: 1990–2000 Output per hour

Index: 1990 = 100 170

160

150 Manufacturing 140

130

120 Transportation 110 All business 100

90 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

FIGURE 2 Labor Productivity of For-Hire Transportation Industries:1990–2000

Index: 1990 = 100 170 Local trucking 160

150 Petroleum Railroad pipeline 140 Trucking, 130 except local

120

110 Bus carriers, Class I 100 Air 90 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

NOTES: Labor productivity for transportation measures quality- ally provide trucking service beyond a single municipality, con- adjusted ton- and passenger-miles per hour. Quality adjustment tiguous municipalities, or a municipality and its suburban areas corrects for differences in services and handling, e.g., the difference between flying first class and coach or differences in the SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of handling requirements of high- and low-value commodities. Transportation Statistics, calculation based on data from U.S. Pipeline labor productivity is measured by output per employee. Department of Labor (USDOL), Bureau of Labor Statistics No data are available for water transportation. (BLS), Office of Productivity and Technology, "Industry Productivity Database," available at http://www.bls.gov, as of Local trucking includes establishments that generally provide February 2003. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of trucking services within a single municipality, contiguous munici- Economic Analysis, "Gross Domestic Product by Industry," palities, or a municipality and its suburban areas. Trucking, February 2003. Manufacturing and business—USDOL, BLS, except local, includes common or contract carriers that gener- Office of Productivity and Technology, "Industry Productivity Database," available at http://www.bls.gov, as of February 2003.

23 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Multifactor Productivity

ultifactor productivity (MFP) in rail Transportation MFP data are currently avail- Mtransportation increased by 30 percent able from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the between 1990 and 1999 (an average annual rate rail sector only. The Bureau of Transportation of 3 percent), while in the overall private busi- Statistics is developing MFP measures for other ness sector, MFP increased by 8 percent (less transportation industries, such as air, pipelines, than 1 percent annually) (figure 3). Thus, the and so on. The objective is to provide informa- rail industry has contributed positively to tion on the relative importance of changes in the increases in MFP in the business sector and to inputs and on the productivity of the inputs rel- the U.S. economy over this period. ative to changes in transportation output. This research should also provide information on the While MFP measures are difficult to con- relative importance of transportation in increas- struct, they provide a much more comprehensive ing the productivity of the U.S. economy and, view of productivity than labor productivity hence, transportation’s contribution to the eco- measures. The conventional methodology for nomic growth of the country. calculating multifactor productivity, which is

used here, employs growth rates of inputs 1 See, for instance, discussion on MFP by the Bureau of Labor weighted by their income shares. This methodol- Statistics in the BLS Handbook of Methods, available at ogy has been developed and used by various aca- http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch11_a.htm. demic researchers and government agencies, such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics.1 Section 1: Sector Transportation in the Productivity

24 eto :Productivity in the Transportation Sector Section 1:

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

FIGURE 3 Multifactor Productivity: 1990–2001

Index: 1990 = 100 135

130

125 Railroad 120

115

110

105 Private business sector 100

90 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 NOTE: Rail productivity data are only available through 1999. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, available at http://www.bls.gov/mfp, as of February 2003. Business sector—"Multifactor Productivity Trends," table 1. Rail—"Industry Multifactor Productivity Data Table by Industry, 1987–1999."

25 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Passenger-Miles of Travel

stimated passenger-miles of travel (pmt) in Sources the United States increased 24 percent 1. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Section 2: Flows Traffic E between 1990 and 2000 (see box). Pmt totaled Economic Analysis, National Income and Product an estimated 4.7 trillion in 2000,1 about 17,000 Accounts, summary GDP table, available at http://www.bea.doc/bea/dn1.htm, as of May 2003. miles for every man, woman, and child [2, 3]. 2. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Just over 85 percent of passenger travel in Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2000 was made in personal vehicles (passenger 2002 (Washington, DC: 2003), for population data. cars and light trucks, including sport utility vehicles, pickups, and minivans) (figure 4). Most of 3. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transpor- the balance (11 percent) occurred by air. tation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2003), Passenger travel in light trucks accounted for a table 1-34, also available at http://www.bts.gov/. little under one-third of all pmt. Transit, excluding bus transit, made up less than 1 percent of pmt in 2000; with transit bus included, it accounts for 4 percent. Data on Passenger-Miles of Travel Travel increased every year between 1990 and Two national estimates of passenger-miles of travel (pmt) are available; they differ in coverage, methodol- 2000 at an annual average rate of 2 percent [3]. ogy, and other factors. The 2000 pmt data presented Pmt by air and by light truck grew the fastest in Section 2 come from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) publication, National Transportation over this period, at 4 percent per year on aver- Statistics 2002 (NTS). BTS compiles these data for age (figure 5). Pmt by intercity train (Amtrak) NTS annually, primarily using mode-by-mode data declined, although there has been modest derived in various ways by BTS and others. For instance, pmt for large air carriers and intercity trains growth since 1996. Likewise, transit pmt has are estimated from ticket sales and trip lengths; for grown since the mid-1990s. transit, the data are reported by transit authorities. Each method used to estimate these pmt has differing Passenger travel has increased during the strengths and weaknesses, as discussed in the 1990s for a variety of reasons. The resident pop- Accuracy Profiles for table 1-34 in NTS 2002, available at http://www.bts.gov/. ulation of the United States grew by nearly 33 million people over this period [2]. Moreover, Section 5, Variables Influencing Traveling Behavior, presents 2001 pmt data from the 2001 National the economy also grew significantly. Gross Household Travel Survey, jointly conducted by BTS Domestic Product (GDP) increased by 37 per- and the Federal Highway Administration. As survey cent2 and GDP per capita grew 21 percent data, they are collected using a single methodology. This provides a coherence and comparability not between 1990 and 2000 (figure 6) [1]. available with the NTS data. However, these data are not collected annually, making them unsuitable for 1 This calculation excludes travel in heavy trucks, by bicycle, by year-to-year trend analyses. Another difference walking, and by boat (including recreational boat). Pmt in heavy between the NTS and NHTS data is the extent of trucks is excluded because such travel is assumed to be incidental their coverage among modes. It can be expected, to the hauling of freight, the main purpose of such travel. Bicycle, then, that because of methodological and coverage pedestrian, and boat travel are excluded because there are no issues the NTS and NHTS data will differ. national estimates available on an annual basis. 2 Calculation is based on chained 1996 dollars.

26 eto :Traffic Flows Section 2:

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

FIGURE 4 Share of Passenger-Miles by Mode: 2000

Transit Amtrak <1% Bus 1% Motorcycle 3% Air carrier <1% 11% General aviation <1%

Light truck 31%

Passenger car 54%

FIGURE 5 Change in Passenger-Miles by Selected Mode: 1990–2000

Index: 1990 = 1.0 1.6

Light truck 1.4 Air carrier Bus

1.2 Transit

Passenger 1.0 car

Amtrak 0.8 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

FIGURE 6 Total U.S. Population and Gross Domestic Product (GDP): 1990–2000 Index: 1990 = 1.0 1.6

GDP per capita 1.4

1.2 GDP Population 1.0

0.8 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

NOTES: Transit includes motor bus, heavy rail, commuter rail, Gross Domestic Product—Based on chained 1996 dollar data light rail, ferryboat, trolley bus, demand responsive, and others. from U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), Bureau of Motor bus and demand responsive figures are also included in Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts, the bus figure for highway. summary GDP table, available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/, as of May 2003. Population—USDOC, U.S. Census Bureau, SOURCES: Passenger-miles—U.S. Department of National Intercensal Estimates 1990-2000, available at Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National http://census.gov/popest/data/national/tables/intercensal/US- Transportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), table EST90INT-01.php, as of May 2003. 1-34, also available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003.

27 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Domestic Freight Ton-Miles

xcluding gas pipelines, all modes of freight Air freight tends to transport high value, rela- transportation, combined, generated nearly tively low weight goods. Thus, on a ton-miles Section 2: Flows Traffic E 4 trillion domestic ton-miles in 2000, 20 percent basis, air freight accounted for less than 1 per- more than in 1990. This represents an average cent of domestic freight in 1998, whereas on a growth rate of almost 2 percent per year during value basis, this mode accounted for 12 percent the decade [1]. of domestic freight2 [3]. Domestic ton-miles for all modes, except Ton-miles is the primary physical measure of water, grew during this decade (figure 7). On an freight transportation output. A ton-mile is average annual basis, air grew the fastest (5 per- defined as one ton of freight shipped one mile cent per year), followed by rail and truck (4 per- and, therefore, reflects both the volume shipped cent each). Rail and truck accounted for the (tons) and the distance shipped (miles). Ton- majority of domestic traffic, representing 39 per- miles provides the best single measure of the cent and 30 percent of domestic ton-miles, physical volume of freight transportation serv- respectively, in 2000 (figure 8). Truck data, ices. This, in turn, reflects the overall level of however, do not include retail and government activity in the economy. shipments and some imports and, therefore, understate total truck traffic. Sources Water transportation and oil pipelines1 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of accounted for 16 and 15 percent of domestic Transportation Statistics, National Transpor- ton-miles, respectively, in 2000. Although tation Statistics 2002 (Washington DC: 2002), table 1-44, also available at http://www.bts.gov/. domestic waterborne ton-miles decreased 23 2. _____, U.S. International Trade and Freight percent between 1990 and 2000, waterborne Transportation Trends (Washington, DC: 2003). vessels continued to play a prominent role in 3. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal international trade [1, 2]. Ships transported 78 Highway Administration, The Freight Story percent (by ton) of U.S. imports and exports in (Washington, DC: 2002). 2000.

1 The Bureau of Transportation Statistics developed data for gas 2 The most recent year for which freight value basis data are pipelines in 2003 but not in time to include in this report. available is 1998.

28 eto :Traffic Flows Section 2:

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

FIGURE 7 Change in Domestic Freight Ton-Miles by Mode: 1990–2000 Index: 1990 = 1.0 1.8

Air 1.6 Rail 1.4 Truck

1.2 Oil pipeline 1.0

0.8 Water

0.6 19901991 19921993 19941995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

FIGURE 8 Modal Shares of Domestic Freight Ton-Miles: 2000

Air <1% Oil pipeline 15%

Truck 30%

Water 16%

Rail 39%

SOURCES: Air, pipeline, and water—U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), National Transportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), table 1-44. Truck—BTS calculation based on USDOT, BTS, Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2000 (Washington, DC: 2001), p. 124; and USDOT, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2001 (Washington, DC: 2002), table VM-1. Rail—BTS calculation based on Surface Transportation Board, Carload Waybill Sample; Transport Canada, Transportation in Canada (Ottawa, Ontario: Annual issues), table 12-1; American Association of Railroads, Railroad Facts (Washington, DC: 1991–2001 issues), p. 36.

29 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Geography of Domestic Freight Flows

he U.S. transportation system carried 20 For waterborne freight, domestic flows are percent more ton-miles of domestic freight highly concentrated along the Mississippi and Section 2: Flows Traffic T in 2000 than in 1990 [1]. This growth was Ohio Rivers. Domestic waterborne ton-miles unevenly distributed in terms of geography and decreased 23 percent between 1990 and 2000 [1]. mode. The Federal Highway Administration developed the Freight Analysis Framework Sources (FAF) to estimate geographic freight flows on 1. U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), the nation’s infrastructure [2]. These results can Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), calcu- be depicted on maps like those on the following lation based on USDOT, BTS, National pages. Transportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), table 1-44, also available at http:// Nearly one-third of urban Interstate highways www.bts.gov. carried more than 10,000 trucks each day on 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal average in 1998,1 according to FAF estimates. Highway Administration, Freight Analysis By 2020, the portion of heavily used urban Framework website, available at http://www.ops. fhwa.dot.gov/freight/adfrmwrk/ index.htm, as of Interstates is expected to rise to 69 percent [2]. March 2003. Rail freight flows appear to be more concen- 3. _____, The Freight Story (Washington, DC: trated than trucking flows. In addition to November 2002), also available at http:// growth in domestic freight shipments, increased www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/, as of March trade with Mexico and Canada has altered the 2003. distribution of freight movement within the United States, creating high traffic areas near borders [3].

1 At the time this report was prepared, 1998 was the most recent year for which data were available.

30 eto :Traffic Flows Section 2:

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

FIGURE 9 Truck Freight Flows in the United States: 1998

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Network flows (tons) Freight Management and Operations, Operations Core Business Unit, Freight Analysis 500,000–2,000,000 Framework (FAF). 2,000,001–5,000,000 5,000,001–10,000,000 10,000,001–50,000,000 > 50,000,000

31 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

FIGURE 10 Rail Freight Flows in the United States: 1999 Section 2: Flows Traffic

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Network flows (tons) Office of Policy, personal communication, August 2003. < 5 million 5 million–20 million

> 20 million

32 eto :Traffic Flows Section 2:

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

FIGURE 11 Domestic Freight Flows by Waterborne Transportation: 1998

NOTE: The thinnest lines shown in the oceans represent routes on the domestic Network flows (tons) waterborne freight network, not tonnage flowing on those routes. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1–30,000,000 Office of Freight Management and Operations, Operations Core Business Unit, Freight Analysis Framework (FAF). 30,000,001–80,000,000 > 80,000,000

33 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Scheduled Intercity Travel Times

ntercity air, bus and rail schedules in many A variety of factors contribute to scheduled travel time change, and more than one factor Section 3: Travel Times Section 3: Travel Imajor intercity markets are tending to grow longer. Between February 1995 and February may affect the same mode. For example, sched- 2002, advertised travel times in selected city- uled trip times for direct intercity bus service pairs experienced varying degrees of schedule increased, but in city-pairs involving an en route lengthening in most service categories. transfer, scheduled trip times decreased as greater frequencies compared to 1995 resulted in short- A Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) ened transfer times. For rail service, route study in 2003 found that the extent of changes in changes, breaking of direct connections between scheduled travel time differed by mode (figure trains, introduction of mail and express package 12). In at least half of the direct service city-pairs handling at intermediate stations, and congestion (no transfer en route) studied for each mode, or changes in track conditions on routes shared scheduled travel times were longer. Scheduled with freight trains all resulted in longer scheduled trip time increased in 177 of 261 nonstop airline times. On the other hand, technology and infra- city-pairs studied (68 percent), 44 of 72 direct structure improvements in conjunction with the rail service city pairs (61 percent), and 67 of 129 start of Amtrak’s Acela Express helped decrease direct service intercity bus city-pairs (52 percent). intercity rail scheduled travel time in NEC city- For rail, 108 of 174 city-pairs (62 percent) with pairs. The largest percentage increases in airline an en route transfer experienced longer travel trip times came in the shorter distance city-pairs. times in 2002 compared with several years ear- This is likely due to airport congestion, which lier. Although slightly more than half of direct affects all flights but has a greater proportional service bus markets experienced longer scheduled impact on shorter flights. travel times, 73 of 121 connecting bus city-pairs (60 percent) experienced equal or shorter travel times. Overall 46 percent of the intercity bus Sources city-pairs had longer schedules. 1. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak), National, Northeast and Schedule Change BTS weighted the city-pair results by the num- Timetables, 1994/1995 and 2001/2002 issues. ber of scheduled frequencies to quantify the 2. Greyhound Lines, System Timetable (Dallas, TX: degree of scheduled travel time change in the January 1995). markets studied. Overall, intercity bus scheduled 3. OAG Worldwide Limited, OAG Flight Schedules trip time decreased by 1.2 percent while airline database (Downer’s Grove, IL: February 1995 schedule times increased by 3.2 percent. While a and February 2002) majority of rail markets saw longer trip times, a 4. Russell’s Guides, Russell’s Official National 7.8 percent decrease in scheduled trip time in the Motor Coach Guide (Cedar Rapids, IA: January 1995 and February 2002). high-frequency Northeast Corridor (NEC) markets resulted in an overall 0.4 percent decrease in weighted average Amtrak city-pair scheduled travel time.

34 eto :Travel Section 3: Times

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

City-Pairs Analysis

For airline city-pairs, the Bureau of Transportation Cincinnati would have to travel 800 miles via Chicago Statistics (BTS) selected only nonstop flights. Since with a 12-hour layover. ground transportation modes operate linear routes serving many intermediate cities, BTS selected direct While the city-pairs in the study encompass many of rail or bus service whether or not intermediate stops the nation’s major intercity travel markets, the lack of were scheduled. In the event that direct service was not publicly available data on specific city-pair traffic vol- available from the rail or bus carriers, BTS used the sin- umes for all three modes prevented BTS from con- gle fastest connecting schedule as the basis for the structing reliable samples of markets to represent the analysis. In some city-pairs, rail/bus connections spon- entirety of each mode. Therefore, the results of this sored by Amtrak (“Amtrak Thruway”) were considered study cannot be generalized for the industry as a whole as rail service except where the bus portion represent- and are applicable only to the markets considered. ed more than half of the travel miles. BTS recognizes that there is variability in scheduled The number of rail and bus city-pairs is lower than the travel times, especially for airline schedules, on both a number of air city-pairs because the air analysis in month-to-month and year-to-year basis. The lack of bus some cases considered multiple airports in the same and rail data for prior years in an electronic format pre- city. Also, some rail city-pairs were not used because cluded current consideration of additional time periods the only possible routing is so impractical that service is in this analysis. BTS will analyze additional time periods effectively not available. For example, a traveler using and look at the variability of scheduled travel times for Amtrak for the 300-mile trip between Pittsburgh and all three modes in future work on this subject.

FIGURE 12 Changes in Average City-Pair Schedule Time: February 1995 and February 2002 Number of city-pairs 200 Increased schedule time Decreased or unchanged schedule time 180

160

140

120

100

0 Air Rail Bus

NOTE: Air data cover non-stop service only. Bus and rail data include direct and connecting service. SOURCES: National Passenger Railroad Corp. (Amtrak), National, Northeast and Schedule Change Timetables (Washington, DC: 1994/1995 and 2001/2002 issues); Russell’s Guides, Official National Motor Coach Guides (Cedar Rapids, IA: January 1995 and February 2002 editions); Greyhound Lines, System Timetable (Dallas, TX: January 1995).

35 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Urban Highway Travel Times

ighway travel times increased between 1990 between 1987 and 2000 [3]. In 2000 for those areas, an average peak period trip required 51 Section 3: Travel Times Section 3: Travel Hand 2000 in 70 of the 75 urban areas studied by the Texas Transportation Institute. The percent longer than the same trip under non- average Travel Time Index (TTI) for these areas in peak, noncongested conditions, equivalent to an 2000 was 1.39, an increase from 1.31 in 1990 [2]. index of 1.51. The values in the FHWA report This means that in 2000, it took 39 percent differ from those in the Texas Transportation longer, on average, to make a peak period trip in Institute annual study, due to differences in the urban areas compared with the time it would take scope of the two analyses. if traffic were flowing freely (see box). In urban areas, where highway infrastructure Travel times tend to deteriorate as urban area is typically well developed, the principal factor size increases (figure 13). For instance, Los affecting travel times is highway congestion Angeles, California, had the highest TTI (1.90) resultings from both recurring and nonrecurring in 2000, while Anchorage, Alaska, and Corpus events. Recurring delay is largely a phenomenon Christi, Texas, had the lowest (each 1.04). Of of the morning and evening commute, although the urban areas with the highest index in 2000, in some places congestion may occur all day and only three had a population under 1 million: on weekends. National estimates, based on Austin, Texas (1.27); Charlotte, North Carolina model simulations, of the effect of nonrecurring (1.27); and Albuquerque, New Mexico (1.26). events on freeways and principal arterials sug- At the other end of the spectrum, urban areas of gest that about 38 percent are due to crashes, over 1 million people with low indices include followed by weather (27 percent), work zones Buffalo-Niagara Falls, New York (1.08) and on freeways (24 percent), and breakdowns (11 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (1.09). percent) [1]. Between 1990 and 2000, the greatest increases in TTI generally occurred in small- and medium- Sources sized metropolitan areas, while the increases were 1. Chin, S.M., O. Franzese, D.L. Greene, H.L. more moderate in the very large and small areas1 Hwang, and R. Gibson, “Temporary Losses of (figure 14). Overall, the average index for large Highway Capacity and Impacts on Performance,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, urban areas increased by 10.2 percent, while that 2002. for medium urban areas was up by 8.3 percent. In 2. Texas A&M University, Texas Transportation small and very large areas, the increases were 4.7 Institute, 2002 Urban Mobility Report (College percent and 4.1 percent, respectively. Station, TX: 2002). 3. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal The Texas Transportation Institute analyzed Highway Administration and Federal Transit congestion for the Federal Highway Admin- Administration, 2002 Status of the Nation’s istration (FHWA) for almost 400 urban areas Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance, Report to Congress (Washington, DC: January 2003). 1 Very large urban areas have a population of over 3 million; large urban areas, 1 million to 3 million population; medium urban areas, 500,000 to 1 million; and small urban areas, less than 500,000.

36 eto :Travel Section 3: Times

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

Travel Time Index

Developed by the Texas Transportation Institute, the conditions. If, say, a trip takes 20 minutes in free-flow Travel Time Index is the ratio of peak period travel time conditions and the index is 1.3, then the trip would take, to free-flow travel time. A value of 1.0 indicates that on average, 6 minutes longer to complete during a traffic is moving freely. A value of 1.3 indicates that it peak period. takes 30 percent longer to make a trip than in free-flow

FIGURE 13 Travel Time Index by Metro Area Population for 75 Metro Areas: 2000 TTI 2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 Metro area population (000)

FIGURE 14 Change in Travel Time Index by Metro Area Population for 75 Metro Areas: 1990–2000 Change in TTI 0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

–0.05 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 Metro area population (000)

NOTE: The Travel Time Index is the ratio of peak period travel SOURCE: Texas A&M University, Texas Transportation Institute, time to free-flow travel time. It expresses the average amount of 2002 Urban Mobility Report (College Station, TX: 2002), also extra time it takes to travel during the peak period relative to available at http://tti.tamu.edu/, as of May 2003. free-flow travel.

37 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

U.S. Air Carrier On-Time Performance

ust over 82 percent of domestic air flights ance data to the Bureau of Transportation 1 Section 3: Travel Times Section 3: Travel Jarrived on time in 2002, compared with 75 Statistics (BTS). A flight has an “on-time depar- percent in 1996. Late flights totaled 16 percent ture” if the aircraft leaves the airport gate less in 2002, down from 23 percent in 1996 (figure than 15 minutes after its scheduled departure 15). Over this period, late, cancelled, or diverted time, regardless of the time the aircraft actually flights peaked at 1.6 million in 2000, declining lifts off from the runway. An arriving flight is to just below 942,000 in 2002. counted as on-time if it arrives less than 15 minutes after its scheduled gate arrival time. Most The total number of flight operations at the delays take place while a plane is on the ground, nation’s airports decreased by 5 percent, to 64.9 although the actual cause of a delay may occur million, between 2000 and 2002 after having elsewhere in the system. Weather, usually the increased by 8 percent, from 63.0 million to most common cause of delays, was responsible 67.7 million, between 1992 and 2000 [2]. The for 72 percent of FAA-recorded delays in 2002 decrease in flight operations due to the air [2]. BTS began collecting causes of delays and system shutdown on September 11, 2001, and cancellations in June 2003 (see chapter 3). the aftermath, along with the consequences of a weak economy, affected overall airline performance. However, a trend to improved on-time per- Sources formance began in early 2001 when the Federal 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and major air- Aviation Administration, NAS Operational lines began implementing the National Airspace Evolution Plan, available at http://www2. faa.gov/programs/oep/index.htm, as of May System Operational Evolution Plan [1]. 2003. Air carriers with at least 1 percent of total 2. _____, OPSNET database, as of May 2003 (not domestic scheduled service passenger revenues publicly available). are required to report these on-time perform-

1 Alaska Airlines, America West Airlines, American Airlines, American Eagle Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, and US Airways were required to report in 2002. Beginning in January 2003, reports were also required from Atlantic Southeast Airlines, AirTran Airways, ATA (formerly doing business as American Trans Air), Atlantic Coast Airlines, ExpressJet Airlines, and SkyWest Airlines. In addition, JetBlue Airways started voluntarily filing on-time performance data in 2003.

38 eto :Travel Section 3: Times

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

FIGURE 15 U.S. Air Carrier On-Time Performance: 1996–2002

Percent 25 Late arrivals Diverted flights Canceled flights 20

0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Airline On-Time Performance Database; and personal communication (for November 2000–November 2002 data).

39 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Amtrak On-Time Performance

eventy-seven percent of Amtrak trains Amtrak collects data on the cause and cumulative hours of delay (figure 17). (A change in Section 3: Travel Times Section 3: Travel Sarrived at their final destination on time in 2002 [1]. While this represented a 2 percent reporting methodology in 2000 has resulted in improvement compared with 2001, it still fell data that cannot be compared with data from short of the system’s performance during the 1999 and earlier years.) Since 1995, freight- 1998 to 2000 period (figure 16). Amtrak counts related delays have consistently represented the a train as delayed only if it arrives more than 10 cause of about half of total Amtrak delay time. to 30 minutes beyond the scheduled arrival time, In addition to interruptions in service due to depending on the distance the train has trav- freight trains, freight-related delays also stem eled.1 Amtrak on-time data are based on a from signal problems, trackwork, and speed train’s arrival at its final destination and do not restrictions while Amtrak trains are using tracks include delay statistics for intermediate points.2 of other railroads. Amtrak trains operate over tracks owned primarily by private freight rail- In addition to the system total, Amtrak roads except in most of the Northeast Corridor, reported the performance for short- and long- along a portion of the Detroit-Chicago route, distance trains through 2000.3 Over the years, and in a few other short stretches across the short-distance trains—those with runs of less country [2]. than 400 miles—have consistently registered better on-time performance than long-distance trains—those of 400 miles or more. Annual on- Sources time performance for short-distance trains 1. National Passenger Railroad Corp. (Amtrak), reached as high as 81 percent in recent years, personal communication, Mar. 3, 2003. while the peak for long-distance trains was 61 2. _____, Amtrak Annual Report (Washington, DC: percent on time in 1999 [2]. 2000 and 2001 issues), statistical appendix.

1 Amtrak trips of up to 250 miles are considered on time if they arrive less than 10 minutes beyond the scheduled arrival time; 251–350 miles, 15 minutes; 351–450 miles, 20 minutes; 451–550 miles, 25 minutes; and greater than 550 miles, 30 minutes. 2 Accordingly, a train traveling between Chicago and St. Louis (282 miles), for example, could arrive 15 minutes late at all intermediate points, yet arrive 12 minutes late at St. Louis and be reported as “on time.” 3 Amtrak is no longer reporting short- and long-haul data separately.

40 eto :Travel Section 3: Times

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

FIGURE 16 Amtrak On-Time Performance: 1993–2002

Trains arriving on time (%) 100

90 Short-distance train routes 80

70 Combined short- and long-distance routes 60

50 Long-distance train routes 40

0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

NOTES: Short distance is less than 400 miles; long distance is > 400 miles. As of 2001, Amtrak no longer reports short- and long-haul data separately.

FIGURE 17 Amtrak Hours of Delay by Cause: 1993–1999

Hours 18,000 Amtrak12Freight Other3 16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 19994

1 Includes equipment malfunctions, train servicing in stations, and passenger-related delays. 2 Includes delays for track repairs/track conditions, freight train interference, and signal delays. 3 Includes passenger train interference, waiting for connections, running time, weather- related delays, and miscellaneous. 4 Amtrak changed its method for reporting delays in 2000. Therefore, data after 1999 are not comparable to previous years and are not used in this figure. SOURCE: National Passenger Railroad Corp. (Amtrak), Amtrak Annual Report (Washington, DC: 2000 and 2001 issues), statistical appendix.

41 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Highway Trucks by Weight

he United States truck fleet grew 23 percent However, the number of SUVs and minivans Tbetween 1992 and 1997, according to the increased by 93 percent and 61 percent, respec- Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey conducted tively, over the previous five years—much faster than the growth rate for pickup trucks (8 per-

Section 4:Weights Vehicle once every five years [1, 2]. The fleet includes a variety of vehicles, ranging from large 18-wheel cent). Light trucks represent a growing propor- combination trucks used to transport freight to tion of auto industry sales; consumers purchased small pickup trucks, often used for personal more light trucks than passenger cars for the travel. first time in 2001 [3]. The fleet of medium and heavy trucks grew 18 percent between 1992 and 1997 (figure 18). Sources However, the number of trucks in one of the 1. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census heaviest subcategories (those weighing 100,001 Bureau, 1997 Economic Census: Vehicle to 130,000 pounds) grew 46 percent, from Inventory and Use Survey: United States, EC97TV-US (Washington, DC: 1999). 12,300 trucks to 17,900. Overall, the number of 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of trucks in the heavy category (over 26,000 Transportation Statistics, National Transpor- pounds) grew 37 percent between 1992 and tation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), 1997. table 1-21, also available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003. Light trucks, which include sport utility vehi- 3. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal cles (SUVs), minivans, vans, and pickup trucks, Highway Administration, Highway Statistics represented 86 percent of the truck fleet in 2001 (Washington, DC: 2002), table MV-9, also 1997.1 Within the light truck category, pickup available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ ohpi/hss/index.htm, as of April 2003. trucks outnumbered minivans and SUVs.

1 Here, light trucks include trucks less than 6,001 lbs. In the original source of the data (the Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey), trucks between 6,001 lbs and 10,000 lbs are also categorized as light trucks. See figure 18 for further explanation.

42 eto :Vehicle Weights Section 4:

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

FIGURE 18 Number of Trucks by Vehicle Weight: 1992 and 1997

Millions of trucks 70

0.7 0.7 0 1992 1997

Light trucks Medium trucks Light-heavy trucks Heavy trucks < 6,001 lb 6,001–19,500 lb 19,501–26,000 lb > 26,000 lb

NOTES: Weight is the empty weight of the vehicle plus the average vehicle load. Excludes vehicles owned by federal, state, or local governments; ambulances; buses; motor homes; farm tractors; unpowered trailer units; and trucks reported as sold, junked, or wrecked prior to July 1 of the year preceding the survey. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), table 1-21, also available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003. The original source of these data are the Census Bureau’s Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS). The truck categories in National Transportation Statistics 2002 and this report differ from those in the VIUS, which has the following categories: light trucks— 10,000 lbs or less; medium trucks—10,001 lbs–19,500 lbs; light-heavy trucks—19,501 lbs–26,000 lbs; and heavy-heavy trucks—26,001 lbs or more.

43 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Vehicle Loadings on the Interstate Highway System

arge combination trucks1 represent a small Source Lportion of traffic on the U.S. Interstate 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway System [1]. However, because they are Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2001, table TC-3, available at http://www.fhwa.

Section 4:Weights Vehicle heavier and have more axles than other vehicles, dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hss/index. htm, as of Feb. 26, they may cause more pavement damage, a meas- 2003. urement that is estimated in terms of vehicle loadings (see box). In urban areas, these trucks Measuring Vehicle Loadings made up only 6 percent of traffic volume, but accounted for 77 percent of loadings in 2001 Planning agencies design roadways to have a specific lifespan based on the expected volume and (figure 19). These trucks also make up a greater weight of vehicle traffic [1]. Since traffic streams are portion of the vehicles on rural segments of the composed of a variety of vehicles of different weights Interstate Highway System, representing 17 per- and axle configurations, an equivalent unit of pavement damage is used to calculate the wear caused cent of traffic volume and 89 percent of loadings by different types of vehicles. An equivalent single- in 2001 (figure 20). axle load (ESAL) is a standard unit of pavement damage and is based on the amount of force applied Between 1991 and 2001, large combination to pavement by an 18,000-pound axle, which is truck traffic volume grew from 14 percent to 17 roughly equivalent to a standard truck axle. This unit may be used to calculate the cumulative damage percent on rural roads, while remaining the caused to a roadway by an expected traffic stream. same on urban Interstate highways [1]. Source Concurrently, their share of loadings decreased 1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation on both rural and urban Interstate highways. Officials, Guide for Design of Pavement Structures Passenger cars, buses, and light trucks, which (Washington, DC: 1993), p. I-10 and appendix D. the Federal Highway Administration aggregates into one category, followed a different trend— representing a declining percentage of traffic volume but a growing percentage of loadings in urban areas [1].

1 Large combination trucks weigh more than 12 tons and have 5 or more axles.

44 eto :Vehicle Weights Section 4:

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

FIGURE 19 Share of Loadings on Urban Interstate Highways by Vehicle Type: 2001

Heavy single-unit trucks 5%

3- and 4-axle combination trucks 14%

Passenger cars, buses, and light trucks 3%

5-axle or more combination trucks 77%

FIGURE 20 Share of Loadings on Rural Interstate Highways by Vehicle Type: 2001

Heavy single-unit trucks 4% 3- and 4-axle combination trucks 6% Passenger cars, buses, and light trucks 2% 5-axle or more combination trucks 89%

NOTES: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. Loadings are based on equivalent single-axle loads (ESALs), a standard unit of pavement damage based on the amount of force applied to pavement by an 18,000-pound axle, which is roughly equivalent to a standard truck axle. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Adminstration, Highway Statistics 2001 (Washington, DC: 2002), table TC-3.

45 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Merchant Marine Vessel Capacity

erchandise trade valued at over $718 bil- sels is larger than the average capacity of con- Mlion moved by maritime vessels between tainerships because it includes tankers, which U.S. and foreign seaports in 2001 [2]. Container carry nearly 90,000 dwt on average and dock at specialized ports. Excluding tankers, average

Section 4:Weights Vehicle shipments increased 71 percent between 1992 and 20011 [3]. vessel capacity was just over 32,000 dwt in 2001. The average capacity of containerships calling at U.S. ports increased 9 percent to nearly 40,000 deadweight tons (dwt)2 between 19983 Sources and 2001 (figure 21). The world’s largest con- 1. Maersk-Sealand, Vessels web page, available at tainerships, built primarily during the late 1990s http://www.maersksealand.com/, as of April and early 2000s, are over 3 football fields long 2003. (1,138 ft), 140 feet wide, and 50 feet deep [1]. 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. International Containership capacity increased faster than Trade and Freight Transportation Trends the average capacity of all types of vessels call- (Washington, DC: 2003). ing at U.S. ports, which grew 4 percent between 3. _____, Maritime Trade and Transportation 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002). 1998 and 2001. The average capacity of all ves-

1 1992 is the first year for which data are available. Percentage change was calculated in terms of 20-foot equivalent units (TEUs). 2 Deadweight tons is an expression of vessel capacity. It is the lift- ing capacity of a vessel expressed in long tons (2,240 lbs), including cargo, commodities, and crew. 3 1998 is the first year for which data are available.

46 eto :Vehicle Weights Section 4:

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

FIGURE 21 Average Capacity of Vessels Calling at U.S. Ports: 1998–2001 Deadweight tons (Thousands) 50 Containerships All vessels 45

0 1998 1999 2000 2001

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, calculation based on U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Vessel Calls at U.S. Ports (Washington, DC: Annual issues), tables H-6 and H-8.

47 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Railcar Weights

he volume of freight carried by railroads ments are primarily intermodal freight com- Tincreased 26 percent (in tons) and 30 percent posed of shipping containers on flatbed railcars (by carload) on railcars between 1991 and 2001 [1]. The containers, which are primarily used to move manufactured goods that tend to be lighter

Section 4:Weights Vehicle (figure 22). However, on average, the weight of each railcar remained fairly constant. The average and more valuable than raw materials, may be weight of a loaded railcar ranged from 63 to 67 transported by waterborne vessel and truck, as tons during the same period (figure 23). well. Miscellaneous mixed shipments increased by 54 percent in terms of tonnage and by 79 The relatively steady average weight of a percent in terms of carloads between 1991 and loaded railcar masks countervailing trends 2001, resulting in carloads that were 14 percent among selected freight commodities. The average lighter in 2001 [2]. weight of a carload of coal, which represented 46 percent of rail freight tonnage in 2001, was 110 tons in 2001, up from 99 tons in 1991 (figure Sources 24). Farm products, food and kindred products, 1. Association of American Railroads, Railroad nonmetallic minerals, and chemicals and allied Facts 2001 and 2002 (Washington, DC: 2001 products, which together represented 29 percent and 2002). of tonnage in 2001, were also shipped in heavier 2. Calculations based on Association of American Railroads, Railroad Ten-Year Trends, 1990–1999 average carloads in 2001 than in 1991 [2]. (Washington, DC: 2000). Miscellaneous mixed shipments is the only category of goods that was transported in lighter average carloads [2]. Miscellaneous mixed ship-

48 eto :Vehicle Weights Section 4:

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

FIGURE 22 Measures of U.S. Railroad Freight Volume: 1991–2001 Tons (millions) Carloads (millions) 1,800 30 1,600 Tons Carloads 25 1,400 1,200 20 1,000 15 800 600 10 400 5 200 0 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

FIGURE 23 Average Loaded U.S. Railcar Weight: 1991–2001 Tons 70

0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

FIGURE 24 Average Loaded U.S. Railcar Weight for Selected Commodities: 1991 and 2001 Tons per carload 140 1991 2001 120

100 80

60 40

20 0 Farm Coal Nonmetallic Food and Chemicals Transportation Miscellaneous products minerals kindred and allied equipment mixed products products shipments

NOTES: Figure 23—Average railcar weight is total tons transported divided by total carloads transported. Figure 24—Miscellaneous mixed shipments is mostly intermodal traffic. Some intermodal traffic is included in commodity-specific categories instead. SOURCES: All except noted—Association of American of Railroads, Railroad Facts 2001 and 2002 (Washington, DC: 2001 and 2002 issues). Figure 24, 1991 data—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics calculations based on Association of American Railroads, Railroad Ten-Year Trends 1990–1999 (Washington, DC: 2000).

49 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Daily Passenger Travel

n their daily nonoccupational travel, people in the United States journeyed about 4 trillion 2001 National Household Travel I Survey (NHTS) miles in 2001, or 14,500 miles per person per year1 [1]. On average, people traveled 40 miles The 2001 NHTS was sponsored by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the Federal Highway per day, 88 percent of it (35 miles) in a personal Administration of the U.S. Department of Transpor- vehicle2 such as an automobile (figure 25). The tation. Households were asked about all the trips1 total number of vehicle-miles for this passenger they took on a specific day (daily travel), known as the “travel day,” and about trips of 50 miles or more travel in 2001 was nearly 2.3 trillion. taken from home in the 27 days preceding and including the travel day, a period known as the “trav- Americans took 411 billion daily trips annu- el period.” Detailed characteristics were collected for ally, or an average of 1,500 trips per person per each trip including, among other things, the mode of transportation, the purpose of the trip, and the dis- year. On a daily basis, individuals averaged tance traveled. Additionally, households were asked about four trips per day (figure 26) [1]. to provide information about their social and demographic characteristics including income, vehicle ownership, as well as the age, sex, education level, Source and so forth of household members. The 2001 NHTS collected information from 26,000 households 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of nationally. Transportation Statistics and Federal Highway Administration, 2001 National Household The NHTS combines two previous surveys—the Travel Survey, Preliminary Data Release Ver- Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS), a survey of daily travel, and the American Travel

Section 5: Variables Influencing Traveling Behavior Section 5:Traveling Influencing Variables sion 1 (day trip data only), available at http://nhts.ornl.gov/, as of January 2003. Survey (ATS), a survey of long-distance travel. The NPTS and ATS both were last conducted in 1995. Because of methodological changes, comparisons between the 2001 NHTS and the 1995 NPTS and ATS are not attempted here. Analysts need more time to study the effects of the methodological changes before meaningful comparisons can be made. The information presented here, therefore, is limited to preliminary data from the 2001 survey.

Moreover, data from the travel period component (i.e., long-distance travel) of the NHTS had not yet been released when this report was prepared. As a result, the information presented here is about the travel reported on the travel day, which is predominantly, though not exclusively, local travel. Without the long-distance travel data, vacation trips and trav- 1 These data differ from those in section 2, Passenger-Miles of el by air tend to be underrepresented. Travel. See the box on page 26 for a discussion on differences between these two datasets. 1 A trip is defined as traveling from one address to 2 another, whether it is down the street, across town, or cross Personal vehicles are cars, vans, sport utility vehicles, pickup country. trucks, other trucks, recreational vehicles (not including water- craft), and motorcycles.

50 eto :Variables Influencing TravelingSection 5: Behavior

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

FIGURE 25 Miles Traveled per Day: 2001

Miles 50

0 Average miles per Average miles per person person, all modes in personal vehicles

FIGURE 26 Trips Completed per Day: 2001

Number of trips 5

0 Average trips per Average trips per person person, all modes in personal vehicles

NOTE: Data are from the daily travel segment of the 2001 National Household Travel Survey. Long-distance travel data (i.e., trips of 50 miles or more collected during a 4-week travel period) are not included here. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics and Federal Highway Administration, 2001 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS), Preliminary Data Release Version 1, available at http://nhts.ornl.gov/, as of January 2003.

51 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Travel by Purpose

ommuting—trips made to and from 2001. These trips included going to the gym, Cwork—accounted for 15 percent of all per- exercising, or playing sports and going to the sonal trips in 2001. In addition, other work- movies, a restaurant, or a public place, such as a related trips (e.g., travel to meetings and confer- park. The average distance of these trips was 8 ences) accounted for 3 percent of all trips. The miles, with trips to visit friends and relatives average length of a commuting trip was 12 being longer than average at about 14 miles [1]. 1 miles, whereas the average length of a work- Trips to school and church accounted for 10 related trip was just under 30 miles (figure 27). percent of trips in 2001 and averaged 6 miles in People made the greatest number of daily trips, length. By contrast, vacation trips (including 45 percent, to shop, to visit doctors and dentists, those for rest and relaxation) are taken relatively and for other family and personal business such rarely but far from home. In 2001 (for daily trip as using professional or personal services, attend- reporting),2 they accounted for less than 1 per- ing a wedding or funeral, walking the dog, cent of trips but averaged 37 miles in length [1]. attending meetings, and dropping off or picking up someone else (figure 28). Most family and per- Source sonal business trips tended to be relatively short, 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of averaging about 7 miles, although visits to doc- Transportation Statistics and Federal Highway tors and dentists averaged 10 miles each [1]. Administration, 2001 National Household

Section 5: Variables Influencing Traveling Behavior Section 5:Traveling Influencing Variables Travel Survey, Preliminary Data Release Ver- Social and recreational reasons for daily sion 1 (day trip data only), available at travel, including visits to friends and relatives, http://nhts.ornl.gov, as of January 2003. motivated just over one-quarter of all trips in

1 The 2001 National Household Travel Survey defined a trip as each time a person went from one address to another. “Commute” trips were defined as those trips made for the purpose of going to or returning from work. However, given the definition of a trip, those reported as commuting trips were not necessarily anchored by the home or workplace (for return commutes). Therefore, care 2 The 2001 National Household Travel Survey “travel period” should be taken in analyzing work trips, recognizing that the dis- data were not available when this report was prepared. Without tance for these trips is often, but not always, the distance from these data, vacation trips and travel by air tend to be underrepre- home to work. sented.

52 eto :Variables Influencing TravelingSection 5: Behavior

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

FIGURE 27 Average Trip Distance by Purpose: 2001

Miles 40

0 1

Vacation Shopping Work-relatedVisit friends/ Other social/ Other family/ To/from workMedical/dentalTotal reported School/church business relatives recreational personal

FIGURE 28 Share of Person Trips by Purpose: 2001

Other 1% Other social/recreational To/from work 19% 15%

Work-related business 3%

Visit friends/relatives 8% Shopping Vacation1 19% 1% School/church 10%

Medical/dental 2% Other family/personal business 23% 1 “Vacation” includes rest and relaxation. NOTE: The 2001 National Household Travel Survey defined a trip as each time a person went from one address to another. “Commute” trips were defined as those trips made for the purpose of going to or returning from work. However, given the definition of a trip, those reported as commuting trips were not necessarily anchored by the home or workplace (for return commutes). Therefore, care should be taken in analyzing to/from work trips, recognizing that the distance for these trips is often, but not always, the distance from home to work. Excluded from work-related business trips are trips made by people who are directly providing the transportation of passengers or goods, such as bus or truck drivers, delivery persons, etc. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics and Federal Highway Administration, 2001 National Household Travel Survey, Preliminary Data Release Version 1 (day trip data only), available at http://nhts.ornl.gov/, as of January 2003.

53 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Travel by Mode

ersonal vehicles1 are the predominant means (but excludes charter, tour, and intercity buses, Pby which people travel in the United States school buses, and shuttle buses), subway or on a daily basis. In 2001, 87 percent of person elevated rail, street car and trolley car, commuter trips and 88 percent of person-miles were made train, and waterborne passenger lines and in personal vehicles (figures 29 and 30). Walking ferries. Buses were the most widely used transit and riding a bicycle accounted for almost 10 vehicle (67 percent of transit person trips and 53 percent of trips and less than 1 percent of miles. percent of transit person-miles). Subway or Both transit and school bus trips accounted for elevated rail was the second most widely used, 2 percent each of trips and 1 percent each of accounting for about one-quarter of these trips miles, whereas only 0.1 percent of all daily trips and miles. Commuter trains were used for only but 8 percent of miles were made by air2 [1]. 6 percent of transit trips but because of the relatively long trip distances involved, accounted Within the personal vehicle category, in 2001 for 18 percent of the transit person-miles. passenger cars were still the most widely used, accounting for 59 percent of person trips and 55 percent of person-miles. Vans and sport utility Source vehicles were used for 27 percent of trips and 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of miles. Pickup trucks accounted for 15 percent of Transportation Statistics and Federal Highway miles and 13 percent of trips. Together, other Administration, 2001 National Household Travel Survey, Preliminary Data Release Ver- Section 5: Variables Influencing Traveling Behavior Section 5:Traveling Influencing Variables trucks, recreational vehicles, and motorcycles sion 1 (day trip data only), available at were used for almost 1 percent of trips and 3 http://nhts.ornl.gov, as of January 2003. percent of miles [1]. In the 2001 National Household Travel Survey, the definition of transit includes buses

1 Personal vehicles include passenger cars, vans, sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, other trucks, recreational vehicles (not including boats), and motorcycles. 2 The 2001 National Household Travel Survey “travel period” data were not available when this report was prepared. Without these data, vacation trips and travel by air tend to be underrepresented.

54 eto :Variables Influencing TravelingSection 5: Behavior

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

FIGURE 29 Modal Share of Person Trips: 2001

Other School bus Bicycle/walk 1% 2% 9% Transit 2% Personal vehicle Air 87% <1%

FIGURE 30 Modal Share of Person-Miles: 2001 Bicycle/walk Other Transit 1% 1% 1% School bus Air 1% 8%

Personal vehicle 88%

NOTE: The 2001 National Household Travel Survey “travel period” data were not available when this report was prepared. Without these data, vacation trips and travel by air tend to be underrepresented. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics and Federal Highway Administration, 2001 National Household Travel Survey, Preliminary Data Release Version 1 (day trip data only), available at http://nhts.ornl.gov/, as of January 2003.

55 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Vehicle Ownership and Availability

lightly less than one-third of households said Households without vehicles tend to have Sthey had one personal vehicle1 available for characteristics different from households with use in 2001. A little more than one-third of vehicles. For instance, households with total households (40 million out of 107 million incomes of less than $25,000 are almost 10 households) had 2 vehicles and slightly less than times more likely not to have a vehicle when one-quarter had 3 or more vehicles available compared with those with incomes greater than (figure 31). Almost 8 percent of households (8.5 $25,000 (figure 32). Though related to income, million) had no vehicle available [1]. households in rented residences are five times more likely not to have a vehicle. Household The amount of travel people do and the way vehicle ownership is also closely related to the they travel is strongly related to the availability number of people living in the household. of personal vehicles in their household. For Eighteen percent of single-person households instance, persons in households without vehicles have no vehicle, as compared with only 4 per- took approximately 1,000 trips per person in cent of multiperson households. Furthermore, 2001, while persons in households with at least the unavailability of vehicles in households in 1 vehicle took 1,500 trips each. Persons in urban areas is almost twice that of households in households without a vehicle traveled about rural areas [1]. 6,900 miles annually, less than half the 14,900 person-miles traveled by those in households

Section 5: Variables Influencing Traveling Behavior Section 5:Traveling Influencing Variables with at least 1 vehicle. In addition, persons in Source households with at least 1 household vehicle 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of made nearly 9 of every 10 trips by personal vehi- Transportation Statistics and Federal Highway cle compared with less than 4 of 10 for those in Administration, 2001 National Household Travel Survey, Preliminary Data Release Ver- households without a vehicle. Persons in house- sion 1 (day trip data only), available at holds without access to vehicles made 37 percent http://nhts.ornl.gov, as of January 2003. of their trips on foot and another 20 percent by transit. This compares with 8 percent and 1 percent by foot and transit, respectively, by households with at least one vehicle [1].

1 Personal vehicles include passenger cars, vans, sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, other trucks, recreational vehicles (not including boats), and motorcycles.

56 eto :Variables Influencing TravelingSection 5: Behavior

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

FIGURE 31 U.S. Households by Number of Vehicles: 2001 Millions of households 50

0 None 1 234≥ 5 Number of vehicles

FIGURE 32 Proportion of Households Without Vehicles by Household Type: 2001

All households

Households in urban areas Households in rural areas

Single-person households Multiperson households

Residence is a condo/apt. Residence is not a condo/apt.

Residence is rented Residence is owned/other

Household income < $25,000 Household income ≥ $25,000

0510 15 20 25 Percent

KEY: apt. = apartment; condo = condominium. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics and Federal Highway Administration, 2001 National Household Travel Survey, Preliminary Data Release Version 1 (day trip data only), available at http://nhts.ornl.gov/, as of January 2003.

57 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Household Spending on Transportation

n average, households spent $7,406 (in (14 percent). Meanwhile, gasoline and oil Ochained 1996 dollars1) on transportation in expenditures rose 3 percent, to nearly $1,100 in 2001. This represented 21 percent of all house- 2001. On average, households spent almost hold expenditures that year. Only housing cost $400 on “other transportation”2 in 2001, an households more (31 percent) [1]. increase of 6 percent between 1991 and 2001. Over the last 10 years, consumer spending on private transportation (mainly motor vehicles Source and related expenses) increased (figure 33). On 1. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor average, households spent nearly $3,600 on new Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, avail- and used motor vehicles in 2001, up 47 percent able from http://www.bls.gov/cex/home.htm, as of February 2003. Note: the survey data are col- from about $2,500 in 1991. Spending on other lected in terms of consumer units rather than vehicle expenses, including insurance, financing households. There are an average of 2.5 persons charges, maintenance, and repairs, also in each consumer unit. increased from about $1,720 to nearly $2,400 Section 6: Travel Costs of Intracity Commuting and Intercity Trips Section 6: and Intercity Costs of Intracity Commuting Travel

1 All dollar amounts are expressed in chained 1996 dollars, 2 In its survey, the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses the term “pub- unless otherwise specified. Current dollar amounts (which are lic transportation,” rather than “other transportation.” This cate- available in appendix B of this report) were adjusted to eliminate gory includes both local transit, e.g., bus travel, and long-distance the effects of inflation over time. travel, e.g., airplane trips.

58 eto :Travel Costs of Intracity Commuting and Intercity Section 6: Trips

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

FIGURE 33 Average Household Transportation Expenditures: 1991–2001 Chained 1996 $ 4,000

3,500 Vehicle purchases (net outlays) 3,000

2,500 Other vehicle expenses

2,000

1,500 Gasoline and motor oil 1,000 Other transportation 500

0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

NOTES: Data are based on survey results. The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses the term consumer unit rather than household. There are an average of 2.5 persons in each consumer unit. A consumer unit is defined as members of a household related by blood, marrige, adoption, or other legal arrangement; a single person living alone or sharing a household with another but who is financially independent; or two or more persons living together who share responsibility for at least two-thirds of major types of expenses—food, housing, and other expenses. Other transportation includes both local transit (e.g., bus and taxi travel) and long-distance travel (e.g., airplane trips). All dollar amounts are expressed in chained 1996 dollars, unless otherwise specified. Current dollar amounts (which are available in appendix B of this report) were adjusted to eliminate the effects of inflation over time. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey data query, November 2002.

59 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Cost of Owning and Operating an Automobile

riving an automobile 15,000 miles per year including their own automobiles [2]. The other Dcost 50¢ per mile in 2001, or 16 percent 13 percent traveled via public transportation or more than it did in 1991, when total costs were air, rode bicycles, walked, or traveled by other 43¢ (figure 34). These data, which are expressed means. in 1996 chained dollars,1 include fixed costs (e.g., depreciation, insurance, finance charges, Sources and license fees) and variable costs (e.g., gasoline 1. American Automobile Association, Your Driving and oil, maintenance, and tires). Over the Costs (Heathrow, FL: 2000 and 2001 issues). decade, fixed costs have consistently represented 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of about 75 percent of total per-mile costs. Transportation Statistics and Federal Highway Gasoline and oil, a component of variable costs, Administration, 2001 National Household represented 14 percent of driving costs per mile Travel Survey, Preliminary Data Release Ver- sion 1 (day trip data only), available at in 2001, up from 12 percent in 2000 [1]. http://nhts.ornl.gov, as of January 2003. About 87 percent of the daily trips Americans took in 2001 occurred in highway vehicles, Section 6: Travel Costs of Intracity Commuting and Intercity Trips Section 6: and Intercity Costs of Intracity Commuting Travel

60 eto :Travel Costs of Intracity Commuting and Intercity Section 6: Trips

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

FIGURE 34 Average per Mile Cost of Owning and Operating an Automobile: 1991–2001

Chained 1996 $ 0.6

Total 0.5

0.4 Fixed costs 0.3

0.2

0.1 Variable costs

0.0 19911993 1992 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

NOTES: Assumes 15,000 miles driven per year. All dollar amounts are expressed in chained 1996 dollars, unless otherwise specified. Current dollar amounts (which are available in appendix B of this report) were adjusted to eliminate the effects of inflation over time. SOURCES: 1991–1998—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), table 3-14, also available at http://www.bts.gov. 1999–2002—American Automobile Association, Your Driving Costs (Heathrow, FL: 1999–2002 issues).

61 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Cost of Intercity Trips by Train and Bus

mtrak collected an average of 20¢ per rev- between 1990 and 2000 (figure 36). The average Aenue passenger-mile in fiscal year (FY) bus fare is based on total intercity passenger rev- 2000 (in chained 1996 dollars1), up 33 percent enues and the number of intercity bus passenger from 15¢ per revenue passenger-mile in FY trips, as reported by carriers to the Bureau of 19932 (figure 35). During the 1990s, Amtrak Transportation Statistics. Since passenger-mile shifted its focus to urban routes in the northeast data are not reported, average bus fare per pas- and west. When Amtrak reduced its number of senger-mile cannot be calculated and compared route-miles by 3 percent in 1995, revenue per with similar Amtrak fare data. passenger-mile increased by 13 percent the following fiscal year. When track operational Sources length was further reduced by 7 percent in 1999, 1. Association of American of Railroads, Railroad revenue per passenger-mile increased 7 percent Facts (Washington, DC: 1994–2002 issues). the following fiscal year [1, 2]. 2. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak), Average intercity Class I bus fares rose 27 per- Amtrak 2000 Annual Report, Statistical Appendix (Washington, DC: 2001). cent, from $21 to $26 (in chained 1996 dollars), Section 6: Travel Costs of Intracity Commuting and Intercity Trips Section 6: and Intercity Costs of Intracity Commuting Travel

1 All dollar amounts are expressed in chained 1996 dollars, unless otherwise specified. Current dollar amounts (which are available in appendix B of this report) were adjusted to eliminate the effects of inflation over time. 2 Amtrak published ticket yield data for FY 1991 through FY 2000 in its 2000 Annual Report. The 2001 Annual Report, published online in February 2003, contains consolidated financial statements only.

62 eto :Travel Costs of Intracity Commuting and Intercity Section 6: Trips

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

FIGURE 35 Amtrak Average Revenue per Revenue Passenger-Mile: 1993–2001 Chained 1996 $ 0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

FIGURE 36 Average Class I Intercity Bus Fares: 1990–2000

Chained 1996 $ 30

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

NOTES: Amtrak data are not available prior to 1993. All dollar amounts are chained 1996 dollars. Current dollar amounts are available in appendix B and were adjusted to eliminate the effects of inflation over time. SOURCES: Figure 35—American Association of Railroads, Railroad Facts (Washington, DC: 1994–2002 issues). Figure 36—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), table 3-15b, also available at http://www.bts.gov.

63 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Average Transit Fares

ransit fares remained relatively stable dur- than in 1990, with light-rail fares dropping the Ting the 1990s (figure 37). Increases in fares most, at 30 percent. per passenger-mile for some modes of transit Heavy rail comprises most of the nation’s sub- were offset by lower fares per passenger-mile for way systems. It is the second most heavily used other modes. form of transit with over 30 percent of total Local transit bus service, which accounts for transit ridership. The cost of using heavy rail 60 percent of public transportation ridership (by declined from 19¢ to 18¢ per passenger-mile number of unlinked passenger trips1), is slightly between 1990 and 2000 [1]. more expensive than it was 10 years ago (figure 38). Transit bus service cost 20¢ per mile in Source 2000, up from 18¢ per mile in 1990 (in chained 1. American Public Transportation Association, 2 1996 dollars). Bus ridership, which dropped by Public Transportation Fact Book 2001, about 15 percent during the mid-1990s, Tables 18 and 26, available at http://www.apta. rebounded by 2000. Rail transit—heavy, com- com/stats/fares/faremode.htm, as of February 2003. Data for 2000 are preliminary. muter, and light rail—was less expensive in 2000 Section 6: Travel Costs of Intracity Commuting and Intercity Trips Section 6: and Intercity Costs of Intracity Commuting Travel

1 See Urban Transit Ridership in section 7, “Availability of Mass Transit,” for a discussion of unlinked trips. 2 All dollar amounts are expressed in chained 1996 dollars, unless otherwise specified. Current dollar amounts (which are available in appendix B of this report) were adjusted to eliminate the effects of inflation over time.

64 eto :Travel Costs of Intracity Commuting and Intercity Section 6: Trips

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

FIGURE 37 Average Transit Fare per Passenger-Mile: Fiscal Years 1990–2000 Chained 1996 $ 0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10 Modes included are heavy, commuter, and light rail; bus; demand responsive; trolley bus; ferryboat; vanpool; tramway; monorail; automated guideway; and inclined plane. 0.05

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

FIGURE 38 Average Transit Fare per Passenger-Mile for Selected Service Types: Fiscal Years 1990–2000 Chained 1996 $ 0.25

Heavy rail Bus 0.20

0.15 Commuter rail Light rail 0.10

0.05

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

NOTES: Data for 2000 are preliminary. Beginning in 1991, fares Demand responsive: A nonfixed-route, nonfixed-schedule form include subsidies formerly classified as "Other" operating funding. of transportation that operates in response to calls from passen- Commuter rail: Urban/suburban passenger train service for gers or their agents to the transit operator or dispatcher. short-distance travel between a central city and adjacent sub- All dollar amounts are expressed in chained 1996 dollars. urbs run on tracks of a traditional railroad system. Does not Current dollar amounts (which are available in appendix B of include heavy- or light-rail transit service. this report) were adjusted to eliminate the effects of inflation Heavy rail: High-speed transit rail operated on rights-of-way over time. that exclude all other vehicles and pedestrians. SOURCES: American Public Transportation Association, Public Light rail: Urban transit rail operated on a reserved right-of-way Transportation Fact Book 2001, tables 18 and 26, available at that may be crossed by roads used by motor vehicles and http://www.apta.com/stats/fares/faremode.htm, as of February pedestrians. 2003. Modal definitions—U.S. Department of Transportaton, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Pocket Guide to Transportation 2003 (Washington, DC: 2003), glossary.

65 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Commuting Expenses of the Working Poor

he U.S. working poor1 totaled more than 9 used the less expensive options of carpool or van- Tmillion (6 percent of all workers) in 1999 pool (12 percent), public transit (6 percent), bik- [1]. Half of these workers spent almost 10 per- ing or walking (11 percent), or commuted some cent of their income on commuting expenses in other way (8 percent). that year2 (figure 39). This is over twice the percentage of income that the median of the total Source population spent on commuting (4 percent). 1. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census This disparity grows to four times when com- Bureau and U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of pared with the median for workers earning Labor Statistics, Annual Demographic Survey, $45,000 or more per year (2 percent of income). March Supplement, table 10, available at http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032000/pov/ Half of all workers who use their own vehicles new10_001.htm, as of March 2003. spent 5 percent or more of their income in 1999 on commuting (figure 40). However, among the Commuting Expenses Data working poor using their own vehicle, half spent at least 21 percent of their income on commut- The data presented here are based on an analysis by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) of the ing. For all workers taking public transit, half U.S. Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program spent 3 percent or more of their income, com- Participation (SIPP) (available at http://www.sipp. census.gov/sipp). BTS plans to publish a full report in pared with the median for the working poor of late 2003 on how the percentage of workers’ income 13 percent of their income.3 Most workers used spent on commuting varies by race, gender, age, their own vehicle to commute in 1999; however, location, household, and income definition covering 1996 to 1999. the working poor were more likely than other groups to use alternative commuting modes. For For this study, BTS selected only those with a paid job during the reference period from the SIPP sam- instance, 87 percent of workers earning $22,000 ple. Workers’ commuting expenses included fees or more per year used their own vehicle to com- and fares, for those who did not use their own vehi- mute, compared with 66 percent of the working cle to commute, and mileage expenses, parking fees, and tolls for those who used their own vehicle. poor. A substantial number of the working poor The income figures represent cash income before taxes. Section 6: Travel Costs of Intracity Commuting and Intercity Trips Section 6: and Intercity Costs of Intracity Commuting Travel 1 The official government poverty line for a single adult with no The percentage of income data presented here is in dependents was $8,501 in 1999. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002, median values. A median is the middle value in a distri- http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/threshld/thresh99.html) Here, bution, above and below which lie an equal number of the working poor are defined as workers with an annual personal values. For example, when the median spending on income of less than $8,000. commuting by all workers who own their own vehicles 2 Data are in current 1999 dollars. For further information, see is 5 percent of their income, half of all workers spend U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation more than 5 percent of their income on commuting and Statistics, Commuting Expenses: Disparity for the Working Poor, the other half spend less than 5 percent. Issue Brief (Washington, DC: 2003). 3 In this analysis, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics found Source that 0.5 percent of workers reported using both their own vehicle U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation and public transit to commute. Overall, 2 percent of workers Statistics, Commuting Expenses: Disparity for the Working reported using multiple modes. Poor, Issue Brief (Washington, DC: 2003).

66 eto :Travel Costs of Intracity Commuting and Intercity Section 6: Trips

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

FIGURE 39 Share of Personal Income Spent on Commuting by Income Group: 1999 Percent1 10

6 Median of total population = 3.9% 4

0 < $8,000 $8,000– $15,000– $22,000– $30,000– >– $45,000 $14,999 $21,999 $29,999 $44,999 Income group

FIGURE 40 Share of Personal Income Spent on Commuting by Income Group and Transportation Mode: 1999 Percent1 25 Use own vehicle Use public transit 20

Median of total population: 10 All using own vehicle = 4.9% All using public transit = 3.3% 5

0 < $8,000 $8,000– $15,000– $22,000– $30,000– >– $45,000 $14,999 $21,999 $29,999 $44,999 Income group 1 Percent represents median of income group. The median is the point where half the income group spends more and half spends less than the specified percentage. NOTE: All dollar amounts are in current 1999 dollars. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, calculations based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (Hyattsville, MD: 2001), also available at http://www.bls.census.gov/sipp/, as of April 2003.

67 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Airfare Index Research Data

ommercial airlines offer a variety of discount series. However, these two indices give different Cfares to fill their flights, but these special results. For instance, between the fourth quarter discount airfares, facilitated by internet com- of 1998 and the fourth quarter of 2000, the BLS merce and “frequent flyer” programs, complicate index increased 17 percent, while the similar efforts to measure changes in the prices people O&D Survey index increased only 13 percent. pay for commercial air travel. To improve these This difference is probably due mainly to the measurements, the Bureau of Transportation O&D Survey index’s inclusion of special dis- Statistics (BTS) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics count fares combined with consumers’ increas- (BLS) have research underway to develop an ing use of special discount tickets during this Origin and Destination (O&D) Survey Airfare period. The more comprehensive O&D Survey Index (see box). Some data from this ongoing index, which combines U.S. and foreign flight research are presented here. origin data, rose even less (11.6 percent). The “foreign origin only” component increased just The O&D Survey index research data can be 4.1 percent but fluctuates more over the period. used to compare changes in prices among various cities. In one comparison of three medium-size cities, a dip appears between 1995 and 1998 for Origin and Destination (O&D) Survey flights originating in Colorado Springs, Colorado Airfare Index Data (figure 41). This is a time during which the dis- The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) quarter- count carrier Western Pacific operated flights ly Passenger Origin and Destination (O&D) Survey provides the data for the O&D Survey Airfare Index. from Colorado Springs and indicates the effect it Through this passenger survey, BTS collects data on had on bringing airfares down before it withdrew a 10 percent sample of airline itineraries. Each sam- from the market. The O&D Survey index can be ple observation comprises a fare value (actual fare paid, including tax), a sequence of airports and carri- used to compare prices for international travel, as ers, and other details of an itinerary traveled by a pas- well. The third quarter spikes in a comparison of senger or group of passengers.

travel originating in Frankfurt, London, and The O&D Survey Index data presented here were Tokyo indicate that a high percentage of passen- developed only for research purposes by BTS statis- gers traveling to the United States from these ticians, in consultation with researchers from the

Section 6: Travel Costs of Intracity Commuting and Intercity Trips Section 6: and Intercity Costs of Intracity Commuting Travel Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). This ongoing BTS cities pay peak fares July through September (fig- research1 is aimed at developing a new method of ure 42). These types of specific domestic and for- computing price indices for air travel, based on transaction prices. The current official U.S. Consumer eign points of origin comparisons are possible Price Index for commercial air travel is the BLS because of the size of the O&D Survey sample on Airline Fare Index, but it does not reflect the full 2 which the index is based. range of fares consumers pay. The O&D Survey index can be compared 1 For a description of the experimental index estimation methodology, see Lent and Dorfman, “A Transaction Price with the official BLS Airline fare index (figure Index for Air Travel,” 2003, available on request from the 43). As the BLS index covers only itineraries Bureau of Labor Statistics. originating in the United States, it is most com- 2 A description of the BLS estimation method is available parable to the O&D Survey “U.S. Origin Only” on the BLS website at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifacaf.htm.

68 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

6 :

T 1 FIGURE 41 Origin and Destination Survey Index by City of Origin for r Three Medium-sized U.S. Cities: 1995–2000 a v

(All classes of service) e

Index: Q1 1995 = 100 l

140 C o

120 s Des Moines, IA t s Charleston, SC

100 o f

I 80 n

Colorado Springs, CO t r a

60 c

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 i t

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 y

FIGURE 42 Origin and Destination Survey Index1 by City of Origin for C Three Large International Cities: 1995–2000 o m (All classes of service) m Index: Q1 1995 = 100

140 u t i London, England n

120 g

100 n Frankfurt, Germany d

80 I Tokyo, Japan n t e 60 r

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 c i

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 t y

FIGURE 43 Comparison of Airfare Indices: 1995–2000 T

(Not seasonally adjusted) r i Index: Q1 1995 = 100 p 140 s BLS Airline Fare CPI

120 O&D Survey, U.S. origin only

100 O&D Survey, all origins

80 O&D Survey, foreign origin only

60 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

1 The O&D Survey indices are computed using the Fisher Index SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of formula, which differs from the formulas used to compute the Transportation Statistics (BTS) and U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Airline Fare Consumer Price Index. Bureau of Labor Statistics, calculations based on data from BTS's quarterly Passenger Origin & Destination Survey, March NOTE: These data were developed for research purposes only 2003. Figure 41—U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor and are not official BTS data. Statistics, Airline Fare Consumer Price Index, available at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data, as of March 2003.

69 d e Transportation Statistics Annual Report v r e S s r e g Transit Passenger-Miles Traveled n e s s a P f o ransit passenger-miles traveled (pmt) grew New York City Transit traveled 10.1 billion pas- r 24 percent between 1991 and 2001, from senger-miles (or 22 percent of all passenger-miles e T

b 37.5 billion pmt to 46.5 billion pmt [1, 2]. As out of the top 30 authorities) and the Chicago Transit Authority generated 1.8 billion pmt or m they have historically, buses had the largest pmt u share in 2001, generating 19.6 billion pmt or 5 percent [3]. N

42 percent of all transit pmt (figure 44). Also in d 2001, heavy-rail pmt totaled 14.2 billion or Sources n 31 percent, commuter rail reached 9.5 billion a 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal

t pmt or 20 percent, light rail had 1.4 billion pmt

i Transit Administration, National Transit

s or 3 percent, and other modes of transit, such as Summaries and Trends, 1996, available at n ferryboat and demand responsive,1 generated http://www.ntdprogram.com, as of May 2003. a r 1.8 billion pmt or 4 percent [2]. 2. _____, “National Transit Summaries and

T Trends,” 2002 draft, available at http://www. The top 30 transit authorities (ranked by ntdprogram.com, as of February 2003. s s unlinked passenger trips) logged 35.1 billion 3. _____, National Transit Database, available at a passenger-miles in 2001 or 76 percent of all http://www.ntdprogram.com, as of March 2003. M

transit pmt that year [2]. In 2001, people riding f o y t i l i b a l i a v A

: 7 n o i t c e S

1 Demand-responsive transit operates on a nonfixed route and a nonfixed schedule in response to calls from passengers or their agents to the transit operator or dispatcher.

70 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

7 :

FIGURE 44 Passenger-Miles by Type of Service: 1991–2001 v a i

Passenger-miles (billions) l 20 a b

Bus i l i t y

15 o f

Heavy rail M

10 a s s

Commuter rail T r

5 a n

Light rail Other s i t

0 a

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 n d

NOTE: Other includes modes such as demand responsive, automated guideway, Alaska Railroad, cable car, ferryboat, inclined plane, monorail, trolleybus, and vanpool. N u SOURCES: 1991–1994—U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, 1994 National Transit Summaries and Trends (Washington, DC: 1996); m

1995—U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, 1997 National b 1996–2001 Transit Summaries and Trends (Washington, DC: 1999); —U.S. Department of e Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database, Data Tables r

(Washington, DC: 1996-2001 issues). o f

P a s s e n g e r s

S e r v e d

71 d e Transportation Statistics Annual Report v r e S s r e g Transit Ridership n e s s a P f o

r ransit ridership has grown steadily since growth (39 percent). Among the rail compo- e 1996, reaching 9.0 billion unlinked trips nents, light rail grew 29 percent; heavy rail, 27 b T (see box) in 2001, an increase of 19 percent (fig- percent; and commuter rail, 19 percent (figure m

u ure 45). This represents an annual change of 4 46). Heavy-rail ridership posted 2,728 million

N percent compared with the growth in U.S. resi- trips; commuter rail, 418 million trips; and light

d dent population of 1 percent over the same rail, 334 million trips in 2001. Other modes, n period. Between 1991 and 1996, transit rider- such as ferryboats and demand responsive, a

ship did not grow appreciably [1]. posted a combined 313 million trips [1]. t i s Among the various types of transit service, n bus ridership comprised the majority of Source a r unlinked trips (5,215 million) in 2001, having 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit T

grown 16 percent between 1996 and 2001. Administration, “National Transit Summaries and s Trends,” 2002 draft, available at http://www.

s However, rail transit ridership, with almost ntprogram.com, as of February 2003. a 3,480 million trips in 2001, posted stronger M f o Linked and Unlinked Trips vs. Number of Passengers y t Transit authorities reporting to the Federal Transit number of passengers based on a variety of methods i l

i Administration (FTA) provide the number of passengers and data-collection tools to help control for double

b who board public transportation vehicles rather than counting, such as, automatic passenger counting units,

a the number of passengers they serve. Passenger on-board surveys, manual people counters, video cam- l i boardings are called unlinked and linked passenger era tracking, and fare box analysis. a trips. Unlinked trips are total boardings on an individual v vehicle. Linked trips refers to the total number of riders The American Public Transportation Association (APTA)

A and measures the actual number of complete trips from made an estimate, based on an average weekday, of

: origin to destination, including transfers. Unlinked trips the actual number of passengers carried by member

7 are viewed as a measure of transit utilization (at the authorities in 2000. APTA concluded that the number of system, route, or subroute level), while linked trips are people using the national transit system is 45 percent of n used to measure revenue passengers. The ratio of the number of total unlinked trips reported or 14 million o i unlinked to linked trips indicates the relative usage of people, based on 32 million daily unlinked trips. This t transfers in the transit system [2]. Determining the actu- estimate reflects the average travel patterns of approxi- c al number of passengers using a transit system can be mately 50 percent of all transit riders who take 2 trips e a significant task because of the tracking requirements per day between home and employment and those S for the number of transfers from one vehicle or mode to dependent on transit who could take up to 10 trips per the next, from one agency to another, and from the use day [1]. of day passes and cash. Sources Because FTA does not have an official methodology for 1. American Public Transportation Association, 2002 Public estimating the actual number of passengers that ride Transportation Fact Book (Washington, DC: February transit systems, individual transit agencies develop 2002). their own passenger counting and estimation method- 2. Boyle, D.B., “Passenger Counting Technologies and ology based on their resources and local attributes. Procedures,” TCRP Synthesis of Transit Practice 29 Individual transit agencies may estimate the actual (Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, 1998).

72 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

7 :

FIGURE 45 Transit Ridership by Selected Type v

of Service: 1991–2001 a i

Unlinked trips (billions) l 10 a b

9 i l i

Total (all services) t 8 y

7 o f

6 M

Bus a 5 s

4 s

3 T

Heavy rail r 2 a Light rail Commuter rail n

1 s i t

0 19911992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 a n

FIGURE 46 Transit Ridership by Selected Type d

of Service: 1991–2001 N

Unlinked trips (millions) u

450 m

400 b Commuter rail e 350 r

300 f

Light rail P 250 a

200 s s

150 e n

100 g e

50 r s

0 S

19911992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 19992000 2001 e r

NOTES: Total includes other modes not shown, such as ferryboats, demand responsive, v

inclined planes, and trolley buses. See the Glossary for definitions of heavy rail, light rail, e

and commuter rail. d SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Summaries and Trends, 2002 draft, available at http://www.ntdprogram.com, as of February 2003.

73 d e Transportation Statistics Annual Report v r e S s r e g Transit Ridership by Transit Authority n e s s a P f o pproximately 77 percent of all unlinked authorities operating in the largest metropolitan r transit passenger trips since at least 1996 areas such as New York City, Los Angeles, e A

b have been made within the service area of just 30 Chicago, and San Francisco [2].

m transit authorities. These 30 top authorities According to a Bureau of Transportation 1 u logged 6.9 billion unlinked trips in 2001 (figure Statistics survey,2 an average of 71 percent of N

47). New York City Transit alone reported household respondents indicated they had public d 2.7 billion, or 30 percent, of all unlinked passen- transportation available in their area [1]. n ger trips. The Chicago Transit Authority followed a

t with 485 million or 5 percent of all trips [2]. i Sources s The top 30 transit authorities served a popu- n 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of a lation of about 101 million in 2001 [2]. All tran- Transportation Statistics, Omnibus Survey, r sit authorities reporting to the National Transit Summer 2002, available at http://www.bts.gov, T Database determine their population-served as of June 2003. s s data using definitions of bus and rail service in 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal a the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Transit Administration, National Transit Database, 1996 and 2001 issues, available at M

their own local criteria for other service such as http://www.ntdprogram.com/, as of March 2003. f ferryboat and vanpool. Some double counting of o populations served occurs, especially among y t i l i b a l i a v A

: 7 n o i t c e S

1 In 2001, 602 transit authorities submitted data to the Federal Transit Administration. However, due to reporting omissions, only 2 In the summer of 2002, BTS’s Omnibus Survey collected data 580 transit authorities are reflected in that year’s database. on public transportation in June, July, and August.

74 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

7 :

FIGURE 47 Top 30 Transit Authorities by Unlinked Passenger Trips: 2001 v a i l Total, all authorities 9,008 a b

Total, top 30 authorities 6,904 i l i New York City Transit, NY 2,667 t y

Chicago Transit Authority, IL 485 o

LA County Metro Transportation Authority, CA 398 f

M Washington-Metro Area Transit Authority, DC 379 a Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority, MA 364 s

SE Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, PA 318 s

San Francisco Municipal Railway, CA 235 T r

New Jersey Transit, NJ 226 a n Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, GA 164 s

111 i

Maryland Transit Administration, MD t

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit, CA 104 a n 102

Long Island Rail Road, NY d

King County DOT, Metro Transit District, WA 101 N 91 Oregon Tri-County District, OR u

Metro Transit Authority Harris County, TX 88 m

Miami-Dade Transit Agency, FL 84 b e 82

Green Transit Jamaica Corporation, NY r

Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation, NJ 82 o f

Denver Regional Transportation District, CO 80 P

Port Authority Allegheny, PA 75 a

Metro Transit, MN 73 s s

Metro North Rail Road, NY 73 e NE IL Regional Commuter Railroad, IL 72 n g

Milwaukee County Transportation System, WI 71 e r

City and County of Honolulu, HI 71 s

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, CA 71 S

Dallas Area Rapid Transit, TX 61 e r

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, OH 60 v e 57

Orange County Transportation Authority, CA d Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority, CA 57 0 2 46810 Trips (millions)

NOTES: Oregon Tri-County is a municipal corporation of the SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit State of Oregon. Green Transit Jamaica Corporation is a con- Administration, National Transit Database, available at tractor for the New York City Department of Transportation. http://www.ntdprogram.com, as of February 2003.

75 d e Transportation Statistics Annual Report v r e S s r e g Lift- or Ramp-Equipped Buses and Rail Stations n e s s a P f o he nationwide fleet of lift- or ramp-equipped

r Transit Accessibility Under the ADA transit buses increased to 87 percent (58,785 e T

b buses) in 2001 from 52 percent of the bus fleet While the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 requires public transit services, under specific

m (29,088 buses) in 1993 (figure 48). While conditions, to be accessible to persons with special u increased compliance with Americans with needs, it did not impose a statutory deadline for fleet

N accessibility. The ADA did require all key stations to

Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements (see box) be accessible by July 1993, but allowed the Federal d occurred from 1993 to 2001, the rate of compli- Transit Administration to grant an extension up to n ance has differed among bus types (figure 49). July 2020 for stations requiring structural modifica- a

tions to bring them into compliance [1]. t The large bus fleet had the highest level of com- i s pliance in 1993 and articulated buses the lowest. The ADA was enacted in 1990; data have been col- n By 2001, the large bus fleet continued to have the lected since 1993. a r highest rate (95 percent, or 40,501 vehicles), fol- Source T lowed by medium buses with 94 percent (7,337 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit s vehicles). Meanwhile, small buses had the lowest Administration, FY 2002 Performance Plan s (Washington, DC: 2003), also available at http://www. a level of compliance (85 percent, or 9,176 vehi- fta.dot.gov/performfy2001/pg2.html, as of February

M cles). Articulated bus compliance fell in the mid- 2003.

f dle at 89 percent, or 1,771 vehicles [2]. o Rail transit infrastructure consists of track and y

t Sources i

l stations. In 2001, 50 percent (1,374) stations i 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal

b were ADA accessible, serving automated guide- Transit Administration, National Transit Database a

l way transit, cable cars, commuter rail, heavy rail,

i 2001, available at http://www.ntdprogram.com, as

a inclined plane, light rail, monorail, and the of March 2003. v Alaska Railroad. In 2001, light-rail riders enjoyed 2. _____, National Transit Summaries and Trends, A

76 percent accessibility (408 stations), followed 2002 draft, available at http://www.ntdprogram. : com, as of February 2003.

7 by commuter-rail riders with 50 percent accessibility (583 stations) and heavy-rail riders with 35 n o percent accessibility (352 stations) [1]. i t c e S

76 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

7 :

FIGURE 48 Share of Transit Buses that are Lift- or v

Ramp-Equipped: 1993–2001 a

Percent i l 100 a b i l i t

80 y

o f

60 M a s

40 s

T r

20 a n s i 0 t

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 a n

FIGURE 49 Share of Transit Buses that are Lift- or d

Ramp-Equipped by Bus Type: 1993–2001 N Percent 100 u m

Large buses b

80 e

Medium buses Small buses r

o f

60 P a Articulated buses 40 s s e n

20 g e r s

0 S 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 e

NOTES: r

Large buses have more than 35 seats, medium buses have 25–35 seats, and v

small buses have less than 25 seats. Articulated buses are extra-long buses that measure e between 54 and 60 feet. d SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, "National Transit Summaries and Trends," 2002 draft, available at http://www.ntdprogram.com, as of February 2003.

77 s r i Transportation Statistics Annual Report a p e R y t i l i

c Commercial Motor Vehicle Repairs a F n o i t a t r n the United States, there were nearly 600,000 The downtime for a truck undergoing an o motor carriers—common, contract, or pri- inspection can vary from 30 to 60 minutes. p I s vate—using buses or trucks to provide commer- Trucks that are placed out-of-service for repairs n cial transportation of passengers or freight in may be delayed from a few minutes to several a r 2000 [2]. These companies accounted for 28 days, depending on circumstances. T

percent of the nation’s freight ton-miles and 3 d percent of passenger-miles that year1 [1]. Repair Sources n

a data for most of this fleet are not public infor-

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of mation. e Transportation Statistics, National Transporta- l tion Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), c i Over 2.0 million roadside truck inspections tables 1-34 and 1-44, also available at h were completed in 2001, up from 1.6 million in http://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003. e 1990, to ensure that trucks are in compliance

V 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal

f with federal safety regulations and standards Motor Carrier Safety Administration data, as o (figure 50). Nearly one-quarter of those cited in American Trucking Associations, American Trucking Trends 2002 (Washington, y inspected in 2001 were taken out of service for

c DC: 2002). repairs (figure 51). Although the number of n e inspected trucks taken out of service for repairs u has remained fairly constant, the proportion of q

e those trucks as a percentage of all inspected r trucks has declined from 34 percent in 1990 to F

: 23 percent in 2001. 8 n o i t c e S

1 Ton-miles are calculated by multiplying the weight in tons of each shipment transported by the miles hauled. Passenger-miles are calculated by multiplying the number of passengers transported by the number of miles traveled.

78 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

8 :

FIGURE 50 Roadside Truck Inspections: 1990–2001 r e

Inspections (millions) q 3.0 u

Inspected Trucks taken out of service e n 2.5 c y

2.0 o f

1.5 e h i c

1.0 l e

0.5 n d

0 T

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 r a

FIGURE 51 Inspected Trucks Taken Out of Service n s

for Repairs: 1990–2001 p

Percent o

35 r t a

30 t i o n

25 F a

20 c i l i t

15 y

R 10 e p

5 a i r s 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin- istration, Motor Carrier Management Information System, available at http://www.fmcsa. dot.gov, as of June 2003. 1999–2001 data (figure 50) and 2001 data (figure 51)—personal communication, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Aug. 11, 2003.

79 s r i Transportation Statistics Annual Report a p e R y t i l i

c Highway Maintenance and Repairs a F n o i t a t r ork zones on freeways cause an estimated Funding for highway maintenance increased o 24 percent of the nonrecurring delays on by 15 percent (in constant 1987 dollars)2 p W s freeways and principal arterials [1]. According between 1990 and 2001 (figure 53). The n to the Federal Highway Administration, the pur- amount of funds disbursed by federal, state, and a r pose of maintenance—which includes restora- local governments for maintenance activities T

tion, resurfacing, minor widening, and recon- totaled $20.3 billion in 2001. This represented d struction—is to keep highways in usable 24 percent of total disbursements for highways n in 2001 [2]. a condition not to extend service life. Pavement resurfacing represented just over half (51 per- e l

c cent) of the miles of federal-aid roads undergo- Sources i

h ing federally supported construction or mainte- 1. Chin, S.M., O. Franzese, D.L. Greene, H.L. e nance in 2001 (figure 52), up from about 42 Hwang, and R. Gibson. “Temporary Losses of

V 1

percent in 1997. Highway Capacity and Impacts on Perfor- f mance,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, May o The level of funding applied to highway main- 2002. y tenance is an indirect measure of the amount of 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal c maintenance activity and, thus, presence of Highway Administration, Highway Statistics n e work zones on highways. Although well-main- 2001 (Washington, DC: 2002), table HF-2, also u tained roads are vital to a smoothly functioning available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim, as of q February 2003.

e transportation system, the maintenance activity r may temporarily disrupt the flow of vehicles, F

: causing traffic delays and congestion. 8 n o i t c e S

2 Instead of chained 1996 dollars, constant 1987 dollars are used here because the Federal Highway Administration publishes its 1 1997 is the earliest year for which these data are available. data accordingly.

80 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

8 :

FIGURE 52 Federal-Aid Roadway Projects Underway r by Improvement Type: 2001 e q

Miles u 14,000 e n 12,000 c y

10,000 o f

8,000 V

6,000 e h i 4,000 c l e

2,000 a n 0 d

Minor Major T Relocation New route Restoration Resurfacing widening widening r Reconstruction a n NOTES: Maintenance includes any work required to keep highways in usable condition that s does not extend the service life of the roadway beyond the original design. Restoration p includes renovation. Although the following categories are not generally considered maintenance, they are included for comparison: major widening, relocation, and new route. o r t

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway a Statistics 2001 (Washington, DC: 2002), "Miles of Federal-Aid Roadway Projects Underway by t

Improvement Type" chart, also available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim, as of June 2003. i o n

FIGURE 53 Federal, State, and Local Government Highway F

Maintenance Expenditures: 1991–2001 a

Constant 1987 $ (billions) c i

21.0 l i t 20.5 y

20.0 R e

19.5 p a

19.0 i r 18.5 s

18.0

17.5

17.0

16.5

16.0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

NOTE: Although dollar values in most other sections of this book have been converted to chained 1996 dollars, these data are presented in constant 1987 dollars. The Federal Highway Administration, which collects the data, adjusts current dollar data to constant 1987 dollars using an index it designed for that purpose. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2001 (Washington DC: 2002), "Highway Expenditures by Government Type, Current and Constant Dollars" chart, also available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim, as of June 2003.

81 s r i Transportation Statistics Annual Report a p e R y t i l i

c Rail Infrastructure and Equipment Repairs a F n o i t a t 1 r lass I railroads provide vital freight trans- Throughout the 1990s, railroads replaced an o portation services—carrying more than average of 12.2 million crossties each year (fig- p C 2 s one-third of domestic freight ton-miles each ure 55). The yearly replacements ranged from a n year [2]. In order to provide efficient and timely high of 14.1 million crossties in 1990 to a low of a r services, these companies maintained nearly 10.4 million in 1998. There was some growth in T

170,000 miles of track in 2001, down from the number of new crossties added to the Class I d nearly 200,000 miles in 1991 [1]. Class I track system in the late 1990s as firms increased n capacity or reconfigured their systems. In 1998, a mileage has been declining for many decades especially on lower density lines, in part because 1.8 million new crossties were added; but by e l 2001, the number of new crossties added c ownership and maintenance is expensive. As i declined to almost the level seen a decade earlier. h such, rail companies have focused more on e replacing worn rails and crossties than on laying Railroads also periodically replace or rebuild V

new track. locomotives and freight cars. On average, new f o Throughout the 1990s, rail companies and rebuilt locomotives made up 4 percent of

y replaced an average of 743,000 tons of rail each Class I railroad fleets between 1990 and 2001 c year (figure 54). The yearly replacements, which (figure 56). The number of locomotives that n e can vary substantially because of the long life of were new or rebuilt varied from a low of 3 per- u rails, ranged from a high of 875,000 tons in cent in 1992 to a high of 7 percent in 1994. q

e 1992 to a low of 643,000 tons in 1997. Using Likewise, the number of freight cars that were r the most common rail weight (130 to 139 lbs new or rebuilt varied from 3 percent in 1992 to F

: per yard), it would take approximately 120 tons 6 percent in 1998. 8

of rail to cover one mile [1]. n There was some growth in the amount of new Sources o i t rails added to the Class I system in the late 1. Association of American Railroads, Railroad c 1990s as firms increased capacity to handle Facts 2002 Edition (Washington, DC: 2002). e 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of S growing amounts of coal traffic and reconfigured their systems as a result of mergers. Over Transportation Statistics, National Transpor- tation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), 200,000 tons of new rail were added both in table 1-44 and appendix D, also available at 1998 and 1999, up from 19,000 in 1990. http://www.bts.gov. Railroads also replace crossties periodically in order to ensure the integrity of their tracks.

1 Rail companies with annual operating revenues of $266.6 million or more in 2001. 2 Ton-miles are calculated by multiplying the weight in tons of each shipment transported by the miles hauled.

82 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

8 :

FIGURE 54 Rail Installed or Replaced by U.S. Class I r Railroads: 1990–2001 e q Tons (thousands) 1,000 u

Replacement rail Installation of new rail e n

800 c y

600 o f

400 V e

200 h i c l

0 e

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 a

FIGURE 55 Crossties Installed or Replaced by U.S. Class I n d Railroads: 1990–2001

Millions T

16 r

Replacement crossties Installation of new crossties a 14 n

12 s p 10 o

8 r t a 6 t i 4 o n

2 F 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 a c i l

FIGURE 56 New or Rebuilt Locomotives and i t

Freight Cars: 1990–2001 y Fleet (%) R 10 e p 8 a i

Freight cars r

6 s

4 Locomotives

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

NOTE: Locomotive data are for Class I railroads only. Freight car data cover Class I railroads, other railroads, and private car owners. SOURCES: Except as noted—Association of American Railroads, Railroad Ten-Year Trends, 1990–2000 (Washington, DC: 2000); 2000–2001 data—Association of American Railroads, Analysis of Class I Railroads (Washington, DC: 2000 and 2001). Figure 56— Association of American Railroads, Railroad Facts (Washington, DC: 1999 and 2002).

83 s r i Transportation Statistics Annual Report a p e R y t i l i

c Transit Vehicle Reliability a F n o i t a t 1 r ransit service interruptions due to mechan- between 1995 and 2000, the number of light- o ical failures remained relatively level from rail authorities rose to 25, up from 22 in 1995 p T 2 s 1995 through 2000, averaging between 18 and [1, 2]. n 19 mechanical problems per 100,000 revenue a r vehicle-miles [1, 2] (figure 57). Sources T Among transit vehicles, buses and light rail 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal d Transit Administration, National Summaries and n had the highest rates of mechanical failure in

a Trends (Washington, DC: Annual issues), also

2000. Buses broke down an average of 28 times available at http://www.ntdprogram.com/, as of e l per 100,000 revenue vehicle-miles, while light- April 2003. c i rail vehicles broke down 15 times per 100,000 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of h revenue vehicle-miles. Light-rail vehicle break- Transportation Statistics, National Transpor- e downs have changed the most since 1995. In tation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), V

table 1-32 and Transit Profile, also available at

f that year, there were 32 mechanical failures per http://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003. o 100,000 revenue vehicle-miles. However, y c n e u q e r F

: 8 n o i t 1

c Here transit service includes: Light rail—streetcar-type vehicles operated on city streets, semi- e exclusive rights-of-way, or exclusive rights-of-way. Service may be S provided by step-entry vehicles or by level boarding. Commuter rail—urban passenger train service for short-distance travel between a central city and adjacent suburb. Heavy rail—electric railways with the capacity to transport a heavy volume of passenger traffic and characterized by exclusive rights-of-way, multicar trains, high speed, rapid acceleration, sophisticated signaling, and high-platform loading. Also known as “subway,” “elevated (railway),” or “metropolitan railway (metro).” Demand responsive—nonfixed-route, nonfixed-schedule vehicles that operate in response to calls from passengers or their agents to the transit operator or dispatcher. 2 Data prior to 1995 and later than 2000 were collected using different definitions of what constitutes an interruption of service and are not comparable.

84 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

8 :

FIGURE 57 Interruptions of Service by Type of r Transit: 1995–2000 e q

Number per 100,000 revenue vehicle-miles u 35 e n c

30 y

Motor bus o

25 f

20 e h Average i 15 c l

Light rail e

10 a

Commuter rail n Demand responsive Heavy rail d

5 T r

0 a

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 n s

NOTE: Interruptions of service include major and minor mechnical failures. If the vehicle p operator was able to fix the problem and return the vehicle to service without assistance, o the incident is not considered an interruption of service. For modal definitions, see table 57 r t

in appendix B. a

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, National t i Transit Library, 2001 Reporting Manual, available at http://www.ntdprogram.com/, as of o

April 2003; and American Public Transportation Association, Maintenance data tables, n available at http://www.apta.com/research/stats/maint/index.cfm, as of April 2003. F a c i l i t y

R e p a i r s

85 s r i Transportation Statistics Annual Report a p e R y t i l i

c Lock Repairs on the Great Lakes Saint Lawrence a

F Seaway System n o i t a t r reat Lakes Saint Lawrence Seaway System Operations and maintenance represent the o (the Seaway) locks are usually closed dur- bulk of the Corporation’s expenditures. Over 80 p G s ing the winter for several months due to ice. percent of Corporation expenditures went n Excluding the winter closure, the 2001 season toward personal services and benefits—mainly a r consisted of 277 days. The lock system of the for staffing the locks—during fiscal year 2000. T

portion of the Seaway operated and maintained Maintenance and engineering cost $3.3 million. d by the United States experienced 111 hours In December 1999, the U.S. Army Corps of n Engineers surveyed the two lock structures oper- a (about 4½ days) of downtime during the 2001 season. Lock equipment malfunctions caused ated and maintained by the United States. They e l concluded that the locks were generally well c only seven hours of delay during the 2001 sea- i maintained but recommended maintenance and h son, 6 percent of all downtime. Weather-related e poor visibility, high winds, and ice caused over capital improvements [2]. The Corporation has

V developed five-year capital and maintenance half of all lock downtime. Vessel incidents f caused another 45 percent of delays. Over the plans for the years 2001 through 2005 that o last decade, weather has been the cause of most include $6 million in capital expenditures. y c delays (figure 58). Exceptions occurred in 1993 n when water level/flow caused 124½ hours of Sources e

u delay and in 1998 and 1999 when vessel inci- 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of q dents caused over 40 hours of delay. Transportation Statistics, Maritime Administra- e r The Seaway is a waterway operated jointly by tion, and U.S. Coast Guard, Maritime Trade & F Transportation 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002).

: the United States and Canada. It encompasses 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Saint 8

the Saint Lawrence River, the five Great Lakes, Lawrence Seaway Development Corp., Fiscal n and the waterways connecting the Great Lakes. 2000 Annual Report, Great Lakes Seaway System o i It extends 2,300 miles—from the Gulf of the Moves Forward in the 21st Century (Washington, t DC: 2001), also available at http://www.greatlakes- c Saint Lawrence at the Atlantic Ocean in the east seaway.com/en/pdf/fy2000ar.pdf, as of February e to Lake Superior in the west [1]. The U.S. Saint 2003. S Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (the Corporation) operates and maintains the U.S. portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway, which includes two locks.

86 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

8 :

FIGURE 58 Saint Lawrence Seaway Lock Delays r by Cause: 1990–2001 e q

Delay (hours) u

250 e n c

All other causes y

200 o f

150 e h Weather-related causes i c l e 100

a n d

50 T r a n 0 s 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 p

NOTES: “Weather-related” includes poor visibility and high wind/ice; “All other” includes o vessel incidents, lock equipment malfunction, civil interference, and water level/flow. r t a SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development t

Corporation, Annual Reports (Washington, DC: various years). Reports for years i 1993–2000 available at http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/en/aboutus/slsdc_annrept.html, o as of April 2003. n

F a c i l i t y

R e p a i r s

87 s r i Transportation Statistics Annual Report a p e R y t i l i

c Intermittent Interruptions of Transportation Services a F n o i t a t r atural disasters, accidents, labor disputes, most frequent type of transportation accident, o terrorism, security breaches, and other other modes also experience major disruptions p N s unforeseeable incidents can result in major dis- due to accidents. A freight train carrying haz- n ruptions to the transportation system. Although ardous materials derailed in a Baltimore tunnel a r a comprehensive account of these unpredictable in 2001 [2]. The resulting fire lasted several days T

interruptions has not been undertaken nor data and forced the city to close some highways and d compiled on them, numerous studies and other rail passages. Freight and passengers were n delayed as trains were diverted hundreds of a analyses have sought to evaluate the effects of individual events on the transportation system. miles throughout the Middle Atlantic region. e l c i Terrorist attacks and security alerts have The United States, because of its size and var- h affected transportation services for decades. ied geography, is vulnerable to many types of e However, efforts to increase transportation secu- natural disasters that can affect transportation. V

The flooding of the Mississippi River in 1993 f rity have grown markedly since the attacks of o September 11, 2001. The short- and long-term shut down large portions of the inland water-

y effects of September 11 on transportation and way system, washed out rail track, damaged rail c ancillary services are still being assessed. In the bridges, and closed an estimated 250 highway n e short-term, airport enplanements and flight segments and bridges [3]. The following year, u activity were substantially lower immediately the Northridge earthquake had a major impact q

e after September 11 (figure 59). In fact, all flights on the Los Angeles metropolitan area trans- r scheduled for September 12 were canceled, and portation system. Measuring 6.8 on the Richter F

: many other flights were canceled during the scale, the earthquake knocked out four free-

8 ways, caused the collapse of parking structures,

remainder of the month and the months that fol- n lowed. Air passenger traffic has not fully recov- and ruptured numerous natural gas distribution o i ered two years after the attacks, however other lines [4, 5]. t c factors, such as an economic downturn, may Disputes initiated by labor or business and e also be part of the cause.

S other business adjustments can disrupt the pas- Vehicle accidents are a common cause of senger and freight transportation system. For transportation delays. National estimates, based example, a strike by San Francisco Bay Area on model simulations, suggest that nearly 40 Rapid Transit employees caused huge traffic percent of nonrecurring delays on freeways and jams on bridges and highways in 1997; a strike principal arterials are due to crashes. Weather, by United Parcel Service employees stalled ship- another unpredictable factor, accounts for 27 ments of goods later that year; and a labor lock- percent of highway delays. Relatively fewer out by terminal operators shut down west coast delays resulted from road work-zones (24 per- ports for 10 days in 2002 [6, 7]. A different type cent) and vehicle breakdowns (11 percent) [1]. of business-related disruption caused problems Although motor vehicle accidents are, by far, the on the Union Pacific Railroad in 1997.

88 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

8 :

3. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of F

Following a merger with Southern Pacific r Railroad in 1996, accidents and congestion Transportation Statistics, Transportation e Statistics Annual Report 1994 (Washington, DC: q overwhelmed the expanded railroad, resulting in 1994). u federal intervention [6]. e

4. _____, Transportation Statistics Annual Report n

1995 (Washington, DC: 1995). c Sources 5. _____, Journal of Transportation and Statistics: y

Special Issue on the Northridge Earthquake 1(2), o

1. Chin, S.M., O. Franzese, D.L. Greene, H.L. f

May 1998.

Hwang, and R. Gibson. “Temporary Losses of V 6. _____, Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Highway Capacity and Impacts on Perfor- e 1998 (Washington, DC: 1998). mance,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, May h

2002. i

7. _____, U.S. International Trade and Freight c

Transportation Trends (Washington, DC: 2003). l

2. National Transportation Safety Board, “Update e

on July 18, 2001 CSXT Derailment in Baltimore Tunnel,” press release, Dec. 4, 2002, available at a http://www.ntsb.gov/, as of April 2003. n d

FIGURE 59 U.S. Domestic Flight Operations: r a

September 5–17, 2001 n

Number of flights (thousands) s 18 p o

16 r t

Flights Cancellations a

14 t i o 12 n

10 F a 8 c i

6 l i t y

4 R

2 e

0 p 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 a i

Date in September 2001 r s SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Form 234 Delay Data for September 2001, tabulated Nov. 5, 2001.

89 s t n Transportation Statistics Annual Report e d i c c A

9 Transportation Fatality Rates n o i t c e S here were 45,130 fatalities related to trans- Fatality Data Tportation in 2001, almost 16 fatalities per 100,000 U.S. residents [1, 2, 3, 5]. This is a Each transportation mode tends to define fatality dif- decline of 11 percent from 18 fatalities per ferently and may generate its fatality data using different methods. Therefore, comparisons across 100,000 residents in 1991, when there were modes should be viewed very carefully. For further 44,320 fatalities. Nearly 93 percent of all trans- information on modal fatality definitions, see the glossary section of this report. portation fatalities in 2001 were highway- related (figure 60). Most of these people who died were occupants of passenger cars or light cent by 2001 after falling from 30.6 fatalities trucks (including pickups, sport utility vehicles, per 100 million vmt in 1991 to 21.0 fatalities and minivans). Air, rail, transit, water, and per 100 million vmt in 1997.1 pipeline transportation result in comparatively few deaths per capita (see box). Transit, for Sources instance, led to about 0.11 deaths per 100,000 1. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census residents in 2001. Bureau, Census 2000, available at http://www. Highway safety improved between 1991 and census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html, as of June 2003. 2001. Highway-related fatalities declined from 16 fatalities per 100,000 U.S. residents to 15 2. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, Data Administration Division, per- fatalities per 100,000 residents (or 6 percent) sonal communication, June 6, 2003. over the period. The decline in highway fatali- 3. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of ties is most apparent for occupants of passenger Transportation Statistics, National Transport- cars (figure 61). During the period, only fatali- ation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), ties per 100,000 residents of occupants of light table 2-1, also available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003. trucks rose, from 3 to 4 per 100,000 residents. 4. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal (This is a period during which the number of Highway Administration, Highway Statistics registered light trucks increased from 53 million 1991 and Highway Statistics 2001 (Washington, to 84 million [4].) Motorcyclist fatalities per DC: 1991 and 2001), table VM-1, 2001 edition 100,000 residents have been rising since 1997. available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ ohpi/hss/index.htm, as of June 2003. Similar trends in highway fatality rates are 5. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal apparent when the rate is based on vehicle-miles Transit Administration, National Trends and traveled (vmt). Passenger car occupant fatalities Summary 2001 (Washington, DC: 2002). per 100 million vmt declined 25 percent between 1991 and 2001, while light truck occu-

pant fatalities per 100 million vmt rose slightly 1 These motorcycle data are not shown in figure 62 but appear in (figure 62). Motorcyclist fatalities grew 59 per- table 62 in appendix B.

90 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

9 :

FIGURE 60 Transportation Fatality Rates by Mode: 2001 A Per 100,000 U.S. residents c 16 c

14.79 i 14 d e

12 n t

10 s 8 6 4 2 0.32 0.34 0.11 0.29 0.002 0 Air Highway Railroad Transit Waterborne Pipeline

FIGURE 61 Highway Fatalities per 100,000 Residents for Selected Vehicle Types: 1991–2001 Number 10 9 8 Passenger car occupants 7 6 5 4 Light truck occupants 3 2 Large truck occupants Motorcycle occupants 1 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

FIGURE 62 Highway Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle-Miles for Selected Vehicle Types: 1991–2001 Number 2.0

1.6 Passenger car occupants

Light truck occupants 1.2

0.8

Large truck occupants 0.4

0 19911992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1998 1998 1999 2000 2001 NOTES: Air includes commercial and general aviation. SOURCES: Except as noted—U.S. Department of Waterborne includes commercial and recreational vessels. See Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National note on table 60 for complete information on inclusions by mode Transportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), table 2- and definitions of light and large trucks for figures 61 snd 62. 1, also available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003. Commercial aviation data for 2001 do not include fatalities that Population—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census resulted from the terrorist attacks on New York City and Bureau, Census 2000, available at Washington, DC. http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html, as of June 2003. 2001 Waterborne—U.S. Department of Homeland Figure 62 excludes the motorcycle occupant fatality rate data, Security, U.S. Coast Guard, Data Administration Division, per- because the rate is much higher than for the other selected high- sonal communication, June 6, 2003. 2001 Transit— U.S. way modes. Those data are available on table 62 in appendix B. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, National Trends and Summaries 2001 (Washington, DC: 2002).

91 s t n Transportation Statistics Annual Report e d i c c A

9 Years of Potential Life Lost from n o

i Transportation Accidents t c e S or people under 65 years of age, the Centers Data for Calculating Years of Potential Ffor Disease Control (CDC) has ranked Life Lost transportation accidents as the third leading cause of death in the United States (after cancer Data used here come from a national mortality database compiled by the Centers for Disease Control’s and heart disease) each year from 1991 to 2000 National Center for Health Statistics. Years of poten- [1]. During those years, an average of nearly tial life lost (YPLL) are computed from this data by matching the ages of victims with the corresponding 36,000 people under 65 died each year from entries in the life expectancy tables. Remaining transportation accidents.1 years of life expectancy from the age of death to 65 years are counted toward YPLL. Victims 65 years While transportation accidents amounted to and older are not included. YPLL data for 1982 6 percent of the deaths of those under age 65 through 2000 are available online through the Web- Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System between 1991 and 2000, these fatalities repre- (WISQARS). sented 10 percent of the total years of potential life lost (YPLL) during this period (figure 63). Source YPLL, which is computed by adding up the Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-Based Injury Statistics Query remaining life expectancies of all victims (up to and Reporting System (WISQARS), available at http:// 65 years of age) at their deaths, is a measure- www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/, as of March 2003. ment that accounts for the age distribution among different causes of injury mortality and deaths from all other modes of transportation other common causes of death (see box). (figure 64). This shows that, over the 10 years, Accordingly, the difference between the percent- motor vehicle deaths also contributed to the age of deaths and YPLL indicates that people bulk of YPLLs due to transportation accidents. who die from transportation accidents tend to be younger on average than victims of other Source causes of death. 1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Motor vehicle crashes are the most frequent Centers for Disease Control, National Center for cause of transportation-related fatalities. YPLLs Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics associated with deaths related to motor vehicle Reports: Deaths, 1991–2000 issues, available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/, as of March 2003. accidents can be compared with YPLLs for

1 Because of methodological differences, fatality data from the CDC differ from those collected by the individual modal administrations.

92 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

9 :

FIGURE 63 Deaths and Years of Potential Life Lost Due to c Transportation Accidents: 1991–2000 c i d

% of total deaths and YPLL e

12 n

Deaths YPLL t s 10

0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

FIGURE 64 Years of Potential Life Lost Due to Motor Vehicle and Other Transportation Accidents: 1991–2000

% of total YPLL 12

10 Motor vehicle accidents

2 Other transportation accidents 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

NOTE: Years of potential life lost (YPLL) is the difference between the age of death and 65 years of age. Fatalities of people 65 years old and older are not included in this calculation. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS), available at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/, as of February 2003.

93 s t n Transportation Statistics Annual Report e d i c c A

: 9

Transportation Injury Rates n o i t c e S ach year a far larger number of people are Einjured than killed in transportation-related Injury Data accidents. An estimated 3.1 million people suf- Each transportation mode tends to define injury differed some kind of injury involving passenger ferently. In addition, each mode may generate its injury data using different methods. Therefore, com- and freight transportation in 2001 (see box). parisons across modes should be viewed very care- Most of these injuries, about 98 percent, fully. For further information on modal injury defini- resulted from highway crashes1 [1]. tions, see the glossary section of this report. Highway injury rates vary by the type of vehi- In the following pages, another source of highway injury data—the National Electronic Injury Sur- cle used (figure 65). In 2001, 75 passenger car veillance System operated by the U.S. Consumer occupants were injured per 100 million passen- Product Safety Commission—results in yet another set of highway injury data that differs from modal ger-miles traveled (pmt) compared with 58 light data presented here. truck occupants. Occupants of large trucks and buses are even less likely to sustain an injury per mile of travel. Motorcycle riders are, by far, the million pmt in 2001 (figure 66). Motorcycling most likely to get hurt. Transit-related injuries has become safer per mile ridden over the are also relatively high per mile. This is due, at decade, but since 1999, the injury rate has least in part, to the inclusion of injuries on tran- increased from 429 per 100 million pmt to 575 sit property, including those not caused by tran- per 100 million pmt in 2001. Bus injuries per sit vehicle operations, such as injuries on escala- 100 million pmt have declined recently after tors and in parking lots. (These transit injury increases in the mid-1990s. data will be disaggregated starting with 2002 data.) Source Injury rates for most modes declined between 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of 1991 and 2001, with some exceptions.2 Rates Transportation Statistics, National Transpor- tation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), for light truck occupants rose 15 percent, from tables 1-34 and 2-2, also available at 50 per 100 million pmt in 1991 to 58 per 100 http://www.bts.gov/, as of February 2003.

1 There is the potential for some double counting involving highway-rail grade crossing and transit bus data. 2 These calculations exclude bicycling, walking, and boating (including recreational boating), because there are no national annual trend data estimates of passenger-miles traveled for these modes of transportation.

94 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

9 :

FIGURE 65 Injury Rates for Occupants of Highway c

Vehicles: 2001 c i Injuries per 100 million passenger-miles d 700 e n t

600 s

500

400

300

200

100

0 Passenger Motorcycle Light Large Bus Total car truck truck

FIGURE 66 Injury Rates for Occupants of Selected Highway Vehicles and Motorcyclists: 1991–2001 Injuries per 100 million passenger-miles 700

600 Motorcycle 500

400

300

200 Light truck Passenger car 100

0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

NOTE: Bus and large truck occupant injury rates, 1991–2001, are included in table 66 in appendix B. SOURCES: 1991–2000—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), tables 1–34 and 2-2, also available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003. 2001 data—See corresponding tables in appendix B for full citation.

95 s t n Transportation Statistics Annual Report e d i c c A

: 9

Motor Vehicle-Related Injuries n o i t c e S here were an estimated 3.6 million highway- National Electronic Injury Surveillance Trelated injuries in the United States in 2001, System (NEISS) Injury Data according to data reported to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)1 (see box) Use of NEISS data from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) enables analyses of [1]. An estimated 3.3 million of these injuries injuries by factors such as age and gender, type of involved motor vehicle occupants. The rest vehicle, and severity of injuries sustained. NEISS data involved about 131,000 pedestrians, 111,000 are a probability sample of reports from hospital emergency rooms in the United States and territories open motorcyclists, and 60,000 pedalcyclists. 24 hours a day with at least 6 beds. Each hospital has More females than males were treated for a computer linked to CPSC headquarters. Staff consistently computer code information in emergency minor injuries in 2001 across most age groups, room medical reports, which allows injuries to be ana- with spikes for people aged 15 to 24 (figure 67). lyzed and compared within and across transportation modes and over time. Physicians diagnose injuries, This age group sustained almost 1 million minor specify injured body part(s), determine disposition, motor vehicle-related injuries. For serious injuries, and give other detailed medical information. NEISS more males than females were treated across all data cannot estimate injuries treated at sites other than hospital emergency rooms (e.g., HMOs, physi- age groups up to about 65 years (figure 68). cian’s offices, and on-site medical facilities) and do not Again, serious injuries spiked at ages 15 to 24, but include investigative information aside from emer- male injuries spiked substantially higher. This age gency room medical reports. group incurred about 84,000 serious injuries in 2001 of which 61 percent happened to males. study using 2001 data from the CPSC’s National In summary, there were sharp peaks in injuries Electronic Injury Surveillance System. Only a associated with youth: for motor vehicle occu- small portion of the BTS study is presented here. pants and motorcyclists, the peak spanned ages The study included data on motor vehicle occu- 15 to 24; for pedalcyclists and pedestrians, the pants, motorcyclists, pedalcyclists, and pedestri- peak spanned ages 10 to 14. Young males exhib- ans injured on or near public roads,2 but only on ited a substantially greater peak in serious injuries injuries involving collisions with moving motor than young females. In addition, the percentage vehicles.3 BTS also compared data on minor and of injuries classified as serious was greater for serious injuries. motorcyclists (20 percent of all motorcyclist injuries were serious), pedestrians (19 percent), Source and pedalcyclists (10 percent) than it was for 1. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, motor vehicle occupants (7 percent) (figure 69). National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), information available at http://www. This analysis comes from a Bureau of cpsc.gov/Neiss/oracle.html, as of June 2003. Transportation Statistics (BTS) comprehensive

2 This includes injuries involving traffic on public roads and in

1 driveways and parking lots, and at other locations near, but not Because of methodological differences, highway injury data on, public roads. from CPSC differ from those estimated by the National Highway 3 Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the U.S. Department of This excludes occupants injured when entering or exiting parked Transportation. For 2001, NHTSA reported an estimated 3.0 mil- vehicles, pedalcyclists injured by parked cars or other fixed objects, lion highway injuries. and pedestrians struck by pedalcyclists or off-road vehicles.

96 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

9 :

FIGURE 67 Minor Motor Vehicle-Related Injuries by Age c

and Gender: 2001 c i Thousands d

300 e

Females n

250 t s 200

150 Males 100

0–4 5–9 100+ 10–1415–1920–2425–2930–3435–3940–4445–4950–5455–5960–6465–6970–7475–7980–8485–8990–9495–99 Age

FIGURE 68 Serious Motor Vehicle-Related Injuries by Age and Gender: 2001 Thousands 30 Males 25

10 Females 5

0–4 5–9 100+ 10–1415–1920–2425–2930–3435–3940–4445–4950–5455–5960–6465–6970–7475–7980–8485–8990–9495–99 Age

FIGURE 69 Serious Motor Vehicle-Related Injuries by Type: 2001

% of injuries within each type that are serious 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Vehicle occupants Motorcyclists Pedalcyclists Pedestrians

NOTES: A pedalcyclist is a person on a vehicle that is powered SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of solely by pedals. A minor injury is one in which the victim was Transportation Statistics, calculations based on data from U.S. treated and released. A serious injury is one in which the victim Consumer Product Safety Commission, National Electronic was either hospitalized or treated and transferred to another Injury Surveillance (NEISS) System, available at facility. Figure 69—Data are the share of injuries that were seri- http://www.cpsc.gov/Neiss/oracle.html, as of June 2003. ous for one person type (e.g., the share of seriously injured pedestrians of all injured pedestrians).

97 s t n Transportation Statistics Annual Report e d i c c A

: 9

Economic Impacts of Motor Vehicle Crashes n o i t c e S otor vehicle crashes in the United States Ultimately, all people pay for the cost of Mcost an estimated $231 billion1 in 2000, motor vehicle crashes through insurance premi- about $820 per person or 2 percent of the Gross ums, taxes, out-of-pocket expenses, and the like. Domestic Product2 [1]. The largest components About one-quarter of the cost of crashes is paid of the total cost (26 percent each) are market directly by those involved, while society in gen- productivity—the cost of foregone paid labor eral pays the rest (figure 71). Insurance compa- due to death and disability—and property dam- nies, funded by all insured drivers whether they age (figure 70). Household productivity—the are involved in a crash or not, paid about half cost of foregone household (unpaid) labor— the cost in 2000. Government paid 9 percent of accounted for 9 percent of the total cost. the cost. “Other” (13 percent) includes unpaid Workplace cost (2 percent) is the disruption charges of health care providers and charities, from the loss or absence of an employee such costs borne by employers, and the cost of delay that it requires training a new employee, over- borne by travelers. time to accomplish the work of the injured employee, and administrative costs to process Source personnel changes. 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Alcohol-involved crashes cost $50.9 billion or Highway Traffic Safety Administration, The 22 percent of the total costs. Costs related to Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000 (Washington, DC: 2002), also available at speeding were estimated to be $40.4 billion, 18 http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/economic, as of percent of the total. The failure of drivers and December 2002. passengers to wear safety belts cost an estimated $26 billion, but the use of safety belts saved $50 billion [1].

1 The costs detailed here are the economic costs not the intangi- ble consequences of these events to individuals and families, such as pain and suffering and loss of life. 2 All dollar amounts are in current 2000 dollars.

98 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

9 :

FIGURE 70 Components of the Economic Costs of c

Motor Vehicle Crashes: 2000 c i d Workplace costs Legal costs e 2% Emergency services 5% 1% n t

Insurance s administration 7% Market productivity 26% Household productivity 9%

Travel delay 11%

Property damage Medical costs 26% 14%

FIGURE 71 Estimated Sources of Payment for Motor Vehicle Crashes: 2000 Current $ (billions) 40

0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Total government Insurer Self Emergency Market Household services productivity Medical productivity Insurance Property administration Legal damage

KEY: NA = not applicable. NOTE: Figure 71 does not include payments by sources other than the government, insur- ers, and individuals involved in the accident. These “other” payments amounted to $33 billion, mainly for travel delays. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000 (Washington, DC: 2002), available at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/economic/, as of December 2002.

99 t n

e Transportation Statistics Annual Report m n o r i v n

E Key Air Emissions l a r u t a N

d ransportation in 2001 emitted 66 percent of Transportation Air Emissions n the nation’s carbon monoxide (CO), 47 per- a T cent of nitrogen oxides (NOx), 35 percent of National data on air emissions are estimated by the n volatile organic compounds (VOC), 5 percent of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA’s a National Emissions Inventory (NEI) is updated annu- particulates, 6 percent of ammonia, and 4 per- ally and covers mobile, stationary, and area sources m 1 of pollution regulated under the Clean Air Act. These u cent of sulfur dioxide. Highway vehicles emitted pollutants include the so-called “criteria” and haz- H almost all of transportation’s share of CO in 1

ardous air pollutants. Most criteria emissions have e 2001, 80 percent of the NOx, and 75 percent of been estimated since 1970, hazardous emissions

h only since 1996.

t all VOC (figure 72). Marine vessels and railroad locomotives each contributed 10 percent of o EPA’s mobile source category contains “onroad” t (highway) and “nonroad” (all other modes) emissions. transportation’s NOx emissions, and other non-

e However, its nonroad category includes nontrans- road vehicles2 had a 20 percent share of VOC

g portation sources such as farming and construction

a emissions. With the exception of ammonia, equipment, lawn and garden equipment, and logging, industrial, and light commercial equipment. To more

m transportation air emissions have declined since accurately assess transportation air emissions, the a 1991 (figure 73). NOx shows only a slight Bureau of Transportation Statistics removes the non-

D decrease between 1991 and 2001. transportation components from EPA’s criteria mobile

l source emissions. It is this subset that is presented a Gasoline powered highway vehicles experi- here as “transportation” emissions. r e enced the greatest decline in NOx emissions, 1 t For details on transportation’s contribution to hazardous

a while diesel-powered highway vehicles and air- air pollutants, see U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau l l craft show increases between 1991 and 2001 of Transportation Statistics, Transportation Statistics Annual o Report 2000, available at http://www.bts.gov/. (figure 74). New, tightened NO emissions stan-

C x

: dards for diesel and gasoline trucks are due to go

0 into effect in 2007 and 2008 [1]. In addition, These key air emissions data (see box) are the 1

most widely used indicator of transportation’s new NOx standards will apply to certain marine n engines built in 2004. The U.S. Environmental impact on the environment. Key air emissions o i generated during the use of various vehicles, t Protection Agency has also proposed new NOx c emissions standards for motorcycles and recre- locomotives, aircraft, and vessels affect the e nation’s air quality and human health.

S ational boats. NOx emissions standards for locomotives went into effect in 2000, and tightened standards will apply to locomotives built in Sources 2005 and later [2]. 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transpor- 1 With its 2001 updates, the U.S. Environmental Protection tation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2003), Agency is no longer estimating lead emissions. In 2000, transporta- tables 4-30 through 4-32, also available at tion emitted 13 percent of the nation’s lead emissions. Aircraft http://www.bts.gov/, as of January 2003. emitted almost 96 percent of all transportation lead emissions. While the substance is no longer used in most fuels, it is still pres- 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal ent in aviation fuels. Railroad Administration, personal communica- 2 Other nonroad vehicles include recreational marine vessels, air- tion, July 2003. port service vehicles, and road maintenance equipment.

100 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

1 0 :

FIGURE 72 Share of Selected Air Pollution Emissions C

by Mode: 2001 o

Percent l l

100 a Highway gasoline Highway diesel Aircraft t

Marine vessels Railroad Other e 80 r a l

60 D a 40 m

20 a g

1.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.6 e

Carbon monoxide Nitrogen oxides Volatile organic compounds t o

FIGURE 73 Transportation Air Emissions by Type t h

of Pollutant: 1991–2001 e

Index: 1991 = 1.0 1.8 H Ammonia 1.6 u m 1.4 a

1.2 n

Lead PM-10 a 1.0 NOx n

0.8 d

0.6 N PM-2.5 CO VOC a 0.4 t

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 u r FIGURE 74 Nitrogen Oxide Emissions by Mode: 1991–2001 a l

Index: 1991 = 1.0 E 1.6 n

1.4 v Aircraft i r 1.2 o Highway diesel Other n 1.0 Railroad m

Marine vessels e

0.8 n

Highway gasoline t 0.6

0.4 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

NOTES: Figure 72—EPA no longer estimates lead emissions. mobile source estimates were provided by state air agencies. Modal shares in 2000 were: highway gasoline vehicles, 4.1%; air- The largest set of state-submitted data in 1999 was from craft, 95.9%. Figure 73—Revisions to previous estimates are all California. Estimates for mobile sources for years prior to 1999 related to the development of the 1999 National Emissions were made consistent with the estimates for 1999 and later, Inventory (NEI). The 1999 estimates in the table are taken from allowing for a generally consistent time trend except that state- Version 2 of the 1999 NEI and reflect many new data submis- submitted data were incorporated for 1999 only. See the tables in sions from state and local air management agencies. The 1999 appendix B for definitions of "highway" and "other" vehicles. emissions estimates from mobile sources are in most cases SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of based on the new MOBILE6 and the draft NONROAD2002 emis- Air Quality Planning and Standards, National Emissions Inventory, sions models. This is the first time that estimates using these Air Pollutant Emission Trends, available at models have appeared in this format. Some but relatively few http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/index.html/, as of August 2003.

101 t n

e Transportation Statistics Annual Report m n o r i v n

E Greenhouse Gas Emissions l a r u t a N

d .S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions totaled

n GHG Emissions Data 6,936 teragrams (trillion grams) of carbon a U

1 dioxide equivalent (TgCO2Eq) in 2001, of which Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency n 1,867 TgCO Eq (27 percent) were emitted by (EPA) and the Energy Information Administration a 2 (EIA) produce estimated annual U.S. GHG emis- transportation. Transportation emissions have sions data. EPA is responsible for producing the offi- m cial inventory of U.S. emissions, as required under u grown 22 percent since 1990, while total U.S. the United Nations Framework Convention on H emissions rose 13 percent. Carbon dioxide (CO ),

2 Climate Change. Both agencies use EIA fuel con-

e the predominant greenhouse gas, accounted for 84 sumption data as a basis for estimating most GHG

h emissions but differences in their methodologies can t percent of all U.S. emissions in 2001 [1]. Nearly all 1

result in different datasets. EIA usually releases its (97 percent) of CO emissions are generated by o 2 data about six months before EPA does. EPA pro- t

the combustion of fossil fuels. Transportation was vides more detail of interest to transportation, such

e as emissions by mode. EIA presents emissions in responsible for 1,780.9 TgCO2Eq, or 31 percent

g million metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce),

a of all CO2 emissions. Transportation CO2 emis- while EPA uses teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalent (TgCO2Eq) as required under the Convention.

m sions grew 24 percent between 1991 and 2001, an [1 TgCO2Eq = 1 mmtce x (44/12)] a average annual change of 2 percent. 1

D For further information, see U.S. Department of

l Highway vehicle emissions rose at an average Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, a annual rate of 2 percent between 1991 and 2001 Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2001 (Washington r DC: 2002), page 239. e (figure 75). At the same time, locomotive emis- t

a sions grew at 3 percent and domestic aircraft l

l highway emissions (figure 76). Over the period emissions rose less than 1 percent. Domestic o 1991 to 2001, emissions of all other trucks grew maritime emissions increased 2 percent but were C

fastest, at 4 percent annually. The second high-

: volatile throughout the period. Under the United est average annual growth rate among highway 0 Nations Framework Convention on Climate 1 vehicles was 3 percent for light-duty trucks. Change reporting guidelines, only domestic air- n craft and maritime emissions are included in the Most air pollutants impact local or regional air o i t modal data. The balance of emissions, labeled quality. Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, could c international bunker fuels, declined 2 percent on alter the earth’s climate on a regional and global e scale. These potential changes include long-term S an annual average basis between 1991 and 2001. fluctuations in temperature, wind, precipitation, and Highway vehicles emitted 79 percent of all other perturbations of the Earth’s climate system. transportation CO emissions in 2001. 2 GHGs, including CO , methane, and nitrous oxide Passenger cars and light-duty vehicles, which 2 occur naturally and as a result of human activities. include pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, and vans, were responsible for 78 percent of those Source

1 Including sinks, net U.S. emissions totaled 6,098 TgCO2Eq in 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory 2001. A natural sink, according to the U.S. Environmental of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: Protection Agency, is “A reservoir that uptakes a pollutant from 1990–2001 (Washington, DC: April 2003), another part of its cycle. Soil and trees tend to act as natural sinks tables ES-3 and ES-8. for carbon.” Unnatural sinks are manmade depositories for pollutants (e.g., the Department of Energy is creating underground sinks

into which CO2 can be pumped). 102 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

1 0 :

FIGURE 75 Carbon Dioxide Emissions by C

Transportation Mode: 1991–2001 o l

Teragrams of l

1 a CO 2 equivalent t

(1991 = 1.0) e 1.4 r a

1.3 l Boats and vessels Locomotives D 1.2 Highway a 1.1 m

Other2 a

1.0 g Aircraft e 0.9

t 0.8 o

t 0.7 h e

0.6 H

0.5 u

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 m a

FIGURE 76 Share of Highway Mode Carbon Dioxide n

Emissions by Vehicle Type: 2001 a

Alternative fuel vehicles n

Buses <1% d

1% N a t All other trucks u r

21% a l

Passenger cars n

45% v i r o n m

Light-duty trucks e

33% n t

1 Teragrams of CO2 equivalent—1 TgCO2 Eq = 1 million metric ton of carbon equivalent x (44/12). A teragram = 1 trillion grams. 2 "Other" carbon dioxide emissions are from motorcycles, construction equipment, agricultural machinery, pipelines, and lubricants. NOTE: Figure 75—Highway includes passenger cars, buses, light-duty trucks, and other trucks. SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2001 (Washington, DC: April 2003), table 1-14, also available at http://www.epa.gov, as of June 2003.

103 t n

e Transportation Statistics Annual Report m n o r i v n

E Oil Spills into U.S. Waters l a r u t a N

d ransportation-related sources typically Aggregating Oil Spill Data n account for most oil reported to be spilled a T into U.S. waters reported each year.1 For The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) summarizes reported n instance, transportation’s share of the total vol- oil spill data in its Pollution Incidents In and Around a U.S. Waters, A Spill Release Compendium: ume of oil spilled between 1991 and 2000 var- 1969–2000. USCG aggregates the source data into m five categories: marine vessels, pipelines, facilities, u ied from a high of 97 percent in 1996 to a low other, and unknown. The Bureau of Transportation

H of 77 percent in 1992. The volume of each spill

Statistics has reviewed USCG’s detailed source data

e varies significantly from incident to incident: and classified each transportation-related reported

h oil spill incident by transportation mode. The data t one catastrophic incident can, however, spill mil- presented here are preliminary, as research on the

lions of gallons into the environment. dataset is ongoing. o t

Consequently, the total volume of oil spilled e each year is volatile (figure 77). g spillage of crude oil, refined petroleum prod- a Maritime incidents are the source of most oil ucts, and other materials and cause serious m spills, particularly on a volume basis. On aver- damage to the environment. The ultimate a age, 1.8 million gallons of various types of oil impact of each spill depends on the location and D

l were spilled each year by all transportation and volume of the spill, weather conditions, and the a nontransportation sources between 1991 and r natural resources affected. While data exist on

e 2000. Of this, 77 percent of oil spilled came from

t oil spilled into U.S. waters, there is less informa-

a incidents associated with maritime transporta-

l tion available on the resulting consequences to l tion, nearly 11 percent from pipeline incidents,

o the environment. and over 1 percent from all other transportation C

: modes (figure 78). Oil cargo accounted for 58 Source 0 percent of the total volume spilled in 2000 [1]. 1 1. American Petroleum Institute, Oil Spills in U.S. Failures in transportation systems (vessels, n Navigable Waters: 1991–2000 (Washington, DC: o pipelines, highway vehicles, and railroad equip- Feb. 11, 2003). i t ment) or errors made by operators can result in c e S

1 When an oil spill occurs in U.S. waters, the responsible party is required to report the spill to the U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast Guard collects data on the number, location, and source of spills, volume and type of oil spilled, and the type of operation that caused the spill.

104 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

1 0 :

FIGURE 77 Volume of Oil Spills Reported to the U.S. Coast Guard by C

Source: 1991–2000 o l l

Gallons (millions) a

2.5 t e r a l

2.0 D Maritime a

1.5 m a g

1.0 e Unknown and t

Nontransportation other o

0.5 t All other h

transportation e

0 H

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 u m

FIGURE 78 Average Volume of Oil Spills a by Source: 1991–2000 n

Highway, aircraft, a Unknown and other rail, and other n

7% 2% d

Nontransportation N structures and facilities Maritime 4% facilities a t

22% u r

Pipeline a

11% l

Maritime nontank n vessels and other Waterborne v 18% tank vessels i r

37% o n m e n t

NOTE: Data are preliminary. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on U.S. Coast Guard, Pollution Incidents In and Around U.S. Waters, available at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nmc/response/stats/ac.htm, as of September 2002.

105 t n

e Transportation Statistics Annual Report m n o r i v n

E Hazardous Materials Incidents and Injuries l a r u t a N

d ransportation firms reported more than n Hazardous Materials Reporting 17,700 hazardous materials incidents in a T 2001.1 These incidents resulted in 7 deaths and The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Hazardous n Materials Information System (HMIS) is the primary

a 143 injuries, compared with annual averages of source of national data on hazardous materials trans- 21 deaths and 445 injuries between 1991 and m portation safety. Hazardous materials, as defined in u 2001. During that decade, the number of regulations, include nine classes of gases and liquids and other substances.1 However, the vast majority of H reported hazardous materials incidents in- the hazardous materials shipped within the United e creased (figure 79). However, much of the States each year (81 percent in 1997) are flammable h and combustible liquids, primarily petroleum products. t increase may be attributed to improved report-

There have been an estimated 800,000 hazardous 2 o ing and an expansion of reporting requirements materials shipments per day (or more than 3.1 billion t

(see box). tons) annually in recent years. e g Highway vehicles transported 56 percent of Source a the tons of hazardous materials shipped in 1997 U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration, Office of Hazardous Materials m [2]. Between 1991 and 2001, 62 percent of the Safety, Hazardous Materials Shipments (Washington, DC: a injuries and 53 percent of the fatalities attrib- October 1998). D l uted to hazardous materials were the result of 1 The nine classes are: explosives; flammable, nonflam- a mable, and poisonous gases; flammable and combustible

r highway incidents. Fatal hazardous materials liquid; flammable, spontaneously combustible, and danger- e transportation incidents in other modes tend to t ous-when-wet materials; oxidizers and organic peroxides; a be infrequent. After a DC-9 aircraft crashed in poisonous materials and infectious substances; radioactive l l Florida in 1996 killing 110 people, the National materials; corrosive materials; and miscellaneous haz- o ardous materials.

C Transportation Safety Board found that the

: crash was caused by ignited oxygen leaking from 0 improperly stored oxygen generators [1]. With Environmental contamination can occur as the 1 the exception of occasional spikes, injuries gen- result of hazardous materials incidents, but data are n not routinely collected on the extent of the damage.

o erally declined in the 1990s, especially from i t highway incidents (figure 80). Of the 926 Their environmental impacts will depend on the c concentration and type of material spilled, the loca-

e injuries attributed to rail incidents in 1996, 787 tion and volume of the spill, and exposure rates. S resulted from chlorine released when a train derailed in February in Alberton, Montana [3]. Sources 1. National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB 1 A reported incident is a report of any unintentional release of Report AAR-97/06, Docket No. DCA96MA054. hazardous materials while in transportation (including loading, 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of unloading, and temporary storage). It excludes pipeline and bulk Transportation Statistics, and U.S. Department of shipments by water, which are reported separately. Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Com- 2 Incident reporting requirements were extended to intrastate modity Flow Survey, Hazardous Materials motor carriers on Oct. 1, 1998, which may partly explain the sub- (Washington, DC: December 1999). sequent increased volume of reports. Beginning in April 1993, there was a sharp improvement in reporting of incidents by small 3. U.S. Department of Transportation, Research package carriers. and Special Programs Administration, personal communication, May 2003. 106 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

1 0 :

FIGURE 79 Hazardous Materials Transportation Incidents C

by Mode: 1991–2001 o l l

Incidents (thousands) a

16 t e r

14 a

Highway l

12 D a

10 m a

8 g e

6 t o

4 t h Air 2 Rail e

0 H

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 u m

FIGURE 80 Hazardous Materials Transportation Injuries a by Mode: 1991–2001 n

Injuries a 1,000 n d

800 a Rail t u r

600 a l

E n 400 v i r

Highway o

200 n m

Air e

0 n

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 t

NOTES: Water data are not included. On an average annual basis, 9 incidents are reported by vessels. Two injuries were reported in 1998; none in other years. Annual data for these incidents and injuries are in table 80 in appendix B. The 1996 spike in rail injuries resulted from 1 train derailment in which 787 people were injured by the release of chlorine gas. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration, Hazardous Materials Information System database, available at http://hazmat.dot.gov/files/hazmat/10year/10yearfrm.htm, as of January 2003.

107 m

e Transportation Statistics Annual Report t s y S n o i t Transportation Capital Stock a t r o p s n a r

T ighway-related capital stock (highway components, and owners into a single measure of capacity in dollar value. This measure takes e Hinfrastructure, consumer motor vehicles, h and trucking and warehousing) represented the into account both the quantity of each compo- t

f majority of the nation’s transportation capital nent (through initial investment) and its condi- o

stock, $2,166 billion in 2000 (in 1996 chained tion (through depreciation and retirements).

n 1 dollars ). Highway infrastructure constituted 57 With the exception of highway and street o i

t percent of highway-related capital stock in

i data, the capital stock data presented here per- d 2000, or $1,234 billion (figure 81). Rail—at tain only to that owned by the private sector. For n $342 billion—also represented a substantial instance, railroad companies own their own o portion of transportation capital stock; trackage. All of these data are available from the C

although, it was still less than one-sixth of high- : Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of

1 way-related capital stocks. The combined value Labor Statistics [1, 2]. The Bureau of Transpor- 1

of capital stocks for other modes of the trans- tation Statistics is currently developing data on n portation system, including rail, water, air, publicly owned capital stock, such as airports, o i t pipeline, and transit, is less than the value of waterways, and transit systems. c consumer motor vehicles alone (figure 82). e

S All highway-related capital stocks increased Sources between 1990 and 2000. In-house transporta- 1. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of tion grew substantially (81 percent). Economic Analysis, Standard Fixed Asset Tables Transportation services, a component of all (table 7.1 and 8.1); Private Non-Residential modes, also experienced rapid growth, with an Fixed Assets by Detailed Industry and Detailed Asset Type, Real Cost Net Stocks; National 83 percent increase in capital stock. In fact, rail Income and Product Accounts, Quantity and and water were the only modes that experienced Price Indexes, various tables; available at a decrease in capital stock, shrinking by 6 per- http://www.bea.gov/, as of March 2003. cent and 3 percent, respectively. Pipeline capital 2. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor stocks increased only modestly, growing 5 per- Statistics, Consumer Producer Price Indexes, All Urban Consumers, various series, available at cent between 1990 and 2000. http://www.bls.gov/ppi/home.htm/, as of March Capital stock is a commonly used economic 2003. measure of the capacity of the transportation system. It combines the capabilities of modes,

108 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

1 1 :

FIGURE 81 Transportation Capital Stock for C

Selected Modes: 1990–2000 o n

Chained 1996 $ (billions) d 1,400 i t i o

1,200 n Highways and streets

o 1,000 f

t h

800 e Consumer motor vehicles

T 600 r In-house transportation stock a 400 n s

Railroad transportation stock p

200 o r t 0 a

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 t i o n

FIGURE 82 Transportation Capital Stock for Selected Modes: 1990–2000 S y

Chained 1996 $ (billions) s 200 t e m

160 Air

120 Trucking and warehousing

80 Pipelines, except natural gas Water Transportation services

40 Transit

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

NOTES: Data include only privately owned capital stock, except for highways and streets. Consumer motor vehicles are consumer durable goods. In-house transportation includes transportation services provided within a firm whose main business is not transportation. For example, grocery companies often use their own truck fleets to move goods from their warehouses to their retail outlets. All dollar amounts are expressed in chained 1996 dollars, unless otherwise specified. Current dollar amounts (which are available in appendix B of this report) were adjusted to eliminate the effects of inflation over time. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Fixed Assets and Consumer Durable Goods in the United States, available at http://www.bea.gov, as of March 2003.

109 m

e Transportation Statistics Annual Report t s y S n o i t Highway Condition a t r o p s n a r

T he condition of roads in the United States Just over 40 percent of all U.S. urban and 1 rural roads were in good or very good condition e Timproved between 1993 and 2001. For h instance, the percentage of rural Interstate in 2001, while nearly 19 percent were in poor or t

f mileage in poor or mediocre condition declined mediocre condition. The rest were in fair condi-

o 2

from 35 percent in 1993 to 14 percent in 2001 tion. In general, rural roads are in better condi- n (figure 83). Moreover, poor or mediocre urban tion than urban roads. In 2001, for instance, 28 o i percent of urban road-miles were classified as t Interstate mileage decreased from 42 to 28 per- i poor or mediocre compared with only 15 per- d cent over this period (figure 84).

n cent of rural-miles. o

C 1 The data presented here start at 1993; in that year the Federal 2 These percentages include all classes of roads except local roads

: Highway Administration changed to a new indicator for pavement or minor collector roads.

1 condition. Thus, combining pre-1993 data and 1993 and later

1 data is inappropriate. n o i t c e

S Highway Functional Classification System

All U.S. roads

Rural Urban

Arterials Collectors Local Arterials Collectors Local

Principal Minor Major Minor Principal Minor

Interstate Interstate

Other principal arterials Other freeway and expressway

Other principal arterial SOURCES U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, 1999 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance (Washington, DC: 2000). U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Our Nation's Highways: Selected Facts and Figures 1998 (Washington, DC: 1998).

110 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

1 1 :

FIGURE 83 Rural Roads in Poor or Mediocre Condition C

by Functional Class: 1993–2001 o n Percent 50 d i t

45 i o n 40

o 35 f

Interstates t

30 h e 25 Collectors T 20 r a

15 n

Minor arterials s 10 p

Other principal arterials o 5 r t

0 a

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 t i o n

FIGURE 84 Urban Roads in Poor or Mediocre Condition by Functional Class: 1993–2001 S y

Percent s

50 t e

45 m Interstates 40

35 Other principal arterials 30

25 Collectors Minor arterials 20

15 Other freeways and expressways 10

0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), table 1-26, also available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003.

111 m

e Transportation Statistics Annual Report t s y S n o i t Bridge Condition a t r o p s n a r

T he condition of bridges nationwide has In general, bridges in rural areas suffer more from structural deficiencies than functional e Timproved markedly since the early 1990s. h Of the nearly 600,000 roadway bridges in 2001, obsolescence (particularly on local roads), t

f the Federal Highway Administration found that whereas the reverse is true for bridges on roads o

14 percent were structurally deficient and 14 in urban areas (figures 86 and 87) [1]. A large n percent were functionally obsolete. About 40 proportion of problem bridges nationwide are o i those supporting local rural roads: about 71,000 t percent of bridges were either structurally defi- i of the 165,000 deficient bridges in 2001 (43 per- d cient or functionally obsolete in 1991 [1].

n cent) are rural local bridges. Problems are much Structurally deficient bridges are those that o less prevalent on other parts the highway net-

C are restricted to light vehicles, require immediate

work. Nevertheless, in 2001, 20 percent of : rehabilitation to remain open, or are closed.

1 urban Interstate bridges and 12 percent of rural Functionally obsolete bridges are those with 1

Interstate bridges were deficient. deck geometry (e.g., lane width), load carrying n

o capacity, clearance, or approach roadway align- i t ment that no longer meet the criteria for the sys- Source c 1

e tem of which the bridge is a part. In the 1990s, 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Engineering, S while the number of structurally deficient bridges steadily declined, the number of func- Bridge Division, National Bridge Inventory database, available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ tionally obsolete bridges remained fairly con- bridge/britab.htm/, as of December 2002. stant (figure 85).

1 Structurally deficient bridges are counted separately from functionally obsolete bridges even though most structurally deficient bridges are, by definition, functionally obsolete.

112 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

1 1 :

FIGURE 85 Structurally Deficient and Functionally Obsolete Bridges: All C

Roadways—1991–2001 o Thousands n

140 d i t

120 i Structurally deficient o 100 n

80 o

Functionally obsolete f

60 t h

40 e

20 T r 0 a 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 n s p

FIGURE 86 Rural Bridge Condition by Functional Class: 2001 o

Percent r t

40 a Structurally Functionally Total t

deficient obsolete i 30 o n

20 S y s

10 t e m 0 Principal Other Minor Major Minor Local arterial— principal arterial collector collector Interstate arterial

FIGURE 87 Urban Bridge Condition by Functional Class: 2001 Percent 40 Structurally Functionally Total deficient obsolete 30

0 Interstate Other freeways Other Minor Collector Local or expressways principal arterial arterial

KEY: Functionally obsolete refers to bridges that do not have the lane widths, shoulder widths, or vertical clearances adequate to serve traffic demand, or the bridge may not be able to handle occasional roadway flooding. Structurally deficient refers to bridges needing significant maintenance attention, rehabilitation, or replacement. NOTE: Figures 86 and 87 data may not sum to 100 due to rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Engineering, Bridge Division, National Bridge Inventory database, available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/britab.htm, as of December 2002.

113 m

e Transportation Statistics Annual Report t s y S n o i t Airport Runway Conditions a t r o p s n a r

T irport runway conditions improved at the

Classification of Airports in the e A nation’s major public-use airports between United States h 1990 and 2001 [1]. At the nation’s commercial t 1

As of January 2001, there were 19,306 airports in f service airports, pavement in poor condition the United States, with 5,314 of these open to the o

declined from 5 percent of runways in 1990 to 2 public and known as public-use airports. The Federal n percent in 2001 (figure 88). At the larger group Aviation Administration includes 3,364 of the existing

o public-use airports in its National Plan of Integrated i t of National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems Airport Systems (NPIAS). The NPIAS includes both i commercial and general aviation airports that are eli-

d (NPIAS) airports, the Federal Aviation Admin- gible to receive grants under the Air Improvement n istration (FAA) found poor conditions on 5 per- Program. Commercial service airports are defined o cent of runways in 2001, down from 10 percent as public airports receiving scheduled passenger C service with at least 2,500 enplaned passengers per in 1990 (figure 89). : year. These airports handle the vast majority of 1 FAA inspects runways at public-use airports enplanements in the United States. In 2001, there 1 were 546 commercial service airports. FAA esti- and classifies runway condition as good, fair, or mates that 67 percent of the U.S. population lives n within 20 miles of at least 1 of these airports. o poor. A runway is classified as good if all cracks i t and joints are sealed. Fair condition means there

c Source

e is mild surface cracking, unsealed joints, and U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation 1 S slab edge spalling. Runways are in poor condi- Administra-tion, National Plan of Integrated Airport tion if there are large open cracks, surface and Systems (NPIAS) (2001–2005) (Washington, DC: 2002). edge spalling, and/or vegetation growing 1 Includes civil and joint-use civil-military airports, heli- through cracks and joints [1]. ports, STOL (short takeoff and landing) ports, and sea- plane bases in the United States and its territories.

Source 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) (2001–2005) (Washington, DC: 2002).

1 Spalling refers to chips, scales, or slabs breaking off of surface pavement.

114 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

1 1 :

FIGURE 88 Runway Pavement Condition of 546 Commercial C

Service Airports: 1990–2001 o

Percent n

100 d

Good condition Fair condition Poor condition i t i o

80 n

o f

60 t h e

40 T r a n

20 s p o

NN NNN N r 0 t 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 a t i o n

FIGURE 89 Runway Pavement Condition of 3,364 NPIAS Airports S Percent y

100 s

Good condition Fair condition Poor condition t e m 80

0 NN NNN N 1990 199119921993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

KEY: N = data are nonexistent; NPIAS = National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2003), also available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of January 2003. Based on data obtained from U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Airport Planning and Programming, National Planning Division, personal communication, 2003.

115 m

e Transportation Statistics Annual Report t s y S n o i t Age of Highway and Transit Fleet Vehicles a t r o p s n a r

T ecause of improvements in the longevity of to 25.6 years. By contrast, the average age of full-size transit buses decreased over this period e Bpassenger cars, the median age of the auto- h mobile fleet in the United States has increased from 8.2 years to 8.1 years [1]. t f significantly, from 7.0 years in 1992 to 8.4 years The age of fleets as a measure of condition is o 1 in 2002. The median age of the truck fleet, by not very precise. Because of the different charac- n contrast, began to increase in the early 1990s teristics of vehicle fleets across the modes—some o i

t but has been declining since 1997 as new pur-

i serving freight and other passenger, some owned d chases of light trucks have increased substan- predominantly by businesses, and others by indi- n tially (figure 90). As a result, the truck median viduals—the measure varies widely. o age of 6.8 years in 2002 is less than its 7.2 years C

in 1990. : Source 1 The age of transit vehicle fleets varies by tran- 1 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of sit and vehicle type (figure 91). Ferryboats Transportation Statistics, National Transpor- n tation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), o became substantially older between 1990 and i t 2000, increasing from an average of 21.7 years tables 1-25 and 1-28, also available at c http://www.bts.gov/, as of June 2003. e S 1 This includes all truck categories: light, heavy, and heavy-heavy.

116 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

1 1 :

FIGURE 90 Median Age of Cars and Trucks: 1992–2002 C o Years 9 n

Cars d i

8 t i o

7 n

Trucks

6 o f

5 t h

4 e

3 r a

2 n s

1 p o

0 r

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 t a t i o n

FIGURE 91 Average Age of Selected Urban Transit S Vehicles: 1990–2000 Years y

30 s

Heavy-rail t

Commuter-rail e passenger cars passenger coaches Ferryboats m 25

15 Light rail

Full-size transit buses 10

5 Vans

0 19901991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

NOTES: Figure 90—“Trucks” represents all types of trucks, including light trucks (sport utility vehicles, vans, and pickup trucks). Figure 91—Full-size buses have more than 35 seats. SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), tables 1-25 and 1-28, also available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003. Figure 90 (2001–2002)—R.L. Polk & Co., "Median Age of U.S. Cars and Light Trucks Increases According to R.L. Polk & Co.," press release, Feb. 11, 2003.

117 m

e Transportation Statistics Annual Report t s y S n o i t Age of Amtrak, Aircraft, and Maritime Vessel Fleets a t r o p s n a r

T he average age of Amtrak locomotives and (figure 94). Commercial airlines are air carriers providing scheduled or nonscheduled passenger e Tpassenger train cars fluctuated in a narrow h range for most of the 1990s (figure 92). The or freight service, including commuter and air t

f average age of locomotives was 11 years in taxi on-demand services. Major airlines—those o

2000, down 7 percent from 12 years in 1990. with $1 billion or more in annual revenues— n Meanwhile, Amtrak railcar age dropped from accounted for nearly 80 percent of commercial o i aircraft in 2000 [3]. These aircraft were approx- t 20 to 19 years over this period. Of the 20,028 i imately one year younger on average than all d Class I freight locomotives in service in 2000, 42 n percent were built before 1980, 21 percent commercial aircraft during the 1990s. The aver- o between 1980 and 1989, and 37 percent from age age of major airlines aircraft was 12 years in C

1990 onwards [1]. 2000, up from 11 years in 1991. :

1 Overall, about 28 percent of the U.S. flag ves- 1 sel fleet was 25 years old or more in 2000 (fig- Sources n

o ure 93). This is up from 17 percent in 1. Association of American Railroads, Railroad i t 1990–1991.1 Towboats are some of the oldest Factbook 2001 (Washington, DC: 2002). c 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of e types of vessels plying U.S. waters, and they are Transportation Statistics, National Transpor- S getting older: about 50 percent were 25 years tation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 20020, old or older in 2000, up from 33 percent in table 1-31, also available at http://www.bts.gov, 1990–1991. Tank and liquid barges older than as of January 2003. 25 years made up 43 percent of the total fleet in 3. Calculation based on U.S. Department of 2000, up from 27 percent in 1990–1991 [2]. Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Form 41, Schedule B-43, 1991–2000. The average age of U.S. commercial aircraft was 13 years in 2000, up from 11 years in 1991

1 These waterborne vessel data are normally surveyed as of December 31 each year. However, due to a system migration of the data in 1990, the annual survey was collected in June 1991, or half way between the dates when 1990 and 1991 data would otherwise have been collected.

118 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

1 1 :

FIGURE 92 Average Age of Amtrak Locomotive C

and Car Fleets: 1990–2000 o

Years n

25 d Passenger and other train cars i t i

20 o n

15 o f

Locomotives

10 t h e

5 T r

0 a

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 n s p

FIGURE 93 Age of U.S. Flag Vessels by Type: 2000 o r

< 6 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 > 25 t a 100% t i o 80% n

60% S y

40% s t e

20% m

0% Dry cargo Tanker Towboat Passenger Support Dry barge Liquid barge Total (733) (135) (4,990) (915) (1,420) (29,009) (3,987) (41,182) Ship type (number of vessels)

FIGURE 94 Average Age of U.S. Commercial and Major Airlines Aircraft: 1991–2000 Years 16

All commercial aircraft 12 Major airlines aircraft

0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

NOTES: Figure 93—Support includes offshore support and SOURCES: Figures 92 and 93—U.S. Department of crewboats. Liquid barge includes tank barges. Figure 94— Transportation (USDOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics Commercial airlines are air carriers providing scheduled or non- (BTS), National Transportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, scheduled passenger or freight service, including commuter and DC: 2002), tables 1-30 and 1-31, also available at air taxi on-demand services. Major airlines includes only com- http://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003. Figure 94—Calculations mercial airlines with operating revenues greater than $1 billion based on USDOT, BTS, Form 41, Schedule B-43, 1991–2000). in 2000. See table 94 notes in appendix B for additional information.

119 s s Transportation Statistics Annual Report e n e v i t i t e p Relative Prices for Transportation Goods and Services m o C l a b o l he United States had relatively lower prices tively lower production costs. Furthermore, it

G could be expected that an inexpensive and effi- Tfor transportation goods and services in e 19991 than did 15 out of 25 Organization for cient transportation system would stimulate c market expansion and result in more specializa-

n Economic Cooperation and Development e (OECD) countries (figure 95). However, the tion, faster distribution, and lower production u l nation’s top two overall merchandise trade part- costs. f

n ners, Canada and Mexico, had lower relative I The comparisons here may indicate how t prices in 1999 than did the United States. Prices domestic U.S. transportation industries, goods, a in Japan and the United Kingdom—both major and services fare against their foreign counter- h t U.S. trade partners—were much higher than in parts. The relative price for a good or service s the United States. Half of the OECD countries traded between two countries is the price for e l that had less expensive transportation goods and that commodity in one country divided by the b services than the United States are developing a price for the same commodity in another coun- i r and transitional economies. try, with the prices for the goods and services in a Further analytical research is needed to clarify both countries expressed in a common currency. V transportation’s contribution to America’s However, relative prices alone do not reveal why d

e global competitiveness. One theory is that transportation is more expensive in one country t than another. Nor do they justify making trans- a Americans’ incomes would go further if trans- l portation relatively cheaper than it is. They also e portation consumer goods and services were rel-

R atively cheaper than in other countries. Since do not reveal the quality or reliability of the - transportation goods and services are a major transportation or fully take into account differ- n o input of business production, relatively lower ences in geospatial factors between countries. i t transportation prices might also result in rela- a t r o p s n a r T

: 2 1 n o i t c e

S 1 The most recent year for which comparable international data were available at the time this report was prepared.

120 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

1 2 :

FIGURE 95 Relative Prices for Transportation Goods and Services for the United T

States and Selected Major Trade Partners: 1999 r a

Relative price: U.S. = 1.0 n

1.8 s p o

1.6 r t a t i

1.4 o n -

1.2 R e l 1.0 a t e d 0.8

V a 0.6 r i a

0.4 b l e s

0.2 t h a

0 t

es I Italy

Spain n MexicoPoland TurkeyGreece Canada FranceAustria IrelandSweden Japan Hungary Australia PortugalGermanyBelgium DenmarkNorway New ZealandLuxembourgUnited Stat Netherlands Switzerland f United Kingdom l u

NOTES: 1999 is the most recent year for which these data are available by country. For these countries, the e data are unavailable for goods and services separately. n Relative prices are based on purchasing power parity for transportation-related goods and services. All dol- c lar amounts are in current 1999 dollars. e

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, calculation based on data G

from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Purchasing Power Parities and Real l Expenditures, 1999 Results (Paris, France: August 2002), table 11. o b a l

C o m p e t i t i v e n e s s

121 s s Transportation Statistics Annual Report e n e v i t i t e p U.S. International Trade in m o Transportation-Related Goods C l a b o l he United States traded $299.6 billion

G 1 Merchandise Trade Balance Trends Tworth (in current dollars ) of transporta- e tion-related goods (e.g., cars, trains, boats, and Trade balances indirectly measure the U.S. competi- c tiveness in supplying transportation-related goods

n airplanes and their related parts) in 2002 with globally and indicate the U.S. competitive position in e its partners (figure 96). Although motor vehicles the production, provision, and delivery of these u l and automotive parts constituted by far the goods compared with other major trading partners. f Between 1990 and 2002, the United States had a n largest share of U.S. international trade in trans-

I growing overall trade balance deficit in all categories

t portation-related goods ($233.0 billion) in of transportation-related goods, due primarily to a 2002, trade in aircraft, spacecraft, and parts increased demand for imported motor vehicles. The

h U.S. trade deficit during this period in these com- t ($61.9 billion) generated the largest single sur-

modity groups included trade with our top three trad- s plus of any transportation-related commodity ing partners: Canada, Mexico, and Japan. e l category ($25.9 billion) [1]. This surplus was Source b due to trade with several partners, particularly a U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of i r the United Kingdom. The only deficits for air- Transportation Statistics, U.S. International Trade and a craft products were with France and Canada, Freight Transportation Trends (Washington, DC: 2003). V

countries that have large aviation manufacturing d sectors (see box). for railway locomotives and parts was down e t from $149 million in 2001. The 2002 surplus

a As is the case with overall international trade, l can largely be attributed to the United States

e the United States had a merchandise trade deficit supplying railcars and parts to Canada, the

R in transportation-related exports and imports, - totaling $82.1 billion in 2002 (figure 97). The largest U.S. trade partner for rail products [2]. n o deficit arose from a $108.0 billion U.S. trade i t deficit for motor vehicles and parts, which Sources a t r accounted for 23 percent of the total U.S. mer- 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of o chandise trade deficit of $470.3 billion. Over Transportation Statistics, calculations based on p data from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. s one-third of the motor vehicles and parts deficit International Trade Commission, Interactive n involved U.S. trade with Japan, while about one- Tariff and Trade DataWeb, available at a r fifth was with Canada [2]. http://dataweb.usitc.gov/, as of February 2003. T

2. _____, U.S. International Trade and Freight

: The United States had a relatively small deficit Transportation Trends (Washington, DC: 2003). 2 ($90 million) in trade of ships, boats, and float- 1

ing structures in 2002, following a $693 million n surplus in 2001 [1]. A $53 million trade surplus o i t c 1 All dollar amounts in this section are in current dollars. While e it is important to compare trends in economic activity using con-

S stant or chained dollars to eliminate the effects of price inflation, it is not possible to do so in this instance (see note on the figure and tables 96 and 97 in appendix B).

122 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

1 2 :

FIGURE 96 U.S. Trade in Transportation-Related T

Goods: 1990–2002 r a

Current $ (billions) n

300 s

Total (gross) p o

250 r t a t

200 i o n - 150 Imports (payments to R

foreign countries) e l 100 a Exports (receipts t

by U.S. entities) e 50 d

0 a r

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 i a

FIGURE 97 U.S. Trade Balance in Transportation-Related b l Goods: 1990–2002 e s

Current $ (billions) t

20 h a Surplus t

0 I n f l

–20 u e n

–40 c e

Deficit

–60 G l o

–80 b a l

–100 C 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 o

NOTES: Transportation-related goods are motor vehicles and parts, aircraft and spacecraft m

and parts, railway vehicles and parts, and ships and boats. p

All dollar amounts are in current dollars. These data have not been adjusted for inflation e because there is no specific deflator available for transportation-related goods. In addition, t i it is difficult to control for trading partners' inflation rates as well as currency exchange fluc- t i tuations when adjusting the value of internationally traded goods and services for inflation. v e SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, calcula- n tions based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. International Trade Commission, Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb, available at http://dataweb.usitc.gov/, e as of February 2003. s s

123 s s Transportation Statistics Annual Report e n e v i t i t e p U.S. International Trade in m o Transportation-Related Services C l a b o l .S. trade in transportation services in 2002

G 1 Components of Service Trade Utotaled $105.4 billion (in current dollars ), e down 2 percent from $107.6 billion in 2001 Exports of freight transportation services occur c when a U.S. carrier receives payments from a for-

n (figure 98). This decline was smaller than the 8 eign company or individual for transporting merchan- e percent drop between 2000 and 2001. Of the dise. Imports of freight transportation services occur u l trade in 2001, 57 percent was for imports (pay- when a U.S. company or individual pays a foreign f carrier for transporting merchandise. Similarly, U.S. n ments to foreign countries) and 43 percent was I exports of port services occur when foreign carriers

t for exports (receipts by U.S. entities), resulting in purchase services and goods (e.g., fuel) at U.S. air- a a $14.9 billion trade deficit for transportation ports and seaports. U.S. imports of port services h occur when a U.S. carrier purchases services and t services. goods at ports in foreign countries. For passenger

s travel services, exports consist of fares received by The United States had a surplus in transporta- e U.S. carriers from foreign residents for travel l tion services from 1990 through 1997 (figure between the United States and foreign countries and b between two foreign points. Imports of travel servic- a 99). The trade surplus was highest in 1992, at i es consist of fares paid by U.S. residents to foreign r $3.8 billion (in current dollars), but exports carriers for travel between the United States and for- a exceeded imports by over $3 billion in other eign countries. V years prior to 1997, as well. Then, between d Source e 1997 and 1998, imports increased 7 percent U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic t Analysis, Survey of Current Business, November 2001. a while exports decreased 5 percent, resulting in a l

e $4.6 billion deficit. The deficit continued to

R grow at an average annual rate of 32 percent

- carriers and ports. These services also result in between 1998 and 2002, when the deficit n payments by U.S. companies to foreign freight o reached $13.9 billion. i t and passenger carriers and ports. Because an a The United States exports and imports trans- t efficient transportation system puts a premium r portation services, including freight services pro- on system reliability and speed, the performance o

p vided by carriers; port services provided by air- of freight carriers and ports directly influences s ports, seaports, and terminals; and passenger the competitiveness of U.S. businesses engaged n travel services provided by carriers. U.S. trade in a in international trade. r transportation services generates substantial T

: revenues for U.S. businesses in receipts to U.S. 2 1 n o i t 1 c All dollar amounts in this section are in current dollars. While

e it is important to compare trends in economic activity using constant or chained dollars to eliminate the effects of price inflation, S it is not possible to do so in this instance (see the note on the figure and tables 98 and 99 in appendix B).

124 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

1 2 :

FIGURE 98 U.S. International Trade in Transportation-Related T

Services: 1990–2002 r a

Current $ (billions) n

140 s p

120 o Total r t a 100 t i o

80 n - R 60 Imports e

(payments to foreign countries) l 40 Exports a (receipts by U.S. entities) t e

20 d

0 a

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 r i a

FIGURE 99 U.S. Trade Balance in Transportation-Related b l Services: 1990–2002 e Current $ (billions) s

5 t h a t Surplus

0 I n f l u

–5 e n c

–10 e Deficit

G l –15 o b a l –20 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 C o

NOTES: Transportation services include passenger fares, and freight and port services. It m

excludes receipts and payments for travel services, which includes purchases of goods p

and services (e.g., food, lodging, recreation, gifts, entertainment, and any incidental e expense on a foreign visit). t i These data have not been adjusted for inflation, because there is no specific deflator avail- t i able for transportation-related services. In addition, it is difficult to control for trading part- v ners' inflation rates as well as currency exchange fluctuations when adjusting the value of e internationally traded goods and services for inflation. n SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, calcula- e tion based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, s International Transactions Accounts data, available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/di1.htm, s as of April 2003.

125 h t Transportation Statistics Annual Report w o r G c i m

o Transportation-Related Final Demand n o c E d n a recent years. In 1990, net exports had a –4 percent otal transportation-related final demand n Trose by 37 percent between 1990 and 2001 share in total transportation-related final demand, o i 1 hitting a low point of –5 percent in 1995. After ris-

t (in 1996 chained dollars ) from $719.8 billion a to $984.1 billion (figure 100). However, trans- ing somewhat through 1997, they dropped to –11 t r portation-related final demand as a share of percent in 2001. Deficits in the trade of automo- o biles and other vehicles and parts have been the p GDP showed little change throughout the s period. This implies that transportation-related primary component of the negative net exports of n transportation-related goods and services.

a final demand grew at about the same rate as r GDP. In 2001, the share of transportation-

T Transportation-related final demand is the

: related final demand in GDP was 11 percent, the total value of transportation-related goods and 3 same as in 1990. services purchased by consumers and govern- 1 Personal consumption of transportation— ment and by business as part of their invest- n 2 o which includes household purchases of motor ments. Transportation-related final demand is i t vehicles and parts, gasoline and oil, and trans- part of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and c

e portation services—is the largest component of its share in GDP provides a direct measure of the

S transportation-related final demand. It importance of transportation in the economy amounted to $751.8 billion in 2001 and from the demand side. The goods and services accounted for 76 percent of the total transporta- included in transportation-related final demand tion-related final demand (figure 101). Govern- are diverse and extensive, ranging from automo- ment purchases used to be the second largest biles and parts, fuel, maintenance, auto insur- component of transportation-related final ance, and so on, for user-operated transportation demand. Since the mid-1990s, however, govern- to various transportation services provided by ment purchases and private investment have for-hire transportation establishments. accounted for about the same share. Government purchases and private domestic investment in Source 2001 reached $167.2 billion and $168.6 billion, 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of respectively, for shares of 17 percent each. Transportation Statistics, calculations based on Net exports were a negative component of data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income transportation-related final demand between and Product Account Tables, available at 1990 and 2001. In other words, the United States http://www.bea.gov, as of October 2002. imported more transportation-related goods and

services than it exported. This gap has widened in 2 Also included are the net exports of these goods and services because they represent spending by foreigners on transportation goods and services produced in the United States. Imports, how- 1 All dollar amounts are expressed in chained 1996 dollars, ever, are deducted because consumers, businesses, and government unless otherwise specified. Current dollar amounts (which are purchases include imported goods and services. Therefore, deduct- available in appendix B of this report) were adjusted to eliminate ing imports ensures that total transportation-related spending the effects of inflation over time. reflects spending on domestic transportation goods and services.

126 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

1 3 :

FIGURE 100 Value of Transportation-Related Final Demand T

and Its Share in GDP: 1990–2001 r a

Chained 1996 $ (billions) Percent n 12 1,400 s

Share in GDP (%) p o 1,200 10 r t a 1,000 t

8 i Value of transportation demand o 800 n

6 a

600 n d 4

400 E c

2 o 200 n o

0 0 m 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 i c

FIGURE 101 Percentage Share of Transportation-Related G Final Demand by Type: 1990–2001 Percent r 80 o w t

Personal consumption h 60

Government purchases 20

Gross private domestic investment

Net exports (exports minus imports) –20 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

NOTES: Total transportation-related final demand is the sum of all consumer, private business, and government purchases of transportation-related goods and services, and net exports (i.e., transportation imports subtracted from transportation exports). Gross private domestic investment constitutes railroad and petroleum pipelines only. All dollar amounts are expressed in chained 1996 dollars, unless otherwise specified. Current dollar amounts (which are available in appendix B of this report) were adjusted to eliminate the effects of inflation over time. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, calculations based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, "National Income and Product Accounts" data, available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/, as of February 2003.

127 h t Transportation Statistics Annual Report w o r G c i m

o Transportation Services n o c E d n a he contribution of for-hire transportation There are two major components of trans-

n Tindustries to the U.S economy, as measured portation services—for-hire transportation, as o i by their value-added (or net output), increased detailed above, and in-house transportation t 1 a (in 1996 chained dollars ) from $181 billion in services. For-hire transportation services are t r 1990 to $270 billion in 2001 (figure 102). In the provided by firms for a fee. In-house transporta- o same time period, this segment’s share in Gross tion services are provided by nontransportation p s Domestic Product (GDP) fluctuated slightly, establishments for their own use. For instance, n increasing from 2.7 percent in 1990 to 3.0 per- when a retail store uses its own trucks to move a r cent in 1999 before declining to 2.9 percent in goods from one place to another it is providing T

2001. The decreased share of for-hire trans- an in-house service. :

3 portation services in 2001 can largely be attrib- Time-series data on in-house transportation 1 uted to the decrease in output of air transporta- services are not readily available. The Bureau of n tion, reflecting significant reductions in personal Transportation Statistics last analyzed in-house o i t and business air travel after the September 11, transportation services in early 2000 using 1996 c 2001, terrorist attacks. data. At that time, in-house transportation con- e

S Among for-hire transportation industries, tributed $142 billion (in 1996 dollars) to the trucking and air contribute the largest amount to economy, while for-hire transportation con- GDP (figure 103). In 2001, they contributed $99 tributed $243 billion.2 billion and $78 billion, respectively [1]. Together, they accounted for more than two-thirds of the Source total for-hire transportation industries’ net out- 1. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of put. Between 1990 and 2001, local and inter- Economic Analysis, “Gross Domestic Product by urban transit grew significantly, followed by Industry and the Components of Gross Domestic trucking and transportation supporting services. Income,” available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/ bea/dn2.htm, as of February 2003. Railroad and pipeline transportation showed the least growth during this period.

1 All dollar amounts are expressed in chained 1996 dollars, unless otherwise specified. Current dollar amounts (which are 2 The full results of that study appear in Transportation Statistics available in appendix B of this report) were adjusted to eliminate Annual Report 2000, available at http://www.bts.gov/. the effects of inflation over time.

128 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

1 3 :

FIGURE 102 Value Added by For-Hire Transportation Services to T

U.S. GDP and Its Share in Total U.S. GDP: 1990–2001 r a

Chained 1996 $ (billions) Percent n

400 3.5 s

Share in GDP (%) p 350 3.0 o r t

300 a 2.5 t i 250 o Value 2.0 n

200 a

1.5 n

150 d

1.0 E 100 c o 50 0.5 n o 0 0 m 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 i c

FIGURE 103 Share of For-Hire Transportation Value G Added by Mode: 1990–2001 Percent r 40 o w Trucking and warehousing

35 t h Air 30

15 Transportation services 10 Transit Rail 5 Water Pipelines, except natural gas 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

KEY: GDP = Gross Domestic Product. NOTES: For-hire transportation services include railroad transportation, local and interurban passenger transit, trucking and warehousing, water transportation, air transportation, pipelines (except natural gas), and transportation services. Transportation services cover establishments furnishing services incidental to transportation (e.g., forwarding and packing services and the arrangement of passenger and freight transportation). All dollar amounts are expressed in chained 1996 dollars, unless otherwise specified. Current dollar amounts (which are available in appendix B of this report) were adjusted to eliminate the effects of inflation over time. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, calculations based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, "Gross Domestic Product by Industry," available at http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn2/gpo.htm, as of February 2003.

129 e c Transportation Statistics Annual Report n a n i F n o i t Government Transportation Revenues a t r o p s n a r ederal, state, and local government trans- Among all transportation modes, highway T

usage generates the largest amount of trans- t Fportation revenues earmarked to finance n transportation programs1 increased from $82.2 portation revenues, accounting for $79.2 billion e billion in 1990 to $113.6 billion in 2000 (in or 70 percent of the total in 2000 (figure 105). m 1996 chained dollars2) for an annual inflation- Air transportation produces the second largest n r adjusted growth rate of 3 percent (figure 104). share of transportation revenues (17 percent). e

v However, the share of transportation revenues in Transit revenues, a combination of money paid o total government revenues decreased slightly into the Mass Transit Account of the Highway

G from 4.4 percent to 4.2 percent in the same Trust Fund and proceeds from operations of the

: period [1]. public mass transportation system, represent 10 4

1 percent of the total. With annual growth rates of

The federal government share of revenues

n 11 percent and 5 percent, respectively, pipeline averaged 32 percent per year between 1990 and o

i and air revenues grew faster than did other

t 1997 and then rose to an average share of 38

c modes from 1990 to 2000 [1]. Rail is not repre- percent per year from 1998 to 2000. On the e sented in revenues because fuel and property tax other hand, the state government share of rev- S receipts from rail are channeled into the general enues dropped from an average share of 48 per- fund for deficit reduction and hence do not fall cent in 1990 through 1997 to a share of 43 per- under the definition of transportation revenues cent between 1998 and 2000. The rise in the used by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. federal government share after 1997 can be Amtrak generates revenues from passenger attributed to increased federal motor fuel taxes, fares, but since Amtrak is not considered a gov- the introduction of new transportation user ernment entity, its revenues are not included. charges, and the shift of transportation receipts from the general fund for deficit reduction to transportation trust funds [1]. Source 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Government Trans- portation Financial Statistics 2001, available at http://www.bts.gov, as of February 2003. 1 Money collected by government from transportation user charges and taxes, which are earmarked to finance transportation programs, are counted by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics as transportation-related revenues. The following types of receipts are excluded: 1) revenues collected from users of the transportation system that are directed to the general fund and used for nontransportation purposes, 2) nontransportation general fund revenues that are used to finance transportation programs, and 3) proceeds from borrowing. 2 All dollar amounts are expressed in chained 1996 dollars, unless otherwise specified. Current dollar amounts (which are available in appendix B of this report) were adjusted to eliminate the effects of inflation over time.

130 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

1 4 :

FIGURE 104 Federal, State, and Local Government Transportation- G

Related Revenues: 1990–2000 o

Chained 1996 $ (billions) v

140 e r n

120 m Total e

100 n t

80 T r a

60 n

State s p 40 Federal o r t

20 a

Local t i 0 o 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 n

F i

FIGURE 105 Federal, State, and Local Government Transportation- n

Related Revenues by Mode: 2000 a n

Pipeline c Water

0.03% e 2.9% Air 17.2%

Transit 10.1%

Highway 69.8%

SOURCES: All except as noted—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, "Government Transportation Financial Statistics Searchable Database," available at http://www.bts.gov, as of February 2003. State and local portion for 2000—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, "State and Local Government Finances," available at ftp://ftp2.census.gov/pub/outgoing/govs/Finance/, as of February 2003. Chain-type price index—U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, "National Income and Product Accounts Tables," table 7.1, available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/, as of February 2003.

131 e c Transportation Statistics Annual Report n a n i F n o i t Government Transportation Expenditures a t r o p s n a r pending on building, maintaining, operating, Among all modes of transportation, highways T

receive the largest amount of total government t Sand administering the nation’s transportation n system by all levels of government totaled transportation funds. In 2000, this amounted to e $149.0 billion in 2000 (in chained 1996 dol- $93.6 billion and accounted for nearly 63 per- m lars1). The federal government spent 30 percent cent of the total (figure 107). Transit and air n r of the funds; state and local governments, 70 modes accounted for 19 percent and 13 percent, e

v percent (figure 106). Between 1990 and 2000, respectively, while rail and pipeline modes o these transportation expenditures grew faster accounted for less than 1 percent each. Between

G than total government expenditures, increasing 1990 and 2000, government expenditures on

: transportation’s share in the total from 5.6 per- highway, transit, and air transportation 4

1 cent to 6.1 percent. State and local government increased at about the same rate, leaving the

n spending grew faster (at an average annual rate overall modal distribution of government trans- o i of 3 percent) than the federal government’s portation expenditures almost unchanged [1]. t

c spending (at 2 percent). State and local govern- e ments also spent a higher percentage of their Source S total expenditures on transportation than the 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of federal government. In 2000, the respective Transportation Statistics, Government Trans- shares were 13 percent and 3 percent [1]. portation Financial Statistics 2001, available at http://www.bts.gov, as of February 2003.

132 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

1 4 :

FIGURE 106 Federal, State, and Local Government G

Transportation-Related Expenditures from o

Own Funds: Fiscal Years 1990–2000 v e Chained 1996 $ (billions) 160 r n

Total m 140 e

120 n t

100 T State and local r a

80 n s

60 p o Federal r

40 t a t

20 i o

0 n

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 F i n

FIGURE 107 Shares of Federal, State, and Local Government a

Transportation-Related Expenditures by Mode from Own n Funds: Fiscal Year 2000 c e Pipeline <1% Water General support 5% <1% Air 13%

Rail <1%

Transit 19%

Highway 63%

NOTES: Federal expenditures from own funds consists of out- available in appendix B of this report) were adjusted to eliminate lays of the federal government including not only direct spend- the effects of inflation over time. ing but also grants to state and local governments. State and SOURCES: Except as noted local expenditures from own funds include outlays of state and —U.S. Department of Transporta- local governments from all sources of funds excluding federal tion, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, "Government grants. State and local data are reported together because dis- Transportation Financial Statistics Searchable Database," avail- State and local aggregated federal grants data are not available. able at http://www.bts.gov, as of February 2003. portion for 2000—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census All dollar amounts are expressed in chained 1996 dollars, Bureau, "State and Local Government Finances," available at unless otherwise specified. Current dollar amounts (which are ftp://ftp2.census.gov/pub/outgoing/govs/Finance/, as of February 2003.

133 e c Transportation Statistics Annual Report n a n i F n o i t Government Transportation Investment a t r o p s n a r ross government transportation invest- rose from $2.4 billion to $3.9 billion—an aver- T

1 age annual growth rate of 5 percent between t Gment, including infrastructure and vehi- n cles, has increased steadily over the last decade. 1990 and 2000. State and local investment in e The Bureau of Transportation Statistics has esti- transportation infrastructure grew from $49.6 m mated that total gross government transporta- billion to $63.0 billion, an average annual n r tion investment reached $76.0 billion in 2000 growth rate of 2 percent (figure 109). e 2 v (in chained 1996 dollars ), compared with $59.0 Infrastructure accounted for nearly 90 per- o billion in 1990, an average annual growth rate cent of the total government transportation G of 3 percent (figure 108). Government trans- investment during the 1990s, the bulk of which : portation investment grew faster than did other 4 (almost three-quarters of the total) was allocated

1 government investments. As a result, the share

to highways (figure 110). Nevertheless, the share n of transportation in total government invest- of highway investment in total infrastructure o i ment increased from 24 percent in 1990 to 27

t investment has gone down, whereas that for c percent in 2000 [1, 2]. However, the share of transit and air has gone up. Air investment grew e government transportation investment in the at an average annual rate of 4 percent, faster S Gross Domestic Product (GDP) changed little, than all other modes in the 1990s. remaining at almost 1 percent each year [2]. This indicates that funds allocated by govern- Sources ment for improving and expanding transportation capital have been growing at the same pace 1. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and as GDP. Product Account Tables, available at State and local governments are the main http://www.bea.gov, as of February 2003. investors in transportation infrastructure, but 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of their relative role has decreased slightly over Transportation Statistics, “Transportation Investment: Concepts, Data and Analysis,” com- time. Direct federal infrastructure investment piled based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Fixed Assets and Consumer Durables, available at 1 Transportation investment is the purchase value of transporta- http://www.bea.gov, as of July 2002. tion equipment and the purchase or construction value of transportation facilities and structures, namely, roads, railways, airports, air control facilities, water ports, pipelines, and so forth, that have a service life of longer than one year. The total purchase or construction value of new transportation capital in a year is gross investment. While investment increases the stock of transportation capital, the existing transportation capital stock depreci- ates or wears out over time. Therefore, gross investment minus depreciation provides net investment. 2 All dollar amounts are expressed in chained 1996 dollars, unless otherwise specified. Current dollar amounts (which are available in appendix B of this report) were adjusted to eliminate the effects of inflation over time.

134 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

1 4 :

FIGURE 108 Gross Government Investments in Transportation G

Infrastructure and Rolling Stock: 1990–2000 o

Chained 1996 $ (billions) v

80 e Infrastructure Rolling stock r n

60 m e

40 n t

T 20 r a n 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 s p

FIGURE 109 Gross Government Investments in Transportation o r

Infrastructure by Level of Government: 1990–2000 t a

Chained 1996 $ (billions) t 80 i Federal (direct) State and local o n

60 F i n

40 a n c

20 e

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

FIGURE 110 Gross Government Investment in Transportation Infrastructure by Mode: 1990–2000 Chained 1996 $ (billions) 60 Highway 50

20 Water Rail 10 Air Transit

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 NOTES: Investment in transportation infrastructure includes the fied. Current dollar amounts (which are available in appendix B purchase or construction value of transportation facilities and of this report) were adjusted to eliminate the effects of inflation structures. Data on state and local transportation investment are over time. not available separately. For rail infrastructure, only state and SOURCES: local investment from 1993 to 2000 are included. Government U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of investment in pipeline infrastructure and federal investment Transportation Statistics, "Transportation Investment-Concepts, spending on railroads are not covered due to lack of data. Data and Analysis," draft, compiled based on data from U.S. Investment in rolling stock consists of government outlays for Department of Commerce (USDOC), Bureau of Economic motor vehicles only. Government spending on other rolling Analysis (BEA), "Fixed Assets and Consumer Durables," and stocks (e.g., aircrafts, vessels, and boats) and other machinery personal communications with BEA; and USDOC, U.S. Census and equipment used by federal, state, and local DOTs are not Bureau, "Value of Construction Put in Place Statistics," Detailed counted in the estimates due to lack of data. All dollar amounts Construction Expenditure Tables, available at http://www.census. are expressed in chained 1996 dollars, unless otherwise speci- gov, as of February 2003.

135 y g r Transportation Statistics Annual Report e n E n o i t a Transportation Sector Energy Use t r o p s n a r

T ransportation energy use grew 22 percent sector, may be vulnerable to supply disruptions

: between 1991 and 2001, to 28 percent of with fuel price fluctuations having the potential 5 T

1 the nation’s total energy consumption in 2001 to contribute to economic instability.

n (figure 111) [4]. Highway vehicles consumed an o i estimated 81 percent of transportation sector Sources t

c energy [5]. 1. Davis, S., Transportation Energy Data Book: e Still, transportation energy use has grown Edition 22 (Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National S more slowly than has the Gross Domestic Laboratory, September 2002), table 2.4. Product (GDP) over the decade. As a result, the 2. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and amount of transportation energy used per dollar Product Account Tables, available at of GDP declined at the average annual rate of http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm, as of over 1 percent between 1991 and 20011 [2, 3] February 2003. (figure 112). 3. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2001, Over 96 percent of all transportation energy available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/ consumed comes from petroleum. Total U.S. contents.html, as of February 2003. petroleum usage increased 16 percent during the 4. _____, Monthly Energy Review, February 2003, last decade, with transportation responsible for available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/ contents.html, as of February 2003. 83 percent of that rise [1]. In 2001, transportation consumed 67 percent of all petroleum, up 5. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transpor- from 65 percent in 1991 (figure 113). Because tation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2003), over half of U.S. petroleum is imported, the table 4-6. United States, and especially the transportation

1 GDP is in chained 1996 dollars.

136 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

1 5 :

FIGURE 111 U.S. Energy Consumption by Sector: 1991–2001 T r

BTU (quadrillion) a

40 n Industrial 35 s p

30 o

Transportation r

25 t Residential a

20 t i 15 o Commercial n

10 E

5 n

0 e

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 r g y FIGURE 112 Transportation Sector Energy Use and Gross Domestic Product: 1991–2001 Index: 1991 = 1.0 1.5

1.4 GDP 1.3

1.2

1.1 Transportation sector energy use 1.0

0.9 Transportation energy use per dollar of GDP 0.8 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

FIGURE 113 U.S. Petroleum Use by Sector: 1991–2001 Barrels/day (millions) 14 Transportation 12

6 Industry 4 Buildings 2 Utilities 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

KEY: BTU = British thermal units. The average heat content of Review (Washington, DC: August 2002), table 2.1. Figures 112 motor gasoline is 129,024 BTU per gallon. One quadrillion BTU and 113—DOE, EIA, Annual Energy Review 2001, available at is equivalent to 7.75 billion gallons of motor gasoline. GDP = http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html, as of February Gross Domestic Product. GDP is shown in 1996 chained dol- 2003. GDP—U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of lars. Economic Analysis, "National Income and Product Account Tables," available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm, as of SOURCES: Figure 111 —U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), February 2003. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Monthly Energy

137 y g r Transportation Statistics Annual Report e n E n o i t

a Transportation Energy Prices t r o p s n a r

T ransportation fuel prices (in chained 1996 While prices of transportation fuels fluctuate

: dollars1) experienced short-term fluctua- over time, per capita vehicle-miles traveled (vmt) 5 T

1 tions between 1992 and 2002 (figure 114). The for all modes of transportation have increased in almost every year. For instance, between 1991 n average price of motor fuel (all types of gasoline) o and 2001, per capita highway vmt rose about 1 i decreased 15 percent in 1998, to $1.08 per gal- t percent annually, while that of large air carriers c lon from $1.27 per gallon in 1997. Two years e later, transportation fuel prices rebounded to the grew 3 percent (figures 115 and 116). S highest levels in more than a decade. Motor fuel Transportation fuel prices can affect overall prices jumped 25 percent, to $1.46 per gallon in consumer transportation prices. As measured by 2000. Other fuels, such as aviation fuels and the Consumer Price Index, between 1991 and diesel used by railroads, underwent similar price 2001, motor fuel prices and transportation fluctuations. Fuel prices decreased slightly dur- prices increased at the same average annual rate ing 2001 and 2002, so that most transportation (2 percent). This inflation rate for transportation fuels cost approximately the same amount in was lower than average annual inflation for all 2002 as in 1992. Aviation gasoline—used pri- goods and services (3 percent) [2]. In fact, trans- marily in general aviation planes—was one portation-related consumer prices increased less exception, remaining 6 percent more expensive than all other major spending categories except in 2002 than in 1992. apparel, which decreased less than 1 percent Transportation fuel prices are correlated with from 1991 to 2001. the world price of crude oil, because crude oil represents a large percentage of the final price of Sources transportation fuel. This correlation can be seen 1. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information in the price trends from 1992 to 2002 for crude Administration, Monthly Energy Review oil and various transportation fuels. Crude oil (Washington, DC: August 2002 and June 2003). prices increased 9 percent, while all other types 2. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor of transportation fuel (except aviation gasoline) Statistics, Consumer Price Index, available at increased 2 percent or less [1]. http://www.bls.gov, as of June 2003.

138 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

1 5 :

FIGURE 114 Transportation Fuel Prices: 1992–2002 T r

Chained 1996 $ per gallon a 1.6 n

1.4 s Gasoline, all types p 1.2 Aviation gasoline o 1.0 r Diesel no. 2 t 0.8 a t

Railroad diesel i 0.6 o 0.4 Jet fuel, kerosene n

Crude oil E 0.2 n

0 e 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 r g y FIGURE 115 Motor Fuel Prices Compared With per Capita Motor Vehicle-Miles Traveled: 1991–2001 Per capita vehicle-miles Chained 1996 $ per gallon 10,800 1.8 9,450 1.5 Per capita vehicle-miles traveled 8,100 1.2 6,750 Gasoline price, all types 5,400 0.9

4,050 0.6 2,700 0.3 1,350 0 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

FIGURE 116 Jet Fuel Prices Compared With per Capita Aircraft-Miles Traveled: 1991–2001 Per capita aircraft-miles Chained 1996 $ per gallon 25 1.6

20 1.4 Per capita aircraft-miles 1.2 15 1.0 0.8 10 0.6 Jet fuel price 0.4 5 0.2 0 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

NOTE: Current dollar data are available in table 114 in appendix 2002 fuel prices—See table 114 source. Per capita vehicle- and B and were adjusted using a chain-type index to eliminate the aircraft-miles—Calculations based on USDOT, BTS, National effects of inflation over time. Transportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), table 1- 29, also available at http:// www.bts.gov; and U.S. Department of SOURCE: 1991–2001 fuel prices —U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, International Database (IDB), Transportation (USDOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics available at http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/ idbnew.html, as of (BTS), National Transportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, April 2003. DC: 2002), table 3-8, also available at http://www.bts.gov.

139 y g r Transportation Statistics Annual Report e n E n o i t

a Transportation Energy Efficiency t r o p s n a r

T assenger travel was 5 percent more energy

: Terms Used and Calculations Made efficient in 2000 than in 1990 (figure 117), 5 P

1 mainly due to gains by domestic commercial avi- The following definitions apply to the discussion here:

n ation. Improved aircraft fuel economy and

o ■ i increased passenger loads resulted in a 32 per- Energy is measured in British thermal units t (BTU).

c cent increase in commercial air passenger energy e efficiency between 1990 and 2000 [2]. Aircraft ■ A passenger-mile traveled is one passenger

S transported one mile. fuel economy improved by 20 percent between 1990 and 2000. Domestic commercial air pas- ■ A ton-mile is one ton transported one mile. senger-miles rose 49 percent between 1990 and ■ Passenger energy efficiency is the ratio of passenger miles traveled to BTU (or to energy con- 2000, while energy use grew 13 percent [1]. sumed).

Highway passenger travel—by automobiles, ■ Freight energy efficiency is the ratio of ton-miles motorcycles, and light trucks—represented 85 to BTU (or to energy consumed). percent of all passenger-miles and 91 percent of ■ Fuel economy is the ratio of miles per gallon of passenger travel energy use in 2000. Highway fuel. travel was 2 percent more energy efficient in 2000 compared with 1990 [1]. This gain was freight energy consumption. Contributing to this due to a 6 percent increase in the energy effi- trend was the decline in the energy efficiency of ciency of passenger cars and motorcycles, offset the freight truck and waterborne modes [2]. by a 5 percent loss in efficiency of light trucks1 [2]. Furthermore, light truck passenger-miles Sources grew 47 percent between 1990 and 2000, compared with 12 percent for passenger cars and 22 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transpor- percent for all highway passenger vehicles. tation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), Freight energy efficiency (ton-miles per BTU) calculation based on tables 1-34, 1-44, 4-6, and 4-8, also available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of declined 7 percent from 1990 to 2000 (figure May 2003. 118). The decline in freight energy efficiency 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of occurred as a result of 2 percent average annual Transportation Statistics, Transportation Energy growth rate in ton-miles paired with a relatively Efficiency Trends in the 1990s, Issue Brief, avail- rapid average annual growth rate of 3 percent in able at http://www.bts.gov/, as of May 2003.

1 Light trucks include minivans, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles.

140 S e

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators c t i o n

1 5 :

FIGURE 117 Passenger-Miles, Energy Consumption, and Energy T

Efficiency: 1990–2000 r a

Index: 1990 = 1.0 n 1.4 s p o r t

1.3 a t

Passenger-miles i o

1.2 n

Energy consumption n

1.1 e r Energy efficiency g y 1.0

0.9 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

FIGURE 118 Freight Ton-Miles, Energy Consumption, and Energy Efficiency: 1990–2000

Index: 1990 = 1.0 1.4

Energy consumption 1.3

1.2

Ton-miles 1.1

Energy efficiency 1.0

0.9 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

SOURCES: Passenger-miles, ton-miles, and energy use (unless otherwise noted)—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), tables 1-34, 1-44, 4-6, and 4-8, also available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of May 2003. Truck ton-miles for 2000—The Eno Transportation Foundation, Transportation in America, 19th Edition (Washington, DC: 2002), p. 45. Transit energy use calculated from—American Public Transportation Association, Transit Statistics, tables 30 and 33, available at http://www.apta.com, as of May 2003.

141

Chapter 3 State of Transportation Statistics

State of Transportation Statistics

ransportation statistics arise from an array of data systems each T constructed for specific, sometimes narrow, purposes. These systems exist much like a collection of pieces from different jigsaw puzzles of the same picture. The pieces answer some questions well but leave many others unanswered or partly or poorly answered. The pieces do not constitute a whole because of a number of factors, such as incompatible definitions, diverse collection methods, data overlaps and omissions, coverage and timeliness of data collection and releases, and apparent inconsistencies. In addition, transportation statistics need to satisfy a variety of users (see table 1). This chapter focuses on five core transportation areas: freight, passenger travel, air transportation, economic, and geospatial data. Each section provides an analysis of why these data are important, a review of existing data, and possible options for filling crucial data gaps. The challenge for the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) will be to solve, where possible, some of the more pressing data needs in these areas.

FREIGHT DATA Changes in freight transportation reflect the dynamic nature of national and global economies and the continuing improvements and innovations in technology. Alterations in the mix of manufactured products, shifts in global production and trade patterns, and growing domestic demands from industry and consumers all affect freight transportation and related data needs. The consensus on collected freight data is that they are often too out of date to capture current developments and, despite progress, there are many missing pieces to the freight picture. Furthermore, data are often not comparable across modes. Table 2 compares features of several freight data sources. Some freight data needs come up consistently among data users. Major categories of data where important gaps remain include:

■ freight flows (modal combinations used; tonnage, weight, ton-miles, volume, and value of shipments) at the local, state, national, and international levels;

145 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

TABLE 1 Transportation Data Users and Their Needs

Category of user Who the users are What the data are used for

Policymakers Congress; officials of the U.S. Safety regulation, security, congestion analysis, Department of Transportation and international trade and travel, environmental other Executive Branch agencies; issues, economic impact and cost-benefit state and local agencies; analyses, modal choice issues (e.g., cost metropolitan planning allocation studies and analysis of factors organizations; port authorities affecting modal choice), competition analysis (e.g., market share and effects on prices)

Planners Transportation infrastructure Forecasting regional or national freight and planners at all levels of passenger travel demand and its effects on and government; private sector need for public or private infrastructure, effects officials; environmental, economic of transportation on the environment and the development, and emergency economy, national security issues, performance response planners planning and budgeting

Shippers, operators, carriers, Public sector authorities Planning for infrastructure needs, tracking intermediaries, and transportation responsible for transit and ports; vehicle or cargo location, planning for service equipment manufacturers private sector businesses offerings or marketing initiatives, understanding market potential, understanding commodity movements and passenger flows

Transportation regulators Government officials; private Allocating enforcement resources; ensuring the security organizations safety and integrity of the transportation system

Researchers and consultants Academics; private consultants To support research in the public and private sector

News media Reporters Various interests of broad concern (e.g., hazardous materials spills, congestion, and infrastructure condition)

General public Individuals and organizations Travel planning; identifying and rectifying local, regional, and national transportation issues

■ infrastructure, vehicles, vessels, airplanes, ■ true origins and destinations of shipments and pipelines used. (not necessarily the same as the place of record); In many of these categories, some of the data may be available but not on a comprehensive ■ commodities (type; value; whether hazard- basis. ous, containerized, or bulk); ■ transit times (how long it takes to ship Existing Freight Data commodities); and Data Programs ■ shipment costs; Commodity Flow Survey (CFS) ■ intermodal connections (seaports, airports, The CFS, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau railyards) through which freight passes; for BTS, is the broadest, most comprehensive and national survey available of multimodal freight

146 Chapter 3: State of Transportation Statistics

TABLE 2 Selected Freight Flow Data Programs of Nationwide Scope

Data- Data- Shipment variables collection collection Program/agency Modes covered Limitations frequency methodology

Commodity Flow All Kind of commodity Only domestic shippers Every 5 years Survey of Survey (including and its value, weight, surveyed; most retail, all as part of the domestic intermodal) true origin and government, and some other economic shippers Bureau of destination (if establishments (e.g., farms, census; Transportation domestic) logging) are not surveyed; previous data- Sample size: Statistics— most imports not covered; collection years 200,000 in (BTS)—in crude petroleum pipeline were 1993, 1993, 100,000 conjunction with shipments not covered 1997, and 2002 in 1997, and the U.S. Census 50,000 in Bureau 2002

Railcar Waybill Rail Commodity and its Does not reveal true origin and Annual Stratified Sample weight and rail line destination of most shipments; sample of rail system origin and export traffic only picked up if waybill Surface destination rebilled at border; does not Transportation provide shipment value data Sample rate Board varies from 2.5% to 50% depending on shipment size

Waterborne Maritime Commodity; Value data not collected for Data collection Census of Commerce Data shipment weight; domestic shipments continuous; companies origin, destination, some data and vessels U.S. Army Corps and routing of released operating in of Engineers waterborne portion monthly for U.S. of shipment inland waterborne waterways; trade, both Includes domestic most other data domestic and and foreign issued annually foreign shipments

Air carrier freight Air Freight weight Does not identify the Monthly U.S. air data enplaned by each commodity shipped, its value, carriers file carrier at each or true origin and destination; monthly BTS airport; weight of air origin and destination points reports with freight carried over may not be identified if cargo is BTS airport-to-airport interchanged at an airport; very segments; available small carriers, such as air taxi, ton-miles of capacity; not covered revenue ton-miles flown by each carrier Does not cover flights of foreign carriers Covers domestic, transborder, and foreign flights of U.S. carriers.

(Table 2 continues on the next page)

147 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

TABLE 2 Selected Freight Flow Data Programs of Nationwide Scope (continued)

Data- Data- Shipment variables collection collection Program/agency Modes covered Limitations frequency methodology U.S. foreign Truck, rail, For surface modes, Transportation data derived Monthly Data derived trade data: pipeline, shipment weight from U.S. foreign trade data from official transport of government (imports only), its currently provide only limited U.S. freight into and mail, and value and commodity information on air and water international out of the United certain classification, mode modes, even with Canada and merchandise States other of transportation Mexico, and do not identify import and modes when crossing intermodal combinations used export trade U.S. Customs, involved in border, port of entry in shipping cargo from its documents U.S. Census trade or exit, freight origin to its destination. Data and extracted Bureau, BTS, between the charges, and whether on transportation of exports to from records Canadian and United shipment is other countries are collected, filed with Mexican agencies States and containerized but limited in availability. Some administering Canada, and trade records may be filed by agencies the United Data specify state or intermediaries (e.g., a freight States and province of origin forwarder) that may list an An increasing Mexico and destination administrative office located in number of a place other than the point of these records entry or exit, and can result in are filed misreporting of the origin or electronically destination of a shipment. trends. Every five years, the U.S. Census While the CFS is the most extensive survey Bureau surveys shippers for the CFS. Release available of domestic freight activity, it does not of 2002 survey data will begin in late 2003; pre- cover all sectors of the economy. The shipments viously available data cover 1993 and 1997. For of farms, logging and fishing operations, govern- a sample of shipments, shippers are asked to ments, construction firms, service establish- provide information on the shipment’s origin ments, transportation firms, and most retail and destination, its value and weight, the mode firms are not within the scope of the CFS. The or modes of transportation, and the commodity distribution center or warehouse of a retail firm type (using codes from the Standard Classifica- will be in scope, but its retail store will not. For tion of Transportable Goods—SCTG). instance, farm produce is not captured when it is Uses of CFS data include: transported from the farm to a grain elevator or processor but is when reshipped by the elevator ■ determination of the magnitude of freight or processor. Pipeline shipments of crude petro- moving over the national transportation leum are also outside the scope of the CFS. system, The CFS excludes imports unless the ship- ■ projection of growth in freight transporta- ment is received by an importer at its establish- tion demand, ment within the United States and then ■ calculation of ton-miles using origin and reshipped; the reshipment portion would be destination points, counted. The CFS includes the value and ton- ■ estimation of traffic routing, and nage of exports. However, only the domestic ■ calculation of the modal distribution of portion of the shipment mileage is counted; the shipments by value, tonnage, and ton-miles. international portion is not. The CFS excludes

148 Chapter 3: State of Transportation Statistics

“landbridge” cargo carried across the United ments interlined between two railroads are often States (i.e., cargo that does not originate or ter- shown as two movements, with the interchange minate in the United States—truck traffic from point being listed as the destination of the first Canada to Mexico, or rail traffic carrying shipment and the origin of the second. Export Pacific Rim freight from West Coast seaports to traffic is also excluded unless it is rebilled at the East Coast seaports for shipment to Europe). border. The relatively small sample size of the CFS Waterborne Commerce Data limits its geographic and commodity detail. The Waterborne Commerce Data collected by The 1993 CFS had an establishment sample the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provide size of 200,000; the 1997 sample was reduced details on maritime freight. It is a complete cen- to 100,000 (covering 5 million shipments); and sus of all waterborne domestic and foreign the 2002 sample was halved again to 50,000 movements and gathers data on the weight of (covering 2.7 million shipments). The Census the shipment, the origin, destination, and rout- Bureau designs the CFS to survey national and ing of the waterborne portion of the shipment, state-to-state flows, so data on flows to and the waterborne distance traveled, and a code from metropolitan areas are often not avail- for the commodity carried (using the Corps of able. Planners and policymakers have indicated Engineers’ own commodity coding system). No a strong need for greater geographic detail—at value data are collected for domestic ship- the county level—for analysis and forecasting. ments, but the Corps collects customs data on Carload Waybill Sample the value of foreign shipments. The foreign This specialized database provides detailed data lack information on routing. information on freight movements by rail. The Air Freight Data Surface Transportation Board collects this strati- BTS gathers data on air freight directly from the fied sample of rail waybills, with the sample carriers. For each carrier, these data show the rate varying from 2.5 percent to 50 percent enplaned weight of freight at each airport, the depending on the size of the shipment. About weight of freight carried over airport-to-airport 577,000 shipments were sampled in 2001. segments, available ton-miles of capacity, and Data collected include rail system origin and actual revenue ton-miles flown. The data do not destination, weight, commodity (by 7-digit Stan- include information on the commodity classifi- dard Transportation Commodity Classification cation of the freight carried or its value. The (STCC) code), and mileage. No value data are data also generally do not report the true origin collected. The main weakness of the Carload and destination of cargo, that is, the point from Waybill Sample is the lack of true origin and which it is shipped by truck to the airport and to destination data. The sample gathers no informa- which it is delivered from the airport. Moreover, tion beyond the scope of the rail system, so that when the cargo is interchanged at an airport, the origin and destination are treated as occur- even by the same airline, it is treated as a new ring when the shipment is tendered to or deliv- shipment, so even the airborne origin and desti- ered by the system. The true origin and nation points are lost. The database also does destination, if it requires a connection to the rail not count cargo moved by the smallest carriers system by truck, is not shown. Moreover, ship- (i.e., air taxis).

149 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

International Data freight vehicles travel empty, contributing to The U.S. Census Bureau provides surface highway congestion but not showing up in freight import data collected from the Bureau freight statistics. 1 of Customs and Border Protection to BTS. The U.S. Census Bureau conducts the Vehicle These data are then reported as part of BTS’s Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS) every five Transborder Surface Freight Data. BTS also years. The VIUS provides data on the number gathers data on exports from Canada and of trucks (including data on the size of truck Mexico to the United States to complete the fleets owned by carriers), their types, vehicle database. The data measure the weight of weights and lengths, fuel economy, the indus- imports (but not exports), the value of ship- tries they serve, the kinds of commodities they ments, the modes of transportation, the com- carry, their range of operation (e.g., local, modity classifications (from the 2-digit regional, or long distance) and the percentage Harmonized Schedule), the ports of entry or of miles operated out-of-state, weeks operated, exit, the freight charges, and codes to indicate model years, how they are acquired, and the if the shipments were containerized. Data on nature of the carriers (e.g., for-hire, private, or origin and destination show only the state or contract). These data do not provide any infor- province. Similar data are not available for air mation about freight flows themselves, such as and water exports and imports to and from origins and destinations, but are useful in con- Canada and Mexico, and the data available on junction with other databases for understand- exports and imports from other countries are ing truck movements. even more limited. The federal government plans to substan- Options for Filling Freight Data Gaps tially improve the quality of international As the above discussion suggests, there are many freight data using an International Trade Data important freight data gaps. Two pressing exam- System (ITDS). The ITDS, a multiple agency ples are the lack of good origin and destination effort spearheaded by the Bureau of Customs data for truck shipments and data on intermodal and Border Protection, promises to provide shipments. While the CFS is, in principle, a com- comprehensive data on imports and exports, prehensive freight database, it in fact omits including origin and destination, mode, com- many sectors of the economy and reports limited modity, weight, and value. details on a relatively small sample of shippers. Motor Carrier Data Moreover, the sample may contain significant Data on the number of vehicles passing errors in the reported mode of transportation through the transportation network are needed when the shipper often has incomplete informa- for many purposes. For instance, the number of tion (e.g., the shipper that hires a trucking com- vehicles is important for calculating the level of pany to transport the shipment may not know congestion in the transportation system. Many that the trucking company contracts with a railroad to move the trailers by rail flatcar for a considerable portion of the trip). Databases on 1 In 2003, functions of the Immigration and Naturalization Ser- vice, the U.S. Customs Service, the Animal and Plant Inspection rail, air, and maritime shipments fill some of Service, and the Border Patrol were combined into the U.S. these gaps, but little data are available for truck Department of Homeland Security’s Bureau of Customs and Bor- der Protection. and intermodal shipments. Moreover, other

150 Chapter 3: State of Transportation Statistics

databases cover only the portion of the trip han- Such approaches would build on existing data dled by the mode on which they focus and do efforts. Over the longer term, new innovations not cover intermodal connections. and approaches may emerge as practical alterna- The Committee on National Statistics of the tives for gathering data. Two of these— National Academy of Science’s Transportation electronic transmission of operational data Research Board (TRB) released a study on the from vehicles and infrastructure and possible CFS in March 2003 [8]. The committee recom- adoption of transportation data elements as mended that the five-year survey be continued part of a universal bill of lading—are discussed until an improved alternative could be estab- in box 1. lished. The committee reasoned that the exist- CFS Enhancement ing CFS provided unique and important data For the foreseeable future, a survey such as the on domestic freight movements, despite its lim- CFS is likely to remain a central component of a itations and shortcomings. Among the limita- national freight data program. A top priority for tions cited by the committee were gaps in CFS enhancement would be to gather informa- shipment and industry coverage and a lack of tion from shippers currently outside the scope of geographic and commodity detail. These limi- the survey. The focus for sample frames for the tations, according to the committee, are com- shippers could be those that generate the most pounded by the survey’s shrinking sample size. vehicle-miles of traffic (e.g., construction, ser- (Recommendations from another report on vices, retail trade, and agriculture). freight data options—by the TRB Committee Two other key weaknesses in the CFS are on Freight Transportation Data—A Frame- lack of timely data and a sample size that is too work for Development—were not available in small for local planning. It may never be possi- time for inclusion in this report.) ble in a national freight flow survey to generate A new American Freight Data Program sufficiently detailed data to meet the needs of would aim to fill in key data gaps. It could have all local planners, but if data were collected many elements, but the extent to which gaps annually they could be aggregated to provide could be eliminated would depend on resources larger sample sizes. This would allow the most available. Three specific components of a new recent data to be analyzed if the focus is on cur- program could be: rency at the expense of geographical detail; it would allow data for the last five years to be ■ filling the most important gaps and making freight data more timely by changing the analyzed if the focus is on maximum geo- Commodity Flow Survey to an annual or graphic or commodity detail. continuous collection of data that includes BTS lacks independent authority to require specialized sample frames of construction, responses to a survey. Previously, BTS collected agricultural, retail, and services shippers; freight data under an interagency agreement ■ providing complete statistical coverage of with the Census Bureau, which has mandatory transportation of imports and exports authority under its five-year economic census. through the ITDS; and It has been demonstrated that voluntary responses are less timely, complete, and accu- ■ developing a mail-out survey of nonpassen- rate than responses collected under a manda- ger vehicles to collect data on vehicle move- tory survey, reducing the quality of the data ments and vehicle and driver characteristics. and increasing the cost of the survey.

151 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

BOX 1 Other Ways to Collect Freight Data

Freight data are collected from both shippers and “Freight All Kinds”), the true origin or destination, the carriers, but no record follows a shipment through its routing, or the mode or modes of transportation entire trip. Shippers often have only partial information used. The carrier with whom the shipper contracts on the mode and routing of the shipment. The carrier may be shown on the bill of lading, but if the carrier knows the routing for its portion of the trip but may subcontracts all or part of the carriage, those other have little information on other portions of the trip or carriers will not be listed. even the type or value of commodities carried. No records are available to tie together the information While a universal bill of lading might be a long-term that is known by the shipper and the various carriers. solution to the freight data problem, it would be important to develop consensus within the A universal bill of lading could record all the transportation community that costs of implementing needed data and be sampled to provide a such a concept would be justified by the benefits of comprehensive freight database. Currently, a bill of the data made possible by it. lading accompanies all shipments, but the data on it are not standardized. Surface Transportation Board As information technologies advance, the potential regulations (49 CFR 1035) specify certain grows to capture data collected automatically as freight requirements for bills of lading on rail and water passes through electronic interchanges, although many shipments, as do the Federal Motor Carrier Safety institutional barriers exist in using such data for public Administration requirements for truck shipments (49 purposes. In theory, such a data-collection approach CFR Part 373). The bills of lading list the weight of could replace most surveys and carrier reports. the shipment but may provide no information on the Barriers, such as the proprietary nature of this data and type of commodity (which may be recorded simply as incompatible systems, constrain use.

Another way to provide data for local planners and policymakers, movement of all non- ning might be through partnerships with state passenger vehicles is of interest, whether those and local governments willing to provide vehicles carry freight or not. resources to increase sampling rates in geo- There are also other important data needs graphical areas in which they have a special that cannot be met through a freight survey interest. This approach would add data to the alone. Safety exposure data describe the drivers CFS while allowing state and local govern- operating vehicles (e.g., their age, level of expe- ments to obtain information on their own local rience, number of hours on duty), but more traffic flows, probably at a lower cost than descriptive vehicle data than that provided by conducting their own surveys. This is similar to the VIUS are needed (e.g., tare weights, axle the approach taken with the 2001 National loadings, safety equipment), as are data on Household Travel Survey. where vehicles are operating. While the CFS lacks import data, some data A number of approaches already exist for are available from the Bureau of Customs and surveying vehicles. The United Kingdom uses a Border Protection. The ITDS, while still in the mail-out vehicle survey in which truck opera- planning stage, will eventually remedy this exist- tors fill in weekly diaries on the operations of a ing data gap in the CFS. particular vehicle for a week’s period. These Vehicle Movement Data diaries report, for each trip during the week, Even if all the gaps in the CFS are filled, certain information on the origin and destination of kinds of data will still not be available. As indi- the trip, the number of miles operated full and cated above, the CFS only tracks movements of empty, the weight of the shipment, and the type freight, whereas for many transportation plan- of goods carried (with a special code to note

152 Chapter 3: State of Transportation Statistics

hazardous materials). While these diaries do geographic scale. Questions that help evaluate not provide data on transit times or the vehi- the needs of current and future travelers cle’s driver, this approach could be used to include why people travel, how and when they gather this information. travel, what their origins and destinations are, Canada uses a roadside intercept survey, in how long travel takes, and how much it costs. which data collectors stop trucks at 238 road- Travel data, in combination with other types of side points and ask the driver questions about data, can also be used to assess the costs and origin, destination, routing, and transit time of benefits of travel, including transportation the trip (including information on stops), the safety and its environmental effects. weight and commodity classification of the Government and private organizations need cargo, the nature of the truck, and information passenger travel data. Policymakers, planners, about the driver and the carrier. Data are col- and forecasters use these data to determine lected on handheld computers. infrastructure investment requirements and to The California Air Resources Board (CARB), measure and design strategies to influence in conjunction with the Federal Highway transportation demand, particularly in the face Administration (FHWA), conducted a one-time of growing congestion. Data can also be used to study in 1999 using global positioning system identify geographic areas and groups of individ- (GPS) technology to track vehicles in Southern uals who may be underserved by public trans- California. CARB obtained usable data from 140 portation. Passenger travel data, including the trucks and tracked them for 4 months. Data were number, type, and use of motor vehicles, can collected on truck routes and stops, travel times provide measures of exposure for safety analy- and speeds, idling times, and times of starts and ses, energy efficiency, and the environmental stops. This approach gives the most detailed data impacts of travel. State-by-state estimates of on the actual route used by the truck, the actual vehicle travel are the foundation of decisions times when the truck was in operation, and the about funding, cost, and fee allocation. amount of time required to make a trip at partic- Businesses and other private sector entities ular times of the day, week, and year. (e.g., consumer organizations and public interest groups) also want passenger travel data for a PASSENGER TRAVEL STATISTICS wide variety of reasons, and despite the cost, they frequently collect data for their own pur- A much-valued feature of American life is the poses. These data are often of use to others and ability to travel from place to place with rela- may be available to the public. Privately col- tive ease, at a reasonable expense, and rela- lected data may be supplemented with govern- tively quickly, whether it is across town, across ment data; however, in many cases, government country, or to a foreign destination. Americans data are the only source of information available average 1,500 daily trips annually, covering an for business planning and other analyses. average of 14,500 miles per person [19]. Many kinds of data are needed to evaluate this demand Existing Passenger Travel Data for passenger travel and how well the supply and Data Programs meets the demand. For instance, data are There are three main types of passenger travel needed for the different modes of transporta- data: survey, regulatory/administrative, and tion and at various levels of detail, including

153 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

operations/industry data. Each type provides Several improvements were introduced in the different levels of detail in terms of coverage, 2001 NHTS, including data collection on the periodicity, and geography; and each possesses travel of children under the age of five and bet- different strengths and weaknesses. ter data on walking and medium-range trips Passenger Transportation Surveys (from 50 to 100 miles). These changes mean Since the 1960s, the federal government has that the most recent survey data cannot always periodically conducted nationwide surveys of be easily compared with data from prior year passenger travel in the United States. The most surveys. An important supplement to this kind recent, the 2001 National Household Travel of travel survey is the upcoming time-use survey Survey (NHTS), combines two previous sur- being developed by the U.S. Department of veys: the Nationwide Personal Transportation Labor [13]. Survey (NPTS—a survey primarily of daily Commuting behavior, which affects conges- travel), and the American Travel Survey (ATS— tion and the scheduling of work, is captured a survey of long-distance travel). BTS and most fully by the long form of the decennial FHWA conduct the NHTS.2 The 2001 NHTS census. Mode, origin and destination, start national sample surveyed 26,000 households time, and travel time can be linked to the full nationwide on their daily travel and asked range of social, economic, and demographic about the number and purpose of their trips, characteristics of the population at a very fine the mode(s) of transportation used, the dis- geographic scale. Information from the decen- tance traveled, as well as the social and demo- nial census is relied on for federal policymaking graphic characteristics of the household. In and program development; for metropolitan addition, the survey asked household respon- transportation planning, including air quality dents to report all long-distance trips (trips of analyses under the Clean Air Act; and for 50 miles or more one way) during a four-week transit planning. The U.S. Census Bureau plans period. Additional detail on purpose, mode, to eliminate the long form from the 2010 cen- duration, overnight stops made to and from the sus and replace it with an annual American farthest destination, and so on, were collected Community Survey to provide up-to-date for each of these trips. In addition to the demographic and housing data on a continuing national sample, another 40,000 households basis. National-level journey-to-work data are were surveyed from 9 additional jurisdictions: also collected every two years in the American 5 local, mostly urban, areas and 4 states [19]. Housing Survey, conducted by the U.S. Census The NHTS travel data along with the demo- Bureau for the Department of Housing and graphic data collected on households and indi- Urban Development. viduals provide one of the few tools to analyze Some other, more specialized surveys also the travel patterns of sociodemographic groups. exist. For instance, the Office of Travel and For instance, a recent study by TRB used data Tourism Industries in the Department of on the travel of children from the 1995 NPTS to Commerce surveys between 69,000 and 95,000 assess their safety going to and from school [9]. passengers per year through a Survey of International Air Travelers (In-Flight) Program, providing information on the origin and desti- 2 Prior to the 2001 NHTS, the NPTS was conducted in 1969, 1977, 1983, 1990, and 1995, and the ATS (or similar surveys) nation of foreign visitors coming to the United was conducted in 1963, 1967, 1972, 1977, and 1995. States by air and the foreign travel of Ameri-

154 Chapter 3: State of Transportation Statistics

cans by air [12]. This information is supple- other service quality indicators (mishandled bag- mented by arrivals and departures data from gage and oversales), enplanements by airport the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. and airline, airplane- and passenger-miles, and Additional information on the travel of Cana- financial data. Other airline data include the dians to the United States and Americans to Passenger Origin and Destination Survey, a sam- Canada is provided by Statistics Canada. The ple of 10 percent of all airline tickets used in Federal Aviation Administration conducts the scheduled service, as discussed later in the Air General Aviation and Air Taxi Activity Survey Transportation Statistics section. annually. The VIUS, discussed earlier in the FHWA, through the HPMS, collects data Freight section, collects information on private from states on vehicle-miles traveled by vehicle and commercial trucks, including passenger- and road type, as well as information on the oriented light trucks, their use, and a host of extent and condition of the road system. This other related variables at the state level [11]. information is available for states and urban- Examples of private surveys include the Travel ized areas. Among other things, HPMS data are Industry Association of America’s survey of used for federal funding apportionment and for tourist travel [10] and the American Bus Asso- a major annual congestion study by the Texas ciation’s survey of the intercity bus industry [3]. Transportation Institute [7]. States also report Regulatory Data and other types of information to FHWA derived Administrative Records from administrative records, such as fuel con- Regulatory programs that require service pro- sumption from state fuel tax revenue records viders to report information to the government and motor vehicle registrations. generate passenger travel data, as do administra- Operations and Industry Data tive records and other data collections by states Public operators of the transportation system, and localities. Regulatory program data include particularly state and local departments of information on airlines, intercity bus travel, and transportation and industry groups, collect a transit. Administrative records and other data vast amount of data. Industry sources releasing collected by state and local governments include operations data include the American Public the Highway Performance Monitoring System Transportation Association (APTA) (transit), (HPMS) and fuel tax revenue data. Since deregu- Amtrak (intercity train travel), and airline asso- lation of the transportation industry, beginning ciations. APTA’s transit database adds to the in the late 1970s, availability of regulatory data National Transit Database by collecting data has declined. that their members do not report to the federal The National Transit Database, the most government. Amtrak operations data include comprehensive information on transit, contains number of passengers served, miles traveled, data collected from major urban transit agen- and on-time performance. cies receiving federal aid and is maintained by Real-time monitoring of vehicle travel by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Data roadside sensors can provide data for a number cover services supplied and consumed, finances, of purposes such as evaluating the impacts of safety, and security. intelligent transportation systems, computer Airline data, collected by BTS’s Office of Air- model calibration, congestion monitoring, and line Information, include flight on-time data, transportation planning. For instance, an

155 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

FHWA-sponsored project is using roadside sen- publish a national set of annual data for the sor data to develop indicators of congestion in National Transit Database. 10 urban areas on a monthly basis [6]. The Variability in definitions, populations sur- Texas Transportation Institute is working on a veyed, reference periods and timeframes, sam- similar project [7]. Ensuring confidentiality and pling question formats, and so on also affect privacy of this type of data collection is an area comparability of data collected. Sometimes a that is and will continue to be important. good deal of data exist on a topic from various Operations data also exist in air travel. sources, but the collection method has not been FAA’s Air Traffic Control System Command standardized so that integrating the data in a Center monitors, in real-time, air traffic over statistically valid way is difficult or impossible. the continental United States and provides real- Much data collected and analyzed pertains to time airport status information to the public. only one mode of transportation. Only a few The Bureau of Customs and Border Protec- data sources, such as the NHTS, identify the tion captures inbound border crossing informa- ways in which different modes are used in com- tion by vehicle type (passenger car, bus, and bination to make a single trip. Consequently, train) and of pedestrians [17]. The Bureau does there is little information on subjects such as not collect comparable data on outbound vehi- wait times between different trip segments. cles. Other sources of information include indi- Data integration is also a problem for state vidual bridge operators, border state and local users who need system data, such as governments, and the Mexican and Canadian infrastructure extent and condition, integrated governments. with data on system use and surrounding characteristics such as land use. Indeed, data to Options for Filling Passenger assess the link between transportation and land Travel Data Gaps use is typically a top concern for analysts at the Data exist for all modes of passenger travel and local level. related factors on a wide range of variables, but Several types of important passenger travel significant gaps exist. A data gap can result data are not available in usable form, because, from deficiencies in data existence, complete- among other things, they are not publicly avail- ness, detail, quality, timeliness, integration, and able or cannot be aggregated. Data gaps exist accessibility. for travel cost and time. Some cost information Timeliness and quality are virtually always is available for commercial modes and from the issues. Options for making passenger travel Bureau of Labor Statistics’s (BLS’s) Consumer surveys more timely are limited, because they Expenditure Survey, but these sources generally tend to be conducted five or more years apart do not provide information on the prices con- and the data usually take more than a year to sumers paid nor do they relate costs to specific publish after collection. Continuous measure- trips or types of trips [16]. Using the BTS Pas- ment may help solve the problem of timeliness, senger Origin and Destination Survey data, although it has its own set of challenges [15]. BTS is working with BLS to develop an airline Operational and administrative data also takes price index. Travel time or on-time perfor- time to produce, compile, and publish. For mance is available for air carriers and Amtrak, instance, it takes about a year to assemble and and the decennial census collects data on time

156 Chapter 3: State of Transportation Statistics

spent commuting. In addition, the BTS/FHWA these data will illustrate the travel flow of NHTS includes travel times for all trips. How- workers to places of employment and will be ever, NHTS data provide national averages, made available to the transportation commu- making it difficult to assess highway congestion nity, subject to confidentiality requirements. It or transit reliability trends in specific areas. is anticipated that the LEHD data will provide Publicly available information on intercity greater geographic specificity than has been bus and rail are limited even on a national level, available in the past and will lead to the ability not to mention corridor-specific data or use of to derive enhanced travel demand patterns for these modes by population subgroups. Further- use by transportation researchers, planners, more, data on these long-distance modes in the and engineers. 2001 NHTS are more limited than the data that In many instances, few or no data exist on were collected in the 1995 ATS. And, despite populations with special transportation needs; work by FTA and the Community Transporta- for example, people with disabilities and spe- tion Association of America, rural transit data cial segments of the elderly population such as are also quite poor [20]. the housebound, those living in special care Publicly available information on passenger facilities, and those living in rural areas. BTS travel using commercial water transportation, sponsored questions about the travel of people such as cruise vessels, are limited although a with disabilities in the 1995 National Health recent congressionally mandated ferry survey Interview Survey on Disability conducted by by FHWA provides important information for the National Center for Health Statistics, but the survey provided very limited information. that segment of the industry. Historically, data 3 on the use of recreational boats (e.g., motor- In 2002, BTS conducted its own small-scale boats, jet skis, and sailboats) have not been col- national survey about how persons with dis- lected, limiting safety analysis. However, a new abilities use transportation, the barriers they National Boating Survey conducted by the U.S. face, and their overall satisfaction with the Coast Guard may begin to correct this defi- transportation system [18]. A preliminary find- ciency. Exposure measures for general aviation ings report will be available in late 2003. aircraft are also limited. Detail and completeness are problems with The U.S. Census Bureau initiated the Longi- most travel datasets in even the major travel tudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) surveys. Despite its utility, the NHTS does not pilot program to demonstrate the potential for include origin and destination information for linking existing economic and demographic local trips. Data for state and local analyses are administrative and survey data. BTS is partici- limited to the few “add-on” areas where states pating in this pilot to conduct research on or locations have supported collection of addi- developing detailed origin and destination tional data. The decennial census, conducted tables based on residence and employment every 10 years, is limited to commuting, trips information of U.S. workers. This research that account for only a small percentage of all effort will combine information about workers trips made. To improve pedestrian data, BTS (place of residence, employment, and income) includes related questions in its bimonthly and employers (location, type of business, number of employees, and payroll). Once available, 3 The completed survey sample consisted of 2,698 nondisabled respondents and 2,321 disabled respondents.

157 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Omnibus Survey. In addition, BTS and the from more than 240 domestic and foreign air- National Highway Traffic Safety Administra- lines serving the United States. tion conducted a small national survey in 2002 Prior to deregulation of commercial airlines on bicycling and walking to ascertain the scope in 1978, traffic and financial statistics sup- and magnitude of these activities and the pub- ported the federal government’s responsibility lic’s behavior and attitudes regarding them to ensure universal air service through regula- [21]. tion of routes, airfares, and freight and mail More comprehensive solutions to passenger rates. After deregulation, the federal govern- data issues may be appropriate. In late 2001, ment’s responsibilities were reduced, although BTS asked TRB and the Committee on key data series in such areas as safety, financial, National Statistics to convene a panel of and operating statistics were retained. Air car- experts to review the key BTS survey programs. riers have also increased their use of traffic and The Expert Panel to Review BTS Survey Pro- financial information as they monitor and grams recommended the following options in adjust their competitive position and determine their June 2002 letter report:4 new route opportunities.

■ An enhanced NHTS. This could involve: 1) While scheduled service enplanements grew improving the sample size and representa- by 47 percent from 452 million to 665 million tiveness, 2) increasing the overall precision from 1991 to 2000, by 2001 these enplane- of resulting estimates, 3) providing more ments decreased to 622 million [14]. The timely data to users by changing the fre- decrease was due primarily to the economic quency of the data collection, 4) adding downturn and to the September 11, 2001, ter- more statistical rigor in data processing and rorist attacks on the United States, after which final products, and 5) expanding the use of the aviation system was shut down entirely for existing and emerging technologies. one day and then partially for several days, ■ A new, targeted data-collection program. costing the airline industry an estimated $330 The program would develop and imple- million per day [1]. Since that time, the airline ment ways to address known data gaps industry has faced a fundamental shift in travel but be flexible enough to handle new gaps patterns and increased security and safety mea- that arise. sures. Higher operational costs and narrow profit margins create economic challenges for AIR TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS the airlines. Financial, operational, air traffic, pricing, and safety airline statistics aid in Airline traffic and financial statistics were first addressing these and other issues and provide collected by the federal government in the policymakers and industry stakeholders with 1930s for use in monitoring and promoting the information to understand airline travel trends. fledgling air transport industry. Today, the U.S. Air transport data supports policy initiatives Department of Transportation (DOT) collects and international air service negotiations, moni- traffic, operational, and financial statistics toring of air carrier fitness, allocating airport improvement funds, ensuring the provision of 4 A comprehensive final report by the Expert Panel is expected in late fall 2003. As of August 2003, three letter reports had been essential air services, setting international and issued by the Committee, covering the NHTS, Omnibus, and intra-Alaska mail rates, and safety and security CFS.

158 Chapter 3: State of Transportation Statistics

analyses. For instance, the Department of Labor weighted average number of full time employ- uses aviation data in their computation of produc- ees per labor category and the maintenance tivity and consumer price indices. The Depart- costs for flight equipment for carriers by air- ment of Justice uses data to monitor the collection craft type. of customs service fees and for anti-trust cases. ICAO reports annual data on the fleets and Examples of other uses of air transport sta- personnel of both international and domestic tistics include airport planning, traffic forecast- scheduled and nonscheduled carriers. The sta- ing, and development of tourism initiatives by tistics cover the number and types of aircraft state and local governments; travel planning by operated, their capacity and utilization, and the the general public; planning and marketing by numbers of airline personnel by job category the travel and tourism industry; and forecasting and the annual expenditures for these person- and analysis by airlines. nel. ICAO also collects financial data from international scheduled airlines on annual reve- Existing Air Transport Data nues and expenditures, year-end assets and lia- and Data Programs bilities, retained earnings, and summary traffic The four categories of airline statistics—financial, data. [5] operational and traffic, pricing and fees, and Operational and Traffic Data safety—provide different levels of detail in terms Operational and traffic airline statistics cover of coverage, periodicity, and focus. The federal information such as aircraft departures per- government collects the majority of publicly formed, delays, fleets, aircraft revenue-miles, available aggregated airline statistics directly from and passenger and cargo revenue-hours. air carriers. The Air Transport Association (ATA) Additional data cover information, such as reports member data on a quarterly and monthly revenue passenger-miles, available seat-miles, basis on airfares, a cost index, and passenger and revenue ton-miles (for passengers, freight, 5 cargo traffic. The International Civil Aviation and mail), segment and market traffic and Organization (ICAO) collects international air capacity by airport-pair, and enplanements data covering 188 countries. by airport. Financial Data Particular OAI data collections include flight BTS, through its Office of Airline Information on-time data, other service quality indicators (OAI), collects air carrier financial data, includ- (mishandled baggage and oversales), enplane- ing income data and limited carrier operating ments by airport and airline, airplane- and expense data. Fuel constitutes the industry’s passenger-miles, and financial data. Monthly data second-largest operating expense. Air carriers submitted to OAI include arrivals, departures, report to OAI monthly on the gallons and costs and aircraft revenue-miles and hours. Twelve of of fuel consumed, which allows OAI to calcu- the largest U.S. air carriers report to OAI on late and publish the average price per gallon. scheduled and actual arrival/departure times and BTS also collects, on a monthly basis, the cancellations by flight number and day of month. Finally, information on aircraft operating 5 ATA members are common carriers in air transportation of expenses by aircraft type and changes in aircraft passengers and/or cargo that operate a minimum of 20 million revenue ton-miles annually and have done so for 1 year preceding fleet inventory are also reported to OAI. the date of application, and operate under a valid certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration [2].

159 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) prices for the two programs are gathered from collects data in a variety of areas of aviation different data sources: CPI prices come from the including the Operations Network database, SABRE system,6 while PPI prices are gathered which captures flight operations and delays; directly from airline pricing departments. Addi- the Air Traffic Control System Command Cen- tional sources of this category of information ter, which monitors air traffic in real-time over are available from ATA, which reports on mem- the continental United States as well as provid- ber passenger prices. ing airport status information to the public; Safety and the Enhanced Traffic Management System The National Transportation Safety Board (ETMS), which contains detailed information (NTSB) investigates the causes of accidents and on flights for which a flight plan has been filed. uses the information gathered to make safety FAA uses the ETMS to strategically manage recommendations to the transportation industry. traffic flow in the National Airspace System, balancing demand and capacity to avoid con- The National Airspace Incident Monitoring gestion that eventually translates to delays. System is a repository that includes the FAA Accident/Incident Data System, the Near Mid- Every year, FAA conducts the General Avia- Air Collision System, the Pilot Deviation System, tion and Air Taxi Activity Survey, which pro- and other aviation safety-related databases. The vides estimates of the number of active aircraft, Accident/Incident Data System contains NTSB’s hours flown, primary use, and many other recommendations to FAA and FAA’s responses. characteristics by aircraft type. Additional sources of information are ATA reports on pas- The Aviation Safety Reporting System senger and cargo traffic, as well as ICAO col- (ASRS) is a voluntary, confidential, and anony- lections of monthly traffic data for major mous incident reporting system that collects international airports that include international information used to identify hazards and safety aircraft movements, number of passengers discrepancies in the National Airspace System. embarked and disembarked, and tons of freight Data from the ASRS are also used to formulate and mail loaded and unloaded. policy and to strengthen the foundation of aviation human factors safety research. Pricing and Fees Data OAI’s Passenger Origin and Destination (O&D) Options for Filling Air Transportation Survey samples 10 percent of all airline tickets Data Gaps used in scheduled service and reports on the full The discussion above illustrates the variety of ticket itinerary, operating and ticketing carrier air transport data currently available. However, on each coupon, fare basis codes, and total dol- many gaps exist. One important gap is the lar value of the ticket. BLS publishes both a multimodal nature of passenger and freight air Consumer Price Index (CPI) and a Producer travel, that is, movement to and from airports. Price Index (PPI) for airfares. The CPI measures Passengers arrive at airports in cars (their own changes in the prices paid by consumers for or taxis), by transit, by shuttle and intercity domestic and international airline trips, includ- buses, and, to some extent, by rail. Nearly all ing taxes and any distribution costs not received by the carriers (e.g., travel agents’ fees). The PPI 6 A commercial system that provides users with airline schedules, measures changes in revenues received by pro- availability, pricing, and other information, as well as reserva- ducers of domestic airline trips only. Monthly tions and ticketing capability.

160 Chapter 3: State of Transportation Statistics

air freight arrives by truck, but the extent of segment of the U.S. aviation industry and prior movement is not known. Some of these would benefit consumers of these services. data may be captured but in data systems with ■ Flight-specific data would allow more accu- different formats, definitions, and data ele- rate estimates of the performance of the air- ments, increasing the challenge to integrate the line industry, including the cost to data into single trips. passengers of flying, the time required to One major challenge in the collection of air- travel, the reliability of travel times, and the line statistics is air carrier concern about reveal- number of passengers affected by airline ing proprietary information that could put delays. Currently, however, BTS is unable them at a competitive disadvantage. A second to collect these data because of a legislative challenge is that the immense volume of data prohibition on collecting passenger data by that could be collected by carriers is expensive flight number. to house and analyze. In collaboration with BLS, BTS is investigat- TRANSPORTATION ing a new method of computing price indices ECONOMIC DATA for air travel. The research aims to produce an Transportation economics refers to industry per- airfare index series based on actual transaction formance on key economic measures such as prices, because the current BLS price indices for prices, quantities, productivity, and externalities. air travel do not capture the effects of special It looks at not only how the industry performs discounts (e.g., Internet specials or frequent directly in meeting the needs of its customers, flyer awards) on price trends. The BTS series but also how it affects the economy as a whole, will also provide more geographic detail; for based on, for example, measures of employ- example, estimate indices for particular cities ment, output, and international competitiveness. of itinerary origin to facilitate local area economic analysis. However, greater detail is Existing Economic Data needed for the O&D data to be able to distin- Prices guish different products or services and their Many customers focus on the price they pay for associated prices. transportation as the key indicator of how well Options for improving air transportation the transportation system is meeting their needs. data include: The costs of passenger transportation rise and fall in line with prices in the overall economy but ■ Traffic data on air taxis (on-demand air are particularly affected by energy prices and the carriers) and corporate jets, when com- productivity of individual modes. Good data bined with information from NTSB, could exist on the component costs of automobile be used to conduct exposure/risk analyses. transportation, which represents the bulk of pas- The information would also be useful in senger movement. Reasonably good data are assessing the degree to which these forms of available on the price of passenger rail transpor- air transportation substitute for traditional tation and transit. carriers. ■ On-time statistics for smaller carriers and On the freight side, there are some data avail- international flights could be used to calcu- able on all modes of transportation, but these late delays and travel time for an important data often do not show the actual prices paid on

161 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Investment BOX 2 Transportation investment includes public and Transportation Services Output Indices private infrastructure and vehicles and affects Experimental indices of overall transportation both the capacity and condition of the trans- output under development by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics show that some types of portation system. Capital stock is the accumu- transportation tend to rise and fall in advance of lated stock of these investments over a period corresponding changes in the overall economy. of years, reflecting new investments and depre- These transportation services output indices, which measure passenger, freight, and total output ciation of existing investments. Information on of services for-hire, are being studied in context capital stock is essential for measuring the pro- with the growth cycles of the U.S. economy. The turning points of the freight measure, in particular, ductivity of the transportation system and its seem to lead the economic turning points by effect on economic growth. several months, potentially providing a useful forecasting tool. Reasonably good data are available on most components of private capital stock: railroads, particular routes or for particular commodities. privately owned automobiles, trucking, airlines, Without this information it is difficult to deter- waterway operators, pipelines, privately owned mine which customers benefit from lower prices, local transit, transportation services (e.g., travel even when average prices go down. Price data agents and freight brokers), and the transporta- are also often not adjusted for changes in qual- tion-related capital stock of in-house transporta- ity, such as delivery time and reliability. tion companies, as well as public highways and streets. All of these forms of transportation capi- Quantities tal stock have increased with the growth of the Quantities are the physical amount of trans- economy over the last 50 years, with the excep- portation produced and thus measure the level tion of railroad capital stock, which declined (in of mobility that the transportation system inflation-adjusted terms), and privately owned enables. Quantities (e.g., passenger-miles or local transit, which declined (in inflation- ton-miles) are essential to understanding the adjusted terms) until recently. impacts of transportation on the economy and to making investment and other economic pol- Productivity icy decisions. Productivity measures how effectively economic inputs are converted into output. Labor Reasonably good data on physical move- productivity measures the output per hour of ment, except for trucking, are publicly avail- labor. Multifactor productivity, which is a more able, but details on specific routes, particular comprehensive measure, relates changes in out- times, and vehicle types are not. Data on high- put to changes in all inputs, including capital, way transportation of freight and passengers, labor, energy, materials, and services. If the which account for a substantial portion of all transportation system becomes more produc- movement, have gaps in completeness, accu- tive, then fewer resources are needed and prices racy, and timeliness. Better data are needed for can decline. truck ton-miles and highway passenger-miles, as well as those for transit, intercity bus, and Labor productivity data are widely available Amtrak (discussed earlier under Freight Data for a large number of industries. Multifactor and Passenger Travel Statistics). productivity data are not as widely available

162 Chapter 3: State of Transportation Statistics

for the economy as a whole and are only avail- Impact on the Economy able for the railroad industry in the transporta- The transportation system links producers and tion sector. Railroad multifactor productivity consumers to markets. Public and private increased more rapidly than that of either man- investment and other improvements to the ufacturing or business over the last decade. transportation system increase capacity, reduce Externalities and Regulation cost, and improve service. Improvements in Transportation often generates negative effects freight transportation allow economies of scale such as pollution, collisions, congestion, and in production, diversity in products available noise, which are known as externalities and are to consumers and sources available to produc- the driving force behind regulation and many ers, and increased competition in markets. All other public policies affecting transportation. of these factors lower the cost of goods Ameri- Measures of the costs of external effects of cans buy and broaden the markets for the transportation (e.g., on safety, congestion, and goods produced. the environment) are important in determining Similarly, passenger transportation affects whether various kinds of regulation of trans- several areas of the economy. Improved local portation are appropriate. commuter transportation supports broader The physical quantity data described earlier labor markets, increasing the choice of jobs and can be used to determine the amount of total economic efficiency. Better intercity transporta- pollution and noise emissions, but not neces- tion allows greater opportunity for personal sarily the exact locations of these emissions or travel and makes possible better management of their costs. The physical quantity data also can geographically decentralized business organiza- be used to analyze the growth of congestion, tions. Transportation also represents a major although questions remain about the impacts source of demand for many industries, both for on travel patterns of urban growth, system and suppliers to the transportation industry and demand management policies, and changes in producers of complementary services, such as technology. In addition, congestion tends to be the hotel and restaurant industries. Transporta- very site- and time-specific, so estimates or pol- tion thus creates efficiencies throughout the icy decisions may need to be based on specific general economy, increasing incomes, providing local data. higher paying jobs, and enhancing the international competitiveness of the economy. Historically, transportation has also been subject to economic regulation. Reduced eco- Considerable debate continues, however, nomic regulation over the last 20 years has led about appropriate means of measuring these to increased competition and lower prices for effects. While data are available on several consumers. However, some carriers have found aspects of the overall efficiency of the transit difficult to stay in business in the face of portation system (e.g., the productivity and increased competition. There is also consider- physical flow data mentioned earlier), data are able debate about whether transportation lacking on other important aspects, such as the mergers have reversed some of the benefits of efficiency of specific port and intermodal yard deregulation. Data on prices, quantities, invest- facilities and their related surface transporta- ment, and productivity are crucial to under- tion links. standing these trends.

163 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

BTS’s Transportation Satellite Accounts cies responsible for transportation planning. (TSAs) provide a broad measure of the value of Previously used only by expert operators on transportation services to the economy, includ- specialized mainframe systems, they are now ing both for-hire transportation and a large available for desktop systems and distributed portion of in-house transportation, such as computing services that give nontechnical users trucks owned by manufacturing companies. access to spatial analytical tools. One example BTS continues to develop the TSAs as a way of of this technology, geographic information measuring the more direct impacts of transpor- systems (GIS), provides desktop computer tation on the economy. applications, Internet mapping services, and other information technology systems designed Options for Filling Transportation to store, display, and analyze geographically Economic Data Gaps referenced information (geospatial data). This Research is underway at BTS to fill some of the technology enables the presentation of masses known gaps in economic data. One project will of data in more useable forms (see map). improve the quality of data on airline transpor- Geospatial data describe both manmade and tation prices with the development of an Air- natural features on the earth’s surface, such as fare Index, covering both domestic and roads, rivers, and political boundaries. These international travel. This research could even- features reference the geographic coordinates tually be extended to other modes. or location on the earth and also include asso- Other key projects include the following: ciated characteristics that describe the features. These characteristics may define the type of ■ expansion of Transportation Satellite road, river depth, or political boundaries. Accounts data to include additional modes, These data for use in a GIS are collected such as private barge, rail, and air, and through a number of methods including the use updating of the household production of of Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites transportation services (e.g., local errands and receivers to collect accurate geographic in a private automobile and people com- locations, remote sensing technology to capture muting to work) component; earth images, and conversion of tabular data or ■ augmentation of available privately owned paper maps through digitization. capital stock data by developing data on publicly owned capital stock, such as air- As the use of geographic information tech- ports, waterways, and transit systems; and nologies spreads, the range of applications expands. Today, GIS is used to track urban ■ development of multifactor productivity crime patterns, coordinate emergency response measures for modes other than railroads to efforts, visualize data critical to national secu- better measure transportation industry pro- rity, and support city zoning decisions. From ductivity in relation to the rest of the indus- urban planning support systems to on-board try sector of the economy. global positioning systems (GPS) and mapping technologies for public transport vehicles and GEOSPATIAL DATA automobiles, GIS tools provide a means for Geospatial information technologies have displaying and analyzing transportation data in become increasingly useful decisionmaking real-world physical contexts. Public transporta- tools for the transportation industry and agen- tion agencies use these tools to plan system

164 Chapter 3: State of Transportation Statistics

Map Showing Part of the Supporting Data

ID Item1 Item6a Item7 Item9 longdd latdd

56 251 HWY RIVER RD US 5National S END BR Bridge JCT USInventory 5 & RIVER RD. -72.58557222220 42.08092777780 61 251 ST 57 W TRAFFIC CIR US 5 .1 MI SE OF WESTFIELD RIV|n 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 62 251 ST 57 E TRAFFIC CIR ▲▲▲ Structurally US 5 Deficient Bridges .25 MI SE OF WESTFIELD RV 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 63 251 HWY ACCESS RD US 5 .09 MI S OF W SPRINGFIELD 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 66 251 ST159 MAIN ST ST 57 EB 4.75 MI E OF SOUTHWICKLynn -72.61458888890 42.07557777780 69 251 ST159 MAIN ST ST 57 WB 4.75 MI E OF SOUTHWICK -72.61457777780 42.07580277780 93 251 WATER MERRIMACK RIVER I 95 AT MERRIMAC▲ RIVER -70.91066388890 42.83580833330 94 251 HWY EVANS PLACE I 95 AT I-95 -70.90905000000 42.83773055560 ▲ 108 251 RR BMRR BURIED I 495 NB Malden .1 MI ▲N EXIT▲ 55 -70.91712777780 42.84772500000 109 251 RR BMRR BURIED I 495 SB Medford .1 MI N EXIT 55 -70.91765555560 42.84788611110 193 251 OTHER PED / TUNNEL ST 2 ▲ JUST W▲ OLD ALEWIFE ROTARY 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 Cambridge Somerville 251 251 WATER LAKE ROHUNTA STWaltham 2 ▲▲ ST 2 /LAKE ROHUNTA 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 453 251 WATER SWIFT RIVER .! ST 9 ▲ .3▲ M W JCT RIVER RD. -72.33763055560 42.27375277780 ▲ 572 251 WATER NEPONSET RIVER HWY ADAMS ST ▲ OVER NEPONSET RIV AT MILT -71.06808611110 42.27083611110 ▲▲ ▲▲ 576 251 US 3 NB CHARLES RIVER ST 3 CAMBRIDGE ST ▲ | .2 MI S OF BLOSSOM ST 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 584 251 WATER CHARLES RIVER ▲▲▲ HWY Newton N WSHNGTN ST AT▲ CHAS RIV NR BOS GARDEN 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 586 251 WATER CHARLES RIVER HWY N WSHNGTN ST Boston▲ AT CHAS RIV NR BOS GARDEN 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 595 251 HWY CHELSEA LOCAL STS US▲ 1 NBBrookline CHLSEA LW TOBIN BRIDGE -71.05183888890 42.38006944440 598 251 OTHER RELIEF US 1 NB TOLL LOWR TOBIN BRIDGE 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 600 251 US 1 NB TOLL PLAZA LOWR US 1 SB TOLL UPPR TOBIN BRIDGE ▲ -71.04873055560 42.38359444440 ▲ ▲ 608 251 WATER NEPONSET RIVER HWY GRANITE▲ AVE ▲ MILTON TOWN LINE -71.05344444440 42.27765833330 613 251 WATER MYSTIC RIVER ST 99 ALFORD ST AT MYSTICQuincy RIVER -71.07112500000 42.38963055560 616 251 WATER DORCHESTER BAY HWY MORRISY BVD .2 MI E OF I 93▲ ▲ 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 617 251 WATER RESERVE CHANNEL HWY SUMMER ST 1 MI SE OF FT PT CHANNEL -71.03808888890 42.34365000000 675 251 HWY BROOKS ST I 90 EB ▲ .1 MI S. CHARLES RV S34 -71.16203055560 42.35751111110 676 251 HWY BROOKS ST I 90 WB ▲▲ .1 MI S. CHARLES RVWeymouth S34 -71.16198888890 42.35766944440 680 251 RR MBTA & BMRR HWY MAIN STREET 600 M NW OF SULLIVAN SQ -71.07683611110 42.38626111110 739 251 RR MBTA & CSX BTS is geocoding HWY MORTON FHWA's ST bridge condition .8 KM SW OF data JCTSR28&SR203 to help decision- -71.08548888890 42.28102500000 752 251 WATER CHARLES RIVERmakers prioritize ST109 SPRING bridge ST investments. @ DEDHAM TL = D05006 -71.17346944440 42.27067222220 761 251 ST 1 A MT VERNON ST HWY MORRISY BLV .1 MI W OF I 93 -71.05346944440 42.32140000000 784 251 RR PARKING & RR I 93 US1 SB OFF R .25 MI SE OF JCT I93&US1 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 803 251 I 90 & AMTRAK I93 ONRP NB @B-WAY 500 FT S OF JCT I93&I90 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 806 251 HWY SUFACE RD I93 S.ABUT.-BT.60 .2 MI N OF DEW SQ TUN 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 807 251 HWY E BERKLEY B-WAY I 93 BNT 22-9 .6 MI S OF DEWEY SQ TUN 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 809 251 HWY SURFACE RD I 93 BENT 60-56 .2 MI N OF DEWEY SQ TUN 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 810 251 COMB I 90 & CSX& AMTRK I 93 BENT9-N ABUT .4 MI S OF DEWEY SQ TUN 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 811 251 HWY CITY STREETS I-93 BT.48-56 N.&S .4 MI N OF DEWEY SQ TUN 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 812 251 HWY SURFACE RD I-93 BT.41-48 N&S. .4 MI N OF DEWEY SQ TUN 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 814 251 HWY CITY STREETS I 93 BENT 41-31 .5 MI N OF JCT USI 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 820 251 I 93 SB BENT A3-2 I 93 NB BNT A3-2 .1 MI S JCT I93&US1 -71.06126666670 42.36728055560 822 251 WATER CHARLES RIVER I 93 SB BENT A3-2 JCT I93 & US1 -71.06270833330 42.36932777780 838 251 ST 2 COMM AVE ST 2A MASS AVE JUST S CHARLES RIV -71.08864722220 42.34910833330 841 251 HWY GARDNER ST HWY SUL SQ OP NB 1 MI N OF N WSHNGTON ST 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 842 251 COMB.SULL.SQ.RR & RTE 99 HWY SUL SQ OVERP 1.6 KM N OF N WSHNGTON ST 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 872 251 I 93 SB BENT 61 TO B5 I 93 NB .5 MI N OF JCT 193&US1 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 884 251 I 93 SB BENT 28 TO 38 I 93 NB .6 MI N OF JCT I93&US1 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 886 251 COMB CSX & I-93 SB I 93 NB B5-B10 .8 MI N OF RAMP I93&US1 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 893 251 I 93SB CMBRG AMTRAK MBTA I 93 NB B16 - NB4 1.1 MI N OF JCT I93&US1 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 894 251 HWY WATERST & CANA RAMPS I 93 SB BTSA3TO9 .1 MI N OF JCT I93&US1 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 917 251 HWY CHARLESGATE INT HWY STOR DR EB AT CHARLESGATE 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 928 251 I 93 I 90 EB RAMP OFF OVER FITZGERALD XPWY S76 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 930 251 I 90 EB RAMPS ABP I 93 NB RAMP OFF .1MIW.FORT POINT CHNL S78 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 932 251 I 90 EB RAMPS ABP "I 90 RAMPS C,R" .1MIW.FORT POINT CHNL S79 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 933 251 I 90 WB RAMP ON I 93 NB RAMP OF .1MIW.FORT POINT CHNL S81 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 946 251 ST 3 A N HANCK ST NB RR ST 3 A MOR BLVD .2 MI E OF I 93 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 964 251 US 1 NB STORROW DR US 1 SB STORROW D .1 N OF BEACON ST 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 968 251 OTHER TUNNEL TO RTE1 HWY BERKELEY ST AT TUNNEL 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 1059 251 WATER TAUNTON RIVER ST 18 BEDFORD ST 0.5 M N OF PLYMOUTH ST -70.96564166670 41.93672500000 1184 251 CAPE COD CANAL MA ROUTE 3 JUNCTION MA RTES 3 & 6 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 1216 251 US 3 MEMORIAL DRIVE ST 2 A MASS AVE N END HARVARD BR -71.09262222220 42.35721111110 1217 251 HWY BROOKLINE STREET US 3 MEM DR .2 MI FROM CITY LINE 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 1219 251 WATER CHARLES RIVER ST 3 SB MEM DRIVE JUST S OF LONGFELLOW BR -71.07917777780 42.36123333330 1220 251 WATER CHARLES RIVER ST 3 NB MEM DRIVE JUST S OF LONGFELLOW BR -71.07855833330 42.36148055560 1221 251 WATER BROAD CANAL ST 3 LAND BLVD .1 MI N OF LONGFELLOW BR 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 1232 251 WATER NEPONSET RIVER I 95 NB & ST128 NB I 95 AT DEDHAM T.L. 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 1233 251 WATER NEPONSET RIVER I 95 SB &ST128 SB I 95 AT DEDHAM T.L. -71.14457777780 42.20994722220 1599 251 WATER WATERS RIVER ST128 .4 MI N ST114 -70.93666666670 42.54724166670 1601 251 RR MBTA ST128 1.3 MI N ST114 -70.93019722220 42.55707777780 1603 251 WATER PORTER RIVER ST128 1.6 MI N ST114 -70.92658888890 42.56022222220 1649 251 HWY HARRIS ST. US 1 .08 KM. NO. OF ST135 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 1660 251 "COMB MBTA,AMTRAK & PARK" I 95 NB & ST128 .51 KM. SE OF US 1 -71.14658888890 42.21138055560 1661 251 "COMB MBTA,AMTRAK & PARK" I 95 SB & ST128SB .51 KM. SE OF US 1 -71.14670833330 42.21116388890 1672 251 COMB DFLD R & STLLWTR RD I 91 NB OVER DEERFIELD RIVER 0.00000000000 0.00000000000

165 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

services and expansion, as well as maintain New transportation applications for GIS maps and analyze service areas. Geographic continue to be developed, such as emergency information technology enables freight and response planning for crisis management. New passenger carriers to warehouse data on operat- applications place a premium not only on ing resources and model the flow of goods and timely development of geospatial data but also passengers across the transportation system. on commonly agreed-on standards for data quality, content, and technology. As GIS Existing Geospatial Data becomes a more mainstream information tech- and Data Programs nology tool, issues of open access to geographic BTS creates, maintains, and distributes geospa- data and software interoperability will grow in tial data through the National Transportation importance. Atlas Database (NTAD) Program. These data Organizations such as the Federal Geo- are obtained from multiple sources and include graphic Data Committee (FGDC) and the the National Highway Planning Network, a Open GIS Consortium work to facilitate the national rail network, public-use airports and wide availability and implementation of stan- runways, and Amtrak stations. In addition, the dardized geospatial data and technologies. NTAD includes state, county, congressional FGDC is an interagency committee of represen- district, and metropolitan statistical area tatives from the Executive Office of the Presi- boundary files to provide a geographic refer- dent and cabinet-level and independent ence for transportation features. agencies. FGDC, in cooperation with state, Geospatial information depicting transporta- local, and tribal governments, the academic tion infrastructure can be stored and managed community, and the private sector, is develop- in a GIS for development and maintenance ing the National Spatial Data Infrastructure planning. For instance, the National Bridge (NSDI). The NSDI is composed of geospatial Inventory maintained by FHWA contains infor- data themes of national significance; documen- mation on structurally deficient bridges. Infor- tation describing the data, standards (meta- mation describing the location and bridge data), and partnerships; and the National conditions can be displayed cartographically Spatial Data Clearinghouse, which provides and analyzed. Geographically accurate maps access to documented geospatial data and can be produced using a variety of data tables metadata from a variety of publicly available or layers placed one on top of the other to data sources [4]. show geographic relationships (see map). The Geospatial One-Stop, a federal e-govern- BTS in partnership with the DOT Office ment initiative that extends the goals of the of Intermodalism and FHWA developed NSDI, facilitates public and private access to GeoFreight: The Intermodal Freight Display geographic data, with particular reference to Tool. GeoFreight calculates and measures the the framework themes of the NSDI. In keeping intensity of infrastructure use for intermodal with the trend toward development of data facilities (e.g., airports, seaports, and truck-rail standards, Internet GIS applications, and online interchanges). The information is displayed on data warehousing, the Geospatial One-Stop regional or national maps. A CD-ROM ver- effort will result in the creation of an online sion of GeoFreight is expected to be issued in portal through which users can freely access late 2003. geospatial data from the federal government and other sources, as well as gather information

166 Chapter 3: State of Transportation Statistics

on spatial analytical tools and data standards. CONCLUSION The Departments of the Interior, Commerce, A focused yet comprehensive transportation sta- and Transportation are the federal agencies tistics program can be concentrated in five key with lead responsibilities for coordinating the areas: freight, passenger travel, air transporta- national coverage and stewardship of specific tion, transportation economics, and geospatial NSDI framework data themes. The Bureau of information. The preceding review shows that, Transportation Statistics (BTS) is the operating while a wealth of data exist to inform stakehold- administration within DOT responsible for ers about the state of transportation, much work coordinating the development of the NSDI remains to be done. Data need to be collected or transportation standards. collected differently, relevant linkages among Options for Filling Geospatial Data Gaps datasets need to be established, and data need to be analyzed and offered in ways useful for stake- Geospatial information technologies and holders at all levels of government and the pri- geospatial data have become permanent fix- vate sector. tures in the information technology landscape, and the variety of Internet GIS applications and Sources data available to the public and private sector 1. Air Transport Association, Airlines in Crisis: will continue to develop and expand. Key areas The Perfect Economic Storm, available at for future geospatial data and standards devel- http://www.airlines.org/public/industry/bin opment critical for transportation analysis Airlines InCrisis.pdf, as of July 2003. include land-use planning, employee-based 2. ______, data available at http://www.airlines. org/public/home/default1.asp, as of March 2003. travel pattern analysis, and fine-grained data 3. American Bus Association, Motorcoach on infrastructure and operations critical to Census 2000 (Washington, DC: 2000), avail- transportation safety and security analysis. Spe- able at http://www,buses.org/industry/ABA-RL BanksReport.pdf, as of February 2003. cific areas include: 4. Federal Geographic Data Committee, available ■ integration of bridge, tunnel, and transit at http://www.fgdc.gov, as of March 2003. data into the National Transportation Atlas 5. International Civil Aviation Organization, data available at http://www.icao.org, as of March Database; 2003. ■ development of a North American Trans- 6. Jung, S., J. Larkin, A. Toppen, and K. Wunder- portation Atlas Database covering the lich, “Urban Congestion Reporting,” draft report prepared by Mitretek for the U.S. United States, Mexico, and Canada; Department of Transportation, Federal High- ■ expansion of the current web-based map- way Administration, January 2003. ping center to enable customers to generate 7. Texas Transportation Institute, 2002 Urban Mobility Study (College Station, TX: 2002). interactive maps and spatial analysis to 8. Transportation Research Board, “Letter Report support their projects and requirements; to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics,” and Mar. 20, 2003. 9. ______, The Relative Risks of School Travel ■ provision of technical assistance/training (Washington, DC: 2002). workshops on geospatial data to state DOTs 10. Travel Industry Association of America, Travel- and metropolitan planning organizations. Scope Survey (Washington, DC: 2003), also available at http://www.tia.org/Travel/, as of February 2003.

167 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

11. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census 19. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Bureau, 1997 Economic Census: Vehicle Inven- Highway Administration and Bureau of tory and Use Survey (Washington, DC: 1999). Transportation Statistics, 2001 National House- 12. U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Travel hold Travel Survey, Preliminary Data Release and Tourism Industries, Survey of International Version 1, available at http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/ Air Travelers, available at http://tinet.ita. index.shtml, as of February 2003. doc.gov/, as of February 2003. 20. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 13. U.S. Department of Labor, American Time Use Transit Administration and Community Trans- Survey, available at http://www.bls.gov/tus/ portation Association of America, Status of #docs, as of March 2003. Rural Public Transportation: 2000 (Washing- ton, DC: April 2001). 14. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Annual Historical Air 21. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Traffic Statistics, 1981–2001, available at Highway Traffic Safety Administration and http://www.bts.gov/oai/, as of March 2003. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Survey of Pedestrian & Bicyclist Attitudes and 15. ______, Implications of Continuous Measure- Behaviors, Highlights Report (Washington, ment for the Uses of Census Data in Transpor- DC: nd). tation Planning (Washington, DC: 1996). 16. ______, Transportation Statistics Beyond ISTEA: Critical Gaps and Strategic Responses (Washington, DC: January 1998). 17. ______, Border Crossing Data, available at http://www.bts.gov/itt/cross/, as of February 2003. 18. ______, National Transportation Availability and Use Survey for Persons with Disabilities, 2002, information on the survey available at http://www.bts.gov/omnibus/, as of April 2003.

168 Appendices

Appendix A: List of Acronyms and Glossary

AADT average annual daily traffic ADA Americans with Disabilities Act AFV alternative fuel vehicle

BAC blood alcohol concentration BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics Btu British thermal unit

CAA Clean Air Act CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy CFR Code of Federal Regulations CFS Commodity Flow Survey CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide CRAF Civil Reserve Air Fleet

DGPS Differential Global Positioning System DOC U.S. Department of Commerce DOD U.S. Department of Defense DOE U.S. Department of Energy DOI U.S. Department of the Interior DOL U.S. Department of Labor DOT U.S. Department of Transportation dwt deadweight tons

EDS Explosive Detection Systems EIA Energy Information Administration EJ environmental justice EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ETC electronic toll collection ETMS Enhanced Traffic Management System

FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAF Freight Analysis Framework FARs Federal Aviation Regulations FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration

171 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

FY fiscal year GA general aviation GAO General Accounting Office GDD Gross Domestic Demand GDP Gross Domestic Product GHG greenhouse gas GIS geographic information systems GPRA Government Performance and Results Act GPS Global Positioning System

HAPs hazardous air pollutants HELP Heavy Vehicle Electronic License Plate HMIS Hazardous Materials Information System HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System HSR high-speed rail HTF Highway Trust Fund

IBET Intermodal Bottleneck Evaluation Tool INS Immigration and Naturalization Service IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act IT information technology ITS intelligent transportation system

LNG liquefied natural gas LPG liquefied petroleum gas LTV light trucks and vans

MARAD Maritime Administration MMLD Merchant Mariner Licensing Documentation mmtc million metric tons of carbon mpg miles per gallon mph miles per hour MPO metropolitan planning organization MSATs mobile source air toxics MSP Maritime Security Programs MSW municipal solid waste MTBE methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement NAS National Airspace System plan NASS GES National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System NDRF National Defense Reserve Fleet NHTS National Household Travel Survey NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOX nitrogen oxides NPIAS National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems NPL National Priorities List NPTS Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey NTL National Transportation Library

172 Appendix A

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board OMB Office of Management and Budget OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries OPS Office of Pipeline Safety OSRA Ocean Shipping Reform Act

PFD personal flotation device PM-2.5 particulate matter of 2.5 microns in diameter or smaller PM-10 particulate matter of 10 microns in diameter or smaller pmt passenger-miles of travel PSC Port State Control PSR Present Serviceability Rating PTC positive train control PUV personal-use vehicle quads quadrillion

RFG reformulated gasoline ROR run-off-the-road RRF Ready Reserve Fleet RSPA Research and Special Programs Administration

SCTG Standard Classification of Transported Goods

SO2 sulfur dioxide STRAHNET Strategic Highway Network SUV sport utility vehicle

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century TEU 20-foot equivalent container unit TICSA Transportation Infrastructure Capital Stock Account TTI Texas Transportation Institute

UNFCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change USCG U.S. Coast Guard USGS U.S. Geological Survey UST underground storage tank vmt vehicle-miles of travel VOC volatile organic compounds

173 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Glossary

14 CFR 121 (air): Code of Federal Regulations, of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide; 3) Title 14, part 121. Prescribes rules governing the release to the atmosphere of more than 5 barrels operation of domestic, flag, and supplemental a day of highly volatile liquids; 4) death of any air carriers and commercial operators of large person; 5) bodily harm resulting in one or more aircraft. of the following—a) the loss of consciousness, b) the necessity of carrying a person from the 14 CFR 135 (air): Code of Federal Regulations, scene, c) the necessity for medical treatment, d) Title 14, part 135. Prescribes rules governing the disability that prevents the discharge of normal operations of commuter air carriers (scheduled) duties, and 6) estimated damage to the property and on-demand air taxi (unscheduled). of the operators and/or others exceeding $50,000. ACCIDENT (aircraft): As defined by the National Transportation Safety Board, an ACCIDENT (highway-rail grade-crossing): An occurrence incidental to flight in which, as a impact between on-track railroad equipment result of the operation of an aircraft, any person and an automobile, bus, truck, motorcycle, (occupant or nonoccupant) receives fatal or seri- bicycle, farm vehicle, or pedestrian or other ous injury or any aircraft receives substantial highway user at a designated crossing site. Side- damage. walks, pathways, shoulders, and ditches associated with the crossing are considered to be part ACCIDENT (automobile): See Crash (high- of the crossing site. way). ACCIDENT (rail): A collision, derailment, fire, ACCIDENT (gas): 1) An event that involves the explosion, act of God, or other event involving release of gas from a pipeline or of liquefied nat- operation of railroad on-track equipment ural gas (LNG) or other gas from an LNG facil- (standing or moving) that results in railroad ity resulting in personal injury necessitating damage exceeding an established dollar thresh- in-patient hospitalization or a death; or estimat- old. ed property damage of $50,000 or more to the operator or others, or both, including the value ACCIDENT (recreational boating): An occur- of the gas that escaped during the accident; 2) rence involving a vessel or its equipment that an event that results in an emergency shutdown results in 1) a death; 2) an injury that requires of an LNG facility; or 3) an event that is signifi- medical treatment beyond first aid; 3) damage cant in the judgment of the operator even to a vessel and other property, totaling more though it did not meet the criteria of (1) or (2). than $500 or resulting in the complete loss of a vessel; or 4) the disappearance of the vessel ACCIDENT (hazardous liquid or gas): Release under circumstances that indicate death or of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide while injury. Federal regulations (33 CFR 173–4) being transported, resulting in any of the fol- require the operator of any vessel that is num- lowing: 1) an explosion or fire not intentionally bered or used for recreational purposes to subset by the operator; 2) loss of 50 or more barrels mit an accident report.

174 Appendix A

ACCIDENT (transit): An incident involving a (Public Law 91-518, 84 Stat. 1327) and given moving vehicle, including another vehicle, an the responsibility for the operation of intercity, object, or person (except suicides), or a derail- as distinct from suburban, passenger trains ment/left roadway. between points designated by the Secretary of Transportation. AIR CARRIER: The commercial system of air transportation comprising large certificated air ARTERIAL HIGHWAY: A major highway used carriers, small certificated air carriers, com- primarily for through traffic. muter air carriers, on-demand air taxis, supplemental air carriers, and air travel clubs. ASPHALT: A dark brown to black cement-like material containing bitumen as the predominant AIR TAXI: An aircraft operator who conducts constituent. The definition includes crude operations for hire or compensation in accor- asphalt and finished products such as cements, dance with 14 CFR 135 (for safety purposes) or fluxes, the asphalt content of emulsions, and FAR Part 135 (for economic regulations or petroleum distillates blended with asphalt to reporting purposes) in an aircraft with 30 or make cutback asphalt. Asphalt is obtained by fewer passenger seats and a payload capacity of petroleum processing. 7,500 pounds or less. An air taxi operates on an on-demand basis and does not meet the flight AVAILABLE SEAT-MILES (air carrier): The schedule qualifications of a commuter air carrier aircraft-miles flown in each interairport hop (see below). multiplied by the number of seats available on that hop for revenue passenger service. AIRPORT: A landing area regularly used by aircraft for receiving or discharging passengers or AVERAGE HAUL: The average distance, in cargo. miles, one ton is carried. It is computed by dividing ton-miles by tons of freight originated. ALTERNATIVE FUELS: The Energy Policy Act of 1992 defines alternative fuels as methanol, AVERAGE PASSENGER TRIP LENGTH denatured ethanol, and other alcohol; mixtures (bus/rail): Calculated by dividing revenue pas- containing 85 percent or more (but not less than senger-miles by the number of revenue passen- 70 percent as determined by the Secretary of gers. Energy by rule to provide for requirements relating to cold start, safety, or vehicle func- AVIATION GASOLINE (general aviation): All tions) by volume of methanol, denatured special grades of gasoline used in aviation recip- ethanol, and other alcohols with gasoline or rocating engines, as specified by American Soci- other fuels. Includes compressed natural gas, ety of Testing Materials Specification D910 and liquid petroleum gas, hydrogen, coal-derived Military Specification MIL-G5572. Includes liquid fuels, fuels other than alcohols derived refinery products within the gasoline range mar- from biological materials, electricity, or any keted as or blended to constitute aviation gaso- other fuel the Secretary of Energy determines by line. rule is substantially not petroleum and would yield substantial energy security and environ- BARREL (oil): A unit of volume equal to 42 mental benefits. U.S. gallons.

AMTRAK: Operated by the National Railroad BLOOD ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION Passenger Corporation, this rail system was cre- (highway): A measurement of the percentage of ated by the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 alcohol in the blood by grams per deciliter.

175 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

BRITISH THERMAL UNIT (Btu): The quantity CERTIFICATED AIRPORTS: Airports that of heat needed to raise the temperature of 1 service air carrier operations with aircraft seat- pound (approximately 1 pint) of water by 1 °F ing more than 30 passengers. at or near 39.2 °F. CHAINED DOLLARS: A measure used to BULK CARRIER (water): A ship with special- express real prices, defined as prices that are ized holds for carrying dry or liquid commodi- adjusted to remove the effect of changes in the ties, such as oil, grain, ore, and coal, in purchasing power of the dollar. Real prices usu- unpackaged bulk form. Bulk carriers may be ally reflect buying power relative to a reference designed to carry a single bulk product (crude year. The “chained-dollar” measure is based on oil tanker) or accommodate several bulk prod- the average weights of goods and services in suc- uct types (ore/bulk/oil carrier) on the same voy- cessive pairs of years. It is “chained” because age or on a subsequent voyage after holds are the second year in each pair, with its weights, cleaned. becomes the first year of the next pair. Prior to 1996, real prices were expressed in constant BUS: Large motor vehicle used to carry more dollars, a weighted measure of goods and servic- than 10 passengers, including school buses, es in a single year. See also Constant Dollars and intercity buses, and transit buses. Current Dollars.

CAFE STANDARDS: See Corporate Average CLASS I RAILROAD: A carrier that has an Fuel Economy Standards. annual operating revenue of $250 million or more after applying the railroad revenue defla- CAR-MILE (rail): The movement of a railroad tor formula, which is based on the Railroad car a distance of one mile. An empty or loaded Freight Price Index developed by the U.S. car-mile refers to a mile run by a freight car with Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statis- or without a load. In the case of intermodal tics. The formula is the current year’s revenues movements, the designation of empty or loaded multiplied by the 1991 average index or current refers to whether the trailers or containers are year’s average index. moved with or without a waybill. COASTWISE TRAFFIC (water): Domestic traf- CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE fic receiving a carriage over the ocean or the AND NECESSITY (air carrier): A certificate Gulf of Mexico (e.g., between New Orleans and issued by the U.S. Department of Transporta- Baltimore, New York and Puerto Rico, San tion to an air carrier under Section 401 of the Francisco and Hawaii, Alaska and Hawaii). Federal Aviation Act authorizing the carrier to Traffic between Great Lakes ports and seacoast engage in air transportation. ports, when having a carriage over the ocean, is also considered coastwise. CERTIFICATED AIR CARRIER: An air carrier holding a Certificate of Public Convenience and COLLECTOR (highway): In rural areas, routes Necessity issued by the U.S. Department of that serve intracounty rather than statewide Transportation to conduct scheduled services travel. In urban areas, streets that provide direct interstate. These carriers may also conduct non- access to neighborhoods and arterials. scheduled or charter operations. Certificated air carriers operate large aircraft (30 seats or more COMBINATION TRUCK: A power unit (truck or a maximum load of 7,500 pounds or more) tractor) and one or more trailing units (a semi- in accordance with FAR Part 121. See also trailer or trailer). Large Certificated Air Carrier.

176 Appendix A

COMMERCIAL BUS: Any bus used to carry COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS: Natural gas passengers at rates specified in tariffs; charges compressed to a volume and density that is may be computed per passenger (as in regular practical as a portable fuel supply. It is used as a route service) or per vehicle (as in charter serv- fuel for natural gas-powered vehicles. ice). CONSTANT DOLLARS: Dollar value adjusted COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORT: Airport for changes in the average price level by dividing receiving scheduled passenger service and hav- a current dollar amount by a price index. See ing 2,500 or more enplaned passengers per year. also Chained Dollars and Current Dollars.

COMMUTER AIR CARRIER: Different defini- CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY tions are used for safety purposes and for eco- STANDARDS (CAFE): Originally established nomic regulations and reporting. For safety by Congress for new automobiles and later for analysis, commuter carriers are defined as air light trucks. This law requires automobile man- carriers operating under 14 CFR 135 that carry ufacturers to produce vehicle fleets with a com- passengers for hire or compensation on at least posite sales-weighted fuel economy not lower five round trips per week on at least one route than the CAFE standards in a given year. For between two or more points according to pub- every vehicle that does not meet the standard, a lished flight schedules, which specify the times, fine is paid for every one-tenth of a mile per gal- days of the week, and points of service. On lon that vehicle falls below the standard. March 20, 1997, the size of the aircraft subject to 14 CFR 135 was reduced from 30 to fewer CRASH (highway): An event that produces than 10 passenger seats. (Larger aircraft are injury and/or property damage, involves a subject to the more stringent regulations of 14 motor vehicle in transport, and occurs on a traf- CFR 121.) Helicopters carrying passengers or ficway or while the vehicle is still in motion after cargo for hire, however, are regulated under running off the trafficway. CFR 135 whatever their size. Although, in practice, most commuter air carriers operate aircraft CRUDE OIL: A mixture of hydrocarbons that that are regulated for safety purposes under 14 exists in the liquid phase in natural under- CFR 135 and most aircraft that are regulated ground reservoirs and remains liquid at atmos- under 14 CFR 135 are operated by commuter pheric pressure after passing through air carriers, this is not necessarily the case. surface-separating facilities.

For economic regulations and reporting require- CURRENT DOLLARS: Dollar value of a good ments, commuter air carriers are those carriers or service in terms of prices current at the time that operate aircraft of 60 or fewer seats or a the good or service is sold. See also Chained maximum payload capacity of 18,000 pounds Dollars and Current Dollars. or less. These carriers hold a certificate issued under section 298C of the Federal Aviation Act DEADWEIGHT TONNAGE (water): The car- of 1958, as amended. rying capacity of a vessel in long tons (2,240 pounds). It is the difference between the number COMMUTER RAIL (transit): Urban passenger of tons of water a vessel displaces “light” and train service for short-distance travel between a the number of tons it displaces when submerged central city and adjacent suburb. Does not to the “load line.” include rapid rail transit or light rail service.

177 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

DEMAND RESPONSIVE VEHICLE (transit): DRY CARGO BARGES (water): Large flat- A nonfixed-route, nonfixed-schedule vehicle bottomed, nonself-propelled vessels used to that operates in response to calls from passen- transport dry-bulk materials such as coal and gers or their agents to the transit operator or ore. dispatcher. ENERGY EFFICIENCY: The ratio of energy DIESEL FUEL: A complex mixture of hydrocar- inputs to outputs from a process, for example, bons with a boiling range between approxi- miles traveled per gallon of fuel (mpg). mately 350 and 650 °F. Diesel fuel is composed primarily of paraffins and naphthenic com- ENPLANED PASSENGERS (air carrier): See pounds that auto-ignite from the heat of com- Revenue Passenger Enplanements. pression in a diesel engine. Diesel is used primarily by heavy-duty road vehicles, construc- ETHANOL: A clear, colorless, flammable oxy- tion equipment, locomotives, and by marine genated hydrocarbon with a boiling point of and stationary engines. 78.5 °C in the anhydrous state. It is used in the United States as a gasoline octane enhancer and DISTILLATE FUEL OIL: A general classifica- oxygenate (10 percent concentration). Ethanol tion for one of the petroleum fractions produced can be used in high concentrations in vehicles in conventional distillation operations. Included optimized for its use. Otherwise known as ethyl are No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4 fuel oils and No. 1, alcohol, alcohol, or grain-spirit. No. 2, and No. 4 diesel fuels. Distillate fuel oil is used primarily for space heating, on- and off- FATAL CRASH (highway): A police-reported highway diesel engine fuel (including railroad crash involving a motor vehicle in transport on engine fuel and fuel for agricultural machinery), a trafficway in which at least 1 person dies with- and electric power generation. in 30 days of the crash as a result of that crash.

DOMESTIC FREIGHT (water): All waterborne FATAL INJURY (air): Any injury that results in commercial movement between points in the death within 30 days of the accident. United States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, excluding traffic with the Panama FATALITY: For purposes of statistical reporting Canal Zone. Cargo moved for the military in on transportation safety, a fatality is considered commercial vessels is reported as ordinary com- a death due to injuries in a transportation crash, mercial cargo; military cargo moved in military accident, or incident that occurs within 30 days vessels is omitted. of that occurrence.

DOMESTIC OPERATIONS (air carrier): All air FATALITY (rail): 1) Death of any person from carrier operations having destinations within the an injury within 30 days of the accident or inci- 50 United States, the District of Columbia, the dent (may include nontrain accidents or inci- Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. dents); or 2) death of a railroad employee from Virgin Islands. an occupational illness within 365 days after the occupational illness was diagnosed by a physi- DOMESTIC PASSENGER (water): Any person cian. traveling on a public conveyance by water between points in the United States, Puerto FATALITY (recreational boating): All deaths Rico, and the Virgin Islands. (other than deaths by natural causes) and miss-

178 Appendix A

ing persons resulting from an occurrence that GAS TRANSMISSION PIPELINES: Pipelines involves a vessel or its equipment. installed for the purpose of transmitting gas from a source or sources of supply to one or FATALITY (transit): A transit-caused death more distribution centers, or to one or more confirmed within 30 days of a transit incident. large volume customers; or a pipeline installed Incidents include collisions, derailments, per- to interconnect sources of supply. Typically, sonal casualties, and fires associated with transit transmission lines differ from gas mains in that agency revenue vehicles, transit facilities on they operate at higher pressures and the distance transit property, service vehicles, maintenance between connections is greater. areas, and rights-of-way. GASOHOL: A blend of finished motor gasoline FATALITY (water): All deaths and missing per- (leaded or unleaded) and alcohol (generally sons resulting from a vessel casualty. ethanol but sometimes methanol) limited to 10 percent by volume of alcohol. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COM- MISSION (FERC): The federal agency with GASOLINE: A complex mixture of relatively jurisdiction over, among other things, gas pric- volatile hydrocarbons, with or without small ing, oil pipeline rates, and gas pipeline certifica- quantities of additives that have been blended to tion. produce a fuel suitable for use in spark ignition engines. Motor gasoline includes both leaded or FERRYBOAT (transit): Vessels that carry pas- unleaded grades of finished motor gasoline, sengers and/or vehicles over a body of water. blending components, and gasohol. Leaded Generally steam or diesel-powered, ferryboats gasoline is no longer used in highway motor may also be hovercraft, hydrofoil, and other vehicles in the United States. high-speed vessels. The vessel is limited in its use to the carriage of deck passengers or vehicles or GENERAL AVIATION: 1) All civil aviation both, operates on a short run on a frequent operations other than scheduled air services and schedule between two points over the most nonscheduled air transport operations for taxis, direct water routes other than in ocean or coast- commuter air carriers, and air travel clubs that wise service, and is offered as a public service of do not hold Certificates of Public Convenience a type normally attributed to a bridge or tunnel. and Necessity. 2) All civil aviation activity except that of air carriers certificated in accordance FOSSIL FUELS: Any naturally occurring organ- with Federal Aviation Regulations, Parts 121, ic fuel formed in the Earth’s crust, such as petro- 123, 127, and 135. The types of aircraft used in leum, coal, and natural gas. general aviation range from corporate multi- engine jet aircraft piloted by professional crews FREIGHT REVENUE (rail): Revenue from the to amateur-built single-engine piston-driven transportation of freight and from the exercise acrobatic planes to balloons and dirigibles. of transit, stopoff, diversion, and reconsignment privileges as provided for in tariffs. GENERAL ESTIMATES SYSTEM (highway): A data-collection system that uses a nationally FREIGHTERS (water): General cargo carriers, representative probability sample selected from full containerships, partial containerships, roll- all police-reported highway crashes. It began on/rolloff ships, and barge carriers. operation in 1988.

179 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (U.S.): The highway construction, reconstruction, and main- total output of goods and services produced by tenance. labor and property located in the United States, valued at market prices. As long as the labor INCIDENT (hazardous materials): Any unin- and property are located in the United States, tentional release of hazardous material while in the suppliers (workers and owners) may be transit or storage. either U.S. residents or residents of foreign countries. INCIDENT (train): Any event involving the movement of a train or railcars on track equip- GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RATING (truck): ment that results in a death, a reportable injury, The maximum rated capacity of a vehicle, or illness, but in which railroad property dam- including the weight of the base vehicle, all age does not exceed the reporting threshold. added equipment, driver and passengers, and all cargo. INCIDENT (transit): Collisions, derailments, personal casualties, fires, and property damage HAZARDOUS MATERIAL: Any toxic sub- in excess of $1,000 associated with transit stance or explosive, corrosive, combustible, poi- agency revenue vehicles; all other facilities on sonous, or radioactive material that poses a risk the transit property; and service vehicles, main- to the public’s health, safety, or property, partic- tenance areas, and rights-of-way. ularly when transported in commerce. INJURY (air): See Serious Injury (air carrier/ HEAVY RAIL (transit): An electric railway with general aviation). the capacity to transport a heavy volume of passenger traffic and characterized by exclusive INJURY (gas): Described in U.S. Department of rights-of-way, multicar trains, high speed, rapid Transportation Forms 7100.1 or 7100.2 as an acceleration, sophisticated signaling, and high- injury requiring “in-patient hospitalization” platform loading. Also known as “subway,” (admission and confinement in a hospital “elevated (railway),” or “metropolitan railway beyond treatment administered in an emergency (metro).” room or out-patient clinic in which confinement does not occur). HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING (rail): A location where one or more railroad tracks are INJURY (hazardous liquid pipeline): An injury crossed by a public highway, road, street, or a resulting from a hazardous liquid pipeline acci- private roadway at grade, including sidewalks dent that results in one or more of the following: and pathways at or associated with the crossing. 1) loss of consciousness, 2) a need to be carried from the scene, 3) a need for medical treatment, HIGHWAY TRUST FUND: A grant-in-aid type and/or 4) a disability that prevents the discharge fund administered by the U.S. Department of of normal duties or the pursuit of normal duties Transportation, Federal Highway Administra- beyond the day of the accident. tion. Most funds for highway improvements are apportioned to states according to formulas that INJURY (highway): Police-reported highway give weight to population, area, and mileage. injuries are classified as follows:

HIGHWAY-USER TAX: A charge levied on per- Incapacitating Injury: Any injury, other than a sons or organizations based on their use of public fatal injury, that prevents the injured person roads. Funds collected are usually applied toward from walking, driving, or normally continuing

180 Appendix A

the activities the person was capable of perform- INJURY (recreational boating): Injury requiring ing before the injury occurred. Includes severe medical treatment beyond first aid as a result of lacerations, broken or distorted limbs, skull or an occurrence that involves a vessel or its equip- chest injuries, abdominal injuries, unconscious- ment. ness at or when taken from the accident scene, and inability to leave the accident scene without INJURY (transit): Any physical damage or harm assistance. Exclusions include momentary uncon- to a person requiring medical treatment or any sciousness. physical damage or harm to a person reported at the time and place of occurrence. For employ- Nonincapacitating Evident Injury: Any injury, ees, an injury includes incidents resulting in time other than a fatal injury or an incapacitating lost from duty or any definition consistent with injury, evident to observers at the scene of the a transit agency’s current employee injury accident. Includes lumps on head, abrasions, reporting practice. bruises, minor lacerations, and others. Excludes limping. INJURY (water): All personal injuries resulting from a vessel casualty that require medical treat- Possible Injury: Any injury reported or claimed ment beyond first aid. that is not evident. Includes, among others, momentary unconsciousness, claim of injuries INLAND AND COASTAL CHANNELS: not obvious, limping, complaint of pain, nau- Includes the Atlantic Coast Waterways, the sea, and hysteria. Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, the New York State Barge Canal System, the Gulf Coast Water- INJURY (highway-rail grade crossing): 1) An ways, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, the Mis- injury to one or more persons other than rail- sissippi River System (including the Illinois road employees that requires medical treatment; Waterway), the Pacific Coast Waterways, the 2) an injury to one or more employees that Great Lakes, and all other channels (waterways) requires medical treatment or that results in of the United States, exclusive of Alaska, that are restriction of work or motion for one or more usable for commercial navigation. days, or one or more lost work days, transfer to another job, termination of employment, or loss INTERCITY CLASS I BUS: As defined by the of consciousness; 3) any occupational illness Bureau of Transportation Statistics, an inter- affecting one or more railroad employees that is state motor carrier of passengers with an aver- diagnosed by a physician. age annual gross revenue of at least $1 million.

INJURY (rail): 1) Injury to any person other INTERCITY TRUCK: A truck that carries than a railroad employee that requires medical freight beyond local areas and commercial treatment, or 2) injury to a railroad employee zones. that requires medical treatment or results in restriction of work or motion for one or more INTERNAL TRAFFIC (water): Vessel move- workdays, one or more lost workdays, termina- ments (origin and destination) that take place tion of employment, transfer to another job, solely on inland waterways located within the loss of consciousness, or any occupational ill- boundaries of the contiguous 48 states or within ness of a railroad employee diagnosed by a the state of Alaska. Internal traffic also applies physician. to carriage on both inland waterways and the

181 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

water on the Great Lakes; carriage between off- LARGE REGIONALS (air): Air carrier groups shore areas and inland waterways; and carriage with annual operating revenues between $20 occurring within the Delaware Bay, Chesapeake million and $99,999,999. Bay, Puget Sound, and the San Francisco Bay, which are considered internal bodies of water LARGE TRUCK: Trucks over 10,000 pounds rather than arms of the ocean. gross vehicle weight rating, including single-unit trucks and truck tractors. INTERSTATE HIGHWAY: Limited access, divided highway of at least four lanes designat- LEASE CONDENSATE: A mixture consisting ed by the Federal Highway Administration as primarily of pentanes and heavier hydrocar- part of the Interstate System. bons, which are recovered as a liquid from natural gas in lease or field separation facilities. This JET FUEL: Includes kerosene-type jet fuel (used category excludes natural gas liquids, such as primarily for commercial turbojet and turbo- butane and propane, which are recovered at prop aircraft engines) and naphtha-type jet fuel natural gas processing plants or facilities. (used primarily for military turbojet and turbo- prop aircraft engines). LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE: A vehicle category that combines light automobiles and trucks. LAKEWISE OR GREAT LAKES TRAFFIC: Waterborne traffic between U.S. ports on the LIGHT RAIL: A streetcar-type vehicle operated Great Lakes system. The Great Lakes system is on city streets, semi-exclusive rights-of-way, or treated as a separate waterways system rather exclusive rights-of-way. Service may be provided than as a part of the inland system. by step-entry vehicles or by level boarding.

LARGE CERTIFICATED AIR CARRIERS: An LIGHT TRUCK: Trucks of 10,000 pounds air carrier holding a certificate issued under sec- gross vehicle weight rating or less, including tion 401 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as pickups, vans, truck-based station wagons, and amended, that: 1) operates aircraft designed to sport utility vehicles. have a maximum passenger capacity of more than 60 seats or a maximum payload capacity LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG): Natural of more than 18,000 pounds, or 2) conducts gas, primarily methane, that has been liquefied operations where one or both terminals of a by reducing its temperature to –260 °F at atmos- flight stage are outside the 50 states of the Unit- pheric pressure. ed States, the District of Columbia, the Com- monwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS (LPG): Pro- Islands. Large certificated air carriers are pane, propylene, normal butane, butylene, grouped by annual operating revenues: 1) isobutane, and isobutylene produced at refiner- majors (more than $1 billion in annual operat- ies or natural gas processing plants, including ing revenues), 2) nationals (between $100 mil- plants that fractionate new natural gas plant liq- lion and $1 billion in annual operating uids. revenues), 3) large regionals (between $20 million and $99,999,999 in annual operating rev- LOCOMOTIVE: Railroad vehicle equipped enues), and 4) medium regionals (less than $20 with flanged wheels for use on railroad tracks, million in annual operating revenues). powered directly by electricity, steam, or fossil

182 Appendix A

fuel, and used to move other railroad rolling blended with gasoline to improve its operational equipment. efficiency.

LOCOMOTIVE-MILE: The movement of a METHYL-TERTIARY-BUTYL-ETHER locomotive unit, under its own power, the dis- (MTBE): A colorless, flammable, liquid oxy- tance of 1 mile. genated hydrocarbon that contains 18.15 percent oxygen. It is a fuel oxygenate produced by MAINS (gas): A network of pipelines that serves reacting methanol with isobutylene. as a common source of supply for more than one gas service line. MINOR ARTERIALS (highway): Roads linking cities and larger towns in rural areas. In urban MAJORS (air): Air carrier groups with annual areas, roads that link but do not penetrate operating revenues exceeding $1 billion. neighborhoods within a community.

MEDIUM REGIONALS (air): Air carrier MOTORBUS (transit): A rubber-tired, self-pro- groups with annual operating revenues less than pelled, manually steered bus with a fuel supply $20 million. onboard the vehicle. Motorbus types include intercity, school, and transit. MERCHANDISE TRADE EXPORTS: Mer- chandise transported out of the United States to MOTORCYCLE: A two- or three-wheeled foreign countries whether such merchandise is motor vehicle designed to transport one or two exported from within the U.S. Customs Service people, including motor scooters, minibikes, territory, from a U.S. Customs bonded ware- and mopeds. house, or from a U.S. Foreign Trade Zone. (For- eign Trade Zones are areas, operated as public NATIONALS (air): Air carrier groups with utilities, under the control of U.S. Customs with annual operating revenues between $100 mil- facilities for handling, storing, manipulating, lion and $1 billion. manufacturing, and exhibiting goods.) NATURAL GAS: A naturally occurring mixture MERCHANDISE TRADE IMPORTS: Com- of hydrocarbon and nonhydrocarbon gases modities of foreign origin entering the United found in porous geologic formations beneath the States, as well as goods of domestic origin Earth’s surface, often in association with petro- returned to the United States with no change in leum. The principal constituent is methane. condition or after having been processed and/or assembled in other countries. Puerto Rico is a NATURAL GAS PLANT LIQUIDS: Liquids Customs district within the U.S. Customs terri- recovered from natural gas in processing plants tory, and its trade with foreign countries is or field facilities, or extracted by fractionators. included in U.S. import statistics. U.S. import They include ethane, propane, normal butane, statistics also include merchandise trade isobutane, pentanes plus, and other products, between the U. S. Virgin Islands and foreign such as finished motor gasoline, finished avia- countries even though the Islands are not offi- tion gasoline, special naphthas, kerosene, and cially a part of the U.S. Customs territory. distillate fuel oil produced at natural gas processing plants. METHANOL: A light, volatile alcohol produced commercially by the catalyzed reaction of NEAR MIDAIR COLLISION (air): An incident hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Methanol is in which the possibility of a collision occurred

183 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

as a result of aircraft flying with less than 500 OPERATING EXPENSES (air): Expenses feet of separation, or a report received from a incurred in the performance of air transporta- pilot or flight crew member stating that a colli- tion, based on overall operating revenues and sion hazard existed between two or more air- expenses. Does not include nonoperating income craft. and expenses, nonrecurring items, or income taxes. NONOCCUPANT (Automobile): Any person who is not an occupant of a motor vehicle in OPERATING EXPENSES (rail): Expenses of transport (e.g., bystanders, pedestrians, pedalcy- furnishing transportation services, including clists, or an occupant of a parked motor vehicle). maintenance and depreciation of the plant used in the service. NONSCHEDULED SERVICE (air): Revenue flights not operated as regular scheduled service, OPERATING EXPENSES (transit): The total of such as charter flights, and all nonrevenue flights all expenses associated with operation of an indi- incident to such flights. vidual mode by a given operator. Includes distri- butions of “joint expenses” to individual modes NONSELF-PROPELLED VESSEL (water): A and excludes “reconciling items,” such as inter- vessel without the means for self-propulsion. est expenses and depreciation. Should not be Includes dry cargo barges and tanker barges. confused with “vehicle operating expenses.”

NONTRAIN INCIDENT: An event that results OPERATING EXPENSES (truck): Includes in a reportable casualty, but does not involve the expenditures for equipment maintenance, super- movement of ontrack equipment and does not vision, wages, fuel, equipment rental, terminal cause reportable damage above the threshold operations, insurance, safety, and administrative established for train accidents. and general functions.

NONTRESPASSERS (rail): A person lawfully on OPERATING REVENUES (air): Revenues from any part of railroad property used in railroad the performance of air transportation and relat- operations or a person adjacent to railroad ed incidental services. Includes l) transportation premises when injured as the result of railroad revenues from the carriage of all classes of traffic operations. in scheduled and nonscheduled services, and 2) nontransportation revenues consisting of federal NONVESSEL-CASUALTY-RELATED DEATH subsidies (where applicable) and services related (water): A death that occurs onboard a commer- to air transportation. cial vessel but not as a result of a vessel casualty, such as a collision, fire, or explosion. OTHER FREEWAYS AND EXPRESSWAYS (highway): All urban principal arterials with lim- OCCUPANT (highway): Any person in or on a ited access but not part of the Interstate system. motor vehicle in transport. Includes the driver, passengers, and persons riding on the exterior of OTHER PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS (highway): a motor vehicle (e.g., a skateboard rider holding Major streets or highways, many of multi-lane onto a moving vehicle). Excludes occupants of or freeway design, serving high-volume traffic parked cars unless they are double parked or corridor movements that connect major genera- motionless on the roadway. tors of travel.

OCCUPATIONAL FATALITY: Death resulting OTHER RAIL REVENUE: Includes revenues from a job-related injury. from miscellaneous operations (i.e., dining- and

184 Appendix A

bar-car services), income from the lease of road PASSENGER REVENUE: 1) Rail: Revenue from and equipment, miscellaneous rental income, the sale of tickets. 2) Air: Revenues from the income from nonoperating property, profit from transport of passengers by air. 3) Transit: Fares, separately operated properties, dividend income, transfer, zone, and park-and-ride parking interest income, income from sinking and other charges paid by transit passengers. Prior to reserve funds, release or premium on funded 1984, fare revenues collected by contractors debt, contributions from other companies, and operating transit services were not included. other miscellaneous income. PASSENGER VESSELS (water): A vessel OTHER REVENUE VEHICLES (transit): Other designed for the commercial transport of passen- revenue-generating modes of transit service, gers. such as cable cars, personal rapid transit systems, monorail vehicles, inclined and railway PEDALCYCLIST: A person on a vehicle that is cars, not covered otherwise. powered solely by pedals.

OTHER 2-AXLE 4-TIRE VEHICLES (truck): PEDESTRIAN: Any person not in or on a motor Includes vans, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicle or other vehicle. Excludes people in vehicles. buildings or sitting at a sidewalk cafe. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration OXYGENATES: Any substance that when also uses an “other pedestrian” category to refer added to motor gasoline increases the amount of to pedestrians using conveyances and people in oxygen in that gasoline blend. Includes oxygen- buildings. Examples of pedestrian conveyances bearing compounds such as ethanol, methanol, include skateboards, nonmotorized wheelchairs, and methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether. Oxygenated fuel rollerskates, sleds, and transport devices used as tends to give a more complete combustion of equipment. carbon into carbon dioxide (rather than monoxide), thereby reducing air pollution from exhaust PERSON-MILES: An estimate of the aggregate emissions. distances traveled by all persons on a given trip based on the estimated transportation-network- PASSENGER CAR: A motor vehicle designed miles traveled on that trip. primarily for carrying passengers on ordinary roads, includes convertibles, sedans, and sta- PERSON TRIP: A trip taken by an individual. tions wagons. For example, if three persons from the same household travel together, the trip is counted as PASSENGER-MILE: 1) Air: One passenger trans- one household trip and three person trips. ported 1 mile; passenger-miles for 1 interairport flight are calculated by multiplying aircraft- PERSONAL CASUALTY (transit): 1) An inci- miles flown by the number of passengers carried dent in which a person is hurt while getting on on the flight. The total passenger-miles for all or off a transit vehicle (e.g., falls or door inci- flights is the sum of passenger-miles for all dents), but not as a result of a collision, derail- interairport flights. 2) Auto: One passenger trav- ment/left roadway, or fire. 2) An incident in eling 1 mile; e.g., 1 car transporting 2 passengers which a person is hurt while using a lift to get on 4 miles results in 8 passenger-miles. 3) Transit: or off a transit vehicle, but not as a result of a The total number of miles traveled by transit collision, derailment/left roadway, or fire. 3) An passengers; e.g., 1 bus transporting 5 passengers incident in which a person is injured on a transit 3 miles results in 15 passenger-miles. vehicle, but not as a result of a collision, derail-

185 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

ment/left roadway, or fire. 4) An incident in ations and that conform to American Society for which a person is hurt while using a transit facil- Testing and Materials Specifications D396 and ity. This includes anyone on transit property 976. Includes, among others, Navy Special oil (e.g., patrons, transit employees, trespassers), used in steam-powered vessels in government but does not include incidents resulting from ill- service and No. 6 oil used to power ships. ness or criminal activity. Imports of residual fuel oil include imported crude oil burned as fuel. PETROLEUM (oil): A generic term applied to oil and oil products in all forms, such as crude REVENUE: Remuneration received by carriers oil, lease condensate, unfinished oils, petroleum for transportation activities. products, natural gas plant liquids, and nonhydrocarbon compounds blended into finished REVENUE PASSENGER: 1) Air: Person receiv- petroleum products. ing air transportation from an air carrier for which remuneration is received by the carrier. PROPERTY DAMAGE (transit): The dollar Air carrier employees or others, except ministers amount required to repair or replace transit of religion, elderly individuals, and handicapped property (including stations, right-of-way, bus individuals, receiving reduced rate charges (less stops, and maintenance facilities) damaged dur- than the applicable tariff) are considered non- ing an incident. revenue passengers. Infants, for whom a token fare is charged, are not counted as passengers. 2) PUBLIC ROAD: Any road under the jurisdiction Transit: Single-vehicle transit rides by initial- of and maintained by a public authority (federal, board (first-ride) transit passengers only. state, county, town or township, local govern- Excludes all transfer rides and all nonrevenue ment, or instrumentality thereof) and open to rides. 3) Rail: Number of one-way trips made by public travel. persons holding tickets.

RAPID RAIL TRANSIT: Transit service using REVENUE PASSENGER ENPLANEMENTS railcars driven by electricity usually drawn from (air): The total number of passengers boarding a third rail, configured for passenger traffic, and aircraft. Includes both originating and connect- usually operated on exclusive rights-of-way. It ing passengers. generally uses longer trains and has longer station spacing than light rail. REVENUE PASSENGER LOAD FACTOR (air): Revenue passenger-miles as a percentage of REFORMULATED GASOLINE: Gasoline available seat-miles in revenue passenger ser- whose composition has been changed to meet vices. The term is used to represent the propor- performance specifications regarding ozone- tion of aircraft seating capacity that is actually forming tendencies and release of toxic sub- sold and utilized. stances into the air from both evaporation and tailpipe emissions. Reformulated gasoline REVENUE PASSENGER-MILE: One revenue includes oxygenates and, compared with gaso- passenger transported one mile. line sold in 1990, has a lower content of olefins, aromatics, volatile components, and heavy REVENUE PASSENGER TON-MILE (air): One hydrocarbons. ton of revenue passenger weight (including all baggage) transported one mile. The passenger RESIDUAL FUEL OIL: The heavier oils that weight standard for both domestic and interna- remain after the distillate fuel oils and lighter tional operations is 200 pounds. hydrocarbons are distilled away in refinery oper-

186 Appendix A

REVENUE TON-MILE: One short ton of Large scows are used to transport sand, gravel, freight transported one mile. or refuse.

REVENUE VEHICLE-MILES (transit): One SELF-PROPELLED VESSEL: A vessel that has vehicle (bus, trolley bus, or streetcar) traveling its own means of propulsion. Includes tankers, one mile, while revenue passengers are on board, containerships, dry bulk cargo ships, and gener- generates one revenue vehicle-mile. Revenue al cargo vessels. vehicle-miles reported represent the total mileage traveled by vehicles in scheduled or SERIOUS INJURY (air carrier/general aviation): unscheduled revenue-producing services. An injury that requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from ROAD OIL: Any heavy petroleum oil, including the date when the injury was received; results in residual asphaltic oil, that is used as a dust pallia- a bone fracture (except simple fractures of fin- tive and surface treatment on roads and high- gers, toes, or nose); involves lacerations that ways. It is generally produced in six grades from cause severe hemorrhages, or nerve, muscle, or zero, the most liquid, to five, the most viscous. tendon damage; involves injury to any internal organ; or involves second- or third-degree burns ROLL ON/ROLL OFF VESSEL (water): Ships or any burns affecting more than 5 percent of that are designed to carry wheeled containers or the body surface. other wheeled cargo and use the roll on/roll off method for loading and unloading. SMALL CERTIFICATED AIR CARRIER: An air carrier holding a certificate issued under sec- RURAL HIGHWAY: Any highway, road, or tion 401 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as street that is not an urban highway. amended, that operates aircraft designed to have a maximum seating capacity of 60 seats or fewer RURAL MILEAGE (highway): Roads outside or a maximum payload of 18,000 pounds or city, municipal district, or urban boundaries. less.

SCHEDULED SERVICE (air): Transport service STATE AND LOCAL HIGHWAY EXPENDI- operated on published flight schedules. TURES: Disbursements for capital outlays, maintenance and traffic surfaces, administration SCHOOL BUS: A passenger motor vehicle that and research, highway law enforcement and is designed or used to carry more than 10 pas- safety, and interest on debt. sengers, in addition to the driver, and, as determined by the Secretary of Transportation, is STREETCARS: Relatively lightweight passenger likely to be significantly used for the purpose of railcars operating singly or in short trains, or on transporting pre-primary, primary, or secondary fixed rails in rights-of-way that are not always school students between home and school. separated from other traffic. Streetcars do not necessarily have the right-of-way at grade cross- SCHOOL BUS-RELATED CRASH: Any crash ings with other traffic. in which a vehicle, regardless of body design and used as a school bus, is directly or indirectly SUPPLEMENTAL AIR CARRIER: An air carri- involved, such as a crash involving school chil- er authorized to perform passenger and cargo dren alighting from a vehicle. charter services.

SCOW (water): Any flat-bottomed, nonself-pro- TANKER: An oceangoing ship designed to haul pelled, rectangular vessel with sloping ends. liquid bulk cargo in world trade.

187 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

TON-MILE (truck): The movement of one ton whose origin or destination is a country other of cargo the distance of one mile. Ton-miles are than Canada or Mexico. calculated by multiplying the weight in tons of each shipment transported by the miles hauled. TRESPASSER (rail): Any person whose presence on railroad property used in railroad operations TON-MILE (water): The movement of one ton is prohibited, forbidden, or unlawful. of cargo the distance of one statute mile. Domes- tic ton-miles are calculated by multiplying tons TROLLEY BUS: Rubber-tired electric transit moved by the number of statute miles moved on vehicle, manually steered and propelled by a the water (e.g., 50 short tons moving 200 miles motor drawing current, normally through over- on a waterway would yield 10,000 ton-miles for head wires, from a central power source. that waterway). Ton-miles are not computed for ports. For coastwise traffic, the shortest route TRUST FUNDS: Accounts that are designated that safe navigation permits between the port of by law to carry out specific purposes and pro- origin and destination is used to calculate ton- grams. Trust Funds are usually financed with miles. earmarked tax collections.

TRAFFICWAY (highway): Any right-of-way TUG BOAT: A powered vessel designed for tow- open to the public as a matter of right or custom ing or pushing ships, dumb barges, pushed- for moving persons or property from one place towed barges, and rafts, but not for the carriage to another, including the entire width between of goods. property lines or other boundaries. U.S.-FLAG CARRIER OR AMERICAN FLAG TRAIN LINE MILEAGE: The aggregate length CARRIER (air): One of a class of air carriers of all line-haul railroads. It does not include the holding a Certificate of Public Convenience and mileage of yard tracks or sidings, nor does it Necessity, issued by the U.S. Department of reflect the fact that a mile of railroad may Transportation and approved by the President, include two or more parallel tracks. Jointly-used authorizing scheduled operations over specified track is counted only once. routes between the United States (and/or its territories) and one or more foreign countries. TRAIN-MILE: The movement of a train, which can consist of many cars, the distance of one UNLEADED GASOLINE: See Gasoline. mile. A train-mile differs from a vehicle-mile, which is the movement of one car (vehicle) the UNLINKED PASSENGER TRIPS (transit): The distance of one mile. A 10-car (vehicle) train number of passengers boarding public trans- traveling 1 mile is measured as 1 train-mile and portation vehicles. A passenger is counted each 10 vehicle-miles. Caution should be used when time he/she boards a vehicle even if the boarding comparing train-miles to vehicle-miles. is part of the same journey from origin to destination. TRANSIT VEHICLE: Includes light, heavy, and commuter rail; motorbus; trolley bus; van pools; URBAN HIGHWAY: Any road or street within automated guideway; and demand responsive the boundaries of an urban area. An urban area vehicles. is an area including and adjacent to a municipality or urban place with a population of 5,000 or TRANSSHIPMENTS: Shipments that enter or more. The boundaries of urban areas are fixed exit the United States by way of a U.S. Customs by state highway departments, subject to the port on the northern or southern border, but approval of the Federal Highway Administra-

188 Appendix A

tion, for purposes of the Federal-Aid Highway including the control of revenue vehicle move- Program. ments, scheduling, ticketing and fare collection, system security, and revenue vehicle operation. VANPOOL (transit): Public-sponsored commuter service operating under prearranged VESSEL CASUALTY (water): An occurrence schedules for previously formed groups of riders involving commercial vessels that results in 1) in 8- to 18-seat vehicles. Drivers are also com- actual physical damage to property in excess of muters who receive little or no compensation $25,000; 2) material damage affecting the besides the free ride. seaworthiness or efficiency of a vessel; 3) stranding or grounding; 4) loss of life; or 5) VEHICLE MAINTENANCE (transit): All activ- injury causing any person to remain incapaci- ities associated with revenue and nonrevenue tated for a period in excess of 72 hours, except (service) vehicle maintenance, including admin- injury to harbor workers not resulting in death istration, inspection and maintenance, and serv- and not resulting from vessel casualty or vessel icing (e.g., cleaning and fueling) vehicles. In equipment casualty. addition, it includes repairs due to vandalism or to revenue vehicle accidents. VESSEL-CASUALTY-RELATED DEATH (water): Fatality that occurs as a result of an incident that VEHICLE-MILES (highway): Miles of travel by involves a vessel or its equipment, such as a col- all types of motor vehicles as determined by the lision, fire, or explosion. Includes drowning states on the basis of actual traffic counts and deaths. established estimating procedures. WATERBORNE TRANSPORTATION: Trans- VEHICLE-MILES (transit): The total number of port of freight and/or people by commercial ves- miles traveled by transit vehicles. Commuter sels under U.S. Coast Guard jurisdiction. rail, heavy rail, and light rail report individual car-miles, rather than train-miles for vehicle- WAYBILL: A document that lists goods and miles. shipping instructions relative to a shipment.

VEHICLE OPERATIONS (transit): All activities associated with transportation administration,

189

Appendix B: Tables

Appendix B se," se," able able . The —U.S. —U.S. Productivity Database," avail Productivity Database," in total transportation employees. in total transportation employees. , "Industry Productivity Databa Manufacturing and business output by an index of employee hours. hours. of employee an index output by Transportation Statistics, calculated based on data Statistics, Transportation 0 107.8 110.7 113.2 116.2 119.2 122.8 s of railroad, trucking, air, bus and pipeline bus transportations of trucking, railroad, air, 13.0 117.3 121.4 126.6 132.7 139.6 145.2 ctivity and Technology, "Industry and Technology, ctivity ce of Productivity and Technology and of Productivity ce ndexes of each mode by its share its of each mode by ndexes 1 115.2 115.3 119.1 121.1 117.4 120.5 119.7 re the initially Bureau of Labor estimated by Statistics using 1987 as the base calculated by dividing an index of dividing an index calculated by on value added (GDP) are used as annual weighting factors. Index of transportation Index factors. added (GDP) weighting are used as annual on value —U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Department of Transportation, —U.S. 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Output per hour per Output =100 Index: 1990 Labor productivity for transportation Labor productivity for is Transportation 100.0Manufacturing 103.5 100.0Business 108.8 102.3 112. 107.6 100.0 109.7 101.2 1 105.0 105.6 107. shares of each mode in total transportati hour i weighting thehours employee is computed by employee we hour indexes The modal output and employee from the sources. data are not available Raw year. SOURCES: Transportation Transportation output index is a weighted average of output indexe average is a weighted output index Transportation Department Bureau of Labor Offi Statistics, of Labor, from U.S. Department as of February "Gross Bureau of Economic Analysis, of Commerce, 2003; and U.S. at http://www.bls.gov, available as of March 2003. at http://www.bea.gov, available Industry," Domestic Product by NOTES: Department Bureau Office ofof Labor Produ Statistics, of Labor, as of February 2003. at http://www.bls.gov, TABLE 1 1990–2000 of Major Sectors: Labor Productivity TABLE

193 Transportation Statistics Annual Report lable lable erally erally the or differences in or differences hour. Quality-adjustment hour. Analysis, "Gross Domestic Analysis, productivity is measured by productivity is measured by try avai Productivity Database," cipality and its suburban areas. cipality and its suburban first class and coach in a single municipality, contiguous in a single municipality, des carrierscommon or contract that gen n- and passenger-miles per 116.9 119.6 120.1 116.7 117.4 119.2 Industries: 1990–2000 5 113.3 127.5 131.1 134.0 141.9 137.7 8 131.8 140.9 143.3 146.22 154.0 165.2 114.0 110.3 129.5 109.3 139.9 116.2 ue commodities. Pipeline labor ue commodities. rtation Statistics, calculation based on data from U.S. rtation calculation based on data from U.S. Statistics, of Commerce, Bureau of Economic of Commerce, 116.6 112.9129.0 117.8 134.8 119.2 138.0 116.9 141.6 118.5 154.6 118.1 163.0 165.3 oductivity and Technology, "Indus oductivity and Technology, guous municipalities, or a muni guous municipalities, portation. Raw data are not available from the sources. portation. data are not available Raw easures quality-adjusted to r-Hire Transportation r-Hire generally provide trucking services provide generally with rban areas. Trucking, except local, inclu except Trucking, rban areas. handling, e.g., the difference between flying between the difference handling, e.g., 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transpo Department of Transportation, U.S. Index: 1990 = 100 Labor productivity for transportation Labor productivity for m output per employee. No data are available for water trans water for No data are available output per employee. that Local trucking includes establishments municipalities, or a municipality and or a municipality its subu municipalities, corrects for differences in services differences and corrects for generation of high- and low-val handling requirements and revenue NOTES: provide trucking service beyond a single municipality, conti a trucking serviceprovide single municipality, beyond SOURCES: Department Bureau of Labor Statistics' Office of Pr of Labor, at http://www.bls.gov, as of February 2003; and U.S. Department as of February 2003; and U.S. at http://www.bls.gov, as of March 2003. at http://www.bea.gov, available Industry," by Product Pipeline 100.0 96.6 97.8 101.9 105. Railroad Trucking, localexcept 100.0 truckingLocal 100.0 107.8 100.0Bus carriers, 105.2 117.8Class I 104.9 111.1 122.7Air 120.7 114.0 126. 100.0 123.4 107.5 100.0 109.5 99.6 113.5 104.3 103. 107.9 113.8 TABLE 2 Labor Productivity of the Fo of Productivity Labor 2 TABLE

194 Appendix B — Business sector with base years of 1987 (rail) and 1996 of 1987 (rail) with base years Data Table by Industry, 1987–1999.” Industry, by Data Table —“Industry Multifactor —“Industry Productivity Multifactor 2000 lable through 1999. Source data are indexes through 1999. Source data are indexes lable Rail National Transportation National Transportation included in the bus figure for figure for included inthe bus enger-miles 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 100.0 98.9 101.2 101.7 102.8 103.0 104.7 105.9 107.3 108.3 109.9 108.8 (Washington, DC: 2002), table 1-34, DC: 2002), table (Washington, U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, available at http://www.bls.gov, as of February 2003. at http://www.bls.gov, Department available of Labor Statistics, U.S. Index: 1990 =100 Index: 1990 Million pass U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau Department of Transportation, U.S. Transit includes motor bus, heavy rail, rail, heavy includes motor bus, Transit Rail productivity data are only avai “Multifactor Productivity Trends,” table 1. table Trends,” Productivity “Multifactor Railroad industryBusiness 100.0sector (all 103.3industries) 109.9 113.5 115.9 122.8 127.4 127.4 126.1 130.1 NOTE: (business). They have been reindexed so that 1990 = 100. been reindexed have They (business). SOURCES: NOTES: demand bus, ferryboat, light rail, trolley rail, commuter and demand Motor bus and others. responsive, figures are also responsive highway. SOURCE: Statistics, of Transportation Air carrierGeneral aviation carPassenger Light truckMotorcycleBus excluding busTransit, 516,129 14,000 Amtrak 2,544,457 1,467,664 26,425 11,516 Statistics 2002 160,919 5,498 available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003. at http://www.bts.gov/, available TABLE 3 Multifactor Productivity: 1990–2001 Productivity: Multifactor 3 TABLE Mode: 2000 by Passenger-Miles 4 TABLE

195 Transportation Statistics Annual Report 8 2,494,870 2,544,457 380,557 1,432,625 1,467,664 r bus and demand-responsive figures are also and demand-responsive r bus at http:// 1-34, available DC: 2002), table (Washington, 8 2,389,065 2,463,82 on Statistics 2002 on Statistics 2002 4139,136 145,060 148,558 162,445 160,919 39,808 41,378 42,339 44,128 45,857 47,666 256,146 1,298,299 1,352,675 1, 414,688446,652 463,112 476,362 501,857 530,129 1 5,545 5,050 5,166 5,304 5,330 5,498 National Transportati National Transportati 0.92 0.83 0.85 0.88 0.88 0.91 rail, ferryboat, trolley bus, demand-responsive, and others. Moto and others. demand-responsive, bus, trolley ferryboat, rail, rail, ferryboat, trolley bus, demand responsive, and others. and others. demand responsive, bus, trolley ferryboat, rail, 12 1.17 1.26 1.30 1.34 1.41 1.49 so included in the bus figure for highway. figure for so included in the bus 2,208,226 2,213,281 2,249,742 2,286,887 2,337,06 enger-miles 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Index 1990 = 1.00 1990 = Index Million pass U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Transit includes motor bus, heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, commuter rail, heavy includes motor bus, Transit light rail, commuter rail, heavy includes motor bus, Transit Light truckLight 999,754 1,116,958 1,201,667 1,252,860 1,269,292 1, Passenger car 1.00Light truck 0.96Bus 1.00 0.97Transit 1.12Amtrak 0.97 1.20 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.25 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.27 1.04 0.98 1.02 1.07 1.26 1.01 0.96 1.05 1.30 1.12 1.02 0.96 1.08 1.35 1.12 0.98 0.97 1.09Air carrier 1.38 1.15 1.01 1.12 Passenger car 1.43 1.19 1.03 2,281,391 358,873 1.47 1.222,200,260 1.07Bus 350,185 1.34 1.11Transit 365,564 1.33 Amtrak 1.16 372,130 121,398 398,199 41,143 121,906 6,057 40,703 122,496 129,852 40,241 6,273 135,871 39,384 6,091 136,10 39,585 6,199 5,92 Air carrier 1.00 0.98 1.03 1.05 1. NOTES: figures are al and demand responsive Motor bus SOURCE: NOTES: (Washington, DC: 2002), table 1-34, available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003. at http://www.bts.gov/, 1-34, available DC: 2002), table (Washington, highway. figure for included in the bus SOURCE: as of April 2003. www.bts.gov/, TABLE 5a Change in Passenger-Miles by Selected Mode by Change 5a in Passenger-Miles TABLE Selected Mode by Passenger-Miles 5b TABLE

196 Appendix B National Income ensal/US-EST90INT-01.php, as of ensal/US-EST90INT-01.php, —U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department U.S. of Commerce, —U.S. Population ent of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Economic Analysis, ent of Commerce, 348 7,544126 7,813 266,278925 269,394 8,160 28,331 272,647 29,003 8,509 275,854 29,927 279,040 8,859 282,125 30,846 9,191 31,748 32,579 us Bureau, National Intercensal Estimates /tables/intercensal/US-EST90INT-01.php, as of May 2003. as of May /tables/intercensal/US-EST90INT-01.php, 1.04 1.05 1.08 1.11 1.15 1.18 1.22 , summary GDP table, available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/ , summary available GDP table, .04 1.05 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.11 1.12 1.13 Based on chained 1996 dollar data from U.S. DepartmBased on chained 1996 dollar data from U.S. mates 1990–2000, available at http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/national/tables/interc mates 1990–2000, available —Based on chained 1996 dollar data from U.S. Department Bureau of —Based on ofchained 1996 Commerce, dollar data from U.S. and Gross Domestic Product: 1990–2000 Domestic Product: Gross and —U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Cens Department U.S. of Commerce, —U.S. 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Population 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 , summary GDP table, available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm, as of May 2003. as of May at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm, available , summary GDP table, National Income and Product Accounts U.S. population Gross Domestic Product— Domestic Gross Gross Domestic Product Gross Index 1990 = 1.00 1990 = Index

1990–2000, available at http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/national 1990–2000, available May 2003. May dn1.htm, as of May 2003. dn1.htm, as of May GDP per capita 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.01 (GDP) domestic product Gross (Billions of chained dollars)1996 resident Total (Thousands)GDP per capita 6,708 6,676 249,623 252,981 26,872 6,880 256,514 26,391 259,919 7,063 26,821 263, 7, 27,172 27, Gross domestic (GDP)product U.S. populationTotal 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.03 1.03 1 1.05 1.10 1.12 1.16 1.22 1.27 1.32 1.37 Census Bureau, National Intercensal Esti and Product Accounts SOURCES: Analysis, Economic SOURCES: TABLE 6a Total U.S. Population and Gross Domestic Product: 1990–2000 Domestic Product: and Gross Population U.S. Total 6a TABLE Population U.S. Total 6b TABLE

197 Transportation Statistics Annual Report National (Washington, DC: (Washington, (Washington, DC: 2002), (Washington, (Washington, DC: 2001), page (Washington, Railroad Facts Highway Statistics 2001 Highway —BTS calculation based on U.S. Department—BTS calculation based of on U.S. oard, Carload Waybill Sample; Transport Canada, Sample; Transport oard, Carload Waybill Truck 1.01 1.03 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 erican Association of Railroads, Transportation Statistics Annual Report Statistics Annual 2000 Transportation Freight Ton-Miles by Mode: 1990–2000 by Freight Ton-Miles —U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, —U.S. (Washington, DC: 2002), table 1-44. DC: 2002), table (Washington, (Annual Report), (Annual 12-1; Am table —BTS calculation based on Surface Transportation B Transportation —BTS calculation based on Surface Billions Index 1990 = 1.00 1990 = Index Rail table VM-1. table In Canada Transportation 1991–2001 issues), page 36. 124; and U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Administration, Highway Federal Department of Transportation, 124; and U.S. Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Transportation, Year 9 9 101112131314141415 Air Truck 1990Railroad 1991Water 848 1992 1,064Oil pipeline 1993 1,042 867TOTAL 584 1994 834 1,098 889 1,135 1995 579 848 3,339 1,221 927 1996 3,345 1,317 589 857 1997 987 1,377 3,443 593 1,033 790 1998 3,456 1,391 1,060 591 815 3,626 1999 1,448 1,109 3,772 601 808 2000 1,504 1,138 3,834 1,546 619 765 1,175 3,838 3,893 1,193 617 707 3,967 620 673 4,017 618 656 617 646 Year 1.000.981.081.181.301.381.421.501.531.571.63 Air Truck1.001.021.051.091.161.221.251.311.341.391.41 1990Railroad1.000.981.031.071.151.241.291.311.361.411.45 1991Water1.001.021.030.950.980.970.920.850.810.790.77 1992Oil pipeline 1993TOTAL1.001.001.031.031.091.131.151.151.171.191.20 1.00 1994 0.99 1995 1.01 1996 1.02 1997 1998 1999 2000 SOURCES: Air, pipeline, and water SOURCES: Air, Transportation Statistics 2002 Transportation TABLE 7b Domestic Freight Ton-Miles by Mode: 1990–2000 by Domestic Freight 7b Ton-Miles TABLE TABLE 7a Change 7a in Domestic TABLE

198 Appendix B (Washington, DC: (Washington, (Washington, DC: 2002), (Washington, (Washington, DC: 2001), page (Washington, Railroad Facts east and Schedule Change Timetables eau of Transportation Statistics, National Statistics, eau of Transportation Highway Statistics 2001 Highway —BTS calculation based on U.S. Department—BTS calculation based of on U.S. Official National Motor Coach Guides (Cedar IA: Rapids, d water freight flow maps, respectively, respectively, maps, freight flow d water oard, Carload Waybill Sample; Transport Canada, Sample; Transport oard, Carload Waybill Truck System Timetable (Dallas, TX: January 1995). (Dallas, System Timetable erican Association of Railroads, il data include direct and connecting service. schedule time schedule Transportation Statistics Annual Report Statistics Annual 2000 Transportation ions (Amtrak), National,ions (Amtrak), North Decreased or unchanged Decreased or e not included here.] —U.S. Department of Transportation, Bur Department of Transportation, —U.S. estic Freight Ton-Miles: 2000 estic Freight Ton-Miles: hington, DC: 2002), table 1-44. hington, DC: 2002), table 2000 (Annual Report), (Annual 12-1; Am table —BTS calculation based on Surface Transportation B Transportation —BTS calculation based on Surface Increased schedule time Increased schedule February 1995 and February 2002 of city-pairs Number Rail National Passenger Railroad Coporat National Passenger Figures 9, 10, and 11 are truck, rail, an rail, Figures 9, 10, and 11 are truck, Air data cover non-stop service only. Bus and ra non-stop service only. Air data cover table VM-1. table In Canada Transportation 1991–2001 issues), page 36. AirRailBus 177 154 115 84 92 135 AirTruckRailroadWaterOil pipeline 0.4 29.7 38.5 16.1 15.4 (Washington, DC: 1994/1995 and 2001/2002 issues); Russell’s Guides, Guides, DC: 1994/1995 and 2001/2002 issues); Russell’s (Washington, January 1995 and January Lines, 2002 editions); Greyhound Transportation Statistics 2002 (Was Transportation Administration, Highway Federal Department of Transportation, 124; and U.S. SOURCES: SOURCES: Air, pipeline, and water SOURCES: Air, [NOTE: NOTE: Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Transportation, ar and corresponding tables TABLE 8 Modal Shares of Dom 8 TABLE Time: Schedule City-Pair Changes 12in Average TABLE

199 Transportation Statistics Annual Report o Area Population for 75 Metro 75Areas: Metro for 1990 ando 2000Area Population Population (000) Index Time Travel Change a Beach VAa Beach 1,500 1.15 1.18 0.03 S 1,420 1.03 1.10 0.07 Portland-Vancouver OR-WAPortland-Vancouver Kansas City MO-K 1,500 1.16 1.40 0.24 Urban areasNJ NY-Northeastern York New CA Angeles Los INChicago IL-Northwestern Philadelphia PA-NJ CASan Francisco-Oakland Detroit MI TXDallas-Fort Worth DC-MD-VAWashington Houston TXBoston MAAtlanta GA 17,090CASan Diego Phoenix AZMNMinneapolis-St. Paul FLMiami-Hialeah 8,090Baltimore MD 1.31 2000 4,030St. Louis MO-IL 12,680Seattle-Everett WA 4,590 Petersburg-Clearwater FLTampa-St 1.37 CO 1.41Denver 3,560 3,800 1990Cleveland OH 1.50 PAPittsburgh 1.91 1.47San Jose CA 1.18 0.10 Bch FLFt. Lauderdale-Hollywood-Pompano 4,025 2000Norfolk-Newport News-Virgini 1.59 1.90 3,375 1.34 1.18 0.10 1.28 2,475 1990–2000 3,025 CASan Bernardino-Riverside 1,950 0.09 –0.01 2,710 1.28 2,975Sacramento CA 1.46 1.33Milwaukee WI 2,270 0.10 2,600 1,560 1.31 1.12Cincinnati OH-KY 1.27 1.34 TXSan Antonio 0.12 0.15 1.26 2,170 2,000 2,040NV Vegas Las 1.25 1.14 1.38 FLOrlando 1.38 1.32 NY Falls Buffalo-Niagara 1.45 1.21 1.14 0.06 1.29LA Orleans New 1.37 1.36 1,910Oklahoma City OK 0.07 1.21 1.34 1.11 1.45 1,885 1.40Columbus OH 0.26 1.37 0.18 1,790 Bch FLW Palm Raton-Delray Bch-Boca 1,410 0.03 Indianapolis IN 1,675 0.12 0.22 1.29 1.45 1.23 0.13 0.19 1.17 0.23 1.06 1.10 1.24 0.08 0.11 0.12 1.44 1,395 1.42 1.13 1,365 1.10 1,285 1,030 1.34 1.42 1,110 1,250 0.25 0.07 1,200 1.20 0.00 1.12 –0.02 0.10 1,200 1.12 1.12 1,105 1,080 1.04 1.31 1.08 1.26 1.23 1,040 1.26 1.25 1.08 1,020 1.23 1.16 0.11 1.16 1.03 1.35 0.14 0.14 0.13 1.29 0.04 1.10 0.15 1.18 1.09 1.06 0.12 1.19 0.13 1.24 0.02 0.06 0.09 0.18 TABLE 13/14 Travel Time Index and Change by Metr Changeand by Time Index 13/14 Travel TABLE

200 Appendix B

(continued) (College Station, TX: 2002 Urban Mobility Report o Area Population for 75 Metro 75Areas: Metro for 1990 ando 2000Area Population Population (000) Index Time Travel Change travel in the peak relative to free-flow travel. to free-flow in the peak relative travel RI-MA 915 1.12 1.21 0.09 Texas A&M University, Texas Transportation Institutue, Institutue, Transportation Texas A&M University, Texas The Travel Time Index is the ratio of peak period travel time to free-flow travel time. The Travel Time Index Time Index The Travel time. travel time to free-flow of peak period is the ratio Time travel Index The Travel Urban areas Memphis TN-AR-MSProvidence-Pawtucket 975 2000 1990 1.09 2000 1.21 1990-2000 0.12 Salt Lake City UT City Lake Salt Jacksonville FLLouisville KY-IN OKTulsa Austin TXNashville TNHonolulu HI AZTucson ALBirmingham Paso El TX-NMRochester NY NCCharlotte CTHartford-Middletown Richmond VAOmaha NE-IA WATacoma Albuquerque NM 900Fresno CA 865 840 NYAlbany-Schenectady-Troy Colorado Springs COCharleston SC 1.08Bakersfield CASpokane WA 800 1.11 700 730 1.08Corpus Christi TX 695 1.17Pensacola FL 680 670Fort Myers-CapeCoral FL 1.15 645 1.24 655Anchorage AK OREugene-Springfield 1.05 650 1.10 1.12 0.09 1.22 645 ORSalem 0.04 TXLaredo 1.11 0.16 1.06 1.12 TXBrownsville 1.09 1.18 515 1.27 640 1.04Beaumont TX 1.20 625Boulder CO 1.03 595 1.20 1.17 605 1.16 1.12 0.07 1.17 465 0.08 0.15 –0.02 1.06 555 1.04 1.05 1.27 1.09 0.09 0.11 1.10 0.03 455 0.13 1.11 405 1.06 1.10 290 0.03 1.04 330 1.15 315 1.13 1.26 0.11 1.23 220 305 1.20 1.15 0.02 0.05 1.03 1.20 260 0.06 1.09 0.16 1.04 1.03 0.12 1.19 0.16 1.06 1.04 1.15 1.08 0.07 195 155 1.08 1.04 185 1.05 145 0.04 1.12 0.03 1.14 110 0.06 0.04 1.04 0.01 1.04 1.04 1.03 0.08 1.03 0.06 –0.01 1.03 1.10 1.08 1.06 1.05 1.09 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.06 NOTE: to time it takes amount of extra the average expresses SOURCE: 2002), available at http://tti.tamu.edu/, as of May 2003. as of May at http://tti.tamu.edu/, 2002), available TABLE 13/14 Travel Time Index and Change by Metr Changeand by Time Index 13/14 Travel TABLE

201 Transportation Statistics Annual Report 1 1 NA NA 1 1 1,356,450 1,104,439 868,225 1,104,439 1,356,450 (Washington, DC: 2000 and 2001 issues). (Washington, Annual ReportsAnnual w data are not readily available. on Statistics, Airline On-Time Performance Database, personal Database, Airlineon Statistics, On-Time Performance 13,16113,555 14,254 12,9098,356 144,509154,311 187,599 231,198 65,143 haul data separately. 218,165 4,156,980 4,207,293 4,130,185 4,619,234 4,329,635 4,329,635 4,619,234 4,130,185 4,207,293 4,156,980 218,165 1,083,834 1,070,071 1,152,725 1,070,071 1,083,834 is provided as a percentage. Ra as a percentage. is provided 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 ts short- and long- 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 —Amtrak, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, National Railroad Passenger —Amtrak, Number of flights Number Percent —Amtrak, personal communication, Mar. 3, 2003. —Amtrak, personal communication, Mar. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportati Department of Transportation, U.S. Amtrak on-time performance data on-time performance Amtrak NA = notNA applicable. As of 2001, Amtrak noAs of 2001, longer Amtrak repor KEY: KEY: NOTE: SOURCES: 1993–1999 Short distance (<400 mi)7978817679818081NA performance72727671747979787577 (<400 on-time On-time flights arrivalsLate distance 3,989,281 4, 1,220,045 System Short SOURCE: mi) (>=400 distance Long 1 47 49 57 49 53 59 61 56 NA communication, November 2000 and November 2002. 2000 and November November communication, 2000–2002 Diverted flightsCanceled flights 14,121 128,536 12,081 97,763 TABLE 15 U.S. Air Carrier On-Time Performance: 1996–2002 15Air Carrier U.S. On-Time Performance: TABLE 1993–200216 Amtrak On-Time Performance: TABLE

202 Appendix B ot ot (Washington, DC: 2000 and 2001 issues). (Washington, 5,527 5,1938,497 5,310 8,425 4,796 7,611 4,891 8,291 8,203 11,224 11,438 12,904 14,202 16,158 eather-related delays, and miscellaneous. eather-related delays, Annual ReportAnnual data after 1999 are not comparable to prior years and are n are and to prior years not comparable are 1999 data after 729 25,248 25,056 25,825 27,289 29,252 , freight train interference, and signal delays. interference, , freight train ng in stations, and passenger-relatedng in stations, delays. waiting for connections, running time, w running time, connections, for waiting —National Railroad Passenger Corporation —National (Amtrak), Railroad Passenger 3,5654,244 5,915 6,4334,316 7,743 8,229 7,426 8,488 12,827 8,185 8,538 14,319 11,675 11,871 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1993–1999

Amtrak changed its method for reporting changedAmtrak its methodin for 2000. delays Therefore, 1 2 3 Includes equipment malfunctions, train servici train Includes equipment malfunctions, conditions repairs/track track for Includes delays Includes passenger train interference, Amtrak presented here. SOURCE: NOTE: NOTE: Other 1 2 3 Freight Total 12,125 21,084 22,847 32,991 34, TABLE 17Cause: Amtrakby 1990–1999 of Delay Hours TABLE

203 Transportation Statistics Annual Report Vehicle Vehicle National Thousands of trucks 1992 1997 tractors; unpowered trailer units; trailer unpowered tractors; the vehicle plus the average vehicle vehicle plus the average the vehicle atistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), atistics 2002 (Washington, a are the U.S. Census Bureau’s Census Bureau’s a are the U.S. and this report differ from those in the VIUS, reportthisandin the VIUS, from those differ (VIUS). The truck categories in 501 to 26,000 lb) 732.0 729.3 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Weight is the empty weight is of the empty weight Weight lb = pound. load. or local governments; state, federal, by owned Excludes vehicles motor homes; farm buses; ambulances; of 1 prior to July or wrecked been sold, junked, trucks reportedand to have preceding the survey. the year SOURCES: St National Transportation Statistics, as of April 2003. at http://www.bts.gov/, 1-21, also available table The original source of these dat and Use Survey Inventory Transportation Statistics 2002 Transportation which has the following categories:mediumlight trucks—10,000lbs or less; the following which has trucks—10,001 lbs–19,500 trucks—19,501 lbs; lbs–26,000light-heavy lbs; trucks—26,001 lbs or more. and heavy-heavy Heavy trucks (> 26,000 lb) 3,074.5 3,986.9 Light trucks (< 6,001 lb)Light Medium trucks (6,001 to 19,500 lb) trucks (19, Light-heavy 5,906.5 50,545.7 6,737.1 62,798.4 KEY: KEY: NOTES: TABLE 18 Number of Trucks by Vehicle Weight: 1992 and 1997 Weight: Vehicle by Trucks of Number 18 TABLE

204 Appendix B trucks (Washington, (Washington, combination 5-axle or more or 5-axle

single axle loads a (ESALs), trucks Highway Statistics 2001 Highway combination 3- and 4-axle and 3- carry wheeled containers Vessel Calls at U.S. Ports Calls at U.S. Vessel llected by the States for varying time periods the States for llected by each ings are based on equivalent ings are based on equivalent trucks Heavy of force applied to pavement by an 18,000-pound axle, an 18,000-pound axle, by applied to pavement of force single-unit eau of Transportation Statistics, calculation Statistics, eau of Transportation 1998 1999 2000 2001 e especially designed to he roll-on/roll-off method for loading and unloading. he roll-on/roll-off method for trucks buses, and light Passenger cars, Passenger Percent U.S. Department of Transportation, Bur Department of Transportation, U.S. Deadweight tons Deadweight : U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Adminstration, Adminstration, Highway Federal Department of Transportation, : U.S. Based on data from the Truck Weight Study which are co Weight Based on data from the Truck Ro-Ro = roll-on, roll-off vessels, which ar Ro-Ro = roll-on, roll-off vessels, DC: 2002), table TC-3. DC: 2002), table Rural26489 Urban 3 14 5 77 which is roughly equivalent to a standard truck axle. Raw data are not available. Raw to a standard axle. which is roughly truck equivalent SOURCE standard unit of pavement damage based on the amount standard unit of pavement year and are not adjusted to typify annual averages. Load and are not adjusted averages. to typify annual year TankerDry bulkContainershipRo-RoChemical tankersGas carriersOtherTotal 78,534 35,671 40,930 78,027 27,303 36,580 41,211 78,782 19,848 27,499 37,814 41,031 30,435 79,004 18,734 27,750 38,922 41,072 30,973 18,402 27,544 29,364 31,339 19,104 44,519 32,151 33,898 44,951 33,790 45,467 33,895 46,238 Location based on U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation, based on U.S. H-6 and issues), DC: H-8. Annual tables (Washington, trailers, or other wheeled cargo, and use t or other wheeled cargo, trailers, SOURCE: NOTES: KEY: TABLE 19/20 Share of Loadings on Interstate Highways: 2001 19/20Highways: Share on Interstate of Loadings TABLE 1998–2001 Ports: Calling at U.S. Capacity 21 of Vessels Average Table

205 Transportation Statistics Annual Report (Washington, DC: 2001 and 2002 (Washington, (Washington, DC: 2001 and 2002 issues). (Washington, 2002 2002 and and Railroad Facts 2001 Railroad Facts Railroad Facts 2001 Railroad Facts ported total carloads transported. divided by 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Millions Association of American of Railroads, AmericanRailroads, Association of of Association of American of Railroads, AmericanRailroads, Association of of Average railcar weight is total tons trans weight railcar Average Tons per carloadTons 66 66 64 63 65 67 63 64 63 63 64 SOURCE: issues). Tons 1,383Tons 1,399Carloads 1,397 1,470 21 1,550 21 1,611 1,585 22 1,649 23 1,717 1,738 24 1,742 24 25 26 27 28 27 SOURCE: NOTE: TABLE 22 Measures of U.S. Railroad Freight Volume: 1991–2001 Freight Volume: Railroad U.S. Measures of 22 TABLE 1991–2001 Weight: Railcar Loaded U.S. Average 23 TABLE

206 Appendix B tional Household Travel tional Household Travel : U.S. Department of Transportation, Department of Transportation, : U.S. Data are from the daily travel segment of the Data are from the daily travel Person miles for all modesPerson miles in personal vehicles 35 40 NOTE: Long-distance Survey. 2001 National Household Travel trips data (i.e., of 50 miles or more collected travel period) are not included here. during travel a 4-week SOURCE Statistics and Federal Bureau of Transportation Administration, Na Highway 1, Preliminary Data Release Version Survey, 2003. as of January at http://nhts.ornl.gov, available TABLE 25 Miles Traveled Per Day: 2001 Day: Per Miles Traveled 25 TABLE

Railroad Railroad Tons per car per Tons 1991 2001 ions based on of Association is included in commodity-specific Railroad Ten-Year Trends 1990–1999 Trends Railroad Ten-Year (Washington, DC: 2001 and 2002 issues). (Washington, 2002 Association of American of Railroads, Selected Commodities: 1991 and 2001 1991 Commodities: Selected and —U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Department of Transportation, —U.S. Miscellaneous mixed shipments is mostly intermodal Miscellaneous mixed Farm productsFarm CoalNonmetallic minerals productskindred Food and Chemicals and allied products equipmentTransportation Miscellaneous mixed shipments 90 63 92 81 94 68 96 84 17 21 99 110 15 21 1991 data American of Railroads, Transportation Statistics, calculat Statistics, Transportation NOTES: NOTES: Some intermodaltraffic. traffic categories instead. SOURCES: Facts 2001 Facts DC: 2000). (Washington, TABLE 24 Average Loaded U.S. Railcar Weight for Weight Railcar Loaded U.S. 24 Average TABLE

207 Transportation Statistics Annual Report al Highway Administration, al Highway not necessarily anchored by the not necessarily anchored by of the 2001 National Household st and relaxation)st and 37 Miles U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Department of Transportation, U.S. The 2001 National Household Travel Survey defined a trip Survey as The 2001 National Household Travel Purpose re (includes Vacation business Work-related Visit friends/relatives work To/from Medical/dental reportedTotal social/recreational Other length trip Average 29 family/personalOther 7 Shopping 14 6 School/church 12 10 8 10 7 NOTES: NOTES: “Commute” each from one time a person address went to another. trips were defined as the thosepurpose trips made for of going to or those the definition of a trip, given returning from work. However, reported trips as commuting were care should be returnhome Therefore, or workplace commutes). (for in analyzing worktaken trips, these recognizing that the distance for the distance from home to work. Data trips not always, is often, but segment are from the daily travel trips data (i.e., of 50 miles or more Long-distance travel Survey. Travel period) are not included here. collected during travel a 4-week SOURCE: Statistics and Feder Transportation Preliminary Data Release Version Survey, National Household Travel at http://nhts.ornl.gov/, as of January trip data only), available 1 (day 2003. TABLE 27 Average Trip Distance by Purpose: 2001 Distance by Trip Average 27 TABLE National Household Travel National Household Travel onal vehicles 3.5 : U.S. Department of Transportation, Department of Transportation, : U.S. Data are from the daily travel segment of the Data are from the daily travel Person trips for Person trips for all modesPerson trips in pers 4.1 Survey, Preliminary Data Release Version 1, Preliminary Data Release Version Survey, as of January 2003. at http://nhts.ornl.gov, available NOTE: Long- Survey. 2001 National Household Travel trips data (i.e., of 50 miles or more distance travel period) are not collected during travel a 4-week included here. SOURCE Statistics and Federal Bureau of Transportation Administration, Highway TABLE 26 Trips Completed Per Day: 2001 Day: Per Completed Trips 26 TABLE

208 Appendix B total Percentage of Percentage el Survey. Long-distance el Survey. Number Number (millions) U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau Department of Transportation, U.S. Data are from the daily travel segment of the Data are from the daily travel NOTE: NOTE: 2001 National Household Trav trips data (i.e., of 50 miles or more collected travel period) are not included here. during travel a 4-week SOURCE: Highway Statistics and Federal of Transportation Survey, NationalAdministration, Household Travel at http:// 1, available Preliminary Data Release Version as nhts.ornl.gov/, 2003. of January Personal vehiclePersonal Air 355,260TransitSchool bus 86.5 Bicycle/walkOther 6,455 405 6,986 38,848Total 1.6 0.1 1.7 2,748 9.5 410,702 0.7 100.0 TABLE 29a Modal Share of Person Trips: 2001 Trips: Modal 29a Share of Person TABLE distance travel data (i.e., trips data (i.e., distance travel Survey defined a tripSurvey as each (millions) Percent 1 (day trip data only), available at trip data1 (day only), available Total person trips person Total stration, National Household Travel stration, National Household Travel from the daily travel segment of the from the daily travel rpose of going to or returning from tation of passengers or goods, such as such tationof passengers or goods, ational 75,779 18.5 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. The 2001 National Household Travel The 2001 National Household Travel To/from work To/from business Work-related 79,715Shopping Other family/personal business 8,863Medical/dental 19.5 40,220School/church 11,717 94,886 rest and (includes Vacation 60,893relaxation) 2.2 Visit friends/relatives 9.8 2.9 Other social/recre 23.2 14.9 Other 2,250All reported 32,269 0.6 2,675 7.9 0.7 409,267 100.0 time a person went from one address to another. “Commute” trips “Commute” were from one address to another. time a person went defined as those trips the pu made for the those reported definition of a trip, given as commuting work. However, trips not necessarily return the were home or anchoredworkplace by (for in analyzing to/from care should be taken work trips, Therefore, commutes). the these not always, tripsrecognizing that the is often, but distance for distance from home to work. Data are Long- Survey. 2001 National Household Travel period) are not included of 50 miles or more collected during travel a 4-week trips Excluded from work-relatedhere. are business trips people made by who are directly the providing transpor etc. delivery persons, or truck drivers, bus SOURCE: Admini Highway Statistics and Federal Preliminary Data Release Version Survey, http://nhts.ornl.gov/, as of January 2003. Trip purpose Trip NOTES: NOTES: TABLE 28 Person Trips by Purpose: 2001 Purpose: by Trips Person 28 TABLE

209 Transportation Statistics Annual Report Number (millions) Percent el data (i.e., tripsel data (i.e., of 50 miles or nistration, National Household Travel National Household Travel nistration, avel period) are not included here. avel d rail d 1,643 25.5 line/ferry 46 0.7 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Data are from the daily travel segment of the 2001 National Data are from the daily travel Transit Bus Subway/elevate Street car/trolley Commuter train Passenger 6,455 101 4,295 100.0 370 66.5 1.6 5.7 Transportation mode Transportation Survey, Preliminary Data Release Version 1, available at http:// 1, available Preliminary Data Release Version Survey, nhts.ornl.gov/, as of January 2003. NOTES: NOTES: Long-distance trav Survey. Household Travel more collected during tr a 4-week SOURCE: Admi Highway Statistics and Federal TABLE 29c Person Trips by Transit: 2001 Transit: by Trips Person 29c TABLE Number (millions) Percent nistration, National Household Travel National Household Travel nistration, avel period) are not included here. avel ng motorcycle) 355,260 100.0 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Data are from the daily travel segment of the 2001 National Data are from the daily travel RV = recreational vehicle; SUV = sport = recreational vehicle; utility vehicle. RV Personal vehicle (includi Car Van SUV Pickup truck motorcycle Other truck, RV, 3,014 208,875 50,116 46,990 58.8 0.8 46,265 14.1 13.2 13.0 Transportation mode Transportation KEY: NOTES: tripsor of 50 miles data (i.e., travel Long-distance Survey. Household Travel more collected during tr a 4-week SOURCE: Admi Highway Statistics and Federal at http:// 1, available Preliminary Data Release Version Survey, 2003. as of January nhts.orgnhts.ornl.gov/, TABLE 29b Person Trips by Personal Vehicle: 2001 Vehicle: Personal by Trips Person 29b TABLE

210 Appendix B Miles Miles (millions) Percent el data (i.e., tripsel data of 50 miles (i.e., or avel period) are not included here. avel SUV = sport utility vehicle. motorcycle) 3,531,205 100.0 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Data are from the daily travel segment of the 2001 National Data are from the daily travel RV = recreational vehicle; recreational vehicle; = RV Transportation mode Transportation Personal vehicle (including Car Van SUV Pickup truck motorcycle RV, Other truck, 1,949,100 91,181 477,915 55.2 544,411 2.6 468,598 13.5 15.4 13.3 KEY: NOTES: NOTES: Long-distance trav Survey. Household Travel more collected during tr a 4-week SOURCE: National Administration, Household Travel Highway Statistics and Federal at http://nhts.ornl.gov/, 1, available Preliminary Data Release Version Survey, as of January 2003. TABLE 30b Person-Miles by Personal Vehicle Personal by Person-Miles 30b TABLE tional Household Travel tional Household Travel Miles Miles (millions) of total Percent U.S. Department of Transportation, Department of Transportation, U.S. Data are from the daily travel segment of the Data are from the daily travel Personal vehicleAir 3,531,205TransitSchool bus 88.1 Bicycle/walkOther 322,801 44,890 45,431 32,397 reportedTotal 8.1 1.1 1.1 4,009,545 0.8 32,821 100.0 0.8 Bureau of Transportation Statistics and Federal Statistics and Federal Bureau of Transportation Administration, Na Highway NOTES: NOTES: Long- Survey. 2001 National Household Travel trips data of 50 miles (i.e., or more distance travel period) are not collected during travel a 4-week included here. SOURCE: 1, available Preliminary Data Release Version Survey, at http://nhts.ornl.gov/, as of January 2003. TABLE 30a Modal Share of Person-Miles: 2001 Person-Miles: Share of Modal 30a TABLE

211 Transportation Statistics Annual Report Millions Percent U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Department of Transportation, U.S. Data are from the daily travel segment2001 of theNationalData fromarethe daily travel Number of vehicles None1234 6.05.6 more5 or All 8.5 33.7 39.9 7.9 16.2 3.2 31.4 37.1 107.4 15.1 3.0 100.0 NOTES: NOTES: data Long-distance trips(i.e., travel of 50 Survey. Household Travel miles or more collected period) during a are travel 4-week not included here. included not are period) travel 4-week a during herected SOURCE: Administration, Highway Statistics and Federal Transportation Preliminary Data Release Survey, National Household Travel at http://nhts.ornl.gov/, as of January 2003. 1, available Version TABLE 31a U.S. Households by Number of Vehicles: 2001 Number of Vehicles: Households by U.S. 31a TABLE Miles (millions) Percent (millions) Survey. Long-distance travel Long-distance travel Survey. d rail 11,488 25.6 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Department of Transportation, U.S. Data are from the daily travel segmentthe2001 of Dataare from the daily travel Transportation mode Transportation TransitBus Subway/elevate 44,890 23,649 100.00 52.7 Street car/trolley trainCommuter line/ferry Passenger 615 8,191 947 1.4 18.2 2.1 NOTES: NOTES: National Household Travel tripsdata of 50 miles (i.e., or more collected during a 4- period) are not included here. travel week SOURCE: Highway Statistics and Federal Transportation Survey, NationalAdministration, Household Travel at http:// 1, available Preliminary Data Release Version 2003. as of January nhts.ornl.gov/, TABLE 30c Person-Miles by Transit: 2001 Transit: by Person-Miles 30c TABLE

212 Appendix B 0 . 1 0 . 0 . 2 0 . 0 . 6 (percent) Person trips Administration, National Administration, 2,262 (millions) Person trips trips Person 333 sonal vehicle 349,672 88.2 al reported 396,640 100.0 P a ssenger line/fer r y 45 S ubway/elevated rail 890 harter/tour/intercity busharter/tour/intercity 349 0.1 axi, shuttle buslimo, 573 0.1 Bus

tion Statistics and Federal Highway and Federal tion Statistics l Household Travel Survey. Long-distance travel data (i.e., data (i.e., Long-distance travel Survey. l Household Travel od) are not included here. 1, available at http://nhts.ornl.gov/, as of January 2003. 1, available e t c a r/tr o l y 67 S t re Commuter train 5.4 0 .0 0 . 2 14.5 (percent) mode Transportation Person trips a 4-week travel peri travel a 4-week 0 .3 ehiclesvehicles more one or with Households 2,033 (millions) Person trips Person 3 8 Households without v Households U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transporta Department of Transportation, U.S. Data are from the daily travel segment of the 2001 Nationa Data are from the daily travel Transportation mode Transportation NOTES: NOTES: trips of 50 miles or more collected during SOURCE: Household Travel Survey, Preliminary Data Release Version Preliminary Data Release Version Survey, Household Travel Personal vehicleMotorcycleAirTransit 5,008 Bus 35.6 0 2,859 Per 21 0.0 20.3 0.2 Motorcycle Transit Air 579 3,597 0.1 384 0.9 0.1 S t re e c a r/tr o l e y 34 Subway/elevated rail 754 Commuter train Charter/tour/intercity busCharter/tour/intercity 109 0.8 C School bus shuttle buslimo, Taxi, trainIntercity Bicycle 148Walk 298Other reportedTotal 1.1 6 2.1 307 T 0.0 5,155 14,061 bus School 150 2.2 100.0 train Intercity 36.7 1.1 Bicycle 6,689 Tot Walk Other 107 1.7 0.0 3,214 30,170 0.8 1,306 7.6 0.3 Passenger line/fer r y 0 TABLE 31b Person Trips by Mode by Households: 2001 Mode by by Trips Person 31b TABLE

213 Transportation Statistics Annual Report with one or with one Households more vehicles without vehicles Households Households od) are not included here. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau Department of Transportation, U.S. Data are from the daily travel segment of the Data are from the daily travel Trips per personTrips personMiles per 1,005 6,873 1,508 14,931 NOTES: NOTES: Long-distance Survey. 2001 National Household Travel duringmiles or more collected tripsof 50 (i.e., data travel peri travel a 4-week SOURCE: Highway Statistics and Federal of Transportation Survey, National Household Travel Administration, at http:// 1, available Preliminary Data Release Version nhts.ornl.gov/, as of 2003. January TABLE 32b Average Trips and Miles by Households Milesand by Trips Average 32b TABLE 2001 Vehicles: Without and With Percent NationalHousehold less than 25Kless than 20.3 Vehicles by Household Type: 2001 Household by Type: Vehicles U.S. Department of Transportation, Department of Transportation, U.S. Data are from the daily travel segment Data are from the daily travel condo = condominium; apt. apartment. Household income 25K Household income or more Household income 2.3 Residence is owned/otherResidence is rentedResidence is not a condo/apt.Residence is a condo/apt. 3.1 Multi-person household 4.0 17.7 householdSingle-person 21.9 rural areain Household Household in urban area 4.1 18.7 All households 3.6 9.0 7.9 KEY: NOTES: Survey. of the 2001 National Household Travel trips data of 50 miles (i.e., Long-distance travel period) duringor more collected travel a 4-week are not included here. SOURCE: Statistics and Federal Bureau of Transportation Administration, Highway Preliminary Data Release Version Survey, Travel http://nhts.ornl.gov/, at as of January 1, available 2003. TABLE 32a Proportion of Households Without Households of Proportion 32a TABLE

214 Appendix B are an average of are an average of are an average gal arrangement; a single gal arrangement; a single gal arrangement; her who share responsibility for her who share responsibility for her who share responsibility for . . t" rather than "household."t" rather There than "household."t" rather There more persons living toget more persons living toget data query, February 2003. data query, February 2003. data query, -distance travel, such as airplane trips-distance travel, such as airplane trips-distance travel, lated by blood, marriage, adoption, or other le marriage, blood, lated by adoption, or other le marriage, blood, lated by cs uses the term "consumer uni cs uses the term "consumer uni 868 2,682 2,815 2,743 2,996 3,335 3,436 3,585 725 2,638 2,815 2,736 2,964 3,305 3,418 3,579 1,063 1,068 1,082 1,098 1,168 1,113 1,066 1,095 financially or independent; or two financially or independent; or two Consumer Expenditure Survey Consumer Expenditure Survey it, such as bus and taxi travel, and long and taxi travel, it, such as bus and long and taxi travel, it, such as bus sportation1991–2001 Expenditures: sportation Expenditures:1991–2001 expenses—food, housing, and other expenses. expenses—food, housing, and other expenses. expenses—food, 716 1,739 1,835 1,956 2,011 2,058 2,243 2,238 2,300 2,320 2,356 741 1,776 1,843 1,953 2,015 2,058 2,230 2,206 2,254 2,281 2,375 t, which is defined as members of a household re t, which is defined as members of a household re 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20001991 2001 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 household with another but who is household with another but who is household with another but Current dollars Chained 1996 dollars Chained U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department Bureau of Labor Statistics, of Labor, U.S. Department Bureau of Labor Statistics, of Labor, U.S. Data are based on survey results. The Bureau results. of Labor Statisti Data are based on survey The Bureau results. of Labor Statisti Data are based on survey at least two-thirds at leastof major types two-thirds at leastof major types two-thirds Other transportation includes both local trans Other transportation includes both local trans SOURCE: SOURCE: 2.5 persons in each consumer uni 2.5 persons in each consumer uni person living alone or sharing a person living alone or sharing a Vehicle purchasesVehicle 2,445 2,468 2,528 2, purchasesVehicle 2,111 2,189 2,319 2, Gasoline and motor oilOther vehicle expenses 1,063 1, 1,043 1,058 Gasoline and motor oilOther vehicle expenses 995 1, 973 977 986 1,006 1,082 1,098 1,017 1,055 1,291 1,279 Other transportation 350 320 334 398 361 427Other transportation 380 409 304 377 290 403 314 370 381 355 427 393 429 397 427 400 NOTES: NOTES: TABLE 33a Average Household Tran Household Average 33a TABLE Tran Household Average 33b TABLE

215 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

on Statistics 2002 National Transportati National Transportation Statistics 2002 National Transportation Driving Costs" (Heathrow, FL: 1999–2002 issues). Driving Costs" (Heathrow, our Driving Costs" (Heathrow, FL: 1999–2002 our Driving Costs" (Heathrow, Automobile: 1991–2002 Automobile: Automobile: 1991–2001 Automobile: ning and Operating an —American Automobile Association, "Your Association, "Your —American Automobile —American Automobile Association, "Y —American Automobile ning and Operating an 1999–2002 1999–2001 —U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, —U.S. —U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, —U.S. 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 19981991 1999 2000 1992 1993 2001 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Chained 1996 dollars Chained Current dollars 1991–1998 1991–1998

Data are the cost per mile based on 15,000 miles per year. Data are the cost per mile based on 15,000 miles per year. Total0.430.430.420.420.420.430.450.470.480.480.50 VariableFixed0.320.340.320.320.320.330.340.360.370.370.37 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04Total0.370.390.390.390.410.430.450.460.470.490.510.50 0.04Variable 0.05Fixed0.280.300.300.300.320.330.340.350.360.370.370.38 0.10 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.12 (Washington, DC: 2002), table 3-14. DC: 2002), table (Washington, NOTE: NOTE: SOURCES: NOTE: SOURCES: (Washington, DC: 2002), table 3-14. DC: 2002), table (Washington, issues). TABLE 34a Average per Mile Cost of Ow Mile per Average 34a TABLE Cost of Ow Mile per Average 34b TABLE

216 Appendix B ed by theed by penditures. lation using the the using lation Chained 1996 dollars 199319941995 0.15 1996 0.14 1997 0.14 1998 0.15 1999 0.15 2000 0.15 2001 0.19 0.20 0.20 Yearper RPM Revenue TABLE 35b Amtrak Average Revenue per Revenue Amtrak35b Average TABLE 1993–2001 Passenger-Mile: Revenue (Washington, DC: 1994–2002 (Washington, issues). Railroad Facts Chain-Type Quantity and Price Indexes for Personal Consumption Ex Consumption Personal for Price Indexes and Quantity Chain-Type American Association of Railroads, Amtrak data are not available prior to 1993. Revenue includes revenue from priorconcessions Amtrak data includes and arerevenue to notother 1993. available Revenue : RPM = revenue passenger-mile. : RPM = revenue Current dollars 199319941995 0.13 1996 0.12 1997 0.14 1998 0.15 1999 0.15 2000 0.15 2001 0.20 0.22 0.23 Year RPM per Revenue TABLE 35a Amtrak Average Revenue per Revenue Revenue per Revenue Average 35a Amtrak TABLE 1993–2001 Passenger-Mile: KEY FOR TABLES 35a and 35a 35b KEYTABLES FOR 35b: and 35a FOR TABLES NOTES passenger passengersservices multipli passenger-miles, or the number in of addition revenue RPM is torevenue passenger fares. average number of miles traveled by each passenger. each by passenger. number of miles traveled average Current dollardata amounts were adjusted adjustedinf were to for eliminate Amtrak time. revenue of the inflation effects over intercity deflatorrail from the Bureau of Economic Analysis' SOURCE FOR TABLES 35a and 35b: SOURCETABLES FOR

217 Transportation Statistics Annual Report (Washington, DC: 2002), table 3-15b. 2002), DC: table (Washington, (Washington, DC: 2002), table 3-15a. DC: 2002), table (Washington, National Transportation Statistics 2002 National Transportation National Transportation Statistics 2002 Transportation National 21.05 19.55 20.49 22.85 20.62 21.72 23.47 26.02 21.32 19.77 20.10 22.85 20.71 23.00 25.43 29.46 1990 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1990 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Current dollars 1996 dollars Chained U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Class I intercity busClass I intercity 20.22 21.86 21.15 busClass I intercity 20.57 21.25 20.23 SOURCE: SOURCE: TABLE 36a Average Class I Intercity Bus Fare: 1990–2000Bus Fare: Class I Intercity Average 36a TABLE 1990–2000 Fare: Bus Intercity Class I Average 36b TABLE

218 Appendix B a ed as "Other" operating funding.ed as "Other" operating , Tables 18 and 26, available at http:// 18 and 26, available , Tables hat operates in response to calls from hat operates passengers or their —U.S. Department of Transportaton, Bureau of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportaton, —U.S. 19 0.1929 0.20 0.29 0.20 0.30 0.19 0.30 0.18 0.30 0.18 0.32 0.31 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.15 clude subsidies formerly classifi Modal definitions Modal 17 0.30 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.19 0.20 0.20 short-distance travel between a central of city and run a central between short-distance adjacent suburbs on tracks travel that exlcude all other vehicles and pedestrians. all other vehicles that exlcude Public Transportation Fact Book 2001 Fact Transportation Public (Washington, DC: 2003), glossary. (Washington, ude heavy- or light-rail transit service. transit or light-rail ude heavy- 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 A nonfixed-route, nonfixed-schedule form of transportation form nonfixed-schedule t A nonfixed-route, Current dollars Urban/suburban passenger train service Urban/suburban passenger train for American Public Transportation Association, Transportation American Public Urban transit rail operated on a reserved right-of-way that may be crossed by roads used by motor vehicles and pedestrians. motor vehicles roads used by be crossed by that may on a reserved operated right-of-way rail Urban transit : High-speed transit rail operated on rights-of-way on rights-of-way operated rail : High-speed transit Pocket Guide to Transportation 2003 Guide to Transportation Pocket : Data for 2000 are preliminary. Beginning in 1991, fares in Beginning in 1991, fares 2000 are preliminary. : Data for Statistics, Statistics, www.apta.com/stats/fares/faremode.htm, as of February 2003. www.apta.com/stats/fares/faremode.htm, Light rail: Demand responsive: or dispatcher. operator agents to the transit SOURCES: NOTES Commuter rail: Commuter system. Does not incl railroad traditional rail Heavy Bus 0.140.150.150.150.170.170.180.180.200.200.21 Commuter rail responsiveDemand Heavy rail 0.09 0.13 0.150.140.160.150.180.170.130.140.110.120.13 railLight 0.15 0.13 busTrolley 0.140.150.150.160.170.170.180.180.180.180.18 0.15 0.13Other 0.15 0. 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.24Total 0.15 0.17 0.26 0.14 0.19 0.24 0.15 0. 0.28 0.16 0. 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.13 TABLE 37/38a Average Transit Fare per Passenger-Mile: Fiscal Years 1990–2000 Years Fiscal per Passenger-Mile: Fare Transit 37/38a Average TABLE

219 Transportation Statistics Annual Report a ed as "Other" operating funding.ed as "Other" operating , Tables 18 and 26, available at http:// 18 and 26, available , Tables hat operates in response to calls from hat operates passengers or their —U.S. Department of Transportaton, Bureau of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportaton, —U.S. 21 0.2133 0.20 0.32 0.19 0.30 0.19 0.30 0.18 0.30 0.18 0.32 0.31 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 clude subsidies formerly classifi Modal definitions Modal 19 0.33 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.19 0.20 0.20 short-distance travel between a central of city and run a central between short-distance adjacent suburbs on tracks travel that exlcude all other vehicles and pedestrians. all other vehicles that exlcude Public Transportation Fact Book 2001 Fact Transportation Public (Washington, DC: 2003), glossary. (Washington, ude heavy- or light-rail transit service. transit or light-rail ude heavy- 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 A nonfixed-route, nonfixed-schedule form of transportation form nonfixed-schedule t A nonfixed-route, Chained 1996 dollars Chained Urban/suburban passenger train service Urban/suburban passenger train for American Public Transportation Association, Transportation American Public Urban transit rail operated on a reserved right-of-way that may be crossed by roads used by motor vehicles and pedestrians. motor vehicles roads used by be crossed by that may on a reserved operated right-of-way rail Urban transit : High-speed transit rail operated on rights-of-way on rights-of-way operated rail : High-speed transit Pocket Guide to Transportation 2003 Guide to Transportation Pocket : Data for 2000 are preliminary. Beginning in 1991, fares in Beginning in 1991, fares 2000 are preliminary. : Data for Statistics, Statistics, www.apta.com/stats/fares/faremode.htm, as of February 2003. www.apta.com/stats/fares/faremode.htm, Light rail: Demand responsive: or dispatcher. operator agents to the transit SOURCES: NOTES Commuter rail: Commuter system. Does not incl railroad traditional rail Heavy Bus 0.180.180.180.180.190.190.180.180.200.200.20 Commuter rail responsiveDemand Heavy rail 0.12 0.17 0.190.180.180.170.200.190.130.140.110.120.13 railLight 0.19 0.16 busTrolley 0.180.180.180.180.190.190.180.180.180.180.18 0.18 0.15Other 0.19 0. 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.30Total 0.18 0.20 0.33 0.16 0.21 0.29 0.17 0. 0.32 0.18 0. 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.13 TABLE 37/38b Average Transit Fare per Passenger-Mile: Fiscal Years 1990–2000 Fiscal Years per Passenger-Mile: Fare Transit 37/38bAverage TABLE

220 Appendix B Survey of Survey (Hyattsville, MD: 2001), also (Hyattsville, ions based on data from U.S. ions based on data from U.S. Current dollars U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Department of Transportation, U.S. $45,000 1,600 2.2 Yearly personal incomeYearly $8,000< spent Median $8,000–$14,999$15,000–$21,999 Percent $22,000–$29,999$30,000–$44,999> 762 339 800 1,040 1,280 6.0 9.5 4.6 4.1 3.5 SOURCE: calculat Statistics, Transportation ParticipationIncome and Program as of April 2003. at http://www.bls.census.gov/sipp/, available Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Department U.S. of Commerce, Total populationTotal 960 3.9 TABLE 39 Income Share Spent of Personal on TABLE 1999 Group: Income by Commuting

221 Transportation Statistics Annual Report (Hyattsville, MD: 2001), also (Hyattsville, tation Statistics, calculations based on data from U.S. tation calculations Statistics, based on data from U.S. uting by Income Group and Transportation Mode:1999 Income and Transportation Group utingby Survey of Income and Program Participation Income and Program of Survey Own vehicle transit Public spent Percent Median spent Percent Current dollars U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transpor Department of Transportation, U.S. $45,000 1,694 2.6 1,080 1.5 Total populationTotal 1,280 4.9 765 3.3 Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Department U.S. Commerce, of as of April 2003. at http://www.bls.census.gov/sipp/, available SOURCE: Yearly personal incomeYearly $8,000< $8,000–$14,999 Median $15,000–$21,999$22,000–$29,999$30,000–$44,999> 847 678 960 1,280 1,600 8.0 20.5 5.6 5.1 4.2 702 540 765 765 765 12.8 5.7 3.9 3.0 2.2 TABLE 40 Income Share of Spent Personal on Comm TABLE

222 Appendix B

Three Medium-sized U.S. Cities: 1995–2000 Three Medium-sized U.S. All classes of service, domestic carriers only carriers of service, domestic classes All 100 = 1995 Q1 : U.S. Department Bureau: U.S. of LaborConsumerof Statistics, Labor, Airline Price Index, Fare These data have been developed for research purposes for been These developed only and data are have not official BTS data. 95Q195Q295Q395Q496Q1 100.096Q2 102.596Q3 104.596Q4 104.997Q1 103.297Q297Q3 93.2 100.097Q4 98.8 95.598Q1 97.8 90.0 100.298Q2 81.8 102.498Q3 76.498Q4 99.2 100.0 104.999Q1 83.0 102.5 104.599Q2 83.8 102.4 97.1 99Q3 79.6 80.8 95.7 99Q4 96.8 81.9 95.5 00Q1 98.9 102.100Q2 86.3 96.1 93.3 104.400Q3 95.7 94.6 101.6 101.3 00Q4 106.1 93.6 102.0 105.5 105.0 98.5 105.3 107.1 98.0 104.8 115.3 103.6 106.2 103.0 108.6 105.9 96.5 107.8 94.9 111.9 91.1 113.0 93.1 113.0 94.9 110.9 92.8 91.9 94.8 100.7 99.7 96.3 Quarter SC Charleston, Springs, CO Colorado Moines, IA Des NOTES: NOTES: The O&D Survey indices are computed using the Fisher Index formula, which differs from the formulas formulas the from differs which formula, Index Fisher the using computed are indices Survey O&D The used to compute the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) airline Consumer Pricefare (CPI). Index SOURCE 2003. March of as http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm, at available TABLE 41 Origin and Destination Survey Index by City of Origin for for Origin City of by Index Survey Destination and Origin 41 TABLE

223 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

a from BTS's quarterly lculations based on dat , March 2003. Three Large International Cities: 1995–2000 International Three Large All classes of service classes All combined 100 = 1995 Q1 : U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and U.S. Statistics (BTS) and U.S. Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, : U.S. These data have been developed for research purposes for been These developed only and data are have not official BTS data. 95Q195Q295Q395Q496Q1 100.096Q2 108.796Q3 119.696Q4 106.197Q197Q2 97.4 103.397Q3 100.0 116.397Q4 118.798Q1 93.3 132.198Q2 91.6 121.398Q3 88.3 120.7 103.098Q4 100.0 113.199Q1 92.2 114.9 112.399Q2 80.0 122.3 106.099Q3 88.0 94.6 101.799Q4 99.8 108.0 91.9 00Q1 86.4 123.8 91.2 00Q2 81.2 100.4 105.400Q3 83.6 86.4 00Q4 91.0 92.0 96.8 84.0 81.1 97.4 78.8 76.7 93.5 81.5 79.5 73.5 74.1 88.3 71.6 74.0 67.4 81.8 63.4 68.9 71.3 67.3 67.7 70.9 70.9 80.0 70.6 67.4 84.2 79.2 78.8 81.9 94.3 80.4 Quarter Germany Frankfurt, England London, Japan Tokyo, NOTES: NOTES: The O&D Survey indices are computed using the Fisher Index formula, which differs from the formulas formulas the from differs which formula, Index Fisher the using computed are indices Survey O&D The used to compute the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) airline Consumer Pricefare (CPI). Index SOURCE ca Department Bureau of Labor Statistics, of Labor, Origin & Destination Survey Passenger TABLE 42 Origin and Destination Survey Index by City of Origin for for Origin City of by Index Survey Destination and Origin 42 TABLE

224 Appendix B , March The O&D Survey The O&D Survey

compute the Bureau of Labor Passenger Origin & Destination Survey Passenger ffers from the formulas used to from the formulas ffers purposes only and are not official BTS data. ons based on data from BTS's quarterlyons based on data from BTS's BLS airline fare CPI, airline fare BLS O&D survey, survey, O&D survey, O&D Not seasonally adjusted, domestic carriers only carriers domestic adjusted, seasonally Not Q1 1995 = 100 : U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and U.S. Department of Labor, Statistics (BTS) and U.S. Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, : U.S. These data have been developed for research for been developed These data have 95Q195Q295Q395Q496Q1 100.0 96Q2 106.1 96Q3 105.7 96Q4 102.6 97Q1 101.1 97Q2 103.6 100.097Q3 105.5 101.997Q4 110.1 102.398Q1 107.9 98Q298.6 110.1 98Q398.4 108.4 100.098Q497.8 108.8 101.199Q199.3 112.4 100.499Q298.2 112.1 100.599Q3 99.0 113.1 101.999Q4 98.7 100.0 110.8 101.900Q1 97.8 106.7 116.3 105.200Q2 98.4 113.6 119.4 101.400Q3 99.3 119.1 102.000Q4 97.5 97.6 123.1 103.597.3 97.3 126.1 102.296.2 98.4 132.1 107.8 105.6 98.9 135.1 104.6 98.7 93.4 129.7 93.3 100.0 98.4 94.4 98.8 99.5 101.9 102.5 99.1 91.8 104.6 102.2 84.5 106.4 102.1 107.3 100.4 85.2 101.7 86.3 106.1 81.1 108.2 81.6 109.0 80.7 111.6 88.0 83.6 83.0 85.1 92.8 84.4 Quarter average quarterly origins all U.S. origin only foreign origin only 2003. indices are computed using the Fisher Index formula, which di which formula, indices are computed using the Fisher Index Statistics (BLS) Airline fare Consumer Price Index (CPI). ConsumerStatistics (BLS) Airline Price Index fare SOURCE calculati Bureau of Labor Statistics, NOTES: NOTES: TABLE 43 Comparison of Airfare 431995–2000 Indices: TABLE

225 Transportation Statistics Annual Report 6– rail, (Washington, (Washington, (Washington, DC: (Washington, 1994 National Transit Summaries and Trends 1994 National Transit inclined planes, and trolley buses. and inclined trolley planes, 1997 National Transit Summaries and Trends Summaries and Trends 1997 National Transit 16,802 17,509 17,874 18,684 18,807 19,583 38,984 40,180 41,605 43,279 45,100 46,508 on, National Transit Database, Data Tables (Washington, DC: 199 (Washington, Data Tables Database, Transit on, National y, Alaska Railroad, cable car, ferryboat, inclined plane, mono inclined plane, ferryboat, car, Alaska Railroad, cable y, 565 7,954 8,115 8,523 8,720 9,008 559 11,530 12,056 12,284 12,902 13,844 14,178 8,244 8,350 8,037 8,702 8,764 9,400 9,544 stration, "National Transit Summaries and Trends," 2002 draft, 2002 draft, Summaries and Trends," "National Transit stration, 034 2,157 2,430 2,393 2,521 2,632 2,728 Federal Transit Administration, Administration, Transit Federal such as ferryboats, demand responsive, such as ferryboats, —U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Administration, Transit Federal Department of Transportation, —U.S. 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 —U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administrati Transit Federal Department of—U.S. Transportation, —U.S. Department of Transportation, Department of Transportation, —U.S. Millions Millions 1991–1994 1995 : U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Admini Transit Federal Department of Transportation, U.S. 1996–2001 Other includes modes such as demand responsive, automated guidewa Other includes modes such as demand responsive, includes other modes not shown, Total 1999); DC: 1996); BusHeavy railCommuter rail railLight 10,488 18,104 7,383Other 10,737 17,494 7,320Total 10,231 17,364 661 6,912 10,668 17,195 10, 7,996 17,024 837 700 37,473 704 37,153 902 36,225 1,015 831 37,882 1,191 37,971 859 1,285 955 1,346 1,024 1,554 1,115 1,629 1,190 1,739 1,339 1,710 1,427 1,776 2001 issues). trolleybus, and vanpool. and trolleybus, SOURCES NOTE: NOTE: NOTE: SOURCE: as of February 2003. at http://www.ntdprogram.com, available BusCommuter railHeavy rail 324 4,826 314 2,167 4,749 2,207 4,639 321 2,046 4,629 339 2,169 4,579 344 2, 4,506 4,602 352 4,754 357 4,992 381 5,040 5,215 396 413 418 Light railLight Total 184 7,738 188 7,696 188 7,433 282 7,702 7,504 249 7, 259 259 273 289 316 334 TABLE 44 Passenger-Miles by Type of Service: 1991–2001 Type by Passenger-Miles 44 TABLE of Service: 1991–2001 SelectedType by Ridership 45/46 Transit TABLE

226 Appendix B assenger Trips: 2001 assenger Trips: (Table continues on the next page) continues on the next (Table es by Unlinked P es by sit Authority, MAsit Authority, 364,337 Rapid Transit, CA Rapid Transit, 103,919 Corporation, NY 82,191 nistration, MD 111,048 udson Corporation, NJ udson Corporation, 82,038 pal Railway, CApal Railway, 235,078 Denver Regional Transportation District, CO District, Transportation Regional Denver PAAllegheny, Port Authority MNMetro Transit, NYNorth Rail Road, Metro NE IL Regional Commuter Railroad, IL System, WIMilwaukee County Transportation 79,651 HI of Honolulu, City and County 74,827 71,250 72,122 73,213 73,348 71,115 Port Authority Trans-H Port Authority Long Island Rail Road, NY Island Rail Road, Long WA District, Transit Metro DOT, County King District, OROregon Tri-County TXAuthority Harris County, Transit Metro FL Agency, Miami-Dade Transit Jamaica Transit Green 101,000 88,246 101,923 91,186 84,005 AgencyNY City Transit, York New IL Authority, Chicago Transit CAAuthority, County Metro Transportation LA DC Authority, Area Transit Washington-Metro Tran Bay Massachusetts 398,111 378,936 2,667,001 Number of unlinked trips (thousands) 484,821 Area Bay San Francisco SE Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, PA Authority, SE Pennsylvania Transportation Munici San Francisco NJ Jersey Transit, New GA Authority, Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Admi Maryland Transit 318,051 164,078 225,939 TABLE 47 Top 30 Transit Authoriti 30 Transit Top 47 TABLE

227 Transportation Statistics Annual Report ble at http:// ble eral fundseral that voluntarily as buses of agencies not receiving fed as buses (continued) 5 35,381 38,316 40,932 46,278 51,213 54,585 58,785 ration, "National Transit Summaries and Trends," 2002 draft, availa 2002 draft, Summaries and Trends," "National Transit ration, assenger Trips: 2001 assenger Trips: 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Transit Administration, National Transit National Administration, Transit Transit 55,726 57,023 57,322 57,369 58,975 60,830 63,618 65,324 67,379 Tri-County Metropolitan is a municipal Tri-County Jamaica Corporation is a contractor for the Corporation for Jamaica is a contractor ng federal funding for bus purchases, as well purchases, bus funding for ng federal es by Unlinked P es by (percent)525462676976818487 ent of all authorities 75.4 1 Transit, TXTransit, 61,434 thorities 6,789,770 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administ Transit Federal Department of Transportation, U.S. : U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Department of Transportation, : U.S. : The 30 largest agencies transit as of 2001. Includes buses of transit agencies of transit receivi Includes buses Total number of buses Total report data to the Federal Transit Administration. report Transit data to the Federal SOURCE: Database, available at http://www.ntdprogram.com, as of February 2003. at http://www.ntdprogram.com, available Database, Agency District, CAAlameda-ContraCosta Transit DallasRapid Area OH Authority, Transit Cleveland Regional Greater CA Authority, Orange County Transportation CA Authority, Santa Transit Clara Valley 30 au top Total, 70,809 authorities all Total, 60,094 as perc authorities 30 Top NOTES 57,328 corporation of the State of Oregon. Green Transit City Department of Transportation. York Number of unlinked trips (thousands) New SOURCE 57,300 9,007,800 1 ADA-lift or ramp-equipped busesramp-equipped ADA-lift or buses ramp-equipped ADA-lift or 29,088 31,06 www.ntdprogram.com, as of February 2003. www.ntdprogram.com, TABLE 47 Top 30 Transit Authoriti 30 Transit Top 47 TABLE Buses: 1993–2001 Ramp-EquippedLift- or Transit 48 TABLE

228 Appendix B 8 65.2 72.6 76.8 79.9 84.5 081 4,143269 5,150 6,194 5,959 6,545 6,926 7,722 7,337 8,366 9,176 72.8 80.7 86.9 90.1 92.9 93.7 ministration, "National Transit Summaries and Trends," 2002 Summaries and Trends," "National Transit ministration, 2002 Summaries and Trends," "National Transit ministration, by Type: 1993–2001 Type: by 2 57.6 61.4 68.4 81.3 85.5 88.5 d Transit Buses d Transit 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Number Percent U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Ad Transit Federal Department of Transportation, U.S. Ad Transit Federal Department of Transportation, U.S. Large buses have more than 35 seats, medium buses have 25–35 seats, and small buses have less than 25 seats. less than 25 seats. have and 25–35 small buses seats, have more medium buses than 35 seats, have Large buses less than 25 seats. have and 25–35 small buses seats, have more medium buses than 35 seats, have Large buses Large busesLarge Medium busesSmall buses23,338 Articulated buses 24,398 1,91127,420 2,153 3,146 29,073 693 2,56129,684 3,795 3, 33,512 719 4,53936,029 5, 37,581 86140,501 893 911 1,071 1,503 1,712 1,771 draft, available at http://www.ntdprogram.com, as of February 2003. at http://www.ntdprogram.com, available draft, as of February 2003. at http://www.ntdprogram.com, available draft, NOTES: that measure 54 and 60 feet. between buses Articulated are extra-long buses SOURCE: NOTES: that measure 54 and 60 feet. between buses Articulated are extra-long buses SOURCE: Large busesLarge busesMedium Small busesArticulated buses 79.4 54.0 80.1 58.3 50.3 38.4 84.5 66.0 51.9 44.6 87.8 59.2 50. 90.4 63. 91.6 93.4 94.5 95.4 TABLE 49a Lift- or Ramp-Equipped Transit Buses by Type: 1993–2001 Type: Buses by or Ramp-Equipped Transit Lift- 49a TABLE or Ramp-Equippe Lift- 49b TABLE

229 Transportation Statistics Annual Report personal communication, FMCSA, Aug. 11, 2003. personal FMCSA, communication, Aug. —personal communication, FMCSA, Aug. 11, 2003. FMCSA, Aug. —personal communication, ty Administration (FMCSA), Motor Carrier Management Information ty Administration (FMCSA), Motor Carrier Management Information 1999–2001 data— 2001 data 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Thousands U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safe Federal Department of Transportation, U.S. Motor Carrier Safe Federal Department of Transportation, U.S. Data for trucks taken out of service taken trucks in 2001 not available. Data for out of service taken trucks in 2001 not available. Data for Percent 33.8 31.6 28.6 26.0 23.9 22.7 21.4 20.4 25.4 24.3 23.7 23.3 System, available at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov, as of June 2003. as of June at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov, available System, 2003. as of June at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov, available System, NOTE: NOTE: SOURCE: NOTE: SOURCE: Inspected taken Trucks of serviceout 1,601 1,574 542 1,616 497 1,947 1,974 462 1,840 506 2,039 472 2,148 1,763 417 1,862 437 1,928 2,087 439 448 453 457 486 TABLE 50 Roadside Truck Inspections: 1990–2001 RoadsideTruck 50 TABLE Out of Service 1990–2001 Repairs: for Taken 51 Inspected Trucks TABLE

230 Appendix B d in constant 1987 dollars. d in constant 1987 dollars. y beyond the original design. beyond y Federal-Aid Roadway Projects Roadway Federal-Aid for comparison: major widening, for x that they have designed for that designed for have x that they he service life of the roadwa the of he service life (Washington, DC: 2002), "Highway Expenditures by Expenditures by DC: 2002), "Highway (Washington, (Washington, DC), "Miles of (Washington, 1987 dollars using an inde intenance, they are included intenance, they 24,319 25,564 26,777 28,173 29,997 30,636 31,677 Highway Statistics 2001 Highway llar data to constant Highway Statistics 2001 Highway condition that does not extend t extend not condition that does 18,048 18,121 18,514 18,952 19,635 20,455 20,400 20,319 have been converted to these data are been converted chained 1996 presente dollars, have are not generally considered ma are not generally available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim, as of June 2003. as of June at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim, available nment Highway Maintenance Expenditures: 1991–2001 Highway nment 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 on, which collects the data, adjusts current do Underway by Improvement Type: 2001 Type: Improvement by Underway Billions of dollars U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Administration, Highway Federal Department of Transportation, U.S. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Administration, Highway Federal Department of Transportation, U.S. Although dollar values in most other sections of thisAlthoughvalues book dollar Maintenance includes any work required to keep highways in usable in highways workMaintenance requiredto keep includes any Improvement typeImprovement RestorationResurfacing Miles Minor wideningReconstructionMajor widening 5,167 12,549 Relocation 492 routeNew 3,937 1,476 246 738 NOTES: NOTES: The Federal Highway Administrati Highway The Federal purpose. SOURCE: Current and Constant Dollars" chart, also Type, Government Total in constant 1987 $in constant 1987 Total 17,700 18,282 17,998 Total in current $Total 21,222 22,578 22,894 23,553 NOTES: NOTES: Restoration includes renovation. Although the following categories Although the following includes renovation. Restoration route. relocation, new SOURCE: Underway by Improvement Type" chart, available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim, as of June 2003. as of June at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim, chart, available Type" Improvement by Underway TABLE 53 Federal, State, 53 and Local Gover TABLE TABLE 52 Federal-Aid Roadway Projects 52 Roadway Federal-Aid TABLE

231 Transportation Statistics Annual Report Association of American rs. —Association of American 2000–2001 data— 1 5.21 4.3 6.3 3.6 5.7 3.8 4.2 2.7 2000–2001 data (Washington, DC: 2000); (Washington, (Washington, DC: 2000); (Washington, 3 12.1 13.4 11.9 10.4 10.8 10.8 11.4 61.3 68.7 113.8 204.8 213.4 196.3 197.0 079 66,052 59,993 51,963 83,076 77,901 58,245 35,475 8 657.6 803.3 642.7 679.0 769.3 726.1 660.1 a cover Class I railroads, other railroads, and private car owne other railroads, Class I railroads, a cover (Washington, DC: 1999 and 2002). (Washington, .6 3.9.5 6.6 3.7 6.0 4.3 4.3 5.4 4. 4.8 4. Railroad Ten-Year Trends, 1990–2000 Trends, Railroad Ten-Year Railroad Facts Railroad Ten-Year Trends, 1990–2000 Trends, Railroad Ten-Year aced by U.S. Class I Railroads: Class1990–2001 I Railroads: U.S. aced by (Washington, DC: 2000 and 2001). (Washington, (Washington, DC: 2000 and 2001). (Washington, 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Association of American Railroads, Thousands of tons Thousands Millions of crossties Association of American Association of Railroads, Association of American Railroads, Analysis of Class I Railroads Analysis of Class I Railroads Locomotive data are for Class I railroads only. Freight car dat Freight only. Class I railroads data are for Locomotive Railroads, Railroads, Locomotives of fleet Percentage 3.7 706 3.2 584 460 2 707 1214 1129 821 811 1061 865 721 755 Freight carsFreight of fleet Percentage 37,769 3.1 32,083 28,876 2.7 43,332 2 51, Railroads, Railroads, SOURCE: SOURCES: NOTE: SOURCE: Replacements 14.1 12.6 13.5 12.8 12. Replacement 781.2 666.7 875.3 824.3 728. Additions 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.5 1.8 1.3 0.7 0.5 Addition 19.5 16.7 14.2 26.2 62.9 TABLE 54 Rail Installed or Replaced by U.S. Class I Railroads: 1990–2001Class I Railroads: U.S. by or ReplacedRail Installed 54 TABLE Installed or Repl Crossties 55 TABLE 56 Locomotivesor New Rebuilt 1990–2001 and Freight Cars: TABLE

232 Appendix B y eturn able at able transit transit , available transit transit signaling, and (Washington, DC: various years). DC: various years). (Washington, ice for short-distance travel short-distanceice for travel 2001 Reporting Manual Demand responsive Annual ReportsAnnual apacity to transport of volume a heavy lls from passengers or their agents to the speed, rapid acceleration, sophisticated acceleration, speed, rapid ive rights-of-way, or exclusive rights-of-way. Service ma rights-of-way. or exclusive rights-of-way, ive 3 44.2 66.8 55.4 47.6 30.4 54.0 includes urban passenger train serv includes urban passenger train blic Transportation Association, Maintenance data tables, avail Association, Maintenance data tables, Transportation blic s-seaway.com/en/aboutus/slsdc_annrept.html, as of April 2003. s-seaway.com/en/aboutus/slsdc_annrept.html, it Administration, National Transit Library, Library, National Transit Administration, it Commuter rail Commuter includes electric railways with the c includes electric railways on city streets, semiexclus on city streets, dent is not considered an interruption of service. ehicles that operates in responseehicles that operates to ca ive rights-of-way, multicar trains, high trains, multicar rights-of-way, ive Heavy rail Heavy 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 nue vehicle-miles “subway,” “elevated (railway),” or “metropolitan railway (metro).” (metro).” or “metropolitan railway (railway),” “elevated “subway,” 87.0 125.7 100.9 88.5 143.4 65.2 43.2 2.0 53.7 56.8 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Trans Federal Department of Transportation, U.S. Number per 100,000 reve Number Hours U.S. Department of Transportation, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, Development Seaway Saint Lawrence Department of Transportation, U.S. includes streetcar-type vehicles operated operated includes streetcar-type vehicles Interruptions of service include major and minor mechnical failures. If the vehicle operator was able to fix the problem and r to fix the problem able was operator Interruptions If the vehicle of service include major and minor mechnical failures. be provided by step-entry vehicles or by level boarding. level step-entry or by by be provided vehicles the vehicle to servicethe vehicle without the assistance, inci Light rail at http://www.ntdprogram.com/, as of April 2003; and American Pu at http://www.ntdprogram.com/, http://www.apta.com/research/stats/maint/index.cfm, as of April 2003. http://www.apta.com/research/stats/maint/index.cfm, Reports for years 1993–2000 available at http://www.greatlake Reports 1993–2000 available years for NOTES: SOURCE: between a central city and adjacent suburb. city and adjacent suburb. a central between passenger traffic and characterized by exclus and characterized by passenger traffic high-platform loading. Also known as Also known high-platform loading. v a nonfixed-schedule includes nonfixed-route, dispatcher. or operator SOURCES: Demand responsive 2 2 3 3 4 3 3 rail 4 4 3 7 6 responsive rail Motor bus railLight Heavy Commuter Demand Average 28 32 27 26 18.8 27 20 18.1 29 14 17.6 28 relatedWeather All other 17 18.7 112.0 28 1 18.6 15 56.0 42.0 18.1 199.4 62.7 49. TABLE 57 Interruptions of Service by Type of Transit: 1995–2000 of Transit: Type Interruptions of Service 57 by TABLE Cause:1990–2001 by Delays Lock Seaway Lawrence Saint 58 TABLE

233 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

U.S. , available at , available U.S. Department U.S. 2001 transit— Fatality Rates by Mode: 2001 by Rates Fatality es include all types of tion Division, personal es include hazardous liq- Census 2000 National Trends and Summa- National Trends 2001 waterborne— National Transportation Statis- National Transportation U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Per 100,000 U.S. residents 100,000 Per (Washington, DC: 2002). (Washington, Air fatalities include air carrier service, fatalities Air (Washington, DC: 2002), table 2-1, DC: 2002), table (Washington, http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html, http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html, 2003. as of June Coast U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Guard, Data Administra 6, 2003. June communication, Mode AirHighwayRailroadTransitWaterbornePipelineTotal 14.79 0.32 0.34 0.11 0.29 0.002 15.8 NOTES: NOTES: and general service,commuter air taxi sevice, fataliti Highway aviation. and pedestri- bicycles, motor vehicles, highway include and high- railroad Railroad fatalities ans. Transit crossing incidents. grade way-rail light rail, rail, heavy include motor bus, fatalities bus, trolley demand responsive, rail, commuter transit, automated guideway aerial tramway, and monorail, ferryboat, inclined plane, cablecar, include fatalities fatalities Waterborne vanpool. incidents or nonvessel- due to vessel-related related incidents on commercial and recreational Pipeline fataliti vessels. uid pipelines and gas pipelines. SOURCES: Except as noted— Bureau of Transpor- (USDOT), of Transportation tation Statistics, tics 2002 as of April 2003. at http://www.bts.gov/, available Population— Census Bureau, U.S. National Administration, Transit Federal USDOT, Database, Transit ries 2001 TABLE 60 Transportation Transportation 60 TABLE ghts Cancellations September 5–17, 2001 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Department of Transportation, U.S. DateSeptember 5September 6September 7 fli Actual 17,325September 8 17,330September 9 17,078September 10 15,322 324 September 11 16,522 318 September 12 16,905 594 September 13 2,542 375 September 14 300 September 15 0 1,445 661 September 16 14,962 7,745September 17 9,634 17,535 12,243 16,109 13,708 9,611 5,573 4,297 3,518 SOURCE: Septem- Data for 234 Form Delay Statistics, Transportation at http:// 5, 2001, available Nov. ber 2001, tabulated as of February 2003. www.bts.gov, TABLE 59 U.S. Domestic Flight Operations: Operations: Domestic Flight U.S. 59 TABLE

234 Appendix B , (Washington, (Washington, Census 2000 ors. Light trucks are Light trucks ors. are Light trucks ors. ons, and sportons, utility vehicles. and sportons, utility vehicles. (Washington, DC: 2002), table (Washington, -unit trucks and truck tract and-unit trucks truck tract and-unit trucks truck on Statistics 2002 National Transportation Statistics 2002 National Transportation U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Department U.S. of Commerce, U.S. National Transportati weight rating, including single rating, weight including single rating, weight 22.7 22.7 21.8 21.0 22.3 23.5 27.7 33.4 Population— or less, including pick-up trucks, vans, truck-based station wag vans, trucks, including pick-up or less, truck-based station wag vans, trucks, including pick-up or less, 61.61.61.61.51.51.41.31.31.3 hicle-Miles for Selected Vehicle Types: 1991–2001 Types: Selected Vehicle for hicle-Miles 3 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.1 7.7 7.5 7.3 7.1 sidents for Selected Vehicle Types: 1991–2001 Types: sidentsSelected Vehicle for 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Statistics, Transportation Bureau of Department of Transportation, U.S. Per U.S. residents 100,000 Per U.S. residents 100,000 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Large trucks are defined as trucks over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle vehicle 10,000 pounds gross over Large are defined as trucks trucks vehicle 10,000 pounds gross over Large are defined as trucks trucks available at http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html, as of June 2003. as of June at http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html, available defined as trucks of 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating rating weight defined as trucks of 10,000 vehicle pounds gross rating weight defined as trucks of 10,000 vehicle pounds gross Passenger car occupantsPassenger car occupants truck Light truck occupantsLarge occupantsMotorcycle 8.8 8. 3.3 0.3 3.2 1.1 0.2 3.3 0.9 0.2 3.4 0.9 0.3 3.6 0.9 0.2 3.7 0.8 0.2 3.8 0.8 0.3 3.9 0.8 0.3 4.0 0.8 0.3 4.1 0.9 0.3 4.1 1.0 0.2 1.1 2-1, available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003. at http://www.bts.gov/, 2-1, available SOURCE: ExceptSOURCES: as noted— as of April 2003. at http://www.bts.gov/, 2-1, available DC: 2002), table NOTES: NOTES: NOTES: Passenger car occupantsPassenger car occupants truck Light truck occupantsLarge occupantsMotorcycle 1.6 1. 1.3 0.4 1.1 30.6 0.4 1.1 25.1 0.4 24.7 1.2 0.4 1.2 0.4 1.2 0.3 1.2 0.4 1.2 0.4 1.3 0.4 1.2 0.4 1.2 0.3 TABLE 61 Highway Fatalities per 100,000 Re Fatalities Highway 61 TABLE Ve Million per 100 Fatalities Highway 62 TABLE

235 Transportation Statistics Annual Report Web- y 2003. 03. ars old and olderars are ars old and ars old pc/wisqars/, as of February 20 ortation Accidents: 1991–2000 Accidents: 1991–2000 Accidents: e Control, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Injurye Control, National Center for Prevention ease Control, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Injuryease Control, National Prevention Center for available at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/, as of Februar at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/, available lable at http://www.cdc.gov/nci lable ween the age of death and 65 years of age. Fatalities of people 65 ye 65 of people Fatalities of age. the age of death and 65 years ween tor Vehicle and Other Transp tor Vehicle 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 ial Life Lost Due to Transportation to Transportation Lost Due ial Life 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 hs of people under hs of people under 65 years hs of people under hs of people under 65 years Percentage of total deat Percentage Percentage of total deat Percentage U.S. Department of Health and Diseas Human Services, U.S. Centers for U.S. Department of U.S. Health and Human Services, Dis Centers for Years of potential life lost of potential bet (YPLL) is thelife difference Years people of 65 ye Fatalities age. of the age of death and 65 years between the difference lostis (YPLL) potential of life Years not included in this calculation. SOURCE: based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS), avai DeathsYPLL 6.2 10.4 5.8 9.8 5.8 9.7 5.8 9.8 5.9 9.9 6.1 10.4 6.2 10.5 6.2 10.4 5.8 10.0 10.2 6.0 NOTE: NOTE: older are not included in this calculation. SOURCE: Accidents vehicleMotor Other transportation 1991 10.0 0.4 1992 9.3 0.5 1993 9.3 1994 1995 9.3 1996 9.5 1997 9.9 1998 10.1 1999 10.0 2000 9.7 9.9 Web-based Injury Statistics QueryWeb-based and Reporting System (WISQARS), TABLE 63 Deaths and Years of Potent Deaths and Years 63 TABLE Mo to Life Lost Due of Potential Years 64 TABLE

236 Appendix B

Traffic Safety Safety Traffic (Washington, DC: (Washington, Highway Statistics 2001 Statistics Highway , page 45; USDOT, Bureau of Trans- Bureau of page 45; USDOT, , National Transportation Statistics 2002 National Transportation (Washington, DC: 2003), domestic data; (Washington, based on data from: USDOT, Federal Highway Highway Federal based on data from: USDOT, 2001— Traffic Safety Facts 2001—Overview Facts Safety Traffic Transportation in America, 19th Edition (Washington, DC: in America,Edition (Washington, 19th Transportation tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Administration, Safety Traffic tional Highway (Washington, DC: 2002), page 21. (Washington, 4 506.6 474.1 433.0 429.4 501.2 574.7 , 19th Edition (Washington, DC: 2002) , 19th Edition (Washington, 57.5 58.7 55.8 55.2 59.1 60.4 57.7 108.0 105.2 98.0 89.3 85.7 80.6 74.8 ), Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Statistics, ), Bureau of Transportation tation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration, Highway Federal tation (USDOT), (Washington, DC: 2003), domestic data; and USDOT, Federal Transit Administra- Transit Federal DC: 2003), domestic data; and USDOT, (Washington, Air Carrier Traffic Statistics, December 2001 Statistics, Air Carrier Traffic ed Highway Vehicles and Motorcyclists: 1991–2001 and Motorcyclists: Vehicles ed Highway onal Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Administration, Safety Traffic onal Highway Transportation in America Transportation National Trends and Summaries 2001 National Trends (Washington, DC: 2002), page 21. (Washington, (Washington, DC: 2002), table VM-1; USDOT, Na VM-1; USDOT, DC: 2002), table (Washington, U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT Department of Transportation U.S. (Washington, DC: 2002), page 2; ENO Transportation Foundation, Foundation, DC: 2002), page 2; ENO Transportation (Washington, based on data from U.S. Department of Transpor based on data from U.S. Air Carrier Traffic Statistics, December 2001 Statistics, Air Carrier Traffic Highway Statistics 2001 Statistics Highway Highway Vehicles: 2001 Vehicles: Highway million passenger-miles Injuries per 100 Injuries per 100 million passenger-miles Injuries per 100 National Trends and Summaries 2001 National Trends 2002), page 2; ENO Transportation Foundation, Foundation, ENO Transportation 2002), page 2; portation Statistics, tion, and USDOT, Federal Transit Administration, Transit Federal and USDOT, (Washington, DC: 2002), table VM-1; USDOT, Nati USDOT, VM-1; DC: 2002), table (Washington, 2002), page 45; USDOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Statistics, Bureau of Transportation 2002), page 45; USDOT, Vehicle type Vehicle Passenger carMotorcyclists truckLight truckLarge Bus 74.8 68.4 574.7 Total 57.7 14.0 10.1 SOURCES: 2001— SOURCES: 1991–2000— Facts 2001—Overview Facts Vehicle typeVehicle Passenger car truckLight 1991 101.6Motorcycle 1992 truckLarge 101.1 1993 50.4Bus 102.3 690.1 1994 45.3 105.1 544.9 18.7 1995 48.0 487.8 22.0 1996 463.3 49.7 17.2 20.1 1997 533. 16.4 17.7 1998 13.1 17.0 1999 11.6 2000 17.9 14.1 2001 16.1 14.6 14.6 11.6 16.2 10.5 15.0 13.5 14.0 11.0 10.1 (Washington, DC: 2002), tables 1-34 and 2-2, available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of April2003. as at http://www.bts.gov/, 1-34 and 2-2, available tables DC: 2002), (Washington, Administration, TABLE 65 Injury Rates for Occupants of Occupants Injury 65 Rates for TABLE 66 Injury Occupants of SelectRates for TABLE

237 Transportation Statistics Annual Report ov/ Females (number) cle-Related Injuries by Age Injuries by cle-Related Males (number) and Gender: 2001 leased. A seriousleased. injurythevictim is one in which tation Statistics, calculationstation based on data from Statistics, Age 0–45–910–1415–19 3,54320–24 6,287 6,83425–29 25,27930–34 3,329 26,36035–39 4,037 15,410 4,809 40–44 16,701 14,21445–49 16,158 14,38250–54 10,223 14,38455–59 8,831 10,83660–64 8,199 10,98865–69 9,394 6,98570–74 7,340 5,15475–79 6,966 3,63780–84 4,486 3,42385–89 4,226 4,33190–94 4,545 3,38395–99 3,702 1,222100+ 4,092 354 3,894 135 1,786 0 100 325 0 TABLE 68 Serious Motor Vehi Serious 68 TABLE rveillance (NEISS) System, available at http://www.cpsc.g rveillance (NEISS) System, available National Electronic Injury Su Females (number) U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transpor Department of Transportation, U.S. A minor injurytreated and re A which the victim was is one in Vehicle-Related Injuries Injuries Vehicle-Related Males (number) by Age and Gender: 2001by Age 0–45–910–1415–19 55,88620–24 63,06025–29 78,288 230,73030–34 55,855 237,79035–39 53,269 171,204 70,415 40–44 275,220 154,88945–49 249,814 147,07250–54 191,162 125,38955–59 165,354 60–64 95,898 158,733 65–69 69,647 138,331 70–74 48,655 113,938 75–79 32,454 83,155 80–84 24,925 59,008 85–89 20,533 40,228 90–94 17,098 33,520 95–99 10,058 26,474 100+ 4,418 22,315 1,320 14,396 348 5,762 1,733 0 264 119 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Consumer Product Safety U.S. 2003. as of June Neiss/oracle.html, was either hospitalized or treated and transferred to another facility. or treated either hospitalized and transferred was 67 and 68: Tables SOURCE for NOTE for Tables 67 and 68: Tables for NOTE TABLE 67 Minor Motor 67 TABLE

238 Appendix B , The of the Economic Costs of Motor Vehicle Crashes:2000 Motor Vehicle of dollars Millions of current : U.S. Department of Transportation, Department of Transportation, : U.S. Type of costType Market productivity damageProperty Medical costs delayTravel productivityHousehold Insurance administration 60,991 Legal costs Cost costsWorkplace 59,036 Emergency services 20,151 32,622 Total 15,167 25,560 11,118 4,472 1,453 230,568 SOURCE Administration, Safety Traffic National Highway 2000 Crashes Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ available economic/, as of December 2002. TABLE 70 Components 70 TABLE serious Percent Percent injuries Number of serious of serious Vehicle-Related Injuries Vehicle-Related lculations based on data ed and transferred to another ed and transferred Surveillance (NEISS) System, Total Injuries number of by Type: 2001 Type: by U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of DepartmentTransportation, of U.S. A pedalcyclist is a person on a vehicle that is A pedalcyclist is a person on a vehicle Type available at http://www.cpsc.gov/Neiss/oracle.html, as of at http://www.cpsc.gov/Neiss/oracle.html, available 2003. June NOTES: pedals. solely by powered minor injuryA treated and is one in which the victim was released. A serious injury is one in which the victim was or treat either hospitalized Data are the share of injuries serious that were facility. one person the share type (e.g., of seriously injuredfor pedestrians of all injured pedestrians). SOURCE: ca Statistics, Transportation Commission, Consumer Product Safety from U.S. National ElectronicInjury Vehicle Vehicle occupantsMotorcycle occupants 3,350,837Pedalcyclists 249,309 110,665Pedestrians 7.4 60,313 21,957 130,812 6,412 19.8 25,025 10.6 19.1 TABLE 69 Serious Motor Serious Motor 69 TABLE

239 Transportation Statistics Annual Report Insurer Other Self The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes Crashes The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Total government State government onal Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Administration, Safety Traffic onal Highway Federal Federal ov/people/economic/, as of December 2002. ov/people/economic/, government Millions of current dollars Millions of current : U.S. Department of Transportation, Nati Department of Transportation, : U.S. , available at http://www.nhtsa.dot.g , available : NA = not applicable. KEY SOURCE eia 5381825 servicesEmergency productivityMarket Medical Household productivity administrationInsurance costsWorkplace NALegal/court 10 delayTravel NAProperty damage NATotal 1 2 NA NA NA 1 NA 12 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 25 NA NA 15 NA 8 15 NA NA NA NA 1 NA 6 NA NA NA 11 38 NA 23 4 21 12 NA NA NA 26 116 NA NA 21 NA 33 60 2000 TABLE 71 Estimated Sources of Payment for Motor Vehicle Crashes: 2000 Vehicle Motor for of Payment Estimated 71 Sources TABLE

240 Appendix B Highway gasoline Highway

VOC PM-10 vehicles. Marine vessels Marine vessels vehicles. x issions. Modal shares in 2000issions. Agency (EPA), Office of Air Agency (EPA), matter 10 microns in diameter or NO onal Emissions Inventory, Air onal Emissions Inventory, Highway diesel includes heavy-duty diesel includes heavy-duty Highway e at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ = nitrogen oxides; VOC = volatile = volatile VOC = nitrogen oxides; cles and motorcycles, light-duty cles gas and motorcycles, x ght commercial, and lawn and garden ght commercial, and lawn l, gasoline and other. Other includes: l, gasoline and other. ed Air Pollution Emissions Emissions ed Air Pollution onal vehicles, airportonal vehicles, mainte- service, railway CO duty anddiesel trucks by Mode: 2001 by Percent U.S. Environmental Protection Environmental U.S. EPA no longer estimates lead em EPA CO = carbon monoxide; NO CO = carbon monoxide; trucks, and heavy-duty gas vehicles. gas vehicles. and heavy-duty trucks, were: highway gasoline vehicles, 4.1%; aircraft, 95.9%. gasoline vehicles, highway were: include: light-duty gas vehi vehicles light- diesel vehicles, include: coal, diesel, residual oi diesel and gasoline recreati nance, and recreationalnance, marine service. does not include farm, This table construction, industrial, logging, li equipment. SOURCE: Highway gasolineHighway diesel 92.9Aircraft vesselsMarine 1.4 41.7RailroadOther 0.3 37.5KEY: 74.7 5.1 27.1 9.7 3.6 0.2 0.8 0.1 37.8 0.0 9.6 0.3 0.8 13.1 0.6 0.9 20.2 7.4 13.7 organic compounds; PM-10 = particulateorganic smaller. NOTES: "Nati Quality Planning and Standards, availabl Emission Trends," Pollutant trends/index.html/, as of December 2002. trends/index.html/, TABLE 72 Share of Select TABLE

241 Transportation Statistics Annual Report This is the first time thatThis is the first time ional Emissions Inventory, ional Emissions Inventory, ate air agencies. The largest set ate air agencies. management agencies. Themanagement 1999 agencies. with the estimates for 1999 and with the estimates for nds; PM-10 = particulate matter 10 microns in 99 National (NEI). Emissions Inventory The 1999 in prior year EPA reports. in EPA prior year r Quality Planning and Standards, "Nat Planning and Standards, r Quality 554 7,326 7,212 7,067 6,681 6,226 95 0.95 0.9440 0.91 1.57 0.91 1.52 0.90 1.54 1.61 1.64 89 0.88 0.88 0.91 0.95 U 0.76 0.74 0.71 0.71 0.66 0.73 LE6 and the draft NONROAD2002 emissions models. LE6 and the NONROAD2002 draft 86 0.83 0.80 0.76 0.73 0.69 0.66 t relatively few mobile source estimates were provided by st mobile source estimates by were provided few t relatively s are all related to the development of the19 of all relateds are to the development mobile sources for years prior years made to 1999 consistent were mobile sources for = nitrogen oxides; VOC = volatile organic compou = volatile VOC = nitrogen oxides; x I and reflect many new data submissions from state new and localI air and reflect many ons. The data presented here appeared ons. .epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/index.html/, as of August 2002. as of August .epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/index.html/, xcept that state-submitted data was incorporated for 1999 only. incorporatedxcept that state-submitted data was for sions by Type of Pollutant: 1991–2001 of Pollutant: Type by sions U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Ai of Office (EPA), Protection Agency Environmental U.S. Revisions to previous estimate to previous Revisions CO = carbon monoxide; NO CO = carbon monoxide; sources are in most cases based on the new MOBI cases based on the new in most sources are 0.60.60.50.50.60.50.50.50.50.6U 1.00 0.99 0.92 0.92 0.95 0. 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Thousand short Thousand tons Index: 1991 = 1.00 1 1 11,558 11,445 11,332 11,217 11,101 10,990 11,021 10,819 10,537 10,572 10,423 1.00 1.08 1.15 1.23 1.31 1. 173 186 199 213 226 242 271 263 267 278 283 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0. x x 3 3 Data not available. EPA is no longer estimating lead emissi EPA Data not available. estimates In the table are taken from Version 2 of the 1999 NE from Version are taken estimates In the table emissions estimates from mobile Some bu appeared in this format. estimates using these models have of state-submitted data in 1999 was from California. Estimates for of state-submitted Estimates from California. for data in 1999 was consistent a generally time trend e allowing for later, 73a AND 73b: SOURCE FOR TABLES at http://www available Emission Trends," Pollutant Air VOCPM-10 1.00PM-2.5 Lead 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.90 0.90 0.94 CO 0. 0.85 NO 0.94 0.80 0.90 109,113 0.75 0.87 103,833 98,667 0.73 0.83 93,440 0.72 0.79 88,217 0.70 82,988 0.76 80,222 0.66 0.73 77,644 0.62 77,178 0.70 72,493 79,336 NO CO 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.86 0.81 diameter or smaller; U = data are unavailable. AND73a 73b: FOR TABLES NOTES NH PM-10 407PM-2.5 Lead 392 478 378 464 366 449 351 447 338 432 325 417 308 395 296 377 279 363 268 348 336 VOC 10,0491 9,549 9,050 8,553 8,056 7, NH KEY FOR TABLES 73a AND 73b: KEY FOR TABLES TABLE 73b Transportation Air Emis Air Transportation 73b TABLE TABLE 73a Transportation Air Emissions by Type of Pollutant: 1991–2001 of Pollutant: Type Air Emissions by Transportation 73a TABLE

242 Appendix B ollutant Emission Highway diesel includes Highway ude farm, construction,ude farm, industrial, log- e and other. Other includes: diesel and e and other. y gas trucks, and heavy duty gas vehicles. and heavy y gas trucks, marine service. do not incl These tables include: coal, diesel, residual oil, gasolin 850 3,968 4,087 4,111 4,035 4,192 3,904 04 1.06 1.19 1.30 1.43 1.26 1.16 5,026 4,765 4,705 4,509 4,312 4,201 4,345 1.14 1.18 1.21 1.22 1.19 1.24 1.16 Quality Planning and Standards, "National Emissions Inventory, Air P "NationalQuality Planning and Standards, Emissions Inventory, 3 1.04 1.05 1.00 0.95 0.90 1.00 1.00 039 1,049 1,058 1,008 958 908 1,008 1,011 87 0.83 0.78 0.77 0.74 0.71 0.69 0.72 y gas vehicles and motorcycles, light-dut and motorcycles, y gas vehicles ice, railway maintenance, and recreational maintenance, railway ice, Agency (EPA), Office of Air Agency (EPA), tn/chief/trends/index.html/, as of August 2002. as of August tn/chief/trends/index.html/, -duty diesel trucks and vehicles. Marine vessels Marine vessels and vehicles. -duty diesel trucks e Emissions by Mode: 1991–2001 e Emissions by 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Thousands of short tons of short Thousands Index: 1991 = 1.00 U.S. Environmental Protection Environmental U.S. Highway gasoline vehicles include: light-dut gasoline vehicles Highway gasoline recreational vehicles, airportgasoline recreational vehicles, serv ging, and garden equipment. light commercial, and lawn SOURCE: Highway gasoline 1.00 0.96 0.91 0. Highway gasoline 6,072 5,811 5,548 5,287 Highway dieselAircraft 1.00Marine vesselsRailroad 1.04 1.00Other nonroad 1.00 1.07 1.01 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.11 1.02 0.97 1.03 1.02 1.0 1.03 1.04 1.04Highway diesel 1.03Aircraft 1. 1.05Marine vessels 3,377 1.03 1.07Railroad 3,495Other nonroad 1,012 1.10 1.09 3,614 70 1,021 1.19 1.10 3,732 962 70 1,030 71 1.11 3, 1.12 1, 979 68 72 1.37 1.13 996 72 1.19 73 1.04 1,014 1.19 72 1.04 1,031 73 1,048 72 74 1,061 77 1,073 83 1,085 83 91 1,001 78 100 999 96 88 83 81 83 Trends," available at http://www.epa.gov/t available Trends," heavy-duty diesel vehicles, light diesel vehicles, heavy-duty NOTES: NOTES: TABLE 74a Nitrogen Oxide Emissions by Mode: 1991–2001 Nitrogen 74a Oxide Emissions by TABLE TABLE 74b Nitrogen Oxid Nitrogen 74b TABLE

243 Transportation Statistics Annual Report ts. n totals. n totals. (Washington, DC: April 1-14, 2003), table (Washington, 06 1.0611 1.08 1.14 1.1085 1.06 1.15 0.92 1.04 0.94 1.09 1.07 0.88 1.15 0.84 0.81 vities, but are not included but i vities, 1.04 1.06 1.05 1.08 1.10 1.11 1.13 1312 1.18 1.17 1.22 1.22 1.26 1.27 1.29 1.33 1.34 1.40 1.35 1.45 1.38 1.47 quipment, agricultural machinery, pipelines, and lubrican pipelines, quipment, machinery, agricultural both civilian and military acti 08 1.75 1.00 0.92 0.92 1.08 0.92 1.08 1.00 fuels) and aviation gas consumption. fuels) and aviation s, light-duty trucks, and other trucks. light-duty trucks, s, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2001 of U.S. Inventory motorcycles, construction motorcycles, e ssions by Transportation Mode: 1991–2001 Transportation ssions by uels include emissions from 1.00 0.99 0.991.00 1.04 1.011.00 1.01 1.02 0.92 1. 1.07 0.83 1.08 0.82 1. 0.84 0. 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 3 e from all jet fuel (less bunker e from all jet fuel (less bunker Index: 1991 = 1.00 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Protection Agency, Environmental U.S. 1 Highway total includes passenger cars, buse total includes passenger cars, Highway 2 Aircraft emissions ar Aircraft emissions are "Other"from carbon dioxide f Emissions from international bunker also available at http://www.epa.gov, as of June 2003. as of June at http://www.epa.gov, also available SOURCE: NOTE: 1 2 3 Boats and vesselsLocomotivesOther TotalInternational bunker fuels 1.00 1.22 1.00 1.06 1.03 1.07 1.06 1.00 1.13 1.17 1.02 1.05 1.21 1.04 0.73 1.25 1.08 0.60 1.24 1.10 0.84 1.28 1.13 1.30 1.34 1.13 1.27 1.15 1.33 1.19 1.35 1.23 1.24 Passenger cars 1.00Aircraft 1.00 1.03 1.04 Light-duty trucksLight-duty trucksAll other Buses highway Total vehiclesAlternative fuel 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.00 1.02 1.10 1.00 0.92 1.05 1.00 1. 1.02 1. 1. 1.01 1.05 1.07 1.08 1.13 1.11 1.13 1.14 1.17 1.16 1.19 1.19 1.23 1.23 1.37 1.25 1.33 1.27 1.23 TABLE 75/76a Carbon Dioxide Emi 75/76a Carbon Dioxide TABLE

244 Appendix B ts. n totals. n totals. 314.7 1,359.6 1,377.2 1,400.8 (Washington, DC: April 1-14, also avail- 2003), table (Washington, vities, but are not included but i vities, x (44/12). A teragram equals 1 trillion x (44/12). A teragram grams. 587.2 594.3 592.8 607.9 618.6 621.7 632.7 7 392.9 406.51 1,226.2 419.1 1,256.6 427.6 1,278.9 1, 446.1 450.2 460.0 9 51.7 48.1 33.6 27.4 38.6 59.7 58.3 quipment, agricultural machinery, pipelines, and lubrican pipelines, quipment, machinery, agricultural both civilian and military acti fuels) and aviation gas consumption. fuels) and aviation s, light-duty trucks, and other trucks. light-duty trucks, s, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2001 of U.S. Inventory .1 1.3 2.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.2 1 motorcycles, construction motorcycles, e Eq = 1 million metric ton of carbon equivalent 2 uels include emissions from 93.5 94.4 95.0 100.4 100.7 103.8 107.0 99.5 97.1 100.2 107.2 equivalent e Emissions by eMode: 1991–2001 Emissions by 169.3 167.0 168.0 175.9119.9 171.4 109.9 180.2 99.8 179.0 98.0 183.0 101.0 186.8 102.3 195.3 109.9 183.9 112.9 105.3 100.2 97.3 2 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 4 e from all jet fuel (less bunker e from all jet fuel (less bunker equivalent—1 TgCO equivalent—1 2 Teragrams of CO Teragrams U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Protection Environmental Agency, U.S. 2 Highway total includes passenger cars, buse total includes passenger cars, Highway 3 Teragrams of CO Teragrams Aircraft emissions ar Aircraft emissions are "Other"from carbon dioxide f Emissions from international bunker able at http://www.epa.gov, as of June 2003. as of June at http://www.epa.gov, able SOURCE: NOTE: Light-duty trucksLight-duty trucksAll other Buses highway Total 332.7 351.7 202.6 1,105.9 206.2 367.5 1,130.9 376. 212.0 1,165.9 7.0 227.1 1,198. 7.1 237.0 246.5 7.5 257.6 7.9 269.3 7.9 284.2 8.2 294.7 8.3 298.3 8.6 9.6 9.3 8.6 Passenger cars 562.4 564.8 577.6 584.3 Alternative fuel vehiclesAircraft 1.2 1 1 2 3 4 Boats and vesselsTotal 45.9International bunker fuels 56.2 48.5 1,440.0 48. 1,474.7 1,504.3 1,553.1 1,580.8 1,620.5 1,630.1 1,657.0 1,716.2 1,766.2 1,784.5 LocomotivesOther 25.4 26.2 26.9 29.8 30.8 31.8 31.6 32.4 34.1 33.8 34.3 TABLE 75/76b Carbon Dioxid 75/76bCarbon TABLE

245 Transportation Statistics Annual Report 885,303 1,172,449 1,431,370 Pollution Incidents in and Around U.S. Incidents in and Around U.S. Pollution orts and fuel stations). 821 229,771 60,428 51,101 30,908 2,050,317 537,668 772,261 940,212 1,342,630 ,894 978,392 224,122 47,863 36,140 17,021 ,706 3,035,138 767,439 832,689 991,313 1,373,538 638,229 3,117,831 942,574 48,161 27,602 43,540 102,671 20,987 90,779 25,890 400,254 66,921 39,153 72,464 31,627 90,357 31,942 well as from transportation-related facilities (e.g., at as from transportation-relatedp well (e.g., facilities tion Statistics, calculations based on U.S. Coast Guard, calculationstion Statistics, based on U.S. response/stats/ac.htm, as of September 2002. 280,911 430,487 74,076 58,815 984, ,159,266 1,462,701 1,966,782 2,484,891 to the U.S. Coast Guard by Source: 1991–2000 Source: by Guard Coast to the U.S. 6 76.8 91.6 82.0 96.4 97.3 81.4 94.1 84.6 96.0 0 3,098537 3,040 4922,908 3,500 1,206 1,006 4,508 1,624,043 1,440,177 1,893,188 2,040,858 2,543 2 1 Gallons U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transporta Department of Transportation, U.S. available at: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nmc/ available Data are preliminary. PipelineAirHighwayRailOther transportation 49,382 200,396 362,399 7,203 760 62,340 13,577 63,717 1,206 11 63,384 748 123 3,360 3,219 3,419 1,716 758 2,1172,221 43,955 690683 1,432 610 10,111943 13,037 34355 7,148 305 2,224 563 7 Oil spilled from transportation vessels, vehicles, and equipment, as vehicles, Oil spilled from transportation vessels, Other transportation common carriers. includes nonvessel

Mode or sourceTransportation-related 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Unknown and otherUnknown and Total of totalas percent Transportation 174,038 86. 283,241 71,852 1,875,953 1,875,667 2,067,388 2,489,273 2, Nontransportation1 77,8722 152,249 102,348 Maritime vessels and facilities 1,565,492 transportation All other 1 58,551 NOTE: NOTE: SOURCE: Waters, TABLE 77 Volume of Oil Spills ReportedSpills Oil of Volume 77 TABLE

246 Appendix B spills (1991–2000) Percent Percent share of all Pollution Incidents in and Around Pollution (1991–2000) Volume of all oil spills spills of all oil Volume available at: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nmc/response/stats/ available Gallons U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statis- Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Data are preliminary. Data are preliminary. vessels and othervessels 3,353,840 6,907,500 18.1 37.3 FacilitiesMaritime nontank tank Waterborne 4,020,880 21.7 structures and facilities and structures 692,099and other 3.7 269,920 1.5 Maritime 14,282,220PipelineNon-transportation Unknown and otherrail, aircraft, Highway, 77.2 Total 1,989,949 1,261,849 10.8 6.8 18,496,037 100.0 Mode or source NOTE: NOTE: SOURCE: Coast Guard, calculations based on U.S. tics, Waters, U.S. ac.htm, as of September 2002. TABLE 78 Average Volume of Oil Spills by Source: 1991–2000 of Oil Source: Spills by Volume 78 Average TABLE

247 Transportation Statistics Annual Report rams Administration, Hazardous Materials Administration, rams System Information 5 1,112 1,103 989 1,074 1,059 896 sportation Incidents by Mode: 1991–2001sportation Incidents by 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Number U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Special Prog Department of Transportation, U.S. database, available at http://hazmat.dot.gov/files/hazmat/10year/10yearfrm.htm, as of 2003. January at http://hazmat.dot.gov/files/hazmat/10year/10yearfrm.htm, available database, SOURCE: AirHighwayRail 7,644 299 7,843 1,155 414 11,095 14,011 1,128 622 12,868 1,113 11,962 931 1,157 11,864 817 1,15 13,110 15,004 919 15,126 1,029 15,807 1,386 1,584 1,420 1,080 WaterTotal 12 9,110 9,393 8 12,838 16,105 8 14,852 13,999 6 14,001 15,499 12 17,670 17,622 6 17,788 5 14 8 17 5 TABLE 79 Hazardous Materials Tran Hazardous 79 TABLE

248 Appendix B rams Administration, Hazardous Materials Administration, rams System Information Hazardous Materials Administration, rams System Information ortation Injuries by Mode: 1991–2001ortation Mode: by Injuries sportation Fatalities by Mode: 1991–2001 Mode: sportation by Fatalities 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Number Number U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Special Prog Department of Transportation, U.S. Research and Special Prog Department of Transportation, U.S. AirHighwayRail 10 0Water 16Total 0 0 0 15 10 0 0 0 11 16 0 0 0 7 15 0 0 0 11 8 0 110 0 7 12 0 2 120 13 0 0 0 12 10 0 0 13 0 15 0 10 0 7 0 0 0 15 0 0 7 0 0 database, available at http://hazmat.dot.gov/files/hazmat/10year/10yearfrm.htm, as of 2003. January at http://hazmat.dot.gov/files/hazmat/10year/10yearfrm.htm, available database, as of 2003. January at http://hazmat.dot.gov/files/hazmat/10year/10yearfrm.htm, available database, SOURCE: SOURCE: i325533221513 Air3123505733332420125 HighwayRail 333WaterTotal 465 75 511 0 116 439 425 0 604 66 296 627 95 0 216 577 71 152 0 400 151 926 0 1,175 217 45 221 0 164 22 195 0 101 264 35 251 2 82 143 0 29 0 0 TABLE 80a Hazardous MaterialsTransp Hazardous 80a TABLE MaterialsTran Hazardous 80b TABLE

249 Transportation Statistics Annual Report , available at http:// , available goods. In-house goods. trans- ce Indexes. Economic Analysis, National Economic Analysis, y companies often use their own y companies often use their own sportation. For example, grocer sportation. example, For s and streets. Consumer motor vehicles are consumer durable Consumers and motor vehicles streets. Fixed Assets and Consumer Durable Goods in the United States Assets and Consumer Durable Fixed Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, ProducerDepartment Bureau Pri of Labor Statistics, of Labor, 1,063 1,105 1,121 1,129 1,148 1,169 1,207 1,234 hose main business is not tran hose main business the following sources: U.S. Department Bureau of of Commerce, sources: U.S. the following l Stock for Selected for Modes:l 1990–2000Stock r warehouses to their retail outlets. r warehouses 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Billions of chained 1996 dollars Billions of chained 1996 U.S. Department Bureau of Analysis, Economic of Commerce, U.S. Data include only privately owned capital stock, except for highway for except capital stock, owned Data include only privately transit stock2424242525252627282931 stockstockvehicles 4039383838383738383939 363transit 336 358 stockwarehousing 350 353 704 2929293031343638434753 stock 364 83 349 680 382 347 gas natural 80 666 408 344stock 659 79 432 343 665 44 82 462 343 657 44 91 486 344 663 44 99 521 343 676 104 44 571 342 709 113 44 609 760 115 45 811 118 45 121 45 45 45 46 truck fleets to move goods from thei fleetstruck to move inflation using price deflators been adjusted for from Data have Income and Product Accounts, Quantity and Price Indexes; and U.S. and U.S. Quantity and PriceIncome Indexes; and Product Accounts, SOURCE: www.bea.gov, as of March 2003. www.bea.gov, Railroad transportation In-house transportation streetsHighways and Consumer motor 1,009 interurban and Local 1,015 1,038 and Trucking transportation Water Air transportation stock except stock, Pipelines 101 services Transportation 104 110 113 113 116 121 129 143 165 183 NOTES: NOTES: portation includes transportation service within a firm provided w TABLE 81/82a Transportation Capita 81/82a Transportation TABLE

250 Appendix B goods. In-house trans- goods. , available at http:// , available ce Indexes. Economic Analysis, National Economic Analysis, y companies often use their own y companies often use their own vehicles are consumer durable vehicles sportation. For example, grocer sportation. example, For s and streets. Consumer motor Consumer s and streets. Fixed Assets and Consumer Durable Goods in the United States Assets and Consumer Durable Fixed Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, ProducerDepartment Bureau Pri of Labor Statistics, of Labor, Modes: 1990–2000 Modes: hose main business is not tran hose main business the following sources: U.S. Department Bureau of of Commerce, sources: U.S. the following l Stock for Selected for l Stock r warehouses to their retail outlets. r warehouses 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Billions of current dollars Billions of current U.S. Department Bureau of Analysis, Economic of Commerce, U.S. Data include only privately owned capital stock, except for highway for except capital stock, owned Data include only privately transit stock2121222324252728283032 stock2627272830343637414550 stock stocktransportation 286 3535353637373839404143 vehicles 304 309transit 303 331 stockwarehousing 307 574 360stock 71 324 567 396stock 329 71 574 429 gas natural 337 599 72 463services 349 629 481 85 77 38 352 646 517 91 89 39 347 663 573 99 99 40 341 673 618 104 104 42 341 703 108 113 44 748 115 117 796 44 122 122 45 131 127 47 145 169 47 194 49 50 truck fleets to move goods from thei fleetstruck to move inflation using price deflators been adjusted for from Data have Income and Product Accounts, Quantity and Price Indexes; and U.S. and U.S. Quantity and PriceIncome Indexes; and Product Accounts, SOURCE: www.bea.gov, as of March 2003. www.bea.gov, portation includes transportation service within a firm provided w NOTES: NOTES: Railroad transportation In-house streetsHighways and Consumer motor 869 interurban and Local 889 and Trucking 910 transportation Water 941Air transportation 1,004 except stock, Pipelines 1,075 Transportation 1,129 1,193 1,238 1,322 1,420 TABLE 81/82b Transportation Capita 81/82bTransportation TABLE

251 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Highway Highway Highway for the 50 states for for the 50 states 50 the for (Washington, DC: 2002), (Washington, National Transportation Statistics 2002 National Transportation on Statistics 2002 National Transportati 3 26.6 20.9 22.0 32.1 31.9 23.0 22.7 20.6 16.4 14.3 13.6 36.9 36.0 34.9 30.4 28.2 28.2 ndition beginning with U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Federal Department of Transportation, ndition beginning with U.S. Federal Department of Transportation, ndition beginning with U.S. 3 19.9 20.2 17.9 17.5 26.0 26.4 ween pre-1993 data and 1993ween and later data are difficult. Data are tween pre-1993 data and 1993 and latertween difficult. data are Dataare Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Transportation, 8 27.1 25.9 26.7 31.3 30.6 30.0 29.3 18.0 14.6 12.1 12.0 12.0 10.6 10.9 10.2 ocre Condition by Functional Class: 1993–2001 by ocre Condition ocre Condition by Functional Class: 1993–2001by ocre Condition 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Percent of mileage in roadway class in of mileage roadway Percent Percent of mileage in roadway class in of mileage roadway Percent U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Various sources, as cited in U.S. Department as cited of in sources, U.S. Various Because of the transition to a new indicator for pavement co pavement indicator for Because to a of new the transition co pavement indicator for Because to a of new the transition and the District of Columbia. SOURCE: as of April 2003. at http://www.bts.gov/, 1-26, also available table Administration (FHWA) data published in 1993, comparisons data published bet Administration (FHWA) as of April 2003. at http://www.bts.gov/, 1-26, also available DC: 2002), table (Washington, in 1993, comparisons be data published Administration (FHWA) and the District of Columbia. SOURCE: Interstates expressway and freeways Other Other principal arterials 13.2 Collectors 22.5 41.5 28. 42.9 37.2 27.4 26.0 26.5 26. Interstates 34.7 33.0 27.0 Minor arterials 21.7 19.0 20. Other principal arterialsMinor arterialsCollectors 12.1 10.6 13.0 12.0 14.0 19.2 7.3 12.7 17.8 6.5 10.5 18.0 6.1 9.0 17.0 4.5 20.1 7.9 4.0 21.8 6.9 3.7 21.4 7.0 21.2 6.9 20.4 NOTES: NOTES: TABLE 83 Rural Roads in Poor or Medi RuralPoor 83in Roads TABLE Medi or Urban 84in Poor Roads TABLE

252 Appendix B Total ventory database, avail- ventory database, obsolete serve demand, or traffic the Functionally Bridge Division, National Bridge tenance attention, rehabilitation, or dges needing significant maintenance ition by Functional Class: 2001by ition deficient Structurally Bridge Division, National Bridge In ration, Office of Engineering,ration, vertical adequate to clearances Number lane widths, shoulder widths, or vertical shoulder widths, adequate clearances lane to widths, bridges needing significant main Interstate 1,108 3,193 27,579 Principal arterial— Other principal arterialMinor arterial collectorMajor 1,964Minor collectorLocal 3,565 3,405 11,634 35,652 6,844 4,666 10,256 5,442 39,686 95,736 45,935 47,782 24,934 209,849 TABLE 86b Rural Bridge Rural 86b Cond TABLE tion, Office of Engineering, cturally deficient refers to deficient refers cturally e lane widths, shoulder widths, or shoulder widths, e lane widths, ccasional roadway flooding. Structurallyto bri deficient refers ccasional roadway onally Obsolete Bridges: onally All Roadways—1991–2001 obsolete Total Functionally 393 80,000 79,832 80,950 81,208 77,410 79,500 81,900 81,510 81,439 : U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administ Highway Federal Department of Transportation, : U.S. Functionally obsolete refers to bridges that do not have the to bridges that do not have Functionally obsolete refers 534 118,698 111,980 107,683 104,317 101,518 98,475 93,072 88,150 83,576 83,595 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 deficient Structurally Percent Number : U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administra Highway Federal Department of Transportation, : U.S. Functionally obsolete refers to bridges that do not have th to bridges Functionally obsolete thatrefers do not have Interstate 4 12 16 bridge may not be able to handle occasional roadway flooding. Stru to handle occasional roadway not be able bridge may replacement. SOURCE oa 221234 Principal arterial— Other principal arterialMinor arterial collectorMajor 6Minor collectorLocal 9 10 12 14 12 16 11 11 20 23 26 NOTES: able at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/britab.htm, as of December 2002. at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/britab.htm, able Structurally deficientFunctionally obsolete 134, 97,593 80, TABLE 85 Structurally Deficient and Functi Structurally 85 TABLE Functional Class:Bridge Rural 2001 86a by Condition TABLE 86a AND 86b: FOR TABLES NOTES Inventory database, available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/britab.htm, as of December 2002. at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/britab.htm, available database, Inventory attention, rehabilitation, or replacement. 86a AND 86b SOURCE FOR TABLES serve traffic demand, or the bridge may not be able to handle o not be able demand, or the bridgeserve traffic may

253 Transportation Statistics Annual Report Total obsolete Functionally Bridge Division, National Bridge ition by Functional Class: 2001 by ition dges needing significant maintenance 985 3,368 16,112 deficient Structurally ration, Office of Engineering,ration, Number lane widths, shoulder widths, or vertical shoulder widths, adequate clearances lane to widths, InterstateOther freeways or expressways Other principal arterialMinor arterial 1,760 2,415CollectorLocal 5,675 5,514 2,500 27,875 24,804 6,064 1,831 23,158 3,214 3,836 4,926 15,407 26,045 TABLE 87b Urban Bridge Urban Cond 87b TABLE Total ccasional roadway flooding. Structurallyto bri deficient refers ccasional roadway obsolete Functionally : U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administ Highway Federal Department of Transportation, : U.S. ition by Functional Class: 2001 by ition 62127 Functionally obsolete refers to bridges that do not have the to bridges that do not have Functionally obsolete refers deficient Structurally Percent InterstateOther freeways or expressways Other principal arterialMinor arterial 10 6CollectorLocal 22 20 11 12 32 27 26 12 25 37 19 37 31 Inventory database, available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/britab.htm, as of December 2002. at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/britab.htm, available database, Inventory TABLE 87a Urban Bridge Urban 87a Cond TABLE 87a AND 87b: FOR TABLES NOTES attention, rehabilitation, or replacement. 87a AND 87b SOURCE FOR TABLES serve traffic demand, or the bridge may not be able to handle o not be able demand, or the bridgeserve traffic may

254 Appendix B National Transportation Statistics National Transportation Statistics National Transportation are 3,364 NPIAS airports, including the commercial are 3,364 NPIAS airports, including the commercial tion Administration, Office oftion Administration, Airport Planning and Program- Office oftion Administration, Airport Planning and Program- 546 Commercial Service 546 Commercial Airports: 1990–2001 years shown. Raw data not readily available. Raw shown. years data not readily available. Raw shown. years personal 2003.communication, personal 2003.communication, 075555 532222 1990 1993 1997 1999 2000 2001 1990 1993 1997 1999 2000 2001 Percent Percent U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Statistics, Bureauof Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Statistics, Bureauof Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. There are 546 commercial service airports. There There are 546 commercial service airports. There NPIAS = National Plan of Integrated AirportNPIAS = National Plan of Integrated Systems. (Washington DC: 2003), also available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of January 2003. Based on data obtained at http://www.bts.gov/, DC: 2003), also available (Washington as of January 2003. Based on data obtained at http://www.bts.gov/, DC: 2003), also available (Washington serivice airports. Data only available for serivice airports. for Data only available SOURCE: serivice airports. for Data only available SOURCE: Fair condition292523232222 Good conditionFair Poor condition 61 1 68 72 72 73 73 2002 Avia Federal Department of Transportation, from the U.S. ming, National Planning Division, 2002 Avia Federal Department of Transportation, from the U.S. ming, National Planning Division, NOTES: NOTES: KEY: NOTES: Fair condition171819201919 Good conditionFair Poor condition 78 79 79 78 79 79 TABLE 88 Runway Pavement Condition of Pavement Runway 88 TABLE Airports: Condition of 3,364 NPIAS 1990–2001 Pavement Runway 89 TABLE

255 Transportation Statistics Annual Report (Washington, DC: 2002), (Washington, on Statistics 2002 National Transportation Statis- National Transportation National Transportati cording to R.L. Polk & Co.," press release, February press release, & Co.," cording to R.L. Polk trucks (sport utility vehicles, vans, and pick-up trucks). and pick-up vans, (sport trucks utility vehicles, 36 19.3 17.0 18.6 14.9 20.1 16.7 21.4 16.8 24.1 16.0 21.6 15.9 19.4 15.7 17.5 15.7 16.9 16.1 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Trucks in the United States: 1992–2002 Trucks rs 16.2 16.9 17.7 17.8 15.8 19.3 20.2 21.1 22.0 22.5 22.9 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Years Years U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. (Washington, DC: 2002), table 1-25, also available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003. R.L. Polk & as of April 2003. R.L. Polk at http://www.bts.gov/, 1-25, also available DC: 2002), table (Washington, Full-size buses have more than 35 seats. have buses Full-size "Trucks" represents all types of trucks, including light represents all types of trucks, "Trucks" CarsTrucks 7.0 7.2 7.3 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.7 7.6 7.9 7.7 8.1Heavy-rail passenger ca 7.8 8.3Commuter rail coachespassenger 7.6 8.3(streetcars) vehicles rail Light 7.2 8.3Full-size transit buses 17.6 6.9 8.1Vans 17. 6.8 8.4 15.2Ferryboats 6.8 16. 8.2 8.0 8.3 8.5 21.7 2.8 19.6 9.9 3.0 22.7 8.7 3.1 24.7 8.8 3.1 23.5 8.6 23.4 3.9 25.3 8.5 3.1 25.4 8.4 3.1 25.8 8.1 3.0 25.1 25.6 2.9 3.1 3.1 11, 2003. SOURCES: tics 2002 Increases Ac Cars and Light Trucks "Median Age of U.S. Co., 1-28. table NOTE: NOTE: NOTE: SOURCE: TABLE 90 Median Age and of Cars TABLE 1990–2000 Vehicles: AgeSelected of Urban Transit Average 91 TABLE

256 Appendix B (Washington, DC: 2002), table (Washington, on Statistics 2002 21.8 20.7 19.8 21.1 22.2 19.4 National Transportati Age range (years) range Age Liquid barge includes tank barges. (Washington, DC: 2002), table 1-31, also available at 1-31, also available table DC: 2002), (Washington, 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 cars 20.0 21.0 21.5 22.6 22.4 U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics Bureau of Transportation (USDOT), Department of Transportation U.S. Years U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Support includes offshore support and crewboats. National Transportation Statistics 2002 National Transportation Ship type of vessels)(number Ship type < 6 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 > 25 http://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003. http://www.bts.gov/, SOURCES: (BTS), Locomotivesother train Passenger and 12.0 13.0 13.0 13.2 13.4 13.9 14.4 12.0 12.6 12.8 11.2 1-30, also available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003. at http://www.bts.gov/, 1-30, also available SOURCE: NOTE: Dry (733) cargo (135)Tanker (4,990)Towboat Passenger (915) (1,420)Support 66Dry (29,009) barge barge (3,987)Liquid 11 325 50 (41,182)Total 134 143 113 4 246 6,721 118 142 136 3,051 582 106 8 178 1,565 929 105 329 8,085 58 124 5,846 34 954 263 3,802 48 5,365 454 2,497 90 2,112 30 6,461 602 332 8,125 271 48 712 7,588 214 11,470 1,714 TABLE 92 Average Age 92 of Amtrak Average Locomotive and Car Fleets: 1990–2000 TABLE 2000 Type: by Vessels Flag Age 93 of U.S. TABLE

257 Transportation Statistics Annual Report . ir taxi taxi ir ircraft age is ircraft merica West merica West e engines or other Federal Express, Express, Federal e, including commuter and a including commuter e, Form 41, Schedule B-43, 1991–2000 nes, Continental Airlines,nes, Delta Airlines, passenger or freight servic atistics, calculationsatistics, based on es Aircraft: 1991–2000es Aircraft: 11.610.4 12.2 10.8 12.4 11.3 13.2 12.3 13.5 12.4 13.6 12.3 12.9 11.8 12.8 11.8 ited Airlines, United Parcel Service, and US Airways. Average a Average Service, and US Airways. ited Airlines, United Parcel owner from the manufacturer. It does not reflect the age of th from the manufacturer. owner 84.1 82.1 79.9 76.1 72.5 78.7 77.8 78.5 78.8 iding scheduled or nonscheduled ial and Major Airlin rlines, America Trans Air, Alaska Airli Air, rlines, America Trans only commercial airlines with operating revenues greater than $1 greater billion in 2000: A only commercial airlines with operating revenues 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Years, unless noted unless Years, U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation St Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Commercial airlines are air carriers prov commercial aircraft (percent) aircraft commercial 86.8 All commercial aircraftAll commercial aircraft airlines' Major of airlines share Major 11.2 10.7 11.3 10.5 parts that may have been replaced more recently. parts have that may SOURCE: NOTES: NOTES: on-demand services. Major airlines includes AmericanAirlines, Airlines, American Eagle Ai to the original delivered was that an aircraft based on the year Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Trans World Airlines, Un Airlines, World Northwest Airlines, Airlines, Trans Southwest TABLE 94 Average Age of U.S. AgeCommerc 94 of U.S. Average TABLE

258 Appendix B ic goods and llar amounts are data from Organisation for Econom data from Organisation for (Paris, France: August 2002), table 11. 2002), table August France: (Paris, CountryPortugalGermanyBelgiumFranceAustriaNetherlands 1999 Ireland 1.12 Sweden 1.15 Switzerland 1.18 United KingdomJapan 1.21 1.24 Denmark 1.25 Norway 1.26 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.55 1.61 1.75 portation-relatedgoods and services. All do atistics, calculationatistics, based on ble by country. For these countries, the data are unavailable for these countries, the data For are unavailable country. by ble s and Services e based on purchasing power parity for trans parityebased for on purchasing power ansportation Good Purchasing Power Parities and Real Expenditures, 1999 and Real Results Expenditures, Parities Purchasing Power a are not readily available. for the United States and Selected Major Trade United the States and Selected Major Trade for 1999 Partners: United States= 1.0 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation St Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. 1999 is the most recent year for which these 1999data are availa is the most for recent year CountryMexicoPolandHungaryTurkeyGreeceAustralia 1999 Canada 0.64 ZealandNew Luxembourg 0.76 0.86 United StatesSpain 0.87 Italy 0.90 0.95 0.97 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.07 in current 1999 dollars. Raw dat Raw in current 1999 dollars. SOURCE: NOTES: services separately. Relative prices ar Relative services separately. Co-operation and Development, Development, and Co-operation Tr for Relative Prices 95 TABLE

259 Transportation Statistics Annual Report merce, U.S. U.S. merce, ships and boats. Totals may may Totals ships and boats. 03. r available for transportation-related for r available when adjusting the value of internationallywhen adjusting the value e there is no specific deflato 205,462 230,745 255,024 278,022 290,456 299,624 289,863 well as currency exchange fluctuations as currency well exchange istics, calculations based on data from U.S. Department calculations of Com based on dataistics, from U.S. 80,09189,958 103,819 114,971 111,469 105,429 108,744 106,860 110,781 115,504 126,927 140,053 166,553 185,027 190,880 183,003 rcraft and spacecraft and parts, railway vehicles and parts, vehicles and and parts, and spacecraft rcraft railway en adjusted for inflation becaus en adjusted for rol for trading partners' trading rol for as inflation rates sportation-Related Goods: 1990–2002 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Millions of current dollars Millions of current U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Stat Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Transportation-related goods are motor vehicles and parts, goods are motor vehicles ai Transportation-related International Trade Commission, Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb, available at http://dataweb.usitc.gov/, as of February 20 at http://dataweb.usitc.gov/, available DataWeb, and Trade Tariff Commission, Interactive International Trade not equal the sum of parts due to rounding. not be These dollar data have All amounts are in current dollars. goods and services inflation. traded for SOURCE: goods. In addition, it is difficult to goods. cont ExportsTotal 64,64272,364 146,744 78,773 153,47376,658 163,843 81,658 169,462 187,412 190,872 Imports 82,10181,109 85,07092,804 105,754 NOTES: TABLE 96a U.S. Trade in Tran Trade U.S. 96a TABLE

260 Appendix B minus imports) minus Balance (exports Balance by Commodity: 2002 Commodity: by as currency exchange fluctuations as currency exchange of Transportation Statistics, calculations Statistics, of Transportation ehicles and parts, and and spacecraft aircraft plus imports) plus rce, U.S. International Trade Commission, International Trade U.S. rce, Overall (exports for transportation-relatedfor In addition, it is goods. e data have not been adjusted for inflation not been adjusted for e data have tion-Related Goods traded goods and traded services inflation. for tners' inflation rates as well as well tners' inflation rates ng structuresng 2,568 –90 and partsand 61,897 25,905 tion-related goods 299,624 –82,136 Millions of current dollars Millions of current U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau Department of Transportation, U.S. Transportation-related goodsmotor are v Transportation-related when adjusting the value of internationallywhen adjusting the value SOURCE: Department of Comme based on data from U.S. as of February at http://dataweb.usitc.gov/, available DataWeb, and Trade Tariff Interactive 2003. parts, railway vehicles and parts, and ships and boats. Totals may not equal the sum of parts may and parts, Totals vehicles and ships boats. parts, railway due to rounding. Thes dollar All amounts are in current dollars. because there is no specific deflator available par trading difficult to control for NOTES: Railway locomotives and partsRailway locomotives transporta Total, all commodites Total, 2,133 1,856,806 53 –470,292 Ships, boats, and floati Vehicles other than other railwayVehicles spacecraft, Aircraft, 233,027 –108,005 TABLE 96b U.S. Trade in Transporta Trade U.S. 96b TABLE

261 Transportation Statistics Annual Report merce, U.S. International U.S. merce, ships and boats. Totals may not may Totals ships and boats. r available for transportation-related for goods. r available justing the value of internationallyjusting the value goods traded there is no specific deflato –25,546 –23,108 –25,082 –55,083 –79,598 –76,143 –82,136 istics, calculations based on data from U.S. Department of calculations based on dataCom from U.S. istics, ll as currency exchange fluctuations when ad currency exchange ll as raft and spacecraft and parts, railway vehicles and parts, vehicles and parts, andand spacecraft raft railway adjusted for inflation because adjusted for exports minus imports exports Transportation-Related Goods: 1990–2002 Transportation-Related for trading partners' trading as we for inflation rates 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Transportation-related goods Transportation-related dollars Millions of current U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Stat Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Transportation-related goods are motor vehicles and parts, goods are motor vehicles airc Transportation-related In addition, it is difficult to In addition, it is difficult control and services inflation. for SOURCE: NOTES: equal the sum of parts due to rounding. not been dollar amounts are These dataAll in current dollars. have Trade balance –17,459 –8,745 –6,296 –16,145 –24,096 –30,689 Trade Commission, Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb, available at http://dataweb.usitc.gov/, as of February 2003. at http://dataweb.usitc.gov/, available DataWeb, and Trade Tariff Commission, Interactive Trade TABLE 97 U.S. Trade Balance in Trade U.S. 97 TABLE

262 Appendix B merce, Bureau of Economic merce, merce, Bureau of Economic Bureau of merce, reight and port services. It excludes reight and port services. It excludes ts, entertainment,ts, incidental and any ts, entertainment,ts, incidental and any r transportation-related services.addition, In r transportation-related services. In addition, alue of internationally goods traded and services alue of internationally goods and traded services specific deflator available fo specific deflator available 3,284 781 –4,632 –8,753 –15,007 –14,928 –13,878 fluctuations when adjusting the v fluctuations when adjusting the here is no specific deflator available fo here is no specific deflator available 697 43,212989 47,097 46,496686 50,334 47,878 89,708 45,702 55,454 94,975 65,904 96,036 46,701 102,155 61,241 50,897 116,801 59,624 46,313 107,554 45,746 105,370 atistics, calculation based on data from U.S. Department calculation based on dataatistics, of from Com U.S. Statistics, calculation based on data from U.S. Department of Com calculation based on data from U.S. Statistics, ed Services: 1990–2002 d terms. Transportation services and includef passengerd terms. fares Transportation ted terms. Transportation services and f include passenger fares ted terms. Transportation es of lodging, goods and services recreation, gif food, (e.g., es of lodging, goods and services recreation, gif food, (e.g., r inflation because there is no for inflation because t for s as well as currency exchange fluctuations when adjusting as currency exchange the s as well v tes as well as currency exchange exchange as currency well tes as Transportation-Relat ounts data, available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/di1.htm, as of April 2003. at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/di1.htm, ounts data, available ounts data, available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/di1.htm, as of April 2003. at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/di1.htm, ounts data, available ices exports minus imports minus ices exports 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Transportation-related serv Transportation-related dollars Millions of current Millions of current dollars Millions of current : U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation St Transportation Bureau of DepartmentTransportation, of U.S. : : U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, : U.S. : Detail service type data are not available in inflation-adjuste : Detail servicetypeare not available data in inflation-adjus : Detail service type data are not available Analysis, International Transactions Acc InternationalAnalysis, Transactions for inflation. for SOURCE Trade balanceTrade 1,842 3,498 3,779 2,552 1,670 3,292 Imports 35,497 34,987 34,370 35,934 39,081 41, ExportsTotal 37,339 38,485 72,836 38,149 73,472 38,486 72,519 40,751 74,420 44, 79,832 86, it is difficult to control for trading partners'it is difficult to control for inflation rate expense on a foreign visit). These data have not been adjusted visit). These data have on a foreign expense NOTES NOTES expense on a foreign visit). These data have not been adjusted fo visit). These on a data have foreign expense trading partners'it is difficult to control for inflation ra receipts and payments for travel services, which includes purchas travel for receipts and payments inflation. for SOURCE receipts and payments for travel services, which includes purchas travel for receipts and payments Acc InternationalAnalysis, Transactions TABLE 98 U.S. International Trade in International Trade U.S. 98 TABLE Services:1990–2002 Transportation-Related Balance in Trade U.S. 99 TABLE

263 Transportation Statistics Annual Report f Commerce, Bureau of f Commerce, f Commerce, Bureau of Bureau f Commerce, tion-relatedand goods tion-relatedgoods and services, and . . s railroad ands railroad petroleum pipelines only. ent constitutes railroad and petroleumentconstitutes railroad 37.7 893.3 932.4 993.7 1,031.8 1,046.9 rnment purchases of transporta cs (BTS), calculations based on data from U.S. Department o basedcs (BTS), calculations on data from U.S. istics (BTS), calculations based on data from U.S. Departmentistics (BTS), calculations o based on data from U.S. onsumer, private business, and government purchases of transporta and government business, private onsumer, onsumer, private business, and gove business, private onsumer, from transportation exports).domesticinvestm Gross private tation exports). Gross private domestic investment constitute tation exports). domestic investment Gross private 723.9 747.6 781.7 802.8 837.7 881.2 934.8 981.1 977.8 984.1 3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.6 10.7 10.7 10.6 10.7 10.5 10.4 4 10.5 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.7 10.8 11.0 11.1 10.6 10.7 Final Demand and Its Share in GDP: 1990–2001 Final Demand and Its Share in GDP: 1990–2001Demandin GDP: Share and Its Final oduct Accounts" available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaw, as of Feb. 24, 2003 as of Feb. at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaw, oduct Accounts" available oduct Accounts" available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaw, as of Feb. 24, 2003 as of Feb. at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaw, oduct Accounts" available 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 mand 617.5 616.9 656.2 697.2 747.6 782.0 8 Billions of chained 1996 dollars Billions of chained 1996 Billions of current dollars Billions of current U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Stat Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statisti Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Total transportation-related final demand is the sum of all c Total transportation-related final demand is the sum of all c Total Economic Analysis, "National Income and Pr Analysis, Economic pipelines only. SOURCE: services, and net exports transportation (i.e., imports subtracted Economic Analysis, "National Income and Pr Analysis, Economic SOURCE: NOTES: NOTES: net exports (i.e., transportationnet exports (i.e., imports from transpor subtracted Transportation-related final demandTransportation-related (percent)in GDP share Transportation 719.8 10.7 695.8 10. final de Transportation-related share in GDP (percent)Transportation 10.6 10. TABLE 100a Value of Transportation-Related of Value 100a TABLE of Transportation-Related Value 100b TABLE

264 Appendix B f Commerce, Bureau of f Commerce, tion-relatedand goods . ent constitutes and petroleumrailroad –4.6 –5.2 –8.2 –10.6 –10.5 on data from U.S. Department o on data from U.S. 5 17.2 17.7 18.7 20.3 19.6 17.1 Gross private domestic investm Gross private cs (BTS), calculations based 5 71.8 71.6 71.0 70.3 70.4 71.8 74.4 76.4 0 17.4 17.2 16.9 16.6 16.1 16.0 16.6 17.0 onsumer, private business, and government purchases of transporta and government business, private onsumer, ed from transportation exports). 7 –2.5 –3.9 –5.2 –5.4 –5.1 oduct Accounts" available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaw, as of Feb. 24, 2003 as of Feb. at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaw, oduct Accounts" available -Related Final Demand by Type: 1990–2001 Type: by Final Demand -Related 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 ment 12.7 13.2 13.4 14.4 16.0 16. Percent U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statisti Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Total transportation-related final demand is the sum of all c Total pipelines only. SOURCE: "National Income and Pr Analysis, Economic services, and net exports transportation (i.e., imports subtract NOTES: Gross private domestic invest domestic private Gross Personal consumption 74.0 69.8 70.4 71. Government purchases 17.7 19.7 18.7 18. Net (exports minus exports imports) –4.3 –2. TABLE 101 Share 101 of Transportation TABLE

265 Transportation Statistics Annual Report merce, Bureau of Economic merce, merce, Bureau of Economic merce, sing, water transportation,sing, water trans- sing, water transportation, sing, water transpor- nishing services incidental to transportation hing servicesincidental to transportation (e.g., 261.8 288.7 301.9 313.7 306.1 4 248.9 257.9 268.6 282.5 270.3 in U.S. Total GDP: 1990–2001 Total in U.S. rban passenger transit, trucking and warehou rban passenger transit, tics, calculations based on data from U.S. Department calculations basedtics, on data from of U.S. Com istics, calculations based on data from U.S. Department calculations of Com based on dataistics, from U.S. ces to U.S. GDP and Its Share GDP and Its U.S. to ces ices to U.S. GDP and Its Share in U.S. Total GDP: 1990–2001 Total U.S. Its Shareand in GDP to U.S. ices tion services. Transportation services cover establishments fur establishments services cover tion services. Transportation on services. Transportation services cover establishments furnis establishments services cover on services. Transportation 185.9 193.6 201.2 218.6 225.1 243. 186.1 193.4 206 223.2 233.4 243.4 angement of passenger and freight transportation). 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 ude railroad transportation,ude railroad local and interu 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 ude railroad transportation,ude railroad local and interurbantrucking and warehou passenger transit, angement of passenger and freight transportation). Billions of chained 1996 dollars Billions of chained 1996 Billions of current dollars Billions of current U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Stat Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statis Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. For-hire transportation For-hire services incl transportation services For-hire incl GDP = Gross Domestic Product. GDP = Gross Domestic Product. Analysis, "Gross Domestic Product by Industry" available at http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn2/gpo.htm, as of February 2003. at http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn2/gpo.htm, Industry" "Gross Domestic Product by Analysis, available forwarding and packing services, and packing and the arr forwarding SOURCE: tation by air, pipelines (except natural gas), and transportati gas), natural (except pipelines air, by tation GDP of for-hire transportation services transportation GDP of for-hire (percent)GDP As a share of 180.6 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1 2.9 GDP of for-hire transportation services transportation GDP of for-hire 177.4 As a share of GDP (percent)GDP As a share of 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.0 KEY: KEY: NOTES: KEY: NOTES: portation by air, pipelines (except natural gas), and natural transporta pipelines (except portation air, by as of February 2003. at http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn2/gpo.htm, Industry" "Gross Domestic Product by Analysis, available (e.g., forwarding and packing services, and and the packing arr forwarding (e.g., SOURCE: TABLE 102a Value Added by For-Hire Transportation Servi Transportation For-Hire by Added Value 102a TABLE Serv Transportation For-Hire by Added Value 102b TABLE

266 Appendix B merce, Bureau of Economic Bureau merce, sing, water transportation,sing, water trans- nishing services incidental to transportation rban passenger transit, trucking and warehou rban passenger transit, istics, calculations based on data from U.S. Department calculations of Com basedon data fromU.S. istics, 7 10.4 10.1 10.1 9.6 9.2 8.8 8.3 8.9 9.2 tion services. Transportation services cover establishments fur services establishments cover tion services. Transportation angement of passenger and freight transportation). 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 ude railroad transportation,ude railroad local and interu ortation Value Added by Mode: 1990–2001Mode: by Added ortation Value t 7.1 6.7 6.4 6.3 5.9 5.9 5.5 5.9 6.0 6.3 6.1 6.4 natural gas 3.2 3.3 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.2 Percent U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Stat Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. For-hire transportation services For-hire incl GDP = Gross Domestic Product. Railroad transportation 10.0 11.2 10. Local interurbanand passenger transi warehousing and Trucking transportationWater Transportation by airPipelines, except 37.7 servicesTransportation 38.5 39.1 5.6 26.0 39.3 5.6 24.2 10.8 39.0 5.3 25.4 10.7 38.5 5.2 25.8 10.1 37.8 27.3 10.1 5.2 36.4 27.9 10.1 37.0 5.0 29.1 10.4 37.3 5.0 30.2 10.6 36.6 5.3 29.8 10.6 36.7 30.0 5.1 10.8 30.0 11.1 4.5 29.0 11.5 4.7 11.5 4.9 KEY: KEY: NOTES: portation by air, pipelines (except natural gas), natural and transporta pipelines (except portation air, by (e.g., forwarding and packing services, and and the packing arr forwarding (e.g., SOURCE: Analysis, "Gross Domestic Product by Industry" available at http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn2/gpo.htm, as of February 2003. at http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn2/gpo.htm, Industry" "Gross Domestic Product by Analysis, available TABLE 103 Share of For-Hire Transp Share 103 of For-Hire TABLE

267 Transportation Statistics Annual Report vs/ vs/ U.S. Depart- U.S. Depart- U.S. Economic Analysis, "National Income Economic Analysis, "National Income Economic Analysis, State and local portion 2000— for State and local portion 2000— for tation Statistics, "Government Transportation Finan- Transportation "Government tation Statistics, Finan- Transportation "Government tation Statistics, 4 95.8 96.4 98.1 107.0 118.9 113.6 113.6 118.9 107.0 4 95.8 96.4 98.1 8 30.8 30.7 37.7 1 45.9 46.0 46.5 48.0 48.9 48.2 42.6 48.6 6 93.7 96.4 100.5 111.2 126.9 125.8 rnment Finances," available at ftp://ftp2.census.gov/pub/outgoing/go rnment available Finances," at ftp://ftp2.census.gov/pub/outgoing/go rnment available Finances," U.S. Department Bureau of of Commerce, U.S. Department Bureau of of Commerce, U.S. ment Transportation-Related Revenues: 1990–2000 Revenues: ment Transportation-Related ment Transportation-Related Revenues: 1990–2000 Revenues: ment Transportation-Related e at http://www.bts.gov, as of February 2003. e at http://www.bts.gov, as of February 2003. e at http://www.bts.gov, U.S. Department of Transportation, of Transpor Bureau Department of Transportation, U.S. of Transpor Bureau Department of Transportation, U.S. Chain-type price index— Chain-type price index— 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Billions of chained 1996 dollars Billions of chained 1996 Billions of current dollars Billions of current Total92. 92.3 88.2 89.8 82.2 Total87. 85.2 77.4 80.3 69.8 Finance/, as of February 2003. Finance/, as of February 2003. ment of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, "State and Local Gove U.S. ment of Commerce, Census Bureau, "State and Local Gove U.S. ment of Commerce, cial Statistics Searchable Database," availabl Database," cial Statistics Searchable as of February 2003. at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/, 7.1, available table and Product Accounts Tables," availabl Database," cial Statistics Searchable as of February 2003. at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/, 7.1, available table and Product Accounts Tables," SOURCES: Except as noted— SOURCES: Except as noted— FederalState28. 29.9 Local 30.2 29.5 26.1 45. 44.7 41.3 43.3 40.2 15.9 16.7 18.5 19.1 19.7 20.8 17.7 17.0 21.4 21.8 22.4 FederalState 21.4 Local 26.0 27.2 30.2 30.7 27.4 25.9 31.4 34.6 36.6 42.9 44.8 46.0 41.4 39.1 38.9 47.7 13.7 14.8 17.6 18.6 19.7 16.4 15.4 21.3 52.0 50.0 22.3 46.8 51.6 23.3 54.1 24.9 TABLE 104a Federal, State, and Local Govern TABLE 104b Federal, State, and Local Govern TABLE

268 Appendix B ble t http:// U.S. Department U.S. Chain-type grants to state and local grants .doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/, as of .doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/, 2000 ds excluding federal grants. State grants. federal ds excluding uary 2003. tion Financial Statistics Searcha tation Financial Statistics Chain-type price index— U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department U.S. of Commerce, U.S. Transportation-Related Revenues Revenues Transportation-Related 2000 Mode: by Billions of current dollars U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, "State Department U.S. of Commerce, U.S. nditures From Own Funds: FY 1990–2000 From nditures Statistics, "Government Transporta "Government Statistics, Statistics, "Government Transpor "Government Statistics, including not only direct spending but also including not only direct spending but Total 125,847 HighwayTransitAirWaterPipelineGeneral support 87,800 12,674 21,627 3,682 25 40 TABLE 105b Federal, State, and Local Government 105b State,Federal, Government Local and TABLE onal Income and Product Accounts Tables," table 7.1, available a 7.1, available table onal Income and Product Accounts Tables," State and local portion 2000— for ys of state and local governments from all sources of fun ys of state and local governments Product Accounts Tables," table 7.1, available at http://www.bea 7.1, available table Product Accounts Tables," State and local portion 2000— for lable at ftp://ftp2.census.gov/pub/outgoing/govs/Finance/, as of Febr at ftp://ftp2.census.gov/pub/outgoing/govs/Finance/, lable ts of outlays of the federal government of the federal ts of outlays regated federal grants data are not available. grants regated federal Government Transportation-Related Expe Transportation-Related Government 2000 lated Revenues lated U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Bureauof Transportation Departmentof Transportation, U.S. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Billions of chained 1996 dollars Billions of chained 1996 dollars Billions of chained 1996 Transportation-Re Mode: 2000 by U.S. Department "Nati Bureau of Economic of Commerce, Analysis, U.S. Federal expenditures from own funds consis from own expenditures Federal Total 113,569 governments. State and local expenditures from own funds include outla from own State and local expenditures governments. and local data are reported together because disagg as noted—SOURCES: Except Database," available at http://www.bts.gov, as of February 2003. at http://www.bts.gov, available Database," NOTES: State and localState and Federal3838404142424141404144 Total 81 85 119 88 123 86 128 91 126 92 133 93 133 94 133 100 135 104 140 105 145 149 and Local Government Finances," available at ftp://ftp2.census.gov/pub/outgoing/govs/Finance/, as of February at ftp://ftp2.census.gov/pub/outgoing/govs/Finance/, 2003. available Finances," and Local Government HighwayTransitAirWaterPipeline supportGeneral 79,202 11,436 19,552 3,320 23 36 of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, "National Income and of Economic Analysis, Bureau Commerce, of February 2003. www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/, as of February 2003. www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/, price index— SOURCES: Except as noted— as of February 2003. at http://www.bts.gov, available Database," Searchable Census Bureau, "State and Local Finances," avai Government TABLE 105a Federal, State, and Local Government TABLE 106a Federal, State, and Local TABLE

269 Transportation Statistics Annual Report ble U.S. Department U.S. grants to state and local grants .doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/, as of .doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/, ds excluding federal grants. State grants. federal ds excluding on Financial Statistics Searcha Chain-type price index— U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, "State Department U.S. of Commerce, U.S. istics, "Government Transportati "Government istics, including not only direct spending but also including not only direct spending but ortation-Related Expenditures Own Funds:From FY 1990–2000 oduct Accounts Tables," table 7.1, available at http://www.bea 7.1, available table oduct Accounts Tables," State and local portion 2000— for ts of outlays of the federal government of the federal ts of outlays regated federal grants data are not available. grants regated federal 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Stat Bureau of Transportation Department ofTransportation, U.S. Billions of current dollars Billions of current Federal expenditures from own funds consis from own expenditures Federal governments. State and local expenditures from own funds include outlays of state funds and from from State local governments include outlays all own and sourceslocal expenditures of fun governments. and local data are reported together because disagg SOURCES: Except as noted— eea 7075797986909397104111117 localState and Federal Total 31 33 101 35 108 37 115 40 116 41 126 41 131 42 133 41 138 146 44 155 48 165 Database," available at http://www.bts.gov, as of February 2003. at http://www.bts.gov, available Database," NOTES: and Local Government Finances," available at ftp://ftp2.census.gov/pub/outgoing/govs/Finance/, as of February at ftp://ftp2.census.gov/pub/outgoing/govs/Finance/, 2003. available Finances," and Local Government February 2003. of Commerce, "NationalBureau ofof Commerce, Economic Analysis, Income and Pr TABLE 106b Federal, State, and Local Government Transp 106b Federal, State, Government Local and TABLE

270 Appendix B U.S. ing/govs/Finance/ 2000 are not available. cal governments from all cal governments me and Product Accounts State andState local portion 2000— for Analysis, "National Inco Analysis, Transportation-Related Expenditures Expenditures Transportation-Related 2000 FY Funds: Own From Mode by dollars Millions of chained 1996 of the federal government including government not only direct spend- of the federal Total 148,775 HighwayTransitRailAirWaterPipelineGeneral support 93,553 28,243 712 18,814 7,193 236 25 TABLE 107b Shares of Federal, State, and Local Government 107b State, Local Government Shares of Federal, and TABLE are reported together because disaggregated federal grants dataare reported grants together becausefederal disaggregated local expenditures from own funds include outlays of state and lo funds include outlays from own local expenditures US Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, "Government Trans- "Government Statistics, Bureau of Transportation US Department of Transportation, available at http://www.bts.gov, as of February 2003. at http://www.bts.gov, available U.S. DepartmentBureau of Economic of Commerce, U.S. 2000 ted Expenditures Expenditures ted Federal expenditures from own funds consists of outlays funds consists of outlays from own expenditures Federal l, State, and Local Government Government Local and l, State, Chain-type price index— Transportation-Rela 2000 FY Funds: Own From Mode by dollars Millions of current Total 165,062 Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, "State and Local Government Finances," available at ftp://ftp2.census.gov/pub/outgo Census Bureau, available Finances," "State and Local Government Department U.S. of Commerce, as of February, 2003. Tables," table 7.1, available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/, as of February 2003. at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/, 7.1, available table Tables," HighwayTransitRailAirWaterPipeline supportGeneral 103,838 31,395 781 20,820 7,942 259 27 ing but also grants to state and local governments. State and to state and local governments. also grants ing but NOTES for Tables 107a and 107b: Tables for NOTES sources of funds excluding federal grants. State and local data grants. federal sources of funds excluding 107a and 107b: Except as noted— Tables SOURCES for portation Database," Financial Statistics Searchable TABLE 107a Shares of Federa Shares 107aof TABLE

271 Transportation Statistics Annual Report ," draft, compiled ," draft, compiled ," draft, rsonal communications rsonal communications rsonal communications uction Expenditures Tables, uction Expenditures Tables, uction Expenditures Tables, ructures for all modes except all modes except ructures for all modes except ructures for ilable for state and local infrastructure for ilable state and local infrastructure for ilable ansportation and st facilities ansportation and st facilities ace Statistics," Detailed Constr ace Statistics," Detailed Constr ace Statistics," 63.9 64.9 69.5 72.3 77.1 76.0 62.5 65.3 71.2 76.0 84.0 86.1 and Rolling Stock: 1990–2000 Rolling Stock: and .6 7.6 7.9 9.3 9.6 9.9 10.5 59.2 56.3 57.0 60.2 62.7 67.2 65.5 54.6 54.6 57.4 62.9 67.0 74.5 76.4 or construction value of tr or construction value of tr or construction value Statistics, "Transportation Investment-Concepts, Data and Analysis Investment-Concepts, "Transportation Statistics, Data and Analysis Investment-Concepts, "Transportation Statistics, ic Analysis (BEA), "Fixed Assets and Consumer Durables," and Pe and Assets Consumer Durables," (BEA), "Fixed Analysis ic and Pe and Assets Consumer Durables," (BEA), "Fixed Analysis ic "Value of Construction Put in Pl "Value of Construction Put in Pl "Value available separately. Rail infrastructure data are only ava separately. available Rail infrastructure data are only ava separately. available ortation Infrastructure ortation Infrastructure 1990–2000 and Rolling Stock: k consists of government outlays for motor vehicles. for outlays k consists of government motor vehicles. for outlays k consists of government re constitutes the purchase re constitutes the purchase 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Billions of current dollars Billions of current Billions of chained 1996 dollars Billions of chained 1996 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Investment in transportation Investment infrastructu in transportation Investment infrastructu pipeline. Data on state are not pipeline. and local transportation investment Data on state are not pipeline. and local transportation investment with BEA; and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Department U.S. of Commerce, with andBEA; U.S. as of February 2003. at http://www.census.gov, available Census Bureau, Department U.S. of Commerce, with andBEA; U.S. as of February 2003. at http://www.census.gov, available investment from 1993 to 2000. Investment in rolling stoc from 1993 to 2000. Investment investment Department Bureau of Econom of Commerce, based on data from U.S. in rolling stoc from 1993 to 2000. Investment investment Department Bureau of Econom of Commerce, based on data from U.S. SOURCES: SOURCES: InfrastructureRolling stockTotal 44.8 6.2 46.1 46.5 5.2 51.0 50.6 6.6 51.3 7.0 53.1 57.6 7.5 62.1 7.9 7.9 8.3 9.0 9.4 9.6 NOTES: NOTES: InfrastructureRolling stockTotal 52.0 7.0 52.5 52.8 6.8 59.0 56.3 6.7 59.2 7.4 59.5 63.7 7 66.8 TABLE 108a Gross Government Investments in Transp Investments Government Gross 108a TABLE Transp in Investments Government Gross 108b TABLE

272 Appendix B ," draft, compiled ," draft, compiled ," draft, rsonal communications rsonal communications rsonal communications uction Expenditures Tables, uction Expenditures Tables, uction Expenditures Tables, ructures for all modes except all modes except ructures for all modes except ructures for ilable for state and local infrastructure for ilable state and local infrastructure for ilable ansportation and st facilities ansportation and st facilities ace Statistics," Detailed Constr ace Statistics," Detailed Constr ace Statistics," Level of Government: 1990–2000 of Government: Level Level of Government: 1990–2000 of Government: Level 56.8 57.4 60.6 56.8 57.4 60.6 63.2 68.3 66.9 54.6 57.4 62.9 67.0 74.5 76.4 55.7 53.0 53.4 57.2 59.5 64.3 63.0 50.9 50.9 53.4 59.4 63.1 70.3 72.1 or construction value of tr or construction value of tr or construction value Statistics, "Transportation Investment-Concepts, Data and Analysis Investment-Concepts, "Transportation Statistics, Data and Analysis Investment-Concepts, "Transportation Statistics, ic Analysis (BEA), "Fixed Assets and Consumer Durables," and Pe and Assets Consumer Durables," (BEA), "Fixed Analysis ic and Pe and Assets Consumer Durables," (BEA), "Fixed Analysis ic "Value of Construction Put in Pl "Value of Construction Put in Pl "Value tation Infrastructure by by tation Infrastructure tation Infrastructure by tation Infrastructure by available separately. Rail infrastructure data are only ava separately. available Rail infrastructure data are only ava separately. available k consists of government outlays for motor vehicles. for outlays k consists of government motor vehicles. for outlays k consists of government re constitutes the purchase re constitutes the purchase 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 19981990 1999 1991 2000 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Billions of chained 1996 dollars Billions of chained 1996 dollars Billions of current U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Investment in transportation Investment infrastructu in transportation Investment infrastructu pipeline. Data on state are not pipeline. and local transportation investment Data on state are not pipeline. and local transportation investment with BEA; and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Department U.S. of Commerce, with andBEA; U.S. as of February 2003. at http://www.census.gov, available Census Bureau, Department U.S. of Commerce, with andBEA; U.S. as of February 2003. at http://www.census.gov, available investment from 1993 to 2000. Investment in rolling stoc from 1993 to 2000. Investment investment Department Bureau of Econom of Commerce, based on data from U.S. in rolling stoc from 1993 to 2000. Investment investment Department Bureau of Econom of Commerce, based on data from U.S. SOURCES: SOURCES: FederallocalState and Total 49.6 2.4 49.5 2.9 52.0 52.5 56.7 59.7 52.8 50.1 2.7 53.2 3.5Federal 4.0localState and Total 3.8 3.9 42.8 2.0 3.4 43.6 2.6 44.8 44.1 3.7 2.4 46.1 47.4 4.0 46.5 3.1 3.9 50.6 3.7 54.6 3.7 3.9 3.5 3.9 4.3 4.4 NOTES: NOTES: TABLE 109a Gross Government Investment in Transpor Investment Government Gross 109a TABLE in Transpor Investment Government Gross 109b TABLE

273 Transportation Statistics Annual Report ," draft, compiled ," draft, rsonal communications rsonal communications uction Expenditures Tables, uction Expenditures Tables, ructures for all modes except all modes except ructures for ilable for state and local infrastructure for ilable ansportation and st facilities ace Statistics," Detailed Constr ace Statistics," 40.4 41.0 43.9 46.056.8 49.9 57.4 48.2 60.6 63.2 68.3 66.9 or construction value of tr or construction value Statistics, "Transportation Investment-Concepts, Data and Analysis Investment-Concepts, "Transportation Statistics, ic Analysis (BEA), "Fixed Assets and Consumer Durables," and Pe and Assets Consumer Durables," (BEA), "Fixed Analysis ic "Value of Construction Put in Pl "Value available separately. Rail infrastructure data are only ava separately. available ansportation1990–2000 Mode: Infrastructureby k consists of government outlays for motor vehicles. for outlays k consists of government re constitutes the purchase 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Billions of chained 1996 dollars Billions of chained 1996 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Investment in transportation Investment infrastructu U data = are unavailable. pipeline. Data on state are not pipeline. and local transportation investment with BEA; and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Department U.S. of Commerce, with andBEA; U.S. as of February 2003. at http://www.census.gov, available investment from 1993 to 2000. Investment in rolling stoc from 1993 to 2000. Investment investment Department Bureau of Econom of Commerce, based on data from U.S. SOURCES: AirWaterTransitRailroad 5.5Total 1.6 6.3 6.4 U 1.5 6.4 52.0 6.8 1.5 U 6.2 52.5 8.0 1.5 52.8 U 6.9 7.4 1.5 56.7 0.4 7.9 6.4 1.5 59.7 0.5 8.0 6.4 1.7 0.5 7.9 6.9 1.7 0.4 7.7 7.6 1.8 0.4 7.2 8.1 2.0 0.5 7.2 7.7 2.1 1.0 7.5 1.4 Highway 38.6 38.2 38.3 40.0 42.3 KEY: NOTES: TABLE 110a Gross Government Investment in Tr in Investment Government Gross 110a TABLE

274 Appendix B ," draft, compiled ," draft, rsonal communications rsonal communications uction Expenditures Tables, uction Expenditures Tables, ructures for all modes except all modes except ructures for ilable for state and local infrastructure for ilable ansportation and st facilities ace Statistics," Detailed Constr ace Statistics," (Washington, DC: August 2002), table 2.1. 2002), table DC: August (Washington, 4.1 35.1 35.2 35.0 35.5 35.7 33.8 38.7 41.0 45.6 48.8 54.7 55.5 ture by Mode: 1990–2000 Mode: ture by 1 18.5 19.55 18.9 24.0 18.7 24.5 19.2 24.8 19.8 25.4 19.3 26.2 26.9 26.9 or construction value of tr or construction value Monthly Energy Review Monthly Energy Statistics, "Transportation Investment-Concepts, Data and Analysis Investment-Concepts, "Transportation Statistics, ic Analysis (BEA), "Fixed Assets and Consumer Durables," and Pe and Assets Consumer Durables," (BEA), "Fixed Analysis ic "Value of Construction Put in Pl "Value available separately. Rail infrastructure data are only ava separately. available ansportation Infrastruc k consists of government outlays for motor vehicles. for outlays k consists of government re constitutes the purchase gy Information Administration, Administration, Information gy 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Billions of current dollars Billions of current Quadrillion British thermal units (BTU) units British thermal Quadrillion U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. U.S. Department of Energy, Ener Department of Energy, U.S. Investment in transportation Investment infrastructu U data = are unavailable. pipeline. Data on state are not pipeline. and local transportation investment with BEA; and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Department U.S. of Commerce, with andBEA; U.S. as of February 2003. at http://www.census.gov, available investment from 1993 to 2000. Investment in rolling stoc from 1993 to 2000. Investment investment Department Bureau of Econom of Commerce, based on data from U.S. SOURCES: KEY: NOTES: SOURCE: AirWaterTransitRailroad 4.7Total 1.4 5.5 5.6 U 1.3 5.7 45 6.1 1.3 U 5.6 7.2 46 1.4 U 6.2 6.9 47 1.4 0.3 7.3 50.6 6.2 1.5 0.5 7.7 54.6 6.4 1.7 0.5 7.9 54.6 7.2 1.7 0.4 57.4 8.0 8.1 1.9 62.9 0.4 7.7 8.8 2.1 67.0 0.6 7.9 8.7 74.5 2.3 1.0 8.5 76.4 1.4 Highway 33.2 33.5 33.6 35.4 38.5 ResidentialCommercialIndustrialTransportation 16.9 13.2 17.4 13.4 22.5 31.7 17.3 13.3 22.1 31.4 18.1 13.6 22.5 32.5 18. 13.9 22.9 32.7 14.4 23. 33.7 14.9 3 15.4 15.6 15.9 16.4 16.4 TABLE 110b Gross Government Investment in Tr Investment Government Gross 110b TABLE Sector: 1990–2001 Consumptionby Energy U.S. 111 TABLE

275 Transportation Statistics Annual Report , available at http:// , available , available at http:// , available valent to 7.75 billion gallons valent Economic Analysis, "National Income and Economic Analysis, Economic Analysis, "National Income and Economic Analysis, Annual Energy Review 2001 Review Energy Annual Annual Energy Review 2001 Review Energy Annual 51 24.81 25.35 26.09 26.70 26.75 1.11 1.12 1.15 1.18 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.18 1.15 1.12 1.11 gy Information Adminstration, Information Adminstration, gy gy Information Adminstration, Information Adminstration, gy 3,199 3,176 3,137 3,040 2,979 2,945 2,905 2,903 2,905 2,945 2,979 3,040 3,137 3,176 3,199 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.92 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.90 0.92 0.95 0.96 0.97 U.S. Department Bureau of of Commerce, U.S. U.S. Department Bureau of of Commerce, U.S. r gasoline is 129,024 BTUquadrillion per gallon. One is equi BTU GDP— GDP— 1.03 1.06 1.10 1.13 1.17 1.22 1.27 1.33 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.33 1.27 1.22 1.17 1.13 1.10 1.06 1.03 Use and Gross Domestic Product: 1991–2001Product: Domestic Use and Gross U.S. Department of Energy, Ener Department of Energy, U.S. U.S. Department of Energy, Ener Department of Energy, U.S. gy Use and Gross Domestic Product: 1991–2001 Domestic Product: Gross and gy Use 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 22.12 22.46 22.88 23.50 23.96 24. 6,676 6,880 7,063 7,348 7,544 7,813 8,160 8,509 8,859 9,191 9,215 9,191 8,859 8,509 8,160 7,813 7,544 7,348 7,063 6,880 6,676 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 gy use 1.00 1.02 1.03 1.06 1.08 1.06 1.03 use1.02 gy 1.00 Index: 1991 = 1.0 BTU = British thermal units. The average heat content of moto BTU British = thermal The average units. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) energy use per GDPTransportation 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 3,240 GDP 3,264 per 3,314 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) use (Billions of chained 1996 dollars) energy Transportation Transportation sector ener Transportation Transportation sector energy use Transportation BTU) (Quadrillion www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html, as of February 2003. www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html, SOURCES: Transportation sector use— energy SOURCES: Transportation KEY: Product Account Tables," available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm, as of February 2003. at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm, available Account Tables," Product as of February 2003. www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html, of motor gasoline. sector use— energy SOURCES: Transportation Product Account Tables," available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm, as of February 2003. at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm, available Account Tables," Product TABLE 112a Transportation Sector Energy Sector Transportation 112a TABLE Sector Ener Transportation 112b TABLE

276 Appendix B , available at http:// , available Annual Energy Review 2001 Review Energy Annual Economic Analysis, "National Income and Economic Analysis, 57 4.79 4.92 4.80 4.98 4.89 4.67 1.10 1.21 1.17 1.08 1.18 1.22 1.20 11.72 11.96 12.13 12.46 12.83 13.08 13.16 U.S. Department Bureau of of Commerce, U.S. GDP— U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Adminstration, Adminstration, Information Energy Department of Energy, U.S. 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Million barrels per day www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html, as of February 2003. www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html, SOURCES: Transportation Sector Energy Use— Sector Energy SOURCES: Transportation TransportationIndustryBuildings 10.97 Utilities 10.80 10.94 4.32 11.18 1.15 11.48 4.25 1.14 0.56 4.54 1.13 0.53 4.43 1.14 0.43 4.66 1.11 0.49 4. 0.47 0.33 0.36 0.41 0.58 0.54 0.51 0.57 Product Account Tables," available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm, as of February 2003. at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm, available Account Tables," Product TABLE 113 U.S. Petroleum Use by Sector: 1990–2001 Sector: by Use Petroleum U.S. 113 TABLE

277 Transportation Statistics Annual Report

(Washington, DC: 2002), p. 6. DC: 2002), p. (Washington, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Bureau of Transportation Railroad Facts 2003 Railroad Facts 60 0.44 0.52 0.84 0.71 0.65 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Administration, Information Energy Department of Energy, U.S. 60 0.68 0.68 0.57 0.55 0.87 0.85 0.73 61 0.68 0.67 0.55 0.53 0.82 0.78 0.66 1.010.54 1.12 0.65 1.13 0.61 0.98 0.45 1.06 0.54 1.31 0.90 1.32 0.78 1.32 0.72 2002 fuel prices— 1.02 1.12 1.11 0.94 1.01 1.22 1.21 1.19 U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), (USDOT), Department of Transportation U.S. and Association of American Railroads, 1991–2001 fuel prices—

All categories exclude taxes, except motor gasoline, which includes taxes. except taxes, All categories exclude (Washington, DC: 2002), table 3-8. DC: 2002), table (Washington, 0.66 0.62 0.56 0.55 0.65 0. 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), tables 9.4 and 9.7; DC: 2002), tables (Washington, Current dollars per gallon Chained 1996 dollars per Chained gallon l ye 1.331.301.251.221.231.291.271.081.171.461.401.30 types all 1.201.191.171.171.211.291.291.121.221.561.531.44 types all Aviation gasolineAviation 1.05 1.03 0.99 0.96 Diesel no. 2 0.720.670.640.580.570.680.630.480.560.870.770.69 no. 0.210.200.170.160.180.210.190.120.170.260.210.22 oil 2 gasoline, Motor 0.650.620.600.550.560.680.640.490.580.940.840.76 Diesel Railroad dieselCrude no. 0.75 0.69 0.190.180.160.160.170.210.190.130.180.280.230.24 oil 0.67 0.62Jet fuel, kerosene gasoline, Motor 0. 0.65Diesel 0.61Railroad dieselCrude 0.58 0.67 0.53 0.63 0.63 0.60 0. Aviation gasolineAviation 1.17 1.12 1.05 1.00 Jet fuel, kerosene 0.73 NOTE FOR TABLES 114a AND 114b: FOR TABLES NOTE 114a AND 114b: SOURCES FOR TABLES National Transportation Statistics 2002 National Transportation Monthly Energy Review Monthly Energy TABLE 114b Transportation Fuel Prices: 1991–2002 Transportation 114b TABLE TABLE 114a Transportation Fuel Prices: 1991–2002 Fuel Transportation 114a TABLE

278 Appendix B (Washington, (Washington, (Washington, U.S. Department of U.S. , as of April 2003. National Transportation Statistics National Transportation Statistics National Transportation Monthly Energy Review Energy Monthly Review Energy Monthly Per capita vehicle- and aircraft-miles aircraft-miles and vehicle- capita Per aircraft-miles and vehicle- capita Per Deflator— (Washington, DC: 2002), p. 6. 2002), DC: p. (Washington, 6. 2002), DC: p. (Washington, (Washington, DC: 2002), table 1-29; and U.S. Department of Commerce, 1-29; and DC: 2002), U.S. table (Washington, Department of Commerce, 1-29; and DC: 2002), U.S. table (Washington, ,089 9,218 9,387 9,531 9,635 9,729 9,759 U ,089 9,218 9,387 9,531 9,635 9,729 9,759 U r Vehicle-Miles Traveled: 1991–2001 Traveled: Vehicle-Miles r Railroad Facts 2003 Railroad Facts 2003 Railroad Facts U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Information Administration, Energy Department of U.S. Energy, Information Administration, Energy Department of U.S. Energy, per Capita Motor Vehicle-Miles Traveled: 1991–2001 Traveled: Motor Vehicle-Miles per Capita ional Income and Product Account Tables," table 7.1, available at http://www.bea.gov 7.1, available table ional Income and Product Account Tables," National Transportation Statistics 2002 National Transportation Statistics 2002 National Transportation DB), available at http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbnew.html, as of April 2003. at http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbnew.html, DB), available as of April 2003. at http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbnew.html, DB), available 2002 Fuel Prices— 2002 Fuel Prices— U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Bureau of Transportation (USDOT), Department of Transportation U.S. Statistics (BTS), Bureau of Transportation (USDOT), Department of Transportation U.S. Compared with per Capita Moto USDOT, BTS, BTS, USDOT, BTS, USDOT, 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Chained 1996 dollars per Chained gallon Current dollars per gallon 1991–2001 fuel prices— 1991–2001 fuel prices—

U data = are unavailable. U data = are unavailable. (Washington, DC: 2002), table 3-8. table DC: 2002), (Washington, 3-8. table DC: 2002), (Washington, DC: 2002), tables 9.4 and 9.7; Association of American Railroads, tables DC: 2002), 9.4 and 9.7; Association of American Railroads, tables DC: 2002), 2002 from— data using computed Census Bureau, International Database (I "Nat Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce, 2002 from— data using computed Census Bureau, International Database (I KEY: SOURCES: KEY: SOURCES: Gasoline price1.331.301.251.221.231.291.271.081.171.461.401.30 Gasoline capitaVMT per 9,164 9,350 9,444 9,602 9 Gasoline pricecapitaVMT per 1.20 9,164 1.19 9,350 1.17 9,444 9,602 1.17 9 1.21 1.29 1.29 1.12 1.22 1.56 1.53 1.44 TABLE 115a Motor Fuel Prices Compared Motor Fuel 115a with TABLE Motor Fuel Prices 115b TABLE

279 Transportation Statistics Annual Report (Washington, (Washington, (Washington, U.S. Department of U.S. , as of April 2003. National Transportation Statistics National Transportation Statistics National Transportation Monthly Energy Review Energy Monthly Review Energy Monthly Per capita vehicle- and aircraft-miles aircraft-miles and vehicle- capita Per aircraft-miles and vehicle- capita Per Deflator— (Washington, DC: 2002), p. 6. 2002), DC: p. (Washington, 6. 2002), DC: p. (Washington, (Washington, DC: 2002), table 1-29; and U.S. Department of Commerce, 1-29; and DC: 2002), U.S. table (Washington, Department of Commerce, 1-29; and DC: 2002), U.S. table (Washington, iles Traveled: 1991–2001 iles Traveled: Railroad Facts 2003 Railroad Facts 2003 Railroad Facts U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Information Administration, Energy Department of U.S. Energy, Information Administration, Energy Department of U.S. Energy, per Capita Aircraft-M th per Capita Aircraft-Miles Traveled: 1991–2001 Traveled: th per Capita Aircraft-Miles ional Income and Product Account Tables," table 7.1, available at http://www.bea.gov 7.1, available table ional Income and Product Account Tables," National Transportation Statistics 2002 National Transportation Statistics 2002 National Transportation 6 16.0 16.6 17.4 17.8 18.0 18.2 19.1 20.1 19.5 U 6 16.0 16.6 17.4 17.8 18.0 18.2 19.1 20.1 19.5 U DB), available at http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbnew.html, as of April 2003. at http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbnew.html, DB), available as of April 2003. at http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idbnew.html, DB), available 2002 Fuel Prices— 2002 Fuel Prices— U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Bureau of Transportation (USDOT), Department of Transportation U.S. Statistics (BTS), Bureau of Transportation (USDOT), Department of Transportation U.S. USDOT, BTS, BTS, USDOT, BTS, USDOT, 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Chained 1996 dollars per Chained gallon Current dollars per gallon 1991–2001 fuel prices— 1991–2001 fuel prices—

U data = are unavailable. U data = are unavailable. (Washington, DC: 2002), table 3-8. table DC: 2002), (Washington, 3-8. table DC: 2002), (Washington, DC: 2002), tables 9.4 and 9.7; Association of American Railroads, tables DC: 2002), 9.4 and 9.7; Association of American Railroads, tables DC: 2002), 2002 from— data using computed Census Bureau, International Database (I "Nat Bureau of Economic Analysis, Commerce, 2002 from— data using computed Census Bureau, International Database (I Jetprice fuel Vehicle-miles 0.65 15.2 0.61 15. 0.58 0.53 0.54 0.65 0.61 0.45 0.54 0.90 0.78 0.72 Jetprice fuel Vehicle-miles 0.73 15.2 0.66 15. 0.62 0.56 0.55 0.65 0.60 0.44 0.52 0.84 0.71 0.65 KEY: SOURCES: KEY: SOURCES: TABLE 116a Jet Fuel Prices Compared with Fuel Prices Compared Jet 116a TABLE FuelCompared PricesJet wi 116b TABLE

280 Appendix B National National excluded because those excluded because those excluded 003. 003. tions were estimatedtions were from the estimatedtions were from the Transit energy use calculated energy Transit use calculated energy Transit 631 16,033 16,399 16,78717,416 17,355 a for passenger and freight opera a for passenger and freight opera a for ot be disaggregated. Transit bus data are bus Transit ot be disaggregated. data are bus Transit ot be disaggregated. 996 4,082 4,120 4,247 4,376 4,497 4,620 4,737 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 aviation fuel consumption dat aviation fuel consumption dat aviation passenger and data freight operations cann passenger and data freight operations cann Transit Statistics, tables 30 and 33, available at http://www.apta.com, as of May 2 as of May at http://www.apta.com, 30 and 33, available tables Statistics, Transit 2 as of May at http://www.apta.com, 30 and 33, available tables Statistics, Transit onsumption, and Energy Efficiency: 1990–2000 Efficiency: onsumption, and Energy 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 ergy Consumption, and Energy Energy and Consumption, ergy (Washington, DC: 2002), tables 1-34, 4-6, and 4-8, available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of May 2003. as of May at http://www.bts.gov/, 1-34, 4-6, and 4-8, available DC: 2002), tables (Washington, 2003. as of May at http://www.bts.gov/, 1-34, 4-6, and 4-8, available DC: 2002), tables (Washington, iation fuel consumption. iation fuel consumption. on BTU) 14,582 14,16714,668 15,123 15,404 15, Efficiency: 1990–2000Efficiency: Index: 1990 = 1.00 General aviation data are excluded because data are excluded aviation General because data are excluded aviation General American Public Transportation Association, Association, Transportation American Public Association, Transportation American Public BTU = British thermal unit; passenger-miles. PM = BTU = British thermal unit; passenger-miles. PM = from— from— Energy consumption (trilli consumption Energy (PM/BTU) efficiency Energy 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 Passenger-miles (billions)Passenger-miles 3,787 3,8153,925 3, total commercial domestic av total commercial use and energy (unless otherwise noted)— SOURCES: Passenger-miles domestic av total commercial use and energy (unless otherwise noted)— SOURCES: Passenger-miles operations are included in highway bus data. Commercial domestic bus are included in highway operations Statistics 2002 Transportation data. Commercial domestic bus are included in highway operations Statistics 2002 Transportation KEY: NOTES: KEY: NOTES: Passenger-milesEnergy consumptionEnergy efficiency(PM/BTU) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.01 0.97 1.03 1.04 1.01 1.02 1.06 1.04 1.02 1.08 1.06 1.02 1.09 1.07 1.02 1.12 1.10 1.03 1.16 1.12 1.03 1.19 1.15 1.02 1.22 1.19 1.05 1.25 1.19 TABLE 117a Passenger-Miles, En Passenger-Miles, 117a TABLE C Energy 117b Passenger-Miles, TABLE

281 Transportation Statistics Annual Report The Eno The Eno National Transporta- National Transporta- ata are excluded from ata are excluded data are excluded from data are excluded on data for passenger and freight on data for on data for passenger and freight on data for ton-miles data include all types of ton-miles data include all types of Truck ton-miles for 2000— ton-miles for Truck Truck ton-miles for 2000— ton-miles for Truck iation fuel consumpti iation fuel consumpti ta are excluded because ta are excluded ta are excluded because ta are excluded Commercial domestic av Commercial domestic av ations data cannot be disaggregated. Marine gasoline use d l vehicles. Pipeline da l vehicles. l vehicles. Pipeline da l vehicles. Efficiency: 1990-2000 Efficiency: operations data cannot beoperations disaggregated. Marine gasoline use 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 8, available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of May 2003. of May as at http://www.bts.gov/, available 8, 8, available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of May 2003. of May as at http://www.bts.gov/, available 8, U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Statistics, Bureau of Transportation Department of Transportation, U.S. on fuel consumption. on fuel on fuel consumption. on fuel 1.02 1.04 1.05 1.03 1.03 1.02 0.97 0.96 0.93 233 3,3373,364 3,5273,648 3,7253,682 3,7103,780 3,818 , 19th Edition (Washington, DC: 2002), page 45. , 19th Edition (Washington, , 19th Edition (Washington, DC: 2002), page 45. , 19th Edition (Washington, nsumption, and Energy Efficiency: 1990-2000 Efficiency: nsumption, and Energy nsumption, and Energy and nsumption, mmercial domestic aviati mmercial domestic aviati 6,175 6,191 6,260 6,249 6,605 6,942 7,060 7,090 7,362 7,624 7,931 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 umption data are available for natural gas only. natural for umption data are available umption data are available for natural gas only. natural for umption data are available marine gasoline is used primarily in recreationa marine gasoline is used primarily in recreationa Transportation in America Transportation Transportation in America Transportation (Washington, DC: 2002), tables 1-34,1-44, 4-6, and 4- tables DC: 2002), (Washington, (Washington, DC: 2002), tables 1-34,1-44, 4-6, and 4- tables DC: 2002), (Washington, Index: 1990 = 1.00 General aviation data are excluded because passenger and freight oper data are excluded aviation General General aviation data are excluded because passenger and freight data are excluded aviation General BTU = British thermal unit; TM = ton-miles. BTU = British thermal unit; TM = ton-miles. Transportation Foundation, Foundation, Transportation tion Statistics 2002 SOURCES: Ton-miles and energy use (unless and otherwise noted)— energy SOURCES: Ton-miles Transportation Foundation, Foundation, Transportation SOURCES: Ton-miles and energy use (unless and otherwise noted)— energy SOURCES: Ton-miles tion Statistics 2002 petroleum products, and energy cons and energy petroleum products, estimated were from the total operations co petroleum products, and energy cons and energy petroleum products, estimated were from the total operations co freight energy use total because freight energy Ton-milesEnergy consumption(TM/BTU) efficiency Energy 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.05 1.02 1.06 1.07 1.12 1.13 1.17 1.15 1.19 1.15 1.17 1.22 1.18 1.27 1.21 1.32 1.23 freight energy use total because freight energy KEY: NOTES: KEY: NOTES: Ton-miles (billions)Ton-miles (trillion BTU) consumption Energy (TM/BTU) efficiency Energy 3,196 0.00053, 0.0005 0.0005 TABLE 118a Freight Ton-Miles, Energy Co Energy Ton-Miles, Freight 118a TABLE Co Energy Freight Ton-Miles, 118b TABLE

282