Transportation Performance Index. Key Findings

Similar documents
PRODUCER ANNUITY SUITABILITY TRAINING REQUIREMENTS BY STATE As of September 11, 2017

Older consumers and student loan debt by state

2016 Workers compensation premium index rates

Comparative Revenues and Revenue Forecasts Prepared By: Bureau of Legislative Research Fiscal Services Division State of Arkansas

Tax Freedom Day 2018 is April 19th

Alaska Transportation Finance Study Alaska Municipal League

Age of Insured Discount

TCJA and the States Responding to SALT Limits

Florida 1/1/2016 Workers Compensation Rate Filing

Tax Freedom Day 2019 is April 16th

The Acquisition of Regions Insurance Group. April 6, 2018

Oregon: Where Taxes Are Low, Fees Are High and Revenue Is Slightly Below Average

Property Tax Relief in New England

2018 National Electric Rate Study

ehealth, Inc Fall Cost Report for Individual and Family Policyholders

State of the Automotive Finance Market

Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center

Cost and Coverage Implications of the ACA Medicaid Expansion: National and State by State Analysis

State Treatment of Social Security Treatment of Pension Income Other Income Tax Breaks Property Tax Breaks

Local Anesthesia Administration by Dental Hygienists State Chart

The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company Term Portfolio

STATE MOTOR FUEL TAX INCREASES:

Who s Above the Social Security Payroll Tax Cap? BY NICOLE WOO, JANELLE JONES, AND JOHN SCHMITT*

STATE MOTOR FUEL TAX INCREASES:

Eye on the South Carolina Housing Market presented at 2008 HBA of South Carolina State Convention August 1, 2008

Taxing Investment Income in the States New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute 2 nd Annual Budget and Policy Conference Concord, NH January 23, 2015

Tax Breaks for Elderly Taxpayers in the States in 2016

The Economics of Homelessness

Charts with Analysis: Tax Tax Type: Sales and Use Tax Topic: Cash for Clunkers Payments

Charles Gullickson (Penn Treaty/ANIC Task Force Chair), Richard Klipstein (NOLHGA)

ACORD Forms Updated in AMS R1

State Trust Fund Solvency

2016 GEHA. dental. FEDVIP Plans. let life happen. gehadental.com

Just The Facts: On The Ground SIF Utilization

States and Medicaid Provider Taxes or Fees

Fiduciary Tax Returns

COMPARISON OF ABA MODEL RULE FOR REGISTRATION OF IN-HOUSE COUNSEL WITH STATE VERSIONS

medicaid a n d t h e How will the Medicaid Expansion for Adults Impact Eligibility and Coverage? Key Findings in Brief

PORTFOLIO REVENUE EXPENSES PERFORMANCE WATCHLIST

SIGNIFICANT PROVISIONS OF STATE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE LAWS JANUARY 2008

MEMORANDUM. SUBJECT: Benchmarks for the Second Half of 2008 & 12 Months Ending 12/31/08

SCHIP: Let the Discussions Begin

Uniform Consent to Service of Process

Obamacare in Pictures. Visualizing the Effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Percent of Employees Waiving Coverage 27.0% 30.6% 29.1% 23.4% 24.9%

Medicare Alert: Temporary Member Access

Report to Congressional Defense Committees

The State Tax Implications of Federal Tax Reform Legislation

Unemployment Insurance Benefit Adequacy: How many? How much? How Long?

Zions Bank Economic Overview

STATE TAX WITHHOLDING GUIDELINES

2018 ADDENDUM INSTRUCTIONS

Alternative Paths to Medicaid Expansion

DOWNLOAD OR READ : DEVELOPMENT OF THE INCOME SMOOTHING LITERATURE VOL 4 A FOCUS ON THE UNITED STATES PDF EBOOK EPUB MOBI

36 Million Without Health Insurance in 2014; Decreases in Uninsurance Between 2013 and 2014 Varied by State

INTERIM SUMMARY REPORT ON RISK ADJUSTMENT FOR THE 2016 BENEFIT YEAR

MARKET TRENDS: MEDICARE SUPPLEMENT. Gorman Health Group, LLC

PLEASE NOTE: Required American Equity specific Product Training must be completed PRIOR to soliciting an Application to A

Obamacare in Pictures

The Great Recession of 2008

Federal Tax Reform Impact on 2019 Legislative Sessions: GILTI

NCSL Midwest States Fiscal Leaders Forum. March 10, 2017

< Executive Summary > Ready Mixed Concrete Industry Data Report Edition

Black Knight Mortgage Monitor

Discovering Take Shape For Life

Highlights. Percent of States with a Decrease in MH Expenditures from Prior Year: FY2001 to 2010

AN IN-DEPTH LOOK AT NAFTA. August

Indexed Universal Life Caps

Nevada Labor Market Briefing: January Summary of Labor Market Economic Indicators

Multistate indirect tax trends and policies

A Perspective from the Federal Reserve Institute of Internal Auditors San Antonio Chapter August 19, 2015 Blake Hastings Senior Vice President

RLI TRANSPORTATION A Division of RLI Insurance Company 2970 Clairmont Road, Suite 1000 Atlanta, GA Phone: Fax:

State and Local Sales Tax Revenue Losses from E-Commerce: Estimates as of July 2004

Yolanda K. Kodrzycki New England Public Policy Center Federal Reserve Bank of Boston

Please print using blue or black ink. Please keep a copy for your records and send completed form to the following address.

Introducing LiveHealth Online

The Puzzling Decline in State Sales Tax Collections

RhodeWorks: achieving a state of good repair through asset management

Aviva Announcing Changes to Products and Annuity Rates

Data Note: What if Per Enrollee Medicaid Spending Growth Had Been Limited to CPI-M from ?

March 3rd, By Bryan Leonard State Budget Solutions.

Presented by: Matt Turkstra

Zions Bank Economic Overview

Medicaid in an Era of Change: Findings from the Annual Kaiser 50 State Medicaid Budget Survey

Current Trends in the Medicaid RFP Procurement Landscape

Household Income for States: 2010 and 2011

The Entry, Performance, and Viability of De Novo Banks

Health Insurance Price Index for October-December February 2014

While one in five Californians overall is uninsured, the rate among those who work is even higher: one in four.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA)

Insured Deposit Program. Updated 03/31/2017

Financing Unemployment Benefits in Today s Tough Economic Times

Experts Predict Sharp Decline in Competition across the ACA Exchanges

Getting Better Value for the Healthcare Dollar. National Conference of State Legislators Fall Forum November 30, 2011.

Texas Economic Outlook: Cruising in Third Gear

Section 4(f) That was then this is now. Recent developments in Section 4(f) compliance

2017 Supplemental Tax Information

Installment Loans CHARTS. No cap other than unconscionability:

Insured Deposit Program Updated 10/17/2016

POC State Guide. All State Reference Guide

Transcription:

Transportation Performance Index Key Findings

Sponsored in part by The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world s largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations. Copyright 2010 by the United States Chamber of Commerce. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form print, electronic, or otherwise without the expressed written permission of the publisher. The 2 Transportation Performance Index 2

Introduction Every day, transportation, energy, broadband, and water systems are both opportunities and roadblocks for businesses and communities. Blackouts, water main breaks, cyber attacks, and bridge collapses bring acute awareness of the importance of infrastructure to businesses and the economy and are usually followed by swift actions that bring out the best in us all levels of government and the private sector working together like never before to identify resources and fix the problems. However, the main challenge in the United States is a lack of ongoing, sustained attention to infrastructure the physical platform of the economy. In spite of the obvious role of infrastructure in economic prosperity, inaction on the most fundamental legislation, burdensome regulations, and consistent under-investment necessitate U.S. Chamber of Commerce leadership. The mission of the Chamber s Let s Rebuild America (LRA) initiative is to ensure that America s infrastructure systems meet the demands of a diverse, robust economy and a growing population and contribute to U.S. economic growth and global competitiveness. Through LRA, the Chamber is doing something unprecedented: Measuring how well transportation, energy, broadband, and water systems are meeting the demands of the nation, including businesses large and small, and then correlating the results to measures of U.S. economic performance. This effort is called the Infrastructure Performance Index series and it is groundbreaking in three ways: Defines what businesses require of infrastructure to grow and succeed, not what government decides is important. Looks across four critical sectors of infrastructure transportation, energy, broadband, and water and considers their relationships. Correlates the way infrastructure performs to economic growth. Historically, calculations focused on expenditures, jobs, or local economic development. The Transportation Performance Index is the first in the series that drives home the point that infrastructure performance matters to the economy and shapes an environment for action to improve it. Let s Rebuild America U.S. Chamber of Commerce 3

4 Transportation Performance Index

Transportation Performance Index Let s Rebuild America U.S. Chamber of Commerce 5

54 National Results From 1990 to 2008 Transportation Index Results for Selected Years Transportation Performance Index 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Transportation Index 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Transportation Index Five-Year Moving Average Year Transportation Performance Index Five Year Moving Average 2008 51.24 50.94 2007 50.74 51.29 2006 50.99 51.71 2005 50.42 51.89 2004 51.30 51.93 2003 52.99 51.94 6 Transportation Performance Index

National Results The national Transportation Performance Index combines indicators of supply (availability), quality of service (reliability, predictability, and safety), and utilization (potential for future growth) across all modes of passenger and freight transportation highway, public transportation, freight railroad, aviation, marine and intermodal in order to show how well the U.S. transportation system is serving the needs of businesses and the overall U.S. economy. The national results are from 1990 to 2008 the last year for which national-level data is available. A higher index value is better and lower index value is worse. There is no scale (i.e. 0-100) for the index. The national index is 51.24 in 2008, which is a slight improvement from 50.74 in 2007. However, the moving average, which smooths the annual variations, shows a clear downward trend from 2003 to 2008. This trend reveals that the performance of the U.S. transportation system is not keeping pace with the demands on that system. From 1990 to 2008, the Transportation Performance Index increased about 6% overall. In contrast, U.S. population grew 22%, passenger travel grew 39%, and freight traffic grew 27%. Given these facts, it is a testimony to business ingenuity that the national results are not worse. Businesses work around transportation challenges by scheduling deliveries in off-peak hours, implementing flexible employee work policies, and substituting information technology for transportation services. There are also countless stories of transportation infrastructure owners using the engineering equivalent of duct tape to hold infrastructure together and crafting creative operational strategies to enhance throughput. Can the moving average trend be reversed? Without net new investment in transportation infrastructure and a focus on performance, there could be a decline in the index at a rate of nearly one point per year based on an extrapolation through 2015. A change in any one indicator in any one location does little to move the index; however, a 10% improvement in all indicators produces approximately a 20% increase in the index. To have a transportation system that supports a 21st century economy, the United States needs a high level of investment targeted at improving performance across all modes and geographies. There can be no more business as usual. Let s Rebuild America U.S. Chamber of Commerce 7

2007 State-By-State Results State-By-State Transportation Performance Index 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 AL-60.48 AK-62.70 AZ-61.05 AR-55.52 CA-51.76 CO-61.52 CT-53.81 DE-57.43 DC-35.08 FL-55.26 GA-59.72 HI-49.98 ID-63.03 IL-58.33 IN-61.32 IA-67.65 KS-66.78 KY-59.51 LA-56.37 ME-66.15 MD-58.57 MA-52.19 MI-60.67 MN-65.02 MS-61.68 MO-59.60 MT-70.89 NE-71.66 NV-51.64 NH-59.48 NJ-46.71 NM-52.59 NY-55.19 NC-53.39 ND-85.12 OH-59.64 OK-62.34 OR-64.72 PA-56.16 RI-57.29 SC-60.38 SD-74.47 TN-60.44 TX-59.46 UT-63.37 VT-66.26 VA-63.77 WA-62.06 WV-57.76 WI-57.26 WY-65.56 2007 is the most recent year for which full state-by-state data are available. 8 Transportation Performance Index

State-By-State Results Comparing the State-By-State and the National Results 57.08 58.26 56.95 57.60 59.98 59.72 53.07 50.62 50.74 State-By-State Average State-By-State Median National Index Value 1995 2000 2007 Given that a strong transportation system is a key factor in economic development, transportation performance indexes are created for every state and the District of Columbia in addition to a national index. The state-bystate results are derived using the same methodology and the same indicators except where data is not available on a statewide basis. State indexes are calculated for 1995, 2000 and 2007; state-by-state results are shown here for 2007 only. The 2007 state results range from 85.12 for North Dakota to 35.08 for the District of Columbia. While the District of Columbia is somewhat of an anomaly, New Jersey has the next lowest index with a value of 46.71. Higher population growth rates and higher population densities are generally associated with lower index value based on an analysis of state results versus population data. While this warrants more rigorous analysis, a closer examination of the states with an index value of less than 60 reveals that these states experience significant pressure in terms of population growth, high levels of development, and limited access to or aging infrastructure. That said a highly ranked state like North Dakota should not disinvest in transportation infrastructure. At the same time, the pressures on the transportation system in states like New Jersey cannot be ignored. In 2007, the average state result is 59.98 compared to the national result of 50.74. Note that the national index is not an average of the 50 states plus the District of Colombia, but rather based on a sample of the United States. If the United States was a state, it would rank near the bottom. When it comes to transportation system performance, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts. Let s Rebuild America U.S. Chamber of Commerce 9

Transportation Performance and the U.S. Economy A Trillion Dollars on the Table Value of the Gap Between 2007 Index National Index and State Index (GDP in billions) U.S. Average 50.74 Top 5 States Average 73.958 -$979 North Dakota 85.12 -$1,450 South Dakota 74.47 -$1,001 Nebraska 71.66 -$883 Montana 70.89 -$850 Iowa 67.65 -$713 The econometric analysis using the Transportation Performance Index is unique because it examines the overall contribution to economic growth from wellperforming transportation infrastructure. It goes beyond charting only the effects of spending and the creation of jobs during construction. The analysis provides robust, stable results showing that the transportation performance is important to maintaining a strong economy. Underperforming transportation infrastructure produces a drag on prosperity. For each single point of improvement in the Transportation Performance index, GDP per Capita would increase by 0.3%. In other words, allowing the nation s overall transportation performance to lag behind the average index of the top five states leaves about $1 trillion of potential GDP on the table. This amount would be additive to the economic value of direct infrastructure investment. If investments are made that improve performance, the real long-term impact on the economy could be one-third higher than what most other economic impact studies estimate. There is also a positive relationship between foreign direct investment (FDI) that opens new establishments in the United States creating new jobs and the performance of transportation infrastructure as measured by the index. FDI established new enterprises that created more than 300,000 jobs in the United States in 2008 ( * Anderson 2008) and may be more dependent on transportation infrastructure than other types of infrastructure because of the need to move goods and people between the foreign country and the United States According to studies done by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, most of what these firms import and about half of what they export is shipped from and to the parent company in the foreign country, making transportation infrastructure an important element of their location decision. The results indicate that a commitment to raising the performance of transportation infrastructure provides positive long-term value for the U.S. economy. Anderson, Thomas (2008). U.S. Affiliates of Foreign Companies Operations in 2006, Survey of Current Business (August), Bureau of Economic Analysis, Washington, D.C. 10 Transportation Performance Index

Call to Action Prosperity and job growth emanate from the private sector. The government s role is to establish an environment for the private sector to do what it does best. When it comes to the nation s transportation system, the federal government plays a significant role in policy and funding. This Transportation Performance Index demonstrates and documents the urgent need for serious policy reforms and additional investments to improve performance. When Congress and the administration take vacations from their responsibilities by extending laws instead of doing the tough work of finding solutions, the performance of the transportation system suffers. It s time for them to get back to work and take on the three big questions: How to invest? How much? From what sources? The first order of business is for Congress and the administration to act on the following: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) reauthorization Water Resources Development Act Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity Expansion Act Congress and the administration must also act on the infrastructure-related aspects of Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization including aircraft and air traffic control equipage. Together, these actions must create a clear plan for comprehensive improvement and investment in all aspects of the transportation system in the national interest. There must be a framework for state and local government and private sector decision making that supports economic growth through better system performance. And there has to be enough funding and financing to get the job done; this, of course, means taking on the difficult task of finding revenue, even in tough times, and finding new ways to encourage private investment. The benefits are clear: Investment not only supports jobs in the near term, but improved transportation performance boosts economic growth and U.S. competitiveness over the long term. Let s Rebuild America U.S. Chamber of Commerce 11

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 1615 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20062-2000 www.letsrebuildamerica.com