Transportation Statistics Annual Report · report on transportation statistics to the President and Congress. This Transportation Statistics Annual Report (TSAR) is the ninth such

Transportation StatisticsAnnual Report

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

Transportation Statistics Annual Report

Bureau ofTransportation

Statistics

October 2003

U.S. Department of Transportation

Bureau of Transportation StatisticsOur mission: To lead in developing transportation data and informationof 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 willsupport 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 publicationsMail: Product Orders

Bureau of Transportation StatisticsU.S. Department of Transportation400 Seventh Street, SW, K-15Washington, DC 20590

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

BTS Information ServiceE-mail: [email protected]: 800-853-1351

Recommended citationU.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 beused and reprinted without special permission; citation as to source isrequired.

U.S. Department ofTransportation

Norman Y. MinetaSecretary

Bureau ofTransportationStatistics

Rick KowalewskiDeputy Director

William J. ChangAssociate Director for Information Systems

John V. WellsChief Economist

Jeremy WuActing Chief Statistician

Produced under the direction of:Wendell FletcherAssistant Director for Transportation Analysis

Project ManagerKirsten Oldenburg

EditorMarsha Fenn

Major ContributorsKathryn TsibulskyFelix Ammah-TagoeAnthony ApostolidesJonaki BoseDavid ChesserDavid ChienMartha CourtneyScott DennisKay DruckerRon DuychBingsong FangMary FieldChester FordLee GiesbrechtBruce GoldbergJason GoodfriendXiaoli HanElijah Henley

Other ContributorsBill BannisterDon BrightMichael CohenDorinda EdmondsonPat FlanaganAlpha GlassChip MoorePeg Young

Deborah JohnsonMaha KhanJanice LentWilliam MallettGetachew MekonnenJeffery MemmottCraig MorrisNagaraj NeerchalLong NguyenKen NotisLisa RandallElizabeth RobertoJoy SharpMatthew SheppardBrian SlobodaDeepak VirmaniJie Zhang

Report Layout,Production, and Cover DesignLorisa SmithAshton Alvis

Acknowledgments

Preface

Congress requires the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) toreport on transportation statistics to the President and Congress.

This Transportation Statistics Annual Report (TSAR) is the ninth suchreport prepared in response to this congressional mandate, laid out in49 U.S.C. 111 (j). In addition to presenting the state of transportationstatistics, the report focuses on transportation indicators related to 15topics. Most of these topics are specified in the Transportation EquityAct for the 21st Century.

The BTS publication, National Transportation Statistics (NTS), acompanion to this annual report, has more comprehensive and longertime series data than could be accommodated here. NTS is availableboth in print and online at www.bts.gov.

vii

Table of Contents

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

CHAPTER 2 TRANSPORTATION INDICATORSIntroduction ..................................................................................................................21

Section 1: Productivity in the Transportation SectorLabor Productivity in Transportation ..............................................................................22Multifactor Productivity ..................................................................................................24

Section 2: Traffic FlowsPassenger-Miles of Travel ................................................................................................26Domestic Freight Ton-Miles ............................................................................................28Geography of Domestic Freight Flows ............................................................................30

Section 3: Travel TimesScheduled Intercity Travel Times ....................................................................................34Urban Highway Travel Times ..........................................................................................36U.S. Major Air Carrier On-Time Performance ................................................................38Amtrak On-Time Performance ........................................................................................40

Section 4: Vehicle WeightsHighway Trucks by Weight..............................................................................................42Vehicle Loadings on the Interstate Highway System ........................................................44Merchant Marine Vessel Capacity ..................................................................................46Railcar Weights................................................................................................................48

Section 5: Variables Influencing Traveling BehaviorDaily Passenger Travel ....................................................................................................50Travel by Purpose ............................................................................................................52Travel by Mode ..............................................................................................................54Vehicle Ownership and Availability ................................................................................56

Section 6: Travel Costs of Intracity Commuting and Intercity TripsHousehold Spending on Transportation ..........................................................................58Cost of Owning and Operating an Automobile ..............................................................60

Table of Contents

viii


Cost of Intercity Trips by Train and Bus ..........................................................................62Average Transit Fares ......................................................................................................64Commuting Expenses of the Working Poor ....................................................................66Airfare Index Research Data............................................................................................68

Section 7: Availability of Mass Transit and Number of Passengers ServedTransit Passenger-Miles Traveled ....................................................................................70Transit Ridership ............................................................................................................72Transit Ridership by Transit Authority ............................................................................74Lift- or Ramp-Equipped Buses and Rail Stations ............................................................76

Section 8: Frequency of Vehicle and Transportation Facility RepairsCommercial Motor Vehicle Repairs ................................................................................78Highway Maintenance and Repairs ................................................................................80Rail Infrastructure and Equipment Repairs......................................................................82Transit Vehicle Reliability ................................................................................................84Lock Repairs on the Great Lakes Saint Lawrence Seaway System....................................86Intermittent Interruptions of Transportation Services ......................................................88

Section 9: AccidentsTransportation Fatality Rates ..........................................................................................90Years of Potential Life Lost from Transportation Accidents ............................................92Transportation Injury Rates ............................................................................................94Motor Vehicle-Related Injuries ........................................................................................96Economic Impacts of Motor Vehicle Crashes ..................................................................98

Section 10: Collateral Damage to the Human and Natural EnvironmentKey Air Emissions..........................................................................................................100Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................102Oil Spills into U.S. Waters..............................................................................................104Hazardous Materials Incidents and Injuries ..................................................................106

Section 11: Condition of the Transportation SystemTransportation Capital Stock ........................................................................................108Highway Condition ......................................................................................................110Bridge Condition ..........................................................................................................112Airport Runway Conditions ..........................................................................................114Age of Highway and Transit Fleet Vehicles ....................................................................116Age of Amtrak, Aircraft, and Maritime Vessel Fleets ....................................................118

Section 12: Transportation-Related Variables that Influence Global CompetitivenessRelative Prices for Transportation Goods and Services ..................................................120U.S. International Trade in Transportation-Related Goods ............................................122U.S. International Trade in Transportation-Related Services ..........................................124

ix

Table of Contents

Section 13: Transportation and Economic GrowthTransportation-Related Final Demand ..........................................................................126Transportation Services..................................................................................................128

Section 14: Government Transportation FinanceGovernment Transportation Revenues ..........................................................................130Government Transportation Expenditures ....................................................................132Government Transportation Investment ........................................................................134

Section 15: Transportation EnergyTransportation Sector Energy Use..................................................................................136Transportation Energy Prices ........................................................................................138Transportation Energy Efficiency ..................................................................................140

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

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

Chapter 1

Summary

In this edition of the Transportation Statistics Annual Report, theBureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) has focused on transportation

indicators related to 15 specific topics (chapter 2) and on the overall stateof transportation statistics (chapter 3).

SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION INDICATORS(CHAPTER 2)

Chapter 2 contains transportation data and information on the followingtopics: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 competitive-ness,

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 chapter2. The indicators are presented graphically; supporting data tables are inappendix B (see box 1).

Summary

1 Topics 1 through 12 appear in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, under 49 USC111(c)(1). Some of the topic names, however, have been shortened in this report.

3

1. Productivity in the Transportation Sector

Labor productivity in the for-hire transportationservices and petroleum pipeline industriesincreased 20 percent between 1990 and 2000compared with all business, which increased 23percent. Among the modes, railroad and localtrucking increased the most, by 65 percent eachfrom 1990 to 2000. The labor productivity ofClass I bus carriers, which fluctuated over theperiod, increased the least (16 percent).

The multifactor productivity of all privatebusiness sectors combined increased 8 percentbetween 1990 and 1999, while the multifactorproductivity of the rail transportation subsectorincreased 30 percent.

These two indicators of economic productiv-ity—multifactor and labor productivity—differ.Labor productivity relates output to labor input,while multifactor productivity relates changes inoutput to changes in a set of inputs, such as cap-ital, labor, energy, materials, and services.Economists generally consider multifactor pro-ductivity to be a more comprehensive indicator

since it takes into account changes in several dif-ferent inputs, not just labor. Rail is the onlytransportation sector for which multifactor pro-ductivity estimates are currently available. BTShas a project underway, in consultation with theBureau of Labor Statistics to develop multifac-tor productivity indicators for all modal sectors.

2. Traffic Flows

Tracking the volume and geographic flow of traf-fic on America’s roads, rails, airports, and water-ways helps to ensure that transportationinfrastructure is properly maintained and hasadequate capacity to meet the demand. The vol-ume of passenger travel is measured by estimatingthe number of miles traveled per person for eachmode (see box 2). This method takes into accountthe distance traveled by a vehicle and the numberof people in the vehicle. Freight is measured inton-miles, the movement of one ton of cargo thedistance of one statute mile. Each of these volumemeasurements allows for comparisons acrossmodes, although these comparisons are affectedby data-collection methods and definitions.


4

BOX 1About the Data in this Report

The data in this report come from a variety of sources—principally, from the Bureau of Transportation Statisticsand other operating administrations of the Department ofTransportation. However, other sources are federal gov-ernment agencies, such as the U.S. Census Bureau,Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, and EnergyInformation Administration. To supplement governmentsources, the report occasionally uses data and informa-tion from trade associations, such as the Association ofAmerican Railroads and American Public TransportationAssociation. Data from any of these sources may besubject to omissions and errors in reporting, recording,and processing. Sample data are subject to samplingvariability. Documents cited as sources in this reportoften provide detailed information about definitions,methodologies, and statistical reliability.

To be consistent, when trend data are used in thisreport they are shown, if possible, for at least a 10-year

period. Because of the differing availability of dataamong all the indicators included, it has not been pos-sible to use the same span of 10 years for each indica-tor without sacrificing timeliness. Instead, the data spana decade up to the year of most recent data availablewhen this report was prepared. (More informationabout data in the report can be found in the introductionto chapter 2.)

In this summary chapter, full data sources are not pro-vided. However, the data here are from chapter 2,where full citations are given in the text and graphs.Corresponding tables in appendix B also containsource information. The data here are presented in thesame order—by topic section—as they appear in chap-ter 2 enabling easy access to data sources. Also notpresent in this chapter are complete definitions, whichcan vary across data sources.

Passenger miles of travel (pmt) in the UnitedStates totaled an estimated 4.7 trillion in 2000, orabout 17,000 miles for every man, woman, andchild. Over the decade, 1990 to 2000, pmtincreased 24 percent. Excluding gas pipelines, allmodes of freight transportation combined gener-ated nearly 4.0 trillion domestic ton-miles in2000, 20 percent more than in 1990.

In addition to studying freight and passengervolumes, it is also important to track changes inthe geographic and modal distribution of freightand passenger travel in order to anticipate andalleviate areas of high congestion. Truck, rail,and waterborne freight flow maps help plannersto pinpoint potential problem areas in the trans-portation system.

3. Travel Times

Most Americans experience some type of traveldelay while driving their personal vehicle ortraveling on a bus, train, or airplane. Thesedelays can be costly for individuals, businesses,and the transportation industry. A multitude offactors can affect travel times.

In a 2003 study, BTS found that between1995 and 2002, scheduled trip time (includingconnection time, where necessary) had increasedin 63 percent of 246 rail city-pairs, in 68 percentof 261 air city-pairs, and in 46 percent of 250intercity bus city-pairs.

For those using personal vehicles, highwaytravel times increased in 70 of 75 urban areas(93 percent) between 1990 and 2000. In 2000,it took 39 percent longer, on average, to make apeak period trip in urban areas compared withthe time it would take if traffic were flowingfreely.

Just over 82 percent of domestic air flightsarrived on time in 2002, compared with 75 per-cent in 1996. Late flights amounted to 16 per-cent of flights in 2002, down from 23 percent in1996. Over this period, late, canceled, ordiverted flights peaked at 1.6 million in 2000,declining to just below 942,000 in 2002.

Seventy-seven percent of Amtrak trains arrivedat their final destination on time in 2002, com-pared with 72 percent in 1993. Over these years,short-distance trains—those with runs of lessthan 400 miles—have consistently registered bet-ter on-time performance than long-distancetrains—those of 400 miles or more.

4. Vehicle Weights

Vehicle traffic affects the longevity of infrastruc-ture. Traffic, on a given highway segment, canbe measured by average weights and numbers ofvehicles. Another approach to assessing high-way pavement stress is by estimating vehicleloadings on the nation’s highways. Aircraft

Chapter 1: Summary

5

BOX 2Data on Passenger-Miles of Travel

Two national estimates of passenger-miles of travel(pmt) are available; they differ in coverage, method-ology, and other factors. The 2000 pmt data present-ed in this section come from the Bureau ofTransportation Statistics (BTS) publication, NationalTransportation Statistics 2002 (NTS). BTS compilesthese data for NTS annually, primarily using mode-by-mode data derived in various ways by BTS andothers. For instance, pmt for large air carriers andintercity trains are estimated from ticket sales andtrip lengths; for transit, the data are reported by tran-sit authorities. Each method used to estimate thesepmt has differing strengths and weaknesses, as dis-cussed in NTS in the Accuracy Profiles for table1–34 (available at http://www.bts.gov/).

Later, in the section on Variables Influencing TravelBehavior, is a presentation of 2001 pmt data from the2001 National Household Travel Survey, jointly con-ducted by BTS and the Federal HighwayAdministration. As survey data, they are collectedusing a single methodology. This provides a coher-ence and comparability not available with the NTSdata. However, these data are not collected annually,limiting their use for trend analyses. Another differ-ence between the NTS and NHTS data is the extentof their coverage among modes. It is to be expected,then, that because of methodological and coverageissues the NTS and NHTS data will differ.

landing weights can affect airport pavement, ascan the weight of rail equipment on rail tracks.For maritime infrastructure, especially ports,vessel size (often expressed in deadweight tons(dwt)—a measure of cargo capacity), ratherthan weight, can be of concern. As larger water-borne vessels are added to the worldwide mer-chant marine fleet, U.S. ports may have toexpand to accommodate larger ships or decideto specialize in handling cargoes that are notaffected by changes in vessel size.

The number of trucks in the U.S. truck fleetgrew 23 percent between 1992 and 1997.2 Inthe Heavy category (over 26,000 pounds), thenumber of trucks grew 37 percent during theperiod, while medium trucks (between 6,001and 19,500 pounds) increased 14 percent. Lighttrucks, which include sport utility vehicles(SUVs), minivans, vans, and pickup trucks, rep-resented 86 percent of the truck fleet in 1997.The number of light trucks increased by 24 per-cent between 1992 and 1997, however, thestrongest growth occurred among SUVs (93 per-cent) and minivans (61 percent).

Large combination trucks3 made up only 6percent of traffic volume in urban areas in 2001but accounted for 77 percent of urban Interstatehighway loadings. In rural areas, they repre-sented 17 percent of traffic and 89 percent ofrural Interstate loadings in 2001. Between 1991and 2001, large combination truck traffic vol-ume grew from 14 percent to 17 percent onrural roads, while remaining the same on urbanInterstate highways.

The average capacity of containerships callingat U.S. ports increased 9 percent to nearly40,000 dwt between 1998 and 2001.4

Meanwhile, the average capacity of all types ofvessels calling at U.S. ports grew 4 percent.

The average weight of each freight railcarremained fairly constant—ranging from 63 to67 tons—between 1991 and 2001. However,this relatively steady average weight of a loadedrailcar masks countervailing trends amongselected freight commodities. Between 1991 and2001, for instance, the average weight of a car-load of coal was 110 tons in 2001, up from 99tons in 1991. Coal represented 46 percent of railfreight tonnage in 2001.

5. Variables Influencing Traveling Behavior

Results from the 2001 National HouseholdTravel Survey,5 sponsored by BTS and theFederal Highway Administration, show that thedaily non-occupational travel of all people in theUnited States totaled about 4 trillion miles, anaverage of 14,500 miles per person per year. Ona daily basis, the average person traveled 40miles, 88 percent of it in a personal vehicle.6

Overall, people took 411 billion daily trips in2001, an average of 1,500 trips per personannually or about 4 trips per day. The largestnumber of daily trips (45 percent) were to shop,to visit doctors and dentists, and for other fam-ily and personal business. Commuting—tripsmade to and from work—accounted for 15 per-cent of all personal trips in 2001. The averagelength of these trips was 12 miles.

One key factor affecting travel behavior ishousehold vehicle availability. Slightly less thanone-third of households had one personal vehi-cle available for use in 2001. A little more thanone-third of households (40 million out of 107million households) had two vehicles and


6

5 See box 2 on page 5 for a discussion about pmt data. Fulldetails of the 2001 National Household Travel Survey are in chap-ter 2, section 5.6 Comprises cars, vans, SUVs, pickup trucks, other trucks, recre-ational vehicles, and motorcycles.

2 These data, from the Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey con-ducted every five years, were the most recent available when thisreport was prepared.3 Large combination trucks weigh more than 12 tons and have 5or more axles.4 1998 is the first year for which data are available.

slightly less than one-quarter had three or morevehicles available. Almost 8 percent of house-holds (8.5 million) had no vehicle available foruse. People in these households tend to takefewer trips and travel shorter distances eachyear than people in households with at least onevehicle available.

6. Travel Costs of Intracity Commuting andIntercity Trips

On average, U.S. households spent $7,406 (inchained 1996 dollars) on transportation in 2001.This represented 21 percent of all householdexpenditures. Only housing cost more (31 per-cent). On average (median), half of the workingpoor spent almost 10 percent of their income(based on current 1999 dollars) on commutingexpenses in 1999. This is over twice the percent-age of income that the median of the total popu-lation spent on commuting (4 percent).

Driving an automobile 15,000 miles per yearcost 50¢ per mile in 2001, or 16 percent morethan it did in 1991, when total costs were 43¢(in chained 1996 dollars). For those using tran-sit, the average fare remained about the samebetween 1990 and 2000 (in chained 1996 dol-lars). Increases in fares per passenger-mile forsome modes of transit were offset by lower faresper passenger-mile for other modes.

On average, intercity trips via Amtrak cost 20¢per revenue passenger-mile in fiscal year 2000, up33 percent from 15¢ per revenue passenger-milein fiscal year 1993 (in chained 1996 dollars).Meanwhile, average intercity Class I bus faresrose 27 percent, from $21 to $26, between 1990and 2000 (in chained 1996 dollars).

As these data show, it is not always possible tocompare the travel costs of intracity and intercitytrips because not all mode travel costs can cur-rently be measured in the same way. However,BTS statisticians, in collaboration with theBureau of Labor Statistics, are investigating a

new method of computing price indices for airtravel. Preliminary data from this research arepresented in chapter 2. This research might oneday serve as a model for producing price indicesfor other modes, enabling better cross-modalcomparisons.

7. Availability of Mass Transit and Numberof Passengers Served

There were approximately 7,500 transit agen-cies in the United States in 2001. However,about 70 percent of the U.S. population isserved by just 580 of these agencies. Transit usecontinues to be concentrated in specific markets,such as communities where households do notown cars, in certain large cities, and in lowerincome households. Approximately 40 percentof all daily transit trips are work related.7

There were 46.5 billion urban transit pmt in2001 compared with 37.5 billion in 1991, anincrease of 24 percent. As they have historically,buses had the largest pmt share in 2001, generating19.6 billion pmt or 42 percent of all transit pmt.

While transit ridership was somewhat stag-nant between 1991 and 1996, it grew steadilybetween 1996 and 2001 to 9 billion unlinkedtrips,8 an increase of 19 percent. Bus ridershipcomprised the majority of unlinked trips (5.2 bil-lion) in 2001. However, rail transit ridership,with almost 3.5 billion trips in 2001, posted thestrongest growth (39 percent). Since at least1996, approximately 77 percent of all unlinkedtransit passenger trips (6.9 billion trips in 2001)have been made within the service area of only

Chapter 1: Summary

7

7 The datum in this sentence is from the 2001 NationalHousehold Travel Survey (see section 5 in chapter 2 for more infor-mation). The balance of the data in this summary of section 7 arefrom the Federal Transit Administration’s National TransitDatabase and National Transit Summaries and Trends, 2002 draft.Full citations are available in chapter 2.8 For a discussion of linked vs. unlinked trips, see section 7 inchapter 2.

30 such authorities. New York City transit aloneaccounted for 30 percent of all trips in 2001.

The nationwide fleet of ADA9 lift- or ramp-equipped transit buses increased to 87 percent(to 58,785 buses) in 2001 from 52 percent ofthe bus fleet in 1993. In 2001, 50 percent or1,374 rail transit stations were ADA accessible.These stations serve passengers traveling viaautomated guideway transit, cable cars, com-muter rail, heavy rail, inclined plane, light rail,monorail, and the Alaska Railroad.

8. Frequency of Vehicle and TransportationFacility Repairs

Data are not readily available to properly char-acterize the frequency of repairs for vehicles andinfrastructure of all modes. Partly, this isbecause vehicle operations for many modes arein the private sector; and, as it affects profitabil-ity, this operational information can be confi-dential. For passenger cars, actual repairfrequency data and resultant disruptions are dis-persed among car owners. However, some pri-vate organizations do collect and analyze carrepair data on a model/year basis.

In some cases where repair data are available,making the link to service interruptions can beproblematic. In other cases, maintenance costdata are available (e.g., airlines and highways).But, again, the connection between costs andfrequency and, thus, interruptions of service arenot clear. Annual data are available on U.S.domestic vessel fleet capacity, but capacityresults from market and other factors as well asrepair downtime.

Most of the vehicle repair data for the trucksand buses operated by the nation’s nearly600,000 motor carriers are not public informa-tion. A surrogate measure is data on highway

truck inspections. Over 2.0 million roadsidetruck inspections were completed in 2001, up25 percent since 1990. The percentage ofinspected trucks taken out of service declinedfrom 34 percent in 1990 to 23 percent in 2001.

Work zones on freeways cause an estimated24 percent of the nonrecurring delays on free-ways and principal arterials. The level of fund-ing applied to highway maintenance is anindirect measure of the amount of maintenanceactivity and, thus, presence of work zones onhighways. Funding for highway maintenanceincreased by 15 percent (in constant 1987 dol-lars)10 between 1990 and 2001. Pavement resur-facing represented just over half (51 percent) ofthe miles of federal-aid roads undergoing feder-ally supported construction or maintenance in2001, up from about 42 percent in 1997.11

Class I railroad companies maintained nearly170,000 miles of track in 2001, down fromnearly 200,000 miles of track in 1991.Throughout the 1990s, rail companies replacedan average of 743,000 tons of rail and an aver-age of 12.2 million crossties each year. Railroadsalso periodically replace or rebuild locomotivesand freight cars. On average, new and rebuiltlocomotives made up 4 percent of Class I rail-road fleets between 1990 and 2001.

Transit service12 interruptions due to mechan-ical failures remained relatively level from 1995through 2000,13 averaging between 18 and 19mechanical problems per 100,000 revenue vehicle-miles.


8

10 Instead of chained 1996 dollars, constant 1987 dollars are usedhere because the Federal Highway Administration publishes itsdata accordingly.11 1997 is the earliest year for which these data are available.12 See detailed definitions of the type of transit equipmentincluded in this section in chapter 2.13 Data prior to 1995 and later than 2000 were collected using dif-ferent definitions of what constitutes an interruption of service andare not comparable.

9 ADA refers to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of1990.

Natural disasters, accidents, labor disputes,terrorism, security breaches, and other unfore-seeable incidents can result in major disruptionsto the transportation system. Although a com-prehensive account of these unpredictable inter-ruptions has not been undertaken nor datacompiled on them, numerous studies and otheranalyses have sought to evaluate the effects ofindividual events on the transportation system.

Terrorist attacks and security alerts haveaffected transportation services for decades. Afterthe terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, allcommercial flights scheduled for September 12were canceled. Many flights were canceled duringthe remainder of the month and the months thatfollowed. Two years later, air passenger traffichas not fully recovered; however, other factors,such as an economic downturn, may have con-tributed to the decrease in traffic.

9. Accidents

Crashes involving motor vehicles and other trans-portation accidents in the United States result intens of thousands of fatalities and millions ofinjuries each year. The number of fatalities andinjuries per year represent a common means forevaluating the safety of each transportationmode. Dividing the number of fatalities by popu-lation and injuries by passenger-miles traveledcan enable useful comparisons across time andmodes. However, care must be taken in doing so,because definitions of fatalities and injuries varyby mode.

There were 45,130 fatalities related to trans-portation in 2001, almost 16 fatalities per100,000 U.S. residents. This is a decline of 11percent from 18 fatalities per capita in 1991,when there were 44,320 fatalities. Nearly 93percent of all transportation fatalities in 2001were highway-related.

An estimated 3.1 million people sufferedsome kind of injury involving passenger andfreight transportation in 2001. Most of theseinjuries, about 98 percent, resulted from high-way crashes. However, injury rates for mosthighway vehicle types declined between 1991and 2001. One exception was the rate for lighttruck occupants, which rose 15 percent, from 50per 100 million pmt in 1991 to 58 per 100 mil-lion pmt in 2001.

A BTS analysis of motor vehicle-related injurydata for 200114 shows that there were sharppeaks in injuries associated with youth. Formotor vehicle occupants and motorcyclists, thepeak spanned ages 15 to 24 years; for pedalcy-clists and pedestrians, the peak spanned ages 10to 14 years. Young males exhibited a substan-tially greater peak in serious injuries than youngfemales. In addition, the percentage of injuriesclassified as serious was greater for motorcy-clists (20 percent of all motorcyclist injurieswere serious), pedestrians (19 percent), and ped-alcyclists (10 percent) than it was for motorvehicle occupants (7 percent).

Motor vehicle crashes in the United Statescost an estimated $231 billion in 2000 (in cur-rent dollars), about $820 per person or 2 per-cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Thelargest components of the total cost (26 percenteach) are market productivity—the cost of fore-gone paid labor due to death and disability—and property damage.

While transportation accidents amounted toapproximately 6 percent of the deaths of thoseunder age 65 between 1991 and 2000, thesefatalities represented 10 percent of the total

Chapter 1: Summary

9

14 This analysis was based on data from the U.S. ConsumerProduct Safety Commission’s National Electronic InjurySurveillance System. Due to methodological differences, these dataare not necessarily consistent with other injury data in this reportthat come from the U.S. Department of Transportation, NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration’s National AutomotiveSampling System General Estimates System.

years of potential life lost (YPLL)15 during thisperiod. People who die from transportationaccidents tend to be younger on average thanvictims of other causes of death.

10. Collateral Damage to the Human andNatural Environment

As people travel and freight is transported, dam-age can occur to the human and natural environ-ment. Although most available environmentaldata is limited to these movements, transporta-tion’s impact on the environment is not. It can alsooccur when transportation equipment and fuelsare produced and infrastructure is built, duringrepair and maintenance of equipment and infra-structure, and when equipment and infrastructureare no longer usable and are discarded and dis-mantled. The extent of damage throughout theselife cycles of transportation fuel, equipment, andinfrastructure can vary by mode. In all cases,actual impacts on the human and natural environ-ment are dependent on ambient levels or concen-trations of pollutants and rates of exposure.

Transportation vehicles and vessels in 2001emitted 66 percent of the nation’s pollutionfrom carbon monoxide (CO), 47 percent ofnitrogen oxides (NOx), 35 percent of volatileorganic compounds (VOC), 5 percent of partic-ulates, 6 percent of ammonia, and 4 percent ofsulfur dioxide. Highway vehicles emitted almostall of transportation’s share of CO emissions in2001, 80 percent of the NOx, and 75 percent ofall VOC. With the exception of ammonia, trans-portation air emissions have declined since1991.

Transportation emissions of greenhouse gases(GHGs) grew 22 percent between 1990 and2001, while total U.S. emissions rose 13 percent

to 6,936 teragrams of carbon dioxide (CO2)equivalent (TgCO2Eq).16 Of this, 27 percentwere emitted by transportation. Nearly all (97percent) of CO2 emissions—the predominantGHG—are generated by the combustion of fos-sil fuels. Transportation was responsible for 31percent of all U.S. CO2 emissions in 2001.Transportation CO2 emissions grew 24 percentbetween 1991 and 2001.

Transportation-related sources typicallyaccount for most oil spills into U.S. watersreported each year to the U.S. Coast Guard. Forinstance, transportation’s share of the total vol-ume of oil spilled between 1991 and 2000 var-ied from a high of 97 percent (in 1996) to a lowof 77 percent (in 1992). The volume of eachspill varies significantly from incident to inci-dent. One catastrophic incident can, however,spill millions of gallons into the environment.

Transportation firms reported more than17,700 hazardous materials incidents in 2001.17

These incidents resulted in 7 deaths and 143injuries, compared with annual averages of 21deaths and 445 injuries between 1991 and2001. During that decade, the number ofreported hazardous material incidents increased.However, much of the increase may be attrib-uted to improved reporting and an expansion ofreporting requirements.

11. Condition of the Transportation System

Two major components of the transportationsystem—vehicles and infrastructure—are proneto deterioration due to wear, aging, and damage.Another component, capacity, is important tounderstand to aid planners in meeting thedemands for travel and shipping affected by, say,congestion. Measures of the net capital stock of


10

16 Including sinks, net U.S. emissions totaled 6,098 TgCO2Eq in2001. See section 10 in chapter 2 for more information on sinks.17 See this section in chapter 2 for a definition of a reported inci-dent.

15 YPLL, which is computed by adding up the remaining lifeexpectancies of all victims at their deaths, is a measurement thataccounts for the age distribution among different causes of injurymortality and other common causes of death.

the transportation system—the value in dollarsof vehicles, infrastructure, and other compo-nents—provide comprehensive indicators thatcombine system condition (quality) with capac-ity (quantity). This measure gives a sense of theamount of money invested in the system overtime and allows for comparisons across modes.

Highway-related capital stock (highwayinfrastructure, consumer motor vehicles, andtrucking and warehousing) represented themajority of the nation’s transportation capitalstock in 2000 (at $2,166 billion, in 1996chained dollars). Rail also represented a sub-stantial portion of transportation capital stock;although, it was still less than one-sixth of high-way-related capital stock. The combined valueof privately owned capital stock for other modesof the transportation system, including rail,water, air, pipeline, and transit, is less than thevalue of consumer motor vehicles alone. Allhighway-related capital stocks increasedbetween 1990 and 2000. In-house transporta-tion grew 81 percent, while transportation serv-ices (a component of all modes) rose 83 percent.

Individual data on vehicle and infrastructurecondition are collected by several operating administrations of the U.S. Department of Trans-portation, such as the Federal HighwayAdministration and the Federal AviationAdministration. These data reflect qualitative eval-uations of the pavement and associated structures.

The condition of highways, bridges, and air-port runways have all improved in recent years.The percentage of rural Interstate mileage inpoor or mediocre condition declined from 35percent in 1993 to 14 percent in 2001.Moreover, poor or mediocre urban Interstatemileage decreased from 42 to 28 percent duringthis same period. Of the nearly 600,000 road-way bridges in 2001, 14 percent were deemedstructurally deficient and 14 percent function-ally obsolete. Ten years earlier, about 40 percent

of bridges were either structurally deficient orfunctionally obsolete. At the nation’s commer-cial service airports, pavement in poor conditiondeclined from 5 percent of runways in 1990 to2 percent in 2001. For the larger group of sev-eral thousand National Plan of IntegratedAirport Systems airports, poor conditionsexisted at 5 percent of runways in 2001, downfrom 10 percent in 1990.

The age of various transportation fleets isanother measure of condition, although not avery precise one. The equipment in air, rail,highway, water, and transit transportation fleetsvaries widely in terms of scheduled mainte-nance, reliability, and expected life span.Additional information, such as fleet mainte-nance standards, actual hours of vehicle use,and durability, would provide a more thoroughmeans for analyzing the condition of a vehiclefleet and comparing fleets across modes.

Because of improvements in the longevity ofpassenger cars, the median age of the automo-bile fleet in the United States has increased sig-nificantly since 1992. The median age of thetruck fleet,18 by contrast, began to increase inthe early 1990s but has been declining since1997 as new purchases of light trucks haveincreased substantially.

The age of transit vehicles varies by transitand vehicle type. For instance, ferryboat fleetshave aged, while the average age of full-sizetransit buses has decreased between 1990 and2000. Similarly, the age of the U.S. maritime flagvessel fleet varies by vessel type. While 28 per-cent of the overall U.S. flag vessel fleet was 25years old or more in 2000, 50 percent of tow-boats and 43 percent of tank and liquid bargeswere 25 years old or older in 2000.

The average age of Amtrak locomotives andrailcars has declined by a year between 1990

Chapter 1: Summary

11

18 This includes all truck categories: light, heavy, and heavy-heavy.

and 2000. Of the 20,028 Class I freight locomo-tives in service in 2000, 37 percent were built in1990 or later. While these data on rail equip-ment are publicly available, data on the condi-tion of infrastructure are not released by thenation’s private railroads.

Finally, the average age of all U.S. commercialaircraft was 13 years in 2000, up from 11 yearsin 1991. While the average age of aircraftbelonging to the major airlines was also 11 yearsin 1991, it was a year younger than the fleetaverage in 2000.

12. Transportation-Related Variables ThatInfluence Global Competitiveness

Transportation contributes to economic activityand to a nation’s global competitiveness as aservice, an industry, and an infrastructure. Itaffects the price competitiveness of domesticgoods and services because final market pricesreflect transportation costs.

The United States had relatively lower pricesfor transportation goods and services in 199919

than 15 out of 25 Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development countries.However, the nation’s top two overall merchan-dise trade partners, Canada and Mexico, hadlower relative prices in 1999 than the UnitedStates.

The United States traded $300 billion worth(in current dollars)20 of transportation-relatedgoods (e.g., cars, trains, boats, and airplanesand their related parts) in 2002 with its part-ners, more than twice the nominal value of thesecommodities in 1990. As is the case with overallinternational trade, the United States had a mer-

chandise trade deficit in transportation-relatedgoods exports and imports, totaling $82 billionin 2002.

U.S. trade in transportation services in 2002totaled $105.4 billion (in current dollars). TheUnited States had a surplus in transportationservices from 1990 through 1997. Then,between 1997 and 1998, imports increased 7percent while exports decreased 5 percent,resulting in a $4.6 billion deficit. This deficitcontinued to grow, reaching $13.9 billion in2002.

Since competitiveness implies advantages inexporting certain products, these measures indi-cate the relative U.S. position in transportation-related goods and services. While thesemeasures are good indicators of export perform-ance, they only indirectly measure the relativecompetitive position of the United States,because several other factors besides trade influ-ence competitiveness. A central concept thatunderpins trade among nations, sectors, indus-tries, and firms is comparative advantage.Comparative advantage in trade occurs whentrading partners seek to benefit from the abilityto produce goods or services more efficiently orcost-effectively than other countries. The impli-cation of this concept is that no country has acomparative advantage in the production ofevery good and service. In this sense, competi-tiveness refers to the advantage one country mayhave over other nations in exporting certainproducts, with the ultimate goal being theimprovement of the country’s prosperity andstandard of living.

13. Transportation and Economic Growth

Transportation comprises a sizable segment ofthe U.S. economy. Total transportation-relatedfinal demand rose by 37 percent between 1990and 2001 (in 1996 chained dollars), from$719.8 billion to $984.1 billion. This meas-


12

19 1999 is the most recent year for which comparable interna-tional data were available at the time this report was prepared.20 All dollar amounts in this section are in current dollars. Whileit is important to compare trends in economic activity using con-stant or chained dollars to eliminate the effects of price inflation,it is not possible to do so in this instance (see notes on chapter 2figures and corresponding tables in appendix B).

ure—the value of transportation-related goodsand services sold to the final users—is a compo-nent of GDP and a broad measure of the impor-tance of transportation to the economy. In2001, the share of transportation-related finaldemand in GDP was 11 percent, the same as in1990.

The contribution of for-hire transportationindustries to the U.S. economy, as measured bytheir value-added (or net output), increased (in1996 chained dollars) from $181 billion in 1990to $270 billion in 2001. In the same time period,this segment’s share in GDP fluctuated slightly,increasing from 2.7 percent in 1990 to 3.0 per-cent in 1999 before declining to 2.9 percent in2001. This is also a component of GDP but can-not be added to transportation final demandbecause the two measures reflect differentapproaches (supply-side and demand-side) toassessing the relationship between transporta-tion and the economy.

14. Government Transportation Finance

Governments collect revenues and spend moneyon transportation-related infrastructure andequipment. Federal, state, and local governmenttransportation revenues targeted to financetransportation programs21 increased 38 percentfrom $82.2 billion in 1990 (in 1996 chaineddollars)22 to $113.6 billion in 2000.

Spending on building, maintaining, operat-ing, and administering the nation’s transporta-tion system by all levels of government totaled$149.0 billion in 2000 (in 1996 chained dol-lars). Among all modes of transportation, high-ways receive the largest amount of totalgovernment transportation expenditures. In

2000, this amounted to $93.6 billion andaccounted for nearly 63 percent of the total.

Gross government transportation investment,23

including infrastructure and vehicles, is a measureof the building of new public transportation capi-tal. As a major component of the nation’s totaltransportation capital stocks, gross investmenthas risen steadily over the last decade from $59.0billion in 1990 to $76.0 billion in 2000, anincrease of 29 percent (in 1996 chained dollars).

15. Transportation Energy

Transportation energy use rose 22 percentbetween 1991 and 2001, to 28 percent of thenation’s total energy consumption in 2001. Still,transportation energy use has grown moreslowly than GDP over the decade, indicatingthat the U.S. economy is gradually becomingless energy intensive and, thus, less vulnerable tochanges in energy prices. Highway vehicles con-sumed an estimated 81 percent of transporta-tion sector energy in 2001.

Transportation fuel prices experiencedshort-term fluctuations (in 1996 chained dol-lars) between 1992 and 2002. However, percapita vehicle-miles traveled (vmt) for allmodes of transportation increased in almostevery year. For instance, between 1991 and2001, per capita highway vmt rose about 1percent annually, while that of large air carri-ers grew 3 percent.

Passenger travel overall was 5 percent moreenergy efficient in 2000 than in 1990, mainlydue to gains by domestic commercial aviation.(Improved aircraft fuel economy and increasedpassenger loads resulted in a 32 percent gain incommercial air passenger energy efficiencybetween 1990 and 2000.) Freight energy effi-ciency (ton-miles/BTU) declined 7 percent from

Chapter 1: Summary

13

21 See this section in chapter 2 for detailed descriptions of the gov-ernment revenues included.22 All dollar values in the summary of this section are expressed in1996 chained dollars.

23 See this section in chapter 2 for detailed descriptions of trans-portation investments.

1990 to 2000. The decline in freight energy effi-ciency occurred as a result of a 2 percent aver-age annual growth rate in ton-miles paired witha relatively rapid average annual growth rate of3 percent in freight energy consumption.

SUMMARY OF THE STATE OFTRANSPORTATION STATISTICS(CHAPTER 3)

Chapter 3 presents an overview of the state oftransportation statistics. It focuses on five coreareas: freight, passenger travel, air transporta-tion, economic, and geospatial data. Each sec-tion provides an analysis of why these data areimportant, a review of existing data, and possi-ble options for filling crucial data gaps.

1. Freight Data

Changes in freight transportation reflect thedynamic nature of the national and globaleconomies and continuing improvements andinnovations in technology. Alterations in themix of manufactured products, shifts in globalproduction and trade patterns, and growingdomestic demands from industry and consumersall affect freight transportation and related dataneeds.

The consensus among the transportationcommunity on collected freight data is that theyare often too out of date to capture currentdevelopments and despite progress, there aremany missing pieces to the freight picture.Furthermore, data are often not comparableacross modes. Current data collections includethe Commodity Flow Survey and the CarloadWaybill Sample; data on waterborne commerce,air freight, and motor carriers; and data cover-ing international shipments. Despite the wealthof these data, important gaps remain in data onfreight flows, origins and destinations of ship-ments, commodities shipped, transit times,

shipment costs, the nodal connections throughwhich freight passes, and infrastructure andequipment used to sustain freight flows.

Options to improve freight data centeraround enhancing the Commodity Flow Survey.They include changing from the current five-year cycle to more frequent data collection andexpanding coverage. Other approaches focus onstandardizing the universal bill of lading andusing information technologies to aid in collect-ing data.

2. Passenger Travel Statistics

A much-valued feature of American life is theability to travel from place to place with relativeease, at a reasonable expense, and in a minimalamount of time, whether it is across town, crosscountry, or to a foreign destination. Americansaverage 1,500 trips annually, covering an aver-age of 14,500 miles per person.24

Many kinds of data are needed to evaluate(and forecast) this demand for passenger traveland how well the supply meets the demand.Data are needed for the different modes oftransportation and at various levels of detail,including geographic scale. Questions that helpevaluate the needs of current and future travel-ers include why people travel, how and whenthey travel, what their origins and destinationsare, how long travel takes, and how much itcosts. Travel data, in combination with othertypes of data, can also be used to assess the costsand benefits of travel, including transportationsafety and its environmental effects.

There are three main types of passenger traveldata: survey, regulatory/administrative, andoperations/industry data. Each type providesdifferent levels of detail in terms of coverage,periodicity, and geography; and each possesses


14

24 These data are from the 2001 National Household TravelSurvey. See chapter 2, section 5.

different strengths and weaknesses. The princi-pal survey—the National Household TravelSurvey (NHTS) and its precursors—has beenconducted periodically. The 2001 NHTS, con-ducted by BTS and the Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA), asked 26,000 house-holds nationwide about their daily non-occupa-tional travel, as well as about long-distance trips(trips of 50 miles or more one way) taken dur-ing a 4-week period.

Other surveys that provide travel data includethe long form of the decennial census (U.S.Census Bureau), Survey of International AirTravelers (Department of Commerce), GeneralAviation and Air Taxi Activity Survey (FederalAviation Administration), airline passengerOrigin and Destination Survey (BTS), and VehicleInventory and Use Survey (FHWA). Regulatoryand administrative sources of passenger datainclude the National Transit Database (FederalTransit Administration) and the HighwayPerformance Monitoring System (FHWA). TheFederal Transit Administration collects data fromtransit authorities; FHWA, from state depart-ments of transportation. Industry sources thatrelease operations data include the AmericanPublic Transportation Association (transit),Amtrak, and airline associations.

Options to improve passenger travel datainclude: expanding coverage of key existingdatasets to additional modes, improving the speci-ficity of intercity bus and rail data, enhancing dataon rural transportation, collecting data on popu-lations with special needs, and working on thedetail and completeness of existing travel datasets.

3. Air Transportation Statistics

Airline traffic and financial statistics were firstcollected by the federal government in the 1930sfor use in monitoring and promoting the fledg-ling air transport industry. Today, the U.S.Department of Transportation (DOT) collects avariety of air passenger and freight statistics

from more than 240 domestic and foreign air-lines serving the United States.

The federal government’s use of air transportdata supports policy initiatives and interna-tional air service negotiations, monitoring of aircarrier fitness, allocating airport improvementfunds, ensuring the provision of essential airservices, setting international and intra-Alaskamail rates, and safety and security analysis.Other agencies’ uses of the data vary. Forinstance, the Department of Labor uses aviationdata in their computation of productivity andconsumer price indices. The Department ofJustice uses data to monitor the collection ofcustoms service fees and for anti-trust cases.Other uses range from airport planning, trafficforecasting, and development of tourism initia-tives by state and local governments; travelplanning by the general public; planning andmarketing by the travel and tourism industry;and forecasting and analysis by airlines.

The four main categories of airline statisticsthat now exist, financial, operational and traffic,pricing and fees, and safety, provide different lev-els of detail in terms of coverage, periodicity, andfocus. The federal government collects the major-ity of publicly available aggregated airline statis-tics directly from air carriers. The Air TransportAssociation reports member data on a quarterlyand monthly basis on airfares, a cost index, andpassenger and cargo traffic. The InternationalCivil Aviation Organization collects internationalair data covering 188 countries.

Options to improve air transportation datainclude implementation of current BTS researchon computing price indices for air travel, com-bining traffic data on air taxis and corporate jetswith information from the NationalTransportation Safety Board for conductingexposure/risk analysis, expanding the collectionof on-time statistics to smaller carriers and inter-national flights, and allowing collection offlight-specific air transportation data.

Chapter 1: Summary

15

4. Transportation Economic Data

Transportation economics refers to industry per-formance on key economic measures such asprices, quantities, productivity, and externalities.It looks at not only how the industry performsdirectly in meeting the needs of its customers, butalso how it affects the economy as a whole, basedon, for example, measures of employment, out-put, and international competitiveness.

Currently available economic data fall intoseveral categories: prices, quantities, investment,productivity, externalities and regulation, andimpacts of the economy. Price may be the meas-ure on which customers most often focus. Goodpassenger travel price data exist for some modesbut not for others. Some data are available forfreight movement but are limited in a number ofways. Quantity data measure the level of mobil-ity that transportation enables. Again, the avail-ability of these data vary between passengertravel and freight and among modes.

Investment data relate to both the capacity andcondition of the system. Capital stock data areavailable for the private transportation sectorsbut not for publicly owned sectors. Productivitymeasures how effectively economic inputs areconverted into output. Two forms are used: laborand multifactor productivity. While data for theformer are widely available, only railroad indus-try multifactor productivity data are available.

Measures of the costs of external effects oftransportation (e.g., on safety, congestion, andthe environment) are important in determiningwhether various kinds of regulation of trans-portation are appropriate. Data on the physicalquantity of most of these externalities are avail-able. Exact locations, costs, actual impacts, andother data are less available.

Options for improving transportation economicdata include: further development of the BTS air-fare price index, expansion of the TransportationSatellite Accounts data to additional modes andservices, augmentation of capital stock data, anddevelopment of multifactor productivity measuresfor modes other than railroads.

5. Geospatial Data

Geospatial information technologies havebecome increasingly useful decisionmaking toolsfor the transportation industry and agenciesresponsible for transportation planning and assetmanagement. Previously used only by expertoperators on specialized mainframe systems, theyare now available for desktop systems and dis-tributed computing services that give nontechni-cal users access to spatial analytical tools.

BTS creates, maintains, and distributesgeospatial data (on rail and highway networks,airports and runways, ports, and Amtrak sta-tions) by state, county, congressional district,and metropolitan statistical area boundaries.The National Bridge Inventory maintained byFHWA contains information describing loca-tions and conditions that can be displayed car-tographically and analyzed. In partnership withthe DOT Office of Intermodalism and FHWA,BTS developed GeoFreight,25 a tool enablinganalyses of the intensity of infrastructure use forintermodal facilities (e.g., airports, seaports, andtruck-rail interchanges).

Key areas for future geospatial data and stan-dards development critical for transportationanalysis include land-use planning, employee-based travel pattern analysis, and fine-graineddata on infrastructure and operations critical totransportation safety and security analysis.


16

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

Specific areas include: integration of bridge, tun-nel, and transit data in the NationalTransportation Atlas Database; development ofa North American Transportation AtlasDatabase; and expansion of a current web-based mapping center to enable customers togenerate interactive maps and spatial analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

While a wealth of data exist to inform stake-holders about the state of transportation, muchwork remains to be done. Data need to be col-lected or collected differently, relevant linkagesamong datasets need to be established, and dataneed to be analyzed and offered in ways usefulfor stakeholders at all levels of government andthe private sector.

Chapter 1: Summary

17

Chapter 2

TransportationIndicators

21

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21stCentury1 charged the Bureau of Transpor-

tation Statistics (BTS) with compiling, analyzing,and publishing a comprehensive set of transporta-tion statistics, including information on:

■ productivity in various parts of the trans-portation sector;

■ traffic flows;■ travel times;■ vehicle weights;■ variables influencing traveling behavior,

including choice of transportation mode;■ travel costs of intracity commuting and

intercity trips;■ availability of mass transit and the number

of passengers served by each mass transitauthority;

■ frequency of vehicle and transportation facil-ity repairs and other interruptions of trans-portation service;

■ accidents;■ collateral damage to the human and natural

environment;■ the condition of the transportation system; and■ transportation-related variables that influ-

ence global competitiveness.

For this report, BTS has added three additionaltopics: transportation and economic growth, gov-ernment transportation finance, and transporta-tion energy. Each of these topics is represented bya series of key indicators. Data tables supporting

all the indicators are in appendix B at the end ofthe report. Appendix table numbers correspondto the figures numbers in this chapter.

1 49 U.S. Code 111(c)(1).

About the Data in the Report

For consistency, most trend indicator data are shownover at least a 10-year period. Because of the differingavailability of data among all the indicators included, ithas not been possible to use the same span of 10years for each indicator without sacrificing timeliness.Instead, the data span a decade up to the year of mostrecent data available when this report was prepared.There are some instances where less than 10 years ofdata are presented—either because the data are notcomparable over the period or are not available.

With a few exceptions, trend data involving costs havebeen converted to 1996 chained (“real”) dollars to elim-inate the effect of inflation over time. Appendix B pro-vides both 1996 chained dollar and current dollar valuetables. Throughout the report, results of percent calcu-lations have been rounded up or down, as appropriate,to a whole number. Average annual percentagechange calculations have been made using a logarith-mic formula to account for compounding over time.1

Data in this report come from a variety of sources:principally, from the Bureau of TransportationStatistics and other operating administrations of theDepartment of Transportation. However, othersources are federal government agencies, such asthe U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of EconomicAnalysis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.Coast Guard, and Energy Information Administration.To supplement government sources, the report occa-sionally uses data and information from trade associ-ations, such as the Association of American Railroadsand American Public Transportation Association. Datafrom any of these sources may be subject to omis-sions and errors in reporting, recording, and process-ing. Sampling data are subject to sampling variability.Documents cited as sources in this report often pro-vide detailed information about definitions, method-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 endyear, and m is the initial year.

Introduction


22

Sec

tio

n 1

:P

rod

uct

ivit

y in

th

e Tr

ansp

ort

atio

n S

ecto

r

Labor productivity (output per hour) in thefor-hire transportation services and petro-

leum pipeline industries increased by 20 percentfrom 1990 to 2000. This compares with anincrease of 45 percent for all manufacturing and23 percent for the overall business sector (figure1). Labor productivity, a common and basic pro-ductivity measure, is calculated as the ratio ofoutput to hours worked or to the number of full-time employees.

The growth of individual transportation sub-sector labor productivity between 1990 and2000 varied (figure 2). Compared with the over-all business sector, several transportation modeshad considerably higher rates of increases inlabor productivity, and some lower, over thesame period. Railroad labor productivityincreased 65 percent, as did local trucking, whilepipeline productivity grew 38 percent. On theother hand, labor productivity in air transporta-tion increased 19 percent, “trucking except

local” increased 18 percent, and Class I bus car-riers rose 16 percent.

Comparing annual growth rates is anotherway to interpret changes of labor productivityover time. For overall business, labor productiv-ity grew at an average annual rate of 2 percentbetween 1990 and 2000. Labor productivity inrail transportation—where productivity hasbeen affected by consolidation of companies,more efficient use of equipment and lines,increased ton-miles (output), and labor forcereductions—increased by 5 percent annually.Labor productivity of local trucking also grew at5 percent annually.

The lowest annual labor productivity growthrates were for pipelines (3 percent), truckingexcept local subsector (1.7 percent), and airtransportation (1.8 percent). Bus carriers’ pro-ductivity grew 1.5 percent but with considerablefluctuation over the period of analysis.

Labor Productivity in Transportation

Chapter 2: Transportation Indicators

23

Sectio

n 1:

Pro

du

ctivity in th

e Transp

ortatio

n S

ector

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 200090

110

130

150

170

Manufacturing

Transportation

All business

Index: 1990 = 100

100

120

140

160

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

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 200090

110

130

150

170Index: 1990 = 100

Local trucking

RailroadPetroleum pipeline

Trucking,except local

Bus carriers, Class I

Air100

120

140

160

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

NOTES: Labor productivity for transportation measures quality-adjusted ton- and passenger-miles per hour. Quality adjustmentcorrects for differences in services and handling, e.g., the differ-ence between flying first class and coach or differences in thehandling requirements of high- and low-value commodities.Pipeline labor productivity is measured by output per employee.No data are available for water transportation.

Local trucking includes establishments that generally providetrucking services within a single municipality, contiguous munici-palities, or a municipality and its suburban areas. Trucking,except local, includes common or contract carriers that gener-

ally provide trucking service beyond a single municipality, con-tiguous municipalities, or a municipality and its suburban areas

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, calculation based on data from U.S.Department of Labor (USDOL), Bureau of Labor Statistics(BLS), Office of Productivity and Technology, "IndustryProductivity Database," available at http://www.bls.gov, as ofFebruary 2003. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau ofEconomic Analysis, "Gross Domestic Product by Industry,"February 2003. Manufacturing and business—USDOL, BLS,Office of Productivity and Technology, "Industry ProductivityDatabase," available at http://www.bls.gov, as of February 2003.

Multifactor productivity (MFP) in railtransportation increased by 30 percent

between 1990 and 1999 (an average annual rateof 3 percent), while in the overall private busi-ness sector, MFP increased by 8 percent (lessthan 1 percent annually) (figure 3). Thus, therail industry has contributed positively toincreases in MFP in the business sector and tothe U.S. economy over this period.

While MFP measures are difficult to con-struct, they provide a much more comprehensiveview of productivity than labor productivitymeasures. The conventional methodology forcalculating multifactor productivity, which isused here, employs growth rates of inputsweighted by their income shares. This methodol-ogy has been developed and used by various aca-demic researchers and government agencies,such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics.1

Transportation MFP data are currently avail-able from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for therail sector only. The Bureau of TransportationStatistics is developing MFP measures for othertransportation industries, such as air, pipelines,and so on. The objective is to provide informa-tion on the relative importance of changes in theinputs and on the productivity of the inputs rel-ative to changes in transportation output. Thisresearch should also provide information on therelative importance of transportation in increas-ing the productivity of the U.S. economy and,hence, transportation’s contribution to the eco-nomic growth of the country.


24

Sec

tio

n 1

:P

rod

uct

ivit

y in

th

e Tr

ansp

ort

atio

n S

ecto

r

1 See, for instance, discussion on MFP by the Bureau of LaborStatistics in the BLS Handbook of Methods, available athttp://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch11_a.htm.

Multifactor Productivity


25

Sectio

n 1:

Pro

du

ctivity in th

e Transp

ortatio

n S

ector

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 200190

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135Index: 1990 = 100

Railroad

Private business sector

FIGURE 3 Multifactor Productivity: 1990–2001

NOTE: Rail productivity data are only available through 1999.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, available athttp://www.bls.gov/mfp, as of February 2003. Business sector—"Multifactor ProductivityTrends," table 1. Rail—"Industry Multifactor Productivity Data Table by Industry,1987–1999."


26

Sec

tio

n 2

:Tra

ffic

Flo

ws

Estimated passenger-miles of travel (pmt) inthe United States increased 24 percent

between 1990 and 2000 (see box). Pmt totaledan estimated 4.7 trillion in 2000,1 about 17,000miles for every man, woman, and child [2, 3].

Just over 85 percent of passenger travel in2000 was made in personal vehicles (passengercars and light trucks, including sport utility vehi-cles, pickups, and minivans) (figure 4). Most ofthe balance (11 percent) occurred by air.Passenger travel in light trucks accounted for alittle under one-third of all pmt. Transit, exclud-ing bus transit, made up less than 1 percent ofpmt in 2000; with transit bus included, itaccounts for 4 percent.

Travel increased every year between 1990 and2000 at an annual average rate of 2 percent [3].Pmt by air and by light truck grew the fastestover this period, at 4 percent per year on aver-age (figure 5). Pmt by intercity train (Amtrak)declined, although there has been modestgrowth since 1996. Likewise, transit pmt hasgrown since the mid-1990s.

Passenger travel has increased during the1990s for a variety of reasons. The resident pop-ulation of the United States grew by nearly 33million people over this period [2]. Moreover,the economy also grew significantly. GrossDomestic Product (GDP) increased by 37 per-cent2 and GDP per capita grew 21 percentbetween 1990 and 2000 (figure 6) [1].

Sources

1. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau ofEconomic Analysis, National Income and ProductAccounts, summary GDP table, available athttp://www.bea.doc/bea/dn1.htm, as of May 2003.

2. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. CensusBureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States:2002 (Washington, DC: 2003), for populationdata.

3. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, National Transpor-tation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2003),table 1-34, also available at http://www.bts.gov/.

Passenger-Miles of Travel

1 This calculation excludes travel in heavy trucks, by bicycle, bywalking, and by boat (including recreational boat). Pmt in heavytrucks is excluded because such travel is assumed to be incidentalto the hauling of freight, the main purpose of such travel. Bicycle,pedestrian, and boat travel are excluded because there are nonational estimates available on an annual basis. 2 Calculation is based on chained 1996 dollars.

Data on Passenger-Miles of Travel

Two national estimates of passenger-miles of travel(pmt) are available; they differ in coverage, methodol-ogy, and other factors. The 2000 pmt data presentedin Section 2 come from the Bureau of TransportationStatistics (BTS) publication, National TransportationStatistics 2002 (NTS). BTS compiles these data forNTS annually, primarily using mode-by-mode dataderived in various ways by BTS and others. Forinstance, pmt for large air carriers and intercity trainsare estimated from ticket sales and trip lengths; fortransit, the data are reported by transit authorities.Each method used to estimate these pmt has differingstrengths and weaknesses, as discussed in theAccuracy Profiles for table 1-34 in NTS 2002, avail-able at http://www.bts.gov/.

Section 5, Variables Influencing Traveling Behavior,presents 2001 pmt data from the 2001 NationalHousehold Travel Survey, jointly conducted by BTSand the Federal Highway Administration. As surveydata, they are collected using a single methodology.This provides a coherence and comparability notavailable with the NTS data. However, these data arenot collected annually, making them unsuitable foryear-to-year trend analyses. Another differencebetween the NTS and NHTS data is the extent oftheir coverage among modes. It can be expected,then, that because of methodological and coverageissues the NTS and NHTS data will differ.


27

Sectio

n 2:Traffic F

low

s

Motorcycle <1%

Bus 3%

Transit1%

Light truck 31%

Passenger car 54%

Air carrier 11%

Amtrak <1%

General aviation <1%

FIGURE 4 Share of Passenger-Miles by Mode: 2000

NOTES: Transit includes motor bus, heavy rail, commuter rail,light rail, ferryboat, trolley bus, demand responsive, and others.Motor bus and demand responsive figures are also included inthe bus figure for highway.

SOURCES: Passenger-miles—U.S. Department ofTransportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, NationalTransportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), table 1-34, also available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003.

Gross Domestic Product—Based on chained 1996 dollar datafrom U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), Bureau ofEconomic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts,summary GDP table, available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/,as of May 2003. Population—USDOC, U.S. Census Bureau,National Intercensal Estimates 1990-2000, available athttp://census.gov/popest/data/national/tables/intercensal/US-EST90INT-01.php, as of May 2003.

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20000.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6Index: 1990 = 1.0

Light truck

Air carrier Bus

Transit

Passenger car

Amtrak

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

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20000.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6Index: 1990 = 1.0

GDP

Population

GDP per capita

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


28

Sec

tio

n 2

:Tra

ffic

Flo

ws

Excluding gas pipelines, all modes of freighttransportation, combined, generated nearly

4 trillion domestic ton-miles in 2000, 20 percentmore than in 1990. This represents an averagegrowth rate of almost 2 percent per year duringthe decade [1].

Domestic ton-miles for all modes, exceptwater, grew during this decade (figure 7). On anaverage annual basis, air grew the fastest (5 per-cent per year), followed by rail and truck (4 per-cent each). Rail and truck accounted for themajority of domestic traffic, representing 39 per-cent and 30 percent of domestic ton-miles,respectively, in 2000 (figure 8). Truck data,however, do not include retail and governmentshipments and some imports and, therefore,understate total truck traffic.

Water transportation and oil pipelines1

accounted for 16 and 15 percent of domesticton-miles, respectively, in 2000. Althoughdomestic waterborne ton-miles decreased 23percent between 1990 and 2000, waterbornevessels continued to play a prominent role ininternational trade [1, 2]. Ships transported 78percent (by ton) of U.S. imports and exports in2000.

Air freight tends to transport high value, rela-tively low weight goods. Thus, on a ton-milesbasis, air freight accounted for less than 1 per-cent of domestic freight in 1998, whereas on avalue basis, this mode accounted for 12 percentof domestic freight2 [3].

Ton-miles is the primary physical measure offreight transportation output. A ton-mile isdefined as one ton of freight shipped one mileand, therefore, reflects both the volume shipped(tons) and the distance shipped (miles). Ton-miles provides the best single measure of thephysical volume of freight transportation serv-ices. This, in turn, reflects the overall level ofactivity in the economy.

Sources

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, National Transpor-tation Statistics 2002 (Washington DC: 2002),table 1-44, also available at http://www.bts.gov/.

2. _____, U.S. International Trade and FreightTransportation Trends (Washington, DC: 2003).

3. U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalHighway Administration, The Freight Story(Washington, DC: 2002).

Domestic Freight Ton-Miles

1 The Bureau of Transportation Statistics developed data for gaspipelines in 2003 but not in time to include in this report.

2 The most recent year for which freight value basis data areavailable is 1998.


29

Sectio

n 2:Traffic F

low

s

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 20000.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8Index: 1990 = 1.0

Air

Rail

Truck

Oil pipeline

Water

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

FIGURE 7 Change in Domestic Freight Ton-Miles by Mode: 1990–2000

Air

Truck

Rail

Water

Oil pipeline15%

<1%

30%

39%

16%

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

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; andUSDOT, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2001 (Washington, DC:2002), table VM-1. Rail—BTS calculation based on Surface Transportation Board, CarloadWaybill Sample; Transport Canada, Transportation in Canada (Ottawa, Ontario: Annualissues), table 12-1; American Association of Railroads, Railroad Facts (Washington, DC:1991–2001 issues), p. 36.


30

Sec

tio

n 2

:Tra

ffic

Flo

ws

The U.S. transportation system carried 20percent more ton-miles of domestic freight

in 2000 than in 1990 [1]. This growth wasunevenly distributed in terms of geography andmode. The Federal Highway Administrationdeveloped the Freight Analysis Framework(FAF) to estimate geographic freight flows onthe nation’s infrastructure [2]. These results canbe depicted on maps like those on the followingpages.

Nearly one-third of urban Interstate highwayscarried more than 10,000 trucks each day onaverage in 1998,1 according to FAF estimates.By 2020, the portion of heavily used urbanInterstates is expected to rise to 69 percent [2].Rail freight flows appear to be more concen-trated than trucking flows. In addition togrowth in domestic freight shipments, increasedtrade with Mexico and Canada has altered thedistribution of freight movement within theUnited States, creating high traffic areas nearborders [3].

For waterborne freight, domestic flows arehighly concentrated along the Mississippi andOhio Rivers. Domestic waterborne ton-milesdecreased 23 percent between 1990 and 2000 [1].

Sources

1. U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT),Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), calcu-lation based on USDOT, BTS, NationalTransportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC:2002), table 1-44, also available at http://www.bts.gov.

2. U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalHighway Administration, Freight AnalysisFramework website, available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/adfrmwrk/ index.htm, as ofMarch 2003.

3. _____, The Freight Story (Washington, DC:November 2002), also available at http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/, as of March2003.

Geography of Domestic Freight Flows

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


31

Sectio

n 2:Traffic F

low

s

Network flows (tons)

500,000–2,000,0002,000,001–5,000,0005,000,001–10,000,00010,000,001–50,000,000> 50,000,000

FIGURE 9 Truck Freight Flows in the United States: 1998

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office ofFreight Management and Operations, Operations Core Business Unit, Freight AnalysisFramework (FAF).


32

Sec

tio

n 2

:Tra

ffic

Flo

ws

> 20 million


5 million–20 million

< 5 million

FIGURE 10 Rail Freight Flows in the United States: 1999

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Policy, personal communication, August 2003.


33

Sectio

n 2:Traffic F

low

s


1–30,000,000

30,000,001–80,000,000

> 80,000,000

FIGURE 11 Domestic Freight Flows by Waterborne Transportation: 1998

NOTE: The thinnest lines shown in the oceans represent routes on the domesticwaterborne freight network, not tonnage flowing on those routes.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,Office of Freight Management and Operations, Operations Core Business Unit,Freight Analysis Framework (FAF).


34

Sec

tio

n 3

:Tra

vel T

imes

Intercity air, bus and rail schedules in manymajor intercity markets are tending to grow

longer. Between February 1995 and February2002, advertised travel times in selected city-pairs experienced varying degrees of schedulelengthening in most service categories.

A Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)study in 2003 found that the extent of changes inscheduled travel time differed by mode (figure12). In at least half of the direct service city-pairs(no transfer en route) studied for each mode,scheduled travel times were longer. Scheduledtrip time increased in 177 of 261 nonstop airlinecity-pairs studied (68 percent), 44 of 72 directrail service city pairs (61 percent), and 67 of 129direct service intercity bus city-pairs (52 percent).For rail, 108 of 174 city-pairs (62 percent) withan en route transfer experienced longer traveltimes in 2002 compared with several years ear-lier. Although slightly more than half of directservice bus markets experienced longer scheduledtravel times, 73 of 121 connecting bus city-pairs(60 percent) experienced equal or shorter traveltimes. Overall 46 percent of the intercity buscity-pairs had longer schedules.

BTS weighted the city-pair results by the num-ber of scheduled frequencies to quantify thedegree of scheduled travel time change in themarkets studied. Overall, intercity bus scheduledtrip time decreased by 1.2 percent while airlineschedule times increased by 3.2 percent. While amajority of rail markets saw longer trip times, a7.8 percent decrease in scheduled trip time in thehigh-frequency Northeast Corridor (NEC) mar-kets resulted in an overall 0.4 percent decreasein weighted average Amtrak city-pair scheduledtravel time.

A variety of factors contribute to scheduledtravel time change, and more than one factormay affect the same mode. For example, sched-uled trip times for direct intercity bus serviceincreased, but in city-pairs involving an en routetransfer, scheduled trip times decreased as greaterfrequencies compared to 1995 resulted in short-ened transfer times. For rail service, routechanges, breaking of direct connections betweentrains, introduction of mail and express packagehandling at intermediate stations, and congestionor changes in track conditions on routes sharedwith freight trains all resulted in longer scheduledtimes. On the other hand, technology and infra-structure improvements in conjunction with thestart of Amtrak’s Acela Express helped decreaseintercity rail scheduled travel time in NEC city-pairs. The largest percentage increases in airlinetrip times came in the shorter distance city-pairs.This is likely due to airport congestion, whichaffects all flights but has a greater proportionalimpact on shorter flights.

Sources

1. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak),National, Northeast and Schedule ChangeTimetables, 1994/1995 and 2001/2002 issues.

2. Greyhound Lines, System Timetable (Dallas, TX:January 1995).

3. OAG Worldwide Limited, OAG Flight Schedulesdatabase (Downer’s Grove, IL: February 1995and February 2002)

4. Russell’s Guides, Russell’s Official NationalMotor Coach Guide (Cedar Rapids, IA: January1995 and February 2002).

Scheduled Intercity Travel Times


35

Sectio

n 3:Travel T

imes

For airline city-pairs, the Bureau of TransportationStatistics (BTS) selected only nonstop flights. Sinceground transportation modes operate linear routesserving many intermediate cities, BTS selected directrail or bus service whether or not intermediate stopswere scheduled. In the event that direct service was notavailable from the rail or bus carriers, BTS used the sin-gle fastest connecting schedule as the basis for theanalysis. In some city-pairs, rail/bus connections spon-sored by Amtrak (“Amtrak Thruway”) were consideredas rail service except where the bus portion represent-ed more than half of the travel miles.

The number of rail and bus city-pairs is lower than thenumber of air city-pairs because the air analysis insome cases considered multiple airports in the samecity. Also, some rail city-pairs were not used becausethe only possible routing is so impractical that service iseffectively not available. For example, a traveler usingAmtrak for the 300-mile trip between Pittsburgh and

Cincinnati would have to travel 800 miles via Chicagowith a 12-hour layover.

While the city-pairs in the study encompass many ofthe nation’s major intercity travel markets, the lack ofpublicly available data on specific city-pair traffic vol-umes for all three modes prevented BTS from con-structing reliable samples of markets to represent theentirety of each mode. Therefore, the results of thisstudy cannot be generalized for the industry as a wholeand are applicable only to the markets considered.

BTS recognizes that there is variability in scheduledtravel times, especially for airline schedules, on both amonth-to-month and year-to-year basis. The lack of busand rail data for prior years in an electronic format pre-cluded current consideration of additional time periodsin this analysis. BTS will analyze additional time periodsand look at the variability of scheduled travel times forall three modes in future work on this subject.

Air Rail Bus0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200Number of city-pairs

Increased schedule time Decreased or unchanged schedule time

FIGURE 12 Changes in Average City-Pair Schedule Time:February 1995 and February 2002

NOTE: Air data cover non-stop service only. Bus and rail data include direct and connect-ing service.

SOURCES: National Passenger Railroad Corp. (Amtrak), National, Northeast andSchedule Change Timetables (Washington, DC: 1994/1995 and 2001/2002 issues);Russell’s Guides, Official National Motor Coach Guides (Cedar Rapids, IA: January 1995and February 2002 editions); Greyhound Lines, System Timetable (Dallas, TX: January1995).

City-Pairs Analysis


36

Sec

tio

n 3

:Tra

vel T

imes

Highway travel times increased between 1990and 2000 in 70 of the 75 urban areas stud-

ied by the Texas Transportation Institute. Theaverage Travel Time Index (TTI) for these areas in2000 was 1.39, an increase from 1.31 in 1990 [2].This means that in 2000, it took 39 percentlonger, on average, to make a peak period trip inurban areas compared with the time it would takeif traffic were flowing freely (see box).

Travel times tend to deteriorate as urban areasize increases (figure 13). For instance, LosAngeles, California, had the highest TTI (1.90)in 2000, while Anchorage, Alaska, and CorpusChristi, Texas, had the lowest (each 1.04). Ofthe urban areas with the highest index in 2000,only three had a population under 1 million:Austin, Texas (1.27); Charlotte, North Carolina(1.27); and Albuquerque, New Mexico (1.26).At the other end of the spectrum, urban areas ofover 1 million people with low indices includeBuffalo-Niagara Falls, New York (1.08) andOklahoma City, Oklahoma (1.09).

Between 1990 and 2000, the greatest increasesin TTI generally occurred in small- and medium-sized metropolitan areas, while the increases weremore moderate in the very large and small areas1

(figure 14). Overall, the average index for largeurban areas increased by 10.2 percent, while thatfor medium urban areas was up by 8.3 percent. Insmall and very large areas, the increases were 4.7percent and 4.1 percent, respectively.

The Texas Transportation Institute analyzedcongestion for the Federal Highway Admin-istration (FHWA) for almost 400 urban areas

between 1987 and 2000 [3]. In 2000 for thoseareas, an average peak period trip required 51percent longer than the same trip under non-peak, noncongested conditions, equivalent to anindex of 1.51. The values in the FHWA reportdiffer from those in the Texas TransportationInstitute annual study, due to differences in thescope of the two analyses.

In urban areas, where highway infrastructureis typically well developed, the principal factoraffecting travel times is highway congestionresultings from both recurring and nonrecurringevents. Recurring delay is largely a phenomenonof the morning and evening commute, althoughin some places congestion may occur all day andon weekends. National estimates, based onmodel simulations, of the effect of nonrecurringevents on freeways and principal arterials sug-gest that about 38 percent are due to crashes,followed by weather (27 percent), work zoneson freeways (24 percent), and breakdowns (11percent) [1].

Sources

1. Chin, S.M., O. Franzese, D.L. Greene, H.L.Hwang, and R. Gibson, “Temporary Losses ofHighway Capacity and Impacts onPerformance,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory,2002.

2. Texas A&M University, Texas TransportationInstitute, 2002 Urban Mobility Report (CollegeStation, TX: 2002).

3. U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalHighway Administration and Federal TransitAdministration, 2002 Status of the Nation’sHighways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions &Performance, Report to Congress (Washington,DC: January 2003).

Urban Highway Travel Times

1 Very large urban areas have a population of over 3 million; largeurban areas, 1 million to 3 million population; medium urban areas,500,000 to 1 million; and small urban areas, less than 500,000.


37

Sectio

n 3:Travel T

imes

Travel Time Index

Developed by the Texas Transportation Institute, theTravel Time Index is the ratio of peak period travel timeto free-flow travel time. A value of 1.0 indicates thattraffic is moving freely. A value of 1.3 indicates that ittakes 30 percent longer to make a trip than in free-flow

conditions. If, say, a trip takes 20 minutes in free-flowconditions and the index is 1.3, then the trip would take,on average, 6 minutes longer to complete during apeak period.

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000

TTI

Metro area population (000)

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

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000

Change in TTI

0.00

–0.05

Metro area population (000)

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

NOTE: The Travel Time Index is the ratio of peak period traveltime to free-flow travel time. It expresses the average amount ofextra time it takes to travel during the peak period relative tofree-flow travel.

SOURCE: Texas A&M University, Texas Transportation Institute,2002 Urban Mobility Report (College Station, TX: 2002), alsoavailable at http://tti.tamu.edu/, as of May 2003.


38

Sec

tio

n 3

:Tra

vel T

imes

Just over 82 percent of domestic air flightsarrived on time in 2002, compared with 75

percent in 1996. Late flights totaled 16 percentin 2002, down from 23 percent in 1996 (figure15). Over this period, late, cancelled, or divertedflights peaked at 1.6 million in 2000, decliningto just below 942,000 in 2002.

The total number of flight operations at thenation’s airports decreased by 5 percent, to 64.9million, between 2000 and 2002 after havingincreased by 8 percent, from 63.0 million to67.7 million, between 1992 and 2000 [2]. Thedecrease in flight operations due to the airsystem shutdown on September 11, 2001, andthe aftermath, along with the consequences of aweak economy, affected overall airline perform-ance. However, a trend to improved on-time per-formance began in early 2001 when the FederalAviation Administration (FAA) and major air-lines began implementing the National AirspaceSystem Operational Evolution Plan [1].

Air carriers with at least 1 percent of totaldomestic scheduled service passenger revenuesare required to report these on-time perform-

ance data to the Bureau of TransportationStatistics (BTS).1 A flight has an “on-time depar-ture” if the aircraft leaves the airport gate lessthan 15 minutes after its scheduled departuretime, regardless of the time the aircraft actuallylifts off from the runway. An arriving flight iscounted as on-time if it arrives less than 15 min-utes after its scheduled gate arrival time. Mostdelays take place while a plane is on the ground,although the actual cause of a delay may occurelsewhere in the system. Weather, usually themost common cause of delays, was responsiblefor 72 percent of FAA-recorded delays in 2002[2]. BTS began collecting causes of delays andcancellations in June 2003 (see chapter 3).

Sources

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalAviation Administration, NAS OperationalEvolution Plan, available at http://www2.faa.gov/programs/oep/index.htm, as of May2003.

2. _____, OPSNET database, as of May 2003 (notpublicly available).

U.S. Air Carrier On-Time Performance

1 Alaska Airlines, America West Airlines, American Airlines,American Eagle Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines,Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, and USAirways were required to report in 2002. Beginning in January2003, reports were also required from Atlantic Southeast Airlines,AirTran Airways, ATA (formerly doing business as AmericanTrans Air), Atlantic Coast Airlines, ExpressJet Airlines, andSkyWest Airlines. In addition, JetBlue Airways started voluntarilyfiling on-time performance data in 2003.


39

Sectio

n 3:Travel T

imes

25

20

15

10

5

0

Percent

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Late arrivals

Diverted flights

Canceled flights

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

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, AirlineOn-Time Performance Database; and personal communication (for November2000–November 2002 data).


40

Sec

tio

n 3

:Tra

vel T

imes

Seventy-seven percent of Amtrak trainsarrived at their final destination on time in

2002 [1]. While this represented a 2 percentimprovement compared with 2001, it still fellshort of the system’s performance during the1998 to 2000 period (figure 16). Amtrak countsa train as delayed only if it arrives more than 10to 30 minutes beyond the scheduled arrival time,depending on the distance the train has trav-eled.1 Amtrak on-time data are based on atrain’s arrival at its final destination and do notinclude delay statistics for intermediate points.2

In addition to the system total, Amtrakreported the performance for short- and long-distance trains through 2000.3 Over the years,short-distance trains—those with runs of lessthan 400 miles—have consistently registeredbetter on-time performance than long-distancetrains—those of 400 miles or more. Annual on-time performance for short-distance trainsreached as high as 81 percent in recent years,while the peak for long-distance trains was 61percent on time in 1999 [2].

Amtrak collects data on the cause and cumu-lative hours of delay (figure 17). (A change inreporting methodology in 2000 has resulted indata that cannot be compared with data from1999 and earlier years.) Since 1995, freight-related delays have consistently represented thecause of about half of total Amtrak delay time.In addition to interruptions in service due tofreight trains, freight-related delays also stemfrom signal problems, trackwork, and speedrestrictions while Amtrak trains are using tracksof other railroads. Amtrak trains operate overtracks owned primarily by private freight rail-roads except in most of the Northeast Corridor,along a portion of the Detroit-Chicago route,and in a few other short stretches across thecountry [2].

Sources

1. National Passenger Railroad Corp. (Amtrak),personal communication, Mar. 3, 2003.

2. _____, Amtrak Annual Report (Washington, DC:2000 and 2001 issues), statistical appendix.

Amtrak On-Time Performance

1 Amtrak trips of up to 250 miles are considered on time if theyarrive less than 10 minutes beyond the scheduled arrival time;251–350 miles, 15 minutes; 351–450 miles, 20 minutes; 451–550miles, 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 inter-mediate points, yet arrive 12 minutes late at St. Louis and bereported as “on time.”3 Amtrak is no longer reporting short- and long-haul data sepa-rately.


41

Sectio

n 3:Travel T

imes

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100Trains arriving on time (%)

Short-distance train routes

Combined short- and long-distance routes

Long-distance train routes

FIGURE 16 Amtrak On-Time Performance: 1993–2002

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 19990

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000Hours

Amtrak Freight Other1 2 3

4

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

1 Includes equipment malfunctions, train servicing in stations, and passenger-relateddelays.2 Includes delays for track repairs/track conditions, freight train interference, and signaldelays.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 arenot 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.

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.


42

Sec

tio

n 4

:Veh

icle

Wei

gh

ts

The United States truck fleet grew 23 percentbetween 1992 and 1997, according to the

Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey conductedonce every five years [1, 2]. The fleet includes avariety of vehicles, ranging from large 18-wheelcombination trucks used to transport freight tosmall pickup trucks, often used for personaltravel.

The fleet of medium and heavy trucks grew18 percent between 1992 and 1997 (figure 18).However, the number of trucks in one of theheaviest subcategories (those weighing 100,001to 130,000 pounds) grew 46 percent, from12,300 trucks to 17,900. Overall, the number oftrucks in the heavy category (over 26,000pounds) grew 37 percent between 1992 and1997.

Light trucks, which include sport utility vehi-cles (SUVs), minivans, vans, and pickup trucks,represented 86 percent of the truck fleet in1997.1 Within the light truck category, pickuptrucks outnumbered minivans and SUVs.

However, the number of SUVs and minivansincreased by 93 percent and 61 percent, respec-tively, over the previous five years—much fasterthan the growth rate for pickup trucks (8 per-cent). Light trucks represent a growing propor-tion of auto industry sales; consumers purchasedmore light trucks than passenger cars for thefirst time in 2001 [3].

Sources

1. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. CensusBureau, 1997 Economic Census: VehicleInventory and Use Survey: United States,EC97TV-US (Washington, DC: 1999).

2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, National Transpor-tation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002),table 1-21, also available at http://www.bts.gov/,as of April 2003.

3. U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalHighway Administration, Highway Statistics2001 (Washington, DC: 2002), table MV-9, alsoavailable at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hss/index.htm, as of April 2003.

Highway Trucks by Weight

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


43

Sectio

n 4:V

ehicle W

eigh

ts

1992 19970

10

20

30

40

50

60

70Millions of trucks

Light trucks< 6,001 lb

Medium trucks 6,001–19,500 lb

Light-heavy trucks 19,501–26,000 lb

Heavy trucks > 26,000 lb

0.7 0.7

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

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, orwrecked prior to July 1 of the year preceding the survey.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, NationalTransportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), table 1-21, also available athttp://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003.

The original source of these data are the Census Bureau’s Vehicle Inventory and UseSurvey (VIUS). The truck categories in National Transportation Statistics 2002 and thisreport 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—19,501lbs–26,000 lbs; and heavy-heavy trucks—26,001 lbs or more.


44

Sec

tio

n 4

:Veh

icle

Wei

gh

ts

Large combination trucks1 represent a smallportion of traffic on the U.S. Interstate

Highway System [1]. However, because they areheavier and have more axles than other vehicles,they may cause more pavement damage, a meas-urement that is estimated in terms of vehicleloadings (see box). In urban areas, these trucksmade up only 6 percent of traffic volume, butaccounted for 77 percent of loadings in 2001(figure 19). These trucks also make up a greaterportion of the vehicles on rural segments of theInterstate Highway System, representing 17 per-cent of traffic volume and 89 percent of loadingsin 2001 (figure 20).

Between 1991 and 2001, large combinationtruck traffic volume grew from 14 percent to 17percent on rural roads, while remaining thesame on urban Interstate highways [1].Concurrently, their share of loadings decreasedon both rural and urban Interstate highways.Passenger cars, buses, and light trucks, whichthe Federal Highway Administration aggregatesinto one category, followed a different trend—representing a declining percentage of trafficvolume but a growing percentage of loadings inurban areas [1].

Source

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalHighway Administration, Highway Statistics2001, table TC-3, available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hss/index. htm, as of Feb. 26,2003.

Vehicle Loadings on the Interstate Highway System

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

Measuring Vehicle Loadings

Planning agencies design roadways to have a spe-cific lifespan based on the expected volume andweight of vehicle traffic [1]. Since traffic streams arecomposed of a variety of vehicles of different weightsand axle configurations, an equivalent unit of pave-ment damage is used to calculate the wear causedby different types of vehicles. An equivalent single-axle load (ESAL) is a standard unit of pavementdamage and is based on the amount of force appliedto pavement by an 18,000-pound axle, which isroughly equivalent to a standard truck axle. This unitmay be used to calculate the cumulative damagecaused to a roadway by an expected traffic stream.

Source

1. American Association of State Highway and TransportationOfficials, Guide for Design of Pavement Structures(Washington, DC: 1993), p. I-10 and appendix D.


45

Sectio

n 4:V

ehicle W

eigh

ts

Heavy single-unit trucks 5%

3- and 4-axle combination trucks

14%

Passenger cars,buses, and light

trucks3%

5-axle or more combination trucks 77%

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

Heavy single-unit trucks 4%

3- and 4-axlecombination trucks

6%

Passenger cars,buses, and light

trucks2%

5-axle or more combination trucks 89%

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

NOTES: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Loadings are based on equivalent single-axle loads (ESALs), a standard unit of pavementdamage 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, HighwayStatistics 2001 (Washington, DC: 2002), table TC-3.


46

Sec

tio

n 4

:Veh

icle

Wei

gh

ts

Merchandise trade valued at over $718 bil-lion moved by maritime vessels between

U.S. and foreign seaports in 2001 [2]. Containershipments increased 71 percent between 1992and 20011 [3].

The average capacity of containerships callingat U.S. ports increased 9 percent to nearly40,000 deadweight tons (dwt)2 between 19983

and 2001 (figure 21). The world’s largest con-tainerships, built primarily during the late 1990sand early 2000s, are over 3 football fields long(1,138 ft), 140 feet wide, and 50 feet deep [1].

Containership capacity increased faster thanthe average capacity of all types of vessels call-ing at U.S. ports, which grew 4 percent between1998 and 2001. The average capacity of all ves-

sels is larger than the average capacity of con-tainerships because it includes tankers, whichcarry nearly 90,000 dwt on average and dock atspecialized ports. Excluding tankers, averagevessel capacity was just over 32,000 dwt in2001.

Sources

1. Maersk-Sealand, Vessels web page, available athttp://www.maersksealand.com/, as of April2003.

2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, U.S. InternationalTrade and Freight Transportation Trends(Washington, DC: 2003).

3. _____, Maritime Trade and Transportation 2002(Washington, DC: 2002).

Merchant Marine Vessel Capacity

1 1992 is the first year for which data are available. Percentagechange 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), includ-ing cargo, commodities, and crew.3 1998 is the first year for which data are available.


47

Sectio

n 4:V

ehicle W

eigh

ts

1998 1999 2000 20010

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50Containerships All vessels

Deadweight tons(Thousands)

FIGURE 21 Average Capacity of Vessels Calling at U.S. Ports: 1998–2001

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


48

Sec

tio

n 4

:Veh

icle

Wei

gh

ts

The volume of freight carried by railroadsincreased 26 percent (in tons) and 30 percent

(by carload) on railcars between 1991 and 2001(figure 22). However, on average, the weight ofeach railcar remained fairly constant. The averageweight of a loaded railcar ranged from 63 to 67tons during the same period (figure 23).

The relatively steady average weight of aloaded railcar masks countervailing trendsamong selected freight commodities. The averageweight of a carload of coal, which represented 46percent of rail freight tonnage in 2001, was 110tons in 2001, up from 99 tons in 1991 (figure24). Farm products, food and kindred products,nonmetallic minerals, and chemicals and alliedproducts, which together represented 29 percentof tonnage in 2001, were also shipped in heavieraverage carloads in 2001 than in 1991 [2].

Miscellaneous mixed shipments is the onlycategory of goods that was transported in lighteraverage carloads [2]. Miscellaneous mixed ship-

ments are primarily intermodal freight com-posed of shipping containers on flatbed railcars[1]. The containers, which are primarily used tomove manufactured goods that tend to be lighterand more valuable than raw materials, may betransported by waterborne vessel and truck, aswell. Miscellaneous mixed shipments increasedby 54 percent in terms of tonnage and by 79percent in terms of carloads between 1991 and2001, resulting in carloads that were 14 percentlighter in 2001 [2].

Sources

1. Association of American Railroads, RailroadFacts 2001 and 2002 (Washington, DC: 2001and 2002).

2. Calculations based on Association of AmericanRailroads, Railroad Ten-Year Trends, 1990–1999(Washington, DC: 2000).

Railcar Weights


49

Sectio

n 4:V

ehicle W

eigh

ts

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

CarloadsTons

Tons (millions) Carloads (millions)

FIGURE 22 Measures of U.S. Railroad Freight Volume: 1991–2001

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

10

20

30

40

50

60

70Tons

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

Farmproducts

Coal Nonmetallic minerals

Food and kindred

products

Chemicalsand alliedproducts

Transportationequipment

Miscellaneousmixed

shipments

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1401991 2001

Tons per carload

FIGURE 24 Average Loaded U.S. Railcar Weight for SelectedCommodities: 1991 and 2001

NOTES: Figure 23—Average railcar weight is total tons transported divided by total car-loads 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 2001and 2002 (Washington, DC: 2001 and 2002 issues). Figure 24, 1991 data—U.S.Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics calculations based onAssociation of American Railroads, Railroad Ten-Year Trends 1990–1999 (Washington,DC: 2000).


50

Sec

tio

n 5

:Var

iab

les

Infl

uen

cin

g T

rave

ling

Beh

avio

r

In their daily nonoccupational travel, people inthe United States journeyed about 4 trillion

miles in 2001, or 14,500 miles per person peryear1 [1]. On average, people traveled 40 milesper day, 88 percent of it (35 miles) in a personalvehicle2 such as an automobile (figure 25). Thetotal number of vehicle-miles for this passengertravel in 2001 was nearly 2.3 trillion.

Americans took 411 billion daily trips annu-ally, or an average of 1,500 trips per person peryear. On a daily basis, individuals averagedabout four trips per day (figure 26) [1].

Source

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics and Federal HighwayAdministration, 2001 National HouseholdTravel Survey, Preliminary Data Release Ver-sion 1 (day trip data only), available athttp://nhts.ornl.gov/, as of January 2003.

Daily Passenger Travel

2001 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS)

The 2001 NHTS was sponsored by the Bureau ofTransportation Statistics and the Federal HighwayAdministration of the U.S. Department of Transpor-tation. Households were asked about all the trips1

they took on a specific day (daily travel), known asthe “travel day,” and about trips of 50 miles or moretaken from home in the 27 days preceding andincluding the travel day, a period known as the “trav-el period.” Detailed characteristics were collected foreach trip including, among other things, the mode oftransportation, the purpose of the trip, and the dis-tance traveled. Additionally, households were askedto provide information about their social and demo-graphic characteristics including income, vehicleownership, as well as the age, sex, education level,and so forth of household members.The 2001 NHTScollected information from 26,000 householdsnationally.

The NHTS combines two previous surveys—theNationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS),a survey of daily travel, and the American TravelSurvey (ATS), a survey of long-distance travel. TheNPTS and ATS both were last conducted in 1995.Because of methodological changes, comparisonsbetween the 2001 NHTS and the 1995 NPTS andATS are not attempted here. Analysts need moretime to study the effects of the methodologicalchanges before meaningful comparisons can bemade. The information presented here, therefore, islimited to preliminary data from the 2001 survey.

Moreover, data from the travel period component(i.e., long-distance travel) of the NHTS had not yetbeen released when this report was prepared. As aresult, the information presented here is about thetravel reported on the travel day, which is predomi-nantly, though not exclusively, local travel. Withoutthe long-distance travel data, vacation trips and trav-el by air tend to be underrepresented.

1 A trip is defined as traveling from one address toanother, whether it is down the street, across town, or crosscountry.

1 These data differ from those in section 2, Passenger-Miles ofTravel. See the box on page 26 for a discussion on differencesbetween these two datasets.2 Personal vehicles are cars, vans, sport utility vehicles, pickuptrucks, other trucks, recreational vehicles (not including water-craft), and motorcycles.


51

Sectio

n 5:V

ariables In

fluen

cing

Traveling

Beh

avior

Average miles per person, all modes

Average miles per person in personal vehicles

0

10

20

30

40

50Miles

FIGURE 25 Miles Traveled per Day: 2001

Average trips per person, all modes

Average trips per person in personal vehicles

0

1

2

3

4

5Number of trips

FIGURE 26 Trips Completed per Day: 2001

NOTE: Data are from the daily travel segment of the 2001National Household Travel Survey. Long-distance travel data(i.e., trips of 50 miles or more collected during a 4-week travelperiod) are not included here.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics and Federal Highway Administration,2001 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS), PreliminaryData Release Version 1, available at http://nhts.ornl.gov/, as ofJanuary 2003.


52

Sec

tio

n 5

:Var

iab

les

Infl

uen

cin

g T

rave

ling

Beh

avio

r

Commuting—trips made to and fromwork—accounted for 15 percent of all per-

sonal trips in 2001. In addition, other work-related trips (e.g., travel to meetings and confer-ences) accounted for 3 percent of all trips. Theaverage length of a commuting trip was 12miles,1 whereas the average length of a work-related trip was just under 30 miles (figure 27).

People made the greatest number of daily trips,45 percent, to shop, to visit doctors and dentists,and for other family and personal business suchas using professional or personal services, attend-ing a wedding or funeral, walking the dog,attending meetings, and dropping off or pickingup someone else (figure 28). Most family and per-sonal business trips tended to be relatively short,averaging about 7 miles, although visits to doc-tors and dentists averaged 10 miles each [1].

Social and recreational reasons for dailytravel, including visits to friends and relatives,motivated just over one-quarter of all trips in

2001. These trips included going to the gym,exercising, or playing sports and going to themovies, a restaurant, or a public place, such as apark. The average distance of these trips was 8miles, with trips to visit friends and relativesbeing longer than average at about 14 miles [1].

Trips to school and church accounted for 10percent of trips in 2001 and averaged 6 miles inlength. By contrast, vacation trips (includingthose for rest and relaxation) are taken relativelyrarely but far from home. In 2001 (for daily tripreporting),2 they accounted for less than 1 per-cent of trips but averaged 37 miles in length [1].

Source

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics and Federal HighwayAdministration, 2001 National HouseholdTravel Survey, Preliminary Data Release Ver-sion 1 (day trip data only), available athttp://nhts.ornl.gov, as of January 2003.

Travel by Purpose

1 The 2001 National Household Travel Survey defined a trip aseach time a person went from one address to another. “Commute”trips were defined as those trips made for the purpose of going toor returning from work. However, given the definition of a trip,those reported as commuting trips were not necessarily anchoredby the home or workplace (for return commutes). Therefore, careshould be taken in analyzing work trips, recognizing that the dis-tance for these trips is often, but not always, the distance fromhome to work.

2 The 2001 National Household Travel Survey “travel period”data were not available when this report was prepared. Withoutthese data, vacation trips and travel by air tend to be underrepre-sented.


53

Sectio

n 5:V

ariables In

fluen

cing

Traveling

Beh

avior

Vacati

on1

Work-re

lated

bus

iness

Visit fr

iends

/

rela

tives

To/fr

om w

ork

Medica

l/den

tal

Total

repo

rted

Other s

ocial

/

recrea

tiona

l

Other fa

mily/

pers

onal Sho

pping

Schoo

l/chu

rch0

10

20

30

40Miles

FIGURE 27 Average Trip Distance by Purpose: 2001

To/from work 15%

Work-related business 3%

Shopping 19%

Other family/personal business 23%

Medical/dental 2%

School/church 10%

Vacation1 1%

Visit friends/relatives 8%

Other social/recreational 19%

Other 1%

FIGURE 28 Share of Person Trips by Purpose: 2001

1 “Vacation” includes rest and relaxation.

NOTE: The 2001 National Household Travel Survey defined a trip as each time a personwent from one address to another. “Commute” trips were defined as those trips made forthe 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 work-place (for return commutes). Therefore, care should be taken in analyzing to/from worktrips, recognizing that the distance for these trips is often, but not always, the distancefrom home to work. Excluded from work-related business trips are trips made by peoplewho are directly providing the transportation of passengers or goods, such as bus or truckdrivers, delivery persons, etc.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics andFederal Highway Administration, 2001 National Household Travel Survey, Preliminary DataRelease Version 1 (day trip data only), available at http://nhts.ornl.gov/, as of January2003.


54

Sec

tio

n 5

:Var

iab

les

Infl

uen

cin

g T

rave

ling

Beh

avio

r

Personal vehicles1 are the predominant meansby which people travel in the United States

on a daily basis. In 2001, 87 percent of persontrips and 88 percent of person-miles were madein personal vehicles (figures 29 and 30). Walkingand riding a bicycle accounted for almost 10percent of trips and less than 1 percent of miles.Both transit and school bus trips accounted for2 percent each of trips and 1 percent each ofmiles, whereas only 0.1 percent of all daily tripsbut 8 percent of miles were made by air2 [1].

Within the personal vehicle category, in 2001passenger cars were still the most widely used,accounting for 59 percent of person trips and 55percent of person-miles. Vans and sport utilityvehicles were used for 27 percent of trips andmiles. Pickup trucks accounted for 15 percent ofmiles and 13 percent of trips. Together, othertrucks, recreational vehicles, and motorcycleswere used for almost 1 percent of trips and 3percent of miles [1].

In the 2001 National Household TravelSurvey, the definition of transit includes buses

(but excludes charter, tour, and intercity buses,school buses, and shuttle buses), subway orelevated rail, street car and trolley car, commutertrain, and waterborne passenger lines andferries. Buses were the most widely used transitvehicle (67 percent of transit person trips and 53percent of transit person-miles). Subway orelevated rail was the second most widely used,accounting for about one-quarter of these tripsand miles. Commuter trains were used for only6 percent of transit trips but because of therelatively long trip distances involved, accountedfor 18 percent of the transit person-miles.

Source


Travel by Mode

1 Personal vehicles include passenger cars, vans, sport utility vehi-cles, pickup trucks, other trucks, recreational vehicles (not includ-ing boats), and motorcycles.2 The 2001 National Household Travel Survey “travel period”data were not available when this report was prepared. Withoutthese data, vacation trips and travel by air tend to be underrepre-sented.


55

Sectio

n 5:V

ariables In

fluen

cing

Traveling

Beh

avior

Personal vehicle 87%Air

<1%

Transit 2%

School bus 2%

Bicycle/walk 9%

Other 1%

FIGURE 29 Modal Share of Person Trips: 2001

Personal vehicle 88%

Air 8%

Transit 1% School bus

1%

Bicycle/walk 1% Other

1%

FIGURE 30 Modal Share of Person-Miles: 2001

NOTE: The 2001 National Household Travel Survey “travel period” data were not availablewhen this report was prepared. Without these data, vacation trips and travel by air tend tobe underrepresented.



56

Sec

tio

n 5

:Var

iab

les

Infl

uen

cin

g T

rave

ling

Beh

avio

r

Slightly less than one-third of households saidthey had one personal vehicle1 available for

use in 2001. A little more than one-third ofhouseholds (40 million out of 107 millionhouseholds) had 2 vehicles and slightly less thanone-quarter had 3 or more vehicles available(figure 31). Almost 8 percent of households (8.5million) had no vehicle available [1].

The amount of travel people do and the waythey travel is strongly related to the availabilityof personal vehicles in their household. Forinstance, persons in households without vehiclestook approximately 1,000 trips per person in2001, while persons in households with at least1 vehicle took 1,500 trips each. Persons inhouseholds without a vehicle traveled about6,900 miles annually, less than half the 14,900person-miles traveled by those in householdswith at least 1 vehicle. In addition, persons inhouseholds with at least 1 household vehiclemade nearly 9 of every 10 trips by personal vehi-cle compared with less than 4 of 10 for those inhouseholds without a vehicle. Persons in house-holds without access to vehicles made 37 percentof their trips on foot and another 20 percent bytransit. This compares with 8 percent and 1 per-cent by foot and transit, respectively, by house-holds with at least one vehicle [1].

Households without vehicles tend to havecharacteristics different from households withvehicles. For instance, households with totalincomes of less than $25,000 are almost 10times more likely not to have a vehicle whencompared with those with incomes greater than$25,000 (figure 32). Though related to income,households in rented residences are five timesmore likely not to have a vehicle. Householdvehicle ownership is also closely related to thenumber of people living in the household.Eighteen percent of single-person householdshave no vehicle, as compared with only 4 per-cent of multiperson households. Furthermore,the unavailability of vehicles in households inurban areas is almost twice that of households inrural areas [1].

Source


Vehicle Ownership and Availability

1 Personal vehicles include passenger cars, vans, sport utility vehi-cles, pickup trucks, other trucks, recreational vehicles (not includ-ing boats), and motorcycles.


57

Sectio

n 5:V

ariables In

fluen

cing

Traveling

Beh

avior

None ≥ 50

10

20

30

40

50

1 2 3 4

Millions of households

Number of vehicles

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

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

Residence is owned/otherResidence is rented

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

Multiperson householdsSingle-person households

Households in rural areasHouseholds in urban areas

All households

10 15 20 250 5Percent

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

KEY: apt. = apartment; condo = condominium.



58

Sec

tio

n 6

:Tra

vel C

ost

s o

f In

trac

ity

Co

mm

uti

ng

an

d In

terc

ity

Trip

s

On average, households spent $7,406 (inchained 1996 dollars1) on transportation in

2001. This represented 21 percent of all house-hold expenditures that year. Only housing costhouseholds more (31 percent) [1].

Over the last 10 years, consumer spending onprivate transportation (mainly motor vehiclesand related expenses) increased (figure 33). Onaverage, households spent nearly $3,600 on newand used motor vehicles in 2001, up 47 percentfrom about $2,500 in 1991. Spending on othervehicle expenses, including insurance, financingcharges, maintenance, and repairs, alsoincreased from about $1,720 to nearly $2,400

(14 percent). Meanwhile, gasoline and oilexpenditures rose 3 percent, to nearly $1,100 in2001. On average, households spent almost$400 on “other transportation”2 in 2001, anincrease of 6 percent between 1991 and 2001.

Source

1. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of LaborStatistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, avail-able from http://www.bls.gov/cex/home.htm, asof February 2003. Note: the survey data are col-lected in terms of consumer units rather thanhouseholds. There are an average of 2.5 personsin each consumer unit.

Household Spending on Transportation

2 In its survey, the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses the term “pub-lic transportation,” rather than “other transportation.” This cate-gory includes both local transit, e.g., bus travel, and long-distancetravel, e.g., airplane trips.

1 All dollar amounts are expressed in chained 1996 dollars,unless otherwise specified. Current dollar amounts (which areavailable in appendix B of this report) were adjusted to eliminatethe effects of inflation over time.


59

Sectio

n 6:Travel C

osts o

f Intracity C

om

mu

ting

and

Intercity Trip

s

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Vehicle purchases (net outlays)

Other vehicle expenses

Gasoline and motor oil

Other transportation

Chained 1996 $

FIGURE 33 Average Household Transportation Expenditures: 1991–2001

NOTES: Data are based on survey results.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses the term consumer unit rather than household. Thereare an average of 2.5 persons in each consumer unit. A consumer unit is defined as mem-bers of a household related by blood, marrige, adoption, or other legal arrangement; a sin-gle person living alone or sharing a household with another but who is financially inde-pendent; or two or more persons living together who share responsibility for at leasttwo-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-distancetravel (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 toeliminate the effects of inflation over time.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer ExpenditureSurvey data query, November 2002.


60

Sec

tio

n 6

:Tra

vel C

ost

s o

f In

trac

ity

Co

mm

uti

ng

an

d In

terc

ity

Trip

s

Driving an automobile 15,000 miles per yearcost 50¢ per mile in 2001, or 16 percent

more than it did in 1991, when total costs were43¢ (figure 34). These data, which are expressedin 1996 chained dollars,1 include fixed costs(e.g., depreciation, insurance, finance charges,and license fees) and variable costs (e.g., gasolineand oil, maintenance, and tires). Over thedecade, fixed costs have consistently representedabout 75 percent of total per-mile costs.Gasoline and oil, a component of variable costs,represented 14 percent of driving costs per milein 2001, up from 12 percent in 2000 [1].

About 87 percent of the daily trips Americanstook in 2001 occurred in highway vehicles,

including their own automobiles [2]. The other13 percent traveled via public transportation orair, rode bicycles, walked, or traveled by othermeans.

Sources

1. American Automobile Association, Your DrivingCosts (Heathrow, FL: 2000 and 2001 issues).


Cost of Owning and Operating an Automobile



61

Sectio

n 6:Travel C

osts o

f Intracity C

om

mu

ting

and

Intercity Trip

s

1991 19921993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6Chained 1996 $

Total

Fixed costs

Variable costs

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

NOTES: Assumes 15,000 miles driven per year. All dollar amounts are expressed inchained 1996 dollars, unless otherwise specified. Current dollar amounts (which are avail-able in appendix B of this report) were adjusted to eliminate the effects of inflation overtime.

SOURCES: 1991–1998—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of TransportationStatistics, National Transportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), table 3-14, alsoavailable at http://www.bts.gov. 1999–2002—American Automobile Association, YourDriving Costs (Heathrow, FL: 1999–2002 issues).


62

Sec

tio

n 6

:Tra

vel C

ost

s o

f In

trac

ity

Co

mm

uti

ng

an

d In

terc

ity

Trip

s

Amtrak collected an average of 20¢ per rev-enue passenger-mile in fiscal year (FY)

2000 (in chained 1996 dollars1), up 33 percentfrom 15¢ per revenue passenger-mile in FY19932 (figure 35). During the 1990s, Amtrakshifted its focus to urban routes in the northeastand west. When Amtrak reduced its number ofroute-miles by 3 percent in 1995, revenue perpassenger-mile increased by 13 percent the fol-lowing fiscal year. When track operationallength was further reduced by 7 percent in 1999,revenue per passenger-mile increased 7 percentthe following fiscal year [1, 2].

Average intercity Class I bus fares rose 27 per-cent, from $21 to $26 (in chained 1996 dollars),

between 1990 and 2000 (figure 36). The averagebus fare is based on total intercity passenger rev-enues and the number of intercity bus passengertrips, as reported by carriers to the Bureau ofTransportation Statistics. Since passenger-miledata are not reported, average bus fare per pas-senger-mile cannot be calculated and comparedwith similar Amtrak fare data.

Sources

1. Association of American of Railroads, RailroadFacts (Washington, DC: 1994–2002 issues).

2. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak),Amtrak 2000 Annual Report, StatisticalAppendix (Washington, DC: 2001).

Cost of Intercity Trips by Train and Bus

1 All dollar amounts are expressed in chained 1996 dollars,unless otherwise specified. Current dollar amounts (which areavailable in appendix B of this report) were adjusted to eliminatethe effects of inflation over time.2 Amtrak published ticket yield data for FY 1991 through FY2000 in its 2000 Annual Report. The 2001 Annual Report, pub-lished online in February 2003, contains consolidated financialstatements only.


63

Sectio

n 6:Travel C

osts o

f Intracity C

om

mu

ting

and

Intercity Trip

s

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25Chained 1996 $

FIGURE 35 Amtrak Average Revenue per Revenue Passenger-Mile: 1993–2001

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20000

5

10

15

20

25

30Chained 1996 $

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

NOTES: Amtrak data are not available prior to 1993. All dollar amounts are chained 1996dollars. Current dollar amounts are available in appendix B and were adjusted to eliminatethe 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 ofTransportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002),table 3-15b, also available at http://www.bts.gov.


64

Sec

tio

n 6

:Tra

vel C

ost

s o

f In

trac

ity

Co

mm

uti

ng

an

d In

terc

ity

Trip

s

Transit fares remained relatively stable dur-ing the 1990s (figure 37). Increases in fares

per passenger-mile for some modes of transitwere offset by lower fares per passenger-mile forother modes.

Local transit bus service, which accounts for60 percent of public transportation ridership (bynumber of unlinked passenger trips1), is slightlymore expensive than it was 10 years ago (figure38). Transit bus service cost 20¢ per mile in2000, up from 18¢ per mile in 1990 (in chained1996 dollars).2 Bus ridership, which dropped byabout 15 percent during the mid-1990s,rebounded by 2000. Rail transit—heavy, com-muter, and light rail—was less expensive in 2000

than in 1990, with light-rail fares dropping themost, at 30 percent.

Heavy rail comprises most of the nation’s sub-way systems. It is the second most heavily usedform of transit with over 30 percent of totaltransit ridership. The cost of using heavy raildeclined from 19¢ to 18¢ per passenger-milebetween 1990 and 2000 [1].

Source

1. American Public Transportation Association,Public Transportation Fact Book 2001, Tables 18 and 26, available at http://www.apta.com/stats/fares/faremode.htm, as of February2003. Data for 2000 are preliminary.

Average Transit Fares

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


65

Sectio

n 6:Travel C

osts o

f Intracity C

om

mu

ting

and

Intercity Trip

s

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20000

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25Chained 1996 $

FIGURE 37 Average Transit Fare per Passenger-Mile:Fiscal Years 1990–2000

Modes included are heavy, commuter, and lightrail; bus; demand responsive; trolley bus; ferry-boat; vanpool; tramway; monorail; automatedguideway; and inclined plane.

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20000

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25Chained 1996 $

Heavy rail

Commuter railLight rail

Bus

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

NOTES: Data for 2000 are preliminary. Beginning in 1991, faresinclude subsidies formerly classified as "Other" operating funding.Commuter rail: Urban/suburban passenger train service forshort-distance travel between a central city and adjacent sub-urbs run on tracks of a traditional railroad system. Does notinclude heavy- or light-rail transit service.Heavy rail: High-speed transit rail operated on rights-of-waythat exclude all other vehicles and pedestrians.Light rail: Urban transit rail operated on a reserved right-of-waythat may be crossed by roads used by motor vehicles andpedestrians.

Demand responsive: A nonfixed-route, nonfixed-schedule formof transportation that operates in response to calls from passen-gers or their agents to the transit operator or dispatcher.All dollar amounts are expressed in chained 1996 dollars.Current dollar amounts (which are available in appendix B ofthis report) were adjusted to eliminate the effects of inflationover time.SOURCES: American Public Transportation Association, PublicTransportation Fact Book 2001, tables 18 and 26, available athttp://www.apta.com/stats/fares/faremode.htm, as of February2003. Modal definitions—U.S. Department of Transportaton,Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Pocket Guide toTransportation 2003 (Washington, DC: 2003), glossary.


66

Sec

tio

n 6

:Tra

vel C

ost

s o

f In

trac

ity

Co

mm

uti

ng

an

d In

terc

ity

Trip

s

The U.S. working poor1 totaled more than 9million (6 percent of all workers) in 1999

[1]. Half of these workers spent almost 10 per-cent of their income on commuting expenses inthat year2 (figure 39). This is over twice the per-centage of income that the median of the totalpopulation spent on commuting (4 percent).This disparity grows to four times when com-pared with the median for workers earning$45,000 or more per year (2 percent of income).

Half of all workers who use their own vehiclesspent 5 percent or more of their income in 1999on commuting (figure 40). However, among theworking poor using their own vehicle, half spentat least 21 percent of their income on commut-ing. For all workers taking public transit, halfspent 3 percent or more of their income, com-pared with the median for the working poor of13 percent of their income.3 Most workers usedtheir own vehicle to commute in 1999; however,the working poor were more likely than othergroups to use alternative commuting modes. Forinstance, 87 percent of workers earning $22,000or more per year used their own vehicle to com-mute, compared with 66 percent of the workingpoor. A substantial number of the working poor

used the less expensive options of carpool or van-pool (12 percent), public transit (6 percent), bik-ing or walking (11 percent), or commuted someother way (8 percent).

Source

1. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. CensusBureau and U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau ofLabor Statistics, Annual Demographic Survey,March Supplement, table 10, available athttp://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032000/pov/new10_001.htm, as of March 2003.

Commuting Expenses of the Working Poor

Commuting Expenses Data

The data presented here are based on an analysis bythe Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) of theU.S. Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and ProgramParticipation (SIPP) (available at http://www.sipp.census.gov/sipp). BTS plans to publish a full report inlate 2003 on how the percentage of workers’ incomespent on commuting varies by race, gender, age,location, household, and income definition covering1996 to 1999.

For this study, BTS selected only those with a paidjob during the reference period from the SIPP sam-ple. Workers’ commuting expenses included feesand fares, for those who did not use their own vehi-cle to commute, and mileage expenses, parkingfees, and tolls for those who used their own vehicle.The income figures represent cash income beforetaxes.

The percentage of income data presented here is inmedian values. A median is the middle value in a distri-bution, above and below which lie an equal number ofvalues. For example, when the median spending oncommuting by all workers who own their own vehiclesis 5 percent of their income, half of all workers spendmore than 5 percent of their income on commuting andthe other half spend less than 5 percent.

Source

U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of TransportationStatistics, Commuting Expenses: Disparity for the WorkingPoor, Issue Brief (Washington, DC: 2003).

1 The official government poverty line for a single adult with nodependents was $8,501 in 1999. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002,http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/threshld/thresh99.html) Here,the working poor are defined as workers with an annual personalincome of less than $8,000. 2 Data are in current 1999 dollars. For further information, seeU.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of TransportationStatistics, Commuting Expenses: Disparity for the Working Poor,Issue Brief (Washington, DC: 2003).3 In this analysis, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics foundthat 0.5 percent of workers reported using both their own vehicleand public transit to commute. Overall, 2 percent of workersreported using multiple modes.


67

Sectio

n 6:Travel C

osts o

f Intracity C

om

mu

ting

and

Intercity Trip

s

0

2

4

6

8

10

Income group

Median of total population = 3.9%

Percent1

< $8,000 $8,000– $14,999

$15,000– $21,999

$22,000– $29,999

$30,000– $44,999

$45,000>–

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

Income group

Use own vehicle Use public transit

All using own vehicle = 4.9%All using public transit = 3.3%

< $8,000 $8,000– $14,999

$15,000– $21,999

$22,000– $29,999

$30,000– $44,999

$45,000

Percent1

>–

Median of total population:

FIGURE 40 Share of Personal Income Spent on Commuting byIncome Group and Transportation Mode: 1999

1 Percent represents median of income group. The median is the point where half theincome 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, calcula-tions based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Survey ofIncome and Program Participation (Hyattsville, MD: 2001), also available athttp://www.bls.census.gov/sipp/, as of April 2003.


68

Sec

tio

n 6

:Tra

vel C

ost

s o

f In

trac

ity

Co

mm

uti

ng

an

d In

terc

ity

Trip

s

Commercial airlines offer a variety of discountfares to fill their flights, but these special

discount airfares, facilitated by internet com-merce and “frequent flyer” programs, complicateefforts to measure changes in the prices peoplepay for commercial air travel. To improve thesemeasurements, the Bureau of TransportationStatistics (BTS) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics(BLS) have research underway to develop anOrigin and Destination (O&D) Survey AirfareIndex (see box). Some data from this ongoingresearch are presented here.

The O&D Survey index research data can beused to compare changes in prices among variouscities. In one comparison of three medium-sizecities, a dip appears between 1995 and 1998 forflights originating in Colorado Springs, Colorado(figure 41). This is a time during which the dis-count carrier Western Pacific operated flightsfrom Colorado Springs and indicates the effect ithad on bringing airfares down before it withdrewfrom the market. The O&D Survey index can beused to compare prices for international travel, aswell. The third quarter spikes in a comparison oftravel originating in Frankfurt, London, andTokyo indicate that a high percentage of passen-gers traveling to the United States from thesecities pay peak fares July through September (fig-ure 42). These types of specific domestic and for-eign points of origin comparisons are possiblebecause of the size of the O&D Survey sample onwhich the index is based.

The O&D Survey index can be comparedwith the official BLS Airline fare index (figure43). As the BLS index covers only itinerariesoriginating in the United States, it is most com-parable to the O&D Survey “U.S. Origin Only”

series. However, these two indices give differentresults. For instance, between the fourth quarterof 1998 and the fourth quarter of 2000, the BLSindex increased 17 percent, while the similarO&D Survey index increased only 13 percent.This difference is probably due mainly to theO&D Survey index’s inclusion of special dis-count fares combined with consumers’ increas-ing use of special discount tickets during thisperiod. The more comprehensive O&D Surveyindex, which combines U.S. and foreign flightorigin data, rose even less (11.6 percent). The“foreign origin only” component increased just4.1 percent but fluctuates more over the period.

Airfare Index Research Data

Origin and Destination (O&D) SurveyAirfare Index Data

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) quarter-ly Passenger Origin and Destination (O&D) Surveyprovides the data for the O&D Survey Airfare Index.Through this passenger survey, BTS collects data ona 10 percent sample of airline itineraries. Each sam-ple observation comprises a fare value (actual farepaid, including tax), a sequence of airports and carri-ers, and other details of an itinerary traveled by a pas-senger or group of passengers.

The O&D Survey Index data presented here weredeveloped only for research purposes by BTS statis-ticians, in consultation with researchers from theBureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). This ongoing BTSresearch1 is aimed at developing a new method ofcomputing price indices for air travel, based on trans-action prices. The current official U.S. ConsumerPrice Index for commercial air travel is the BLSAirline Fare Index, but it does not reflect the fullrange of fares consumers pay.2

1 For a description of the experimental index estimationmethodology, see Lent and Dorfman, “A Transaction PriceIndex for Air Travel,” 2003, available on request from theBureau of Labor Statistics.2 A description of the BLS estimation method is availableon the BLS website at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifacaf.htm.


69

SSeeccttiioonn 66:: TT

rraavveell CCoossttss ooff IInnttrraacciittyy CC

oommmm

uuttiinngg aanndd IInntteerrcciittyy TTrriippss

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q460

80

100

120

140

Des Moines, IACharleston, SC

Colorado Springs, CO

Index: Q1 1995 = 100

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

FFIIGGUURREE 4411 OOrriiggiinn aanndd DDeessttiinnaattiioonn SSuurrvveeyy IInnddeexx11 bbyy CCiittyy ooff OOrriiggiinn ffoorrTThhrreeee MMeeddiiuumm--ssiizzeedd UU..SS.. CCiittiieess:: 11999955––22000000(All classes of service)

60

80

100

120

140Index: Q1 1995 = 100

London, England

Frankfurt, Germany

Tokyo, Japan

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q41995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

FFIIGGUURREE 4422 OOrriiggiinn aanndd DDeessttiinnaattiioonn SSuurrvveeyy IInnddeexx11 bbyy CCiittyy ooff OOrriiggiinn ffoorrTThhrreeee LLaarrggee IInntteerrnnaattiioonnaall CCiittiieess:: 11999955––22000000(All classes of service)

60

80

100

120

140Index: Q1 1995 = 100

BLS Airline Fare CPI

O&D Survey, foreign origin only

O&D Survey, all origins

O&D Survey, U.S. origin only

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q41995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

FFIIGGUURREE 4433 CCoommppaarriissoonn ooff AAiirrffaarree IInnddiicceess:: 11999955––22000000 (Not seasonally adjusted)

1 The O&D Survey indices are computed using the Fisher Indexformula, which differs from the formulas used to compute theBureau of Labor Statistics Airline Fare Consumer Price Index.

NNOOTTEE:: These data were developed for research purposes onlyand are not official BTS data.

SSOOUURRCCEESS:: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics (BTS) and U.S. Department of Labor,Bureau of Labor Statistics, calculations based on data fromBTS's quarterly Passenger Origin & Destination Survey, March2003. FFiigguurree 4411—U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of LaborStatistics, Airline Fare Consumer Price Index, available athttp://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data, as of March 2003.


70

SSeecc

ttiioonn

77:: AA

vvaaiillaa

bbiilliitt

yy ooff

MMaass

ss TT

rraannss

iitt aann

dd NN

uummbbee

rr ooff

PPaass

sseenngg

eerrss

SSeerr

vveedd

Transit passenger-miles traveled (pmt) grew24 percent between 1991 and 2001, from

37.5 billion pmt to 46.5 billion pmt [1, 2]. Asthey have historically, buses had the largest pmtshare in 2001, generating 19.6 billion pmt or 42 percent of all transit pmt (figure 44). Also in2001, heavy-rail pmt totaled 14.2 billion or 31 percent, commuter rail reached 9.5 billionpmt or 20 percent, light rail had 1.4 billion pmtor 3 percent, and other modes of transit, such asferryboat and demand responsive,1 generated1.8 billion pmt or 4 percent [2].

The top 30 transit authorities (ranked byunlinked passenger trips) logged 35.1 billionpassenger-miles in 2001 or 76 percent of alltransit pmt that year [2]. In 2001, people riding

New York City Transit traveled 10.1 billion pas-senger-miles (or 22 percent of all passenger-milesout of the top 30 authorities) and the ChicagoTransit Authority generated 1.8 billion pmt or 5 percent [3].

Sources

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalTransit Administration, National TransitSummaries and Trends, 1996, available athttp://www.ntdprogram.com, as of May 2003.

2. _____, “National Transit Summaries andTrends,” 2002 draft, available at http://www.ntdprogram.com, as of February 2003.

3. _____, National Transit Database, available athttp://www.ntdprogram.com, as of March 2003.

Transit Passenger-Miles Traveled

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


71

SSeeccttiioonn 77:: AA

vvaaiillaabbiilliittyy ooff MMaassss TT

rraannssiitt aanndd NNuumm

bbeerr ooff PPaasssseennggeerrss SS

eerrvveedd

19910

5

10

15

20

2001200019991998199719961995199419931992

Passenger-miles (billions)

Bus

Heavy rail

Commuter rail

OtherLight rail

FFIIGGUURREE 4444 PPaasssseennggeerr--MMiilleess bbyy TTyyppee ooff SSeerrvviiccee:: 11999911––22000011

NNOOTTEE:: Other includes modes such as demand responsive, automated guideway, AlaskaRailroad, cable car, ferryboat, inclined plane, monorail, trolleybus, and vanpool.

SSOOUURRCCEESS:: 11999911––11999944—U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal TransitAdministration, 1994 National Transit Summaries and Trends (Washington, DC: 1996);11999955—U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, 1997 NationalTransit Summaries and Trends (Washington, DC: 1999); 11999966––22000011—U.S. Department ofTransportation, Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database, Data Tables(Washington, DC: 1996-2001 issues).


72

SSeecc

ttiioonn

77:: AA

vvaaiillaa

bbiilliitt

yy ooff

MMaass

ss TT

rraannss

iitt aann

dd NN

uummbbee

rr ooff

PPaass

sseenngg

eerrss

SSeerr

vveedd

Transit ridership has grown steadily since1996, reaching 9.0 billion unlinked trips

(see box) in 2001, an increase of 19 percent (fig-ure 45). This represents an annual change of 4percent compared with the growth in U.S. resi-dent population of 1 percent over the sameperiod. Between 1991 and 1996, transit rider-ship did not grow appreciably [1].

Among the various types of transit service,bus ridership comprised the majority ofunlinked trips (5,215 million) in 2001, havinggrown 16 percent between 1996 and 2001.However, rail transit ridership, with almost3,480 million trips in 2001, posted stronger

growth (39 percent). Among the rail compo-nents, light rail grew 29 percent; heavy rail, 27percent; and commuter rail, 19 percent (figure46). Heavy-rail ridership posted 2,728 milliontrips; commuter rail, 418 million trips; and lightrail, 334 million trips in 2001. Other modes,such as ferryboats and demand responsive,posted a combined 313 million trips [1].

Source

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal TransitAdministration, “National Transit Summaries andTrends,” 2002 draft, available at http://www.ntprogram.com, as of February 2003.

Transit Ridership

Transit authorities reporting to the Federal TransitAdministration (FTA) provide the number of passengerswho board public transportation vehicles rather thanthe number of passengers they serve. Passengerboardings are called unlinked and linked passengertrips. Unlinked trips are total boardings on an individualvehicle. Linked trips refers to the total number of ridersand measures the actual number of complete trips fromorigin to destination, including transfers. Unlinked tripsare viewed as a measure of transit utilization (at thesystem, route, or subroute level), while linked trips areused to measure revenue passengers. The ratio ofunlinked to linked trips indicates the relative usage oftransfers in the transit system [2]. Determining the actu-al number of passengers using a transit system can bea significant task because of the tracking requirementsfor the number of transfers from one vehicle or mode tothe next, from one agency to another, and from the useof day passes and cash.

Because FTA does not have an official methodology forestimating the actual number of passengers that ridetransit systems, individual transit agencies developtheir own passenger counting and estimation method-ology based on their resources and local attributes.Individual transit agencies may estimate the actual

number of passengers based on a variety of methodsand data-collection tools to help control for doublecounting, such as, automatic passenger counting units,on-board surveys, manual people counters, video cam-era tracking, and fare box analysis.

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA)made an estimate, based on an average weekday, ofthe actual number of passengers carried by memberauthorities in 2000. APTA concluded that the number ofpeople using the national transit system is 45 percent ofthe number of total unlinked trips reported or 14 millionpeople, based on 32 million daily unlinked trips. Thisestimate reflects the average travel patterns of approxi-mately 50 percent of all transit riders who take 2 tripsper day between home and employment and thosedependent on transit who could take up to 10 trips perday [1].

SSoouurrcceess1. American Public Transportation Association, 2002 Public

Transportation Fact Book (Washington, DC: February2002).

2. Boyle, D.B., “Passenger Counting Technologies andProcedures,” TCRP Synthesis of Transit Practice 29(Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, 1998).

LLiinnkkeedd aanndd UUnnlliinnkkeedd TTrriippss vvss.. NNuummbbeerr ooff PPaasssseennggeerrss


73





eerrvveedd

1991 1993 1995 1997 19990

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2001

Total (all services)

Bus

Heavy rail

Commuter railLight rail

Unlinked trips (billions)

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

FFIIGGUURREE 4455 TTrraannssiitt RRiiddeerrsshhiipp bbyy SSeelleecctteedd TTyyppee ooff SSeerrvviiccee:: 11999911––22000011

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 20010

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Commuter rail

Light rail

Unlinked trips (millions)

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

FFIIGGUURREE 4466 TTrraannssiitt RRiiddeerrsshhiipp bbyy SSeelleecctteedd TTyyppee ooff SSeerrvviiccee:: 11999911––22000011

NNOOTTEESS:: Total includes other modes not shown, such as ferryboats, demand responsive,inclined planes, and trolley buses. See the Glossary for definitions of heavy rail, light rail,and commuter rail.

SSOOUURRCCEE:: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, NationalTransit Summaries and Trends, 2002 draft, available at http://www.ntdprogram.com, as ofFebruary 2003.


74

SSeecc

ttiioonn

77:: AA

vvaaiillaa

bbiilliitt

yy ooff

MMaass

ss TT

rraannss

iitt aann

dd NN

uummbbee

rr ooff

PPaass

sseenngg

eerrss

SSeerr

vveedd

Approximately 77 percent of all unlinkedtransit passenger trips since at least 1996

have been made within the service area of just 30transit authorities. These 30 top authoritieslogged 6.9 billion unlinked trips in 20011 (figure47). New York City Transit alone reported 2.7 billion, or 30 percent, of all unlinked passen-ger trips. The Chicago Transit Authority followedwith 485 million or 5 percent of all trips [2].

The top 30 transit authorities served a popu-lation of about 101 million in 2001 [2]. All tran-sit authorities reporting to the National TransitDatabase determine their population-serveddata using definitions of bus and rail service inthe Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 andtheir own local criteria for other service such asferryboat and vanpool. Some double counting ofpopulations served occurs, especially among

authorities operating in the largest metropolitanareas such as New York City, Los Angeles,Chicago, and San Francisco [2].

According to a Bureau of TransportationStatistics survey,2 an average of 71 percent ofhousehold respondents indicated they had publictransportation available in their area [1].

Sources

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, Omnibus Survey,Summer 2002, available at http://www.bts.gov,as of June 2003.

2. U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalTransit Administration, National TransitDatabase, 1996 and 2001 issues, available athttp://www.ntdprogram.com/, as of March 2003.

Transit Ridership by Transit Authority

1 In 2001, 602 transit authorities submitted data to the FederalTransit Administration. However, due to reporting omissions, only580 transit authorities are reflected in that year’s database.

2 In the summer of 2002, BTS’s Omnibus Survey collected dataon public transportation in June, July, and August.


75





eerrvveedd

Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority, CA

Orange County Transportation Authority, CA

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, OH

Dallas Area Rapid Transit, TX

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, CA

City and County of Honolulu, HI

Milwaukee County Transportation System, WI

NE IL Regional Commuter Railroad, IL

Metro North Rail Road, NY

Metro Transit, MN

Port Authority Allegheny, PA

Denver Regional Transportation District, CO

Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation, NJ

Green Transit Jamaica Corporation, NY

Miami-Dade Transit Agency, FL

Metro Transit Authority Harris County, TX

Oregon Tri-County District, OR

King County DOT, Metro Transit District, WA

Long Island Rail Road, NY

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit, CA

Maryland Transit Administration, MD

Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, GA

New Jersey Transit, NJ

San Francisco Municipal Railway, CA

SE Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, PA

Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority, MA

Washington-Metro Area Transit Authority, DC

LA County Metro Transportation Authority, CA

Chicago Transit Authority, IL

New York City Transit, NY

Total, top 30 authorities

Total, all authorities

4 6 8 1020

57

57

60

61

71

71

71

72

73

73

75

80

82

82

84

88

91

101

102

104

111

164

226

235

318

364

379

398

485

2,667

6,904

9,008

Trips (millions)

FFIIGGUURREE 4477 TToopp 3300 TTrraannssiitt AAuutthhoorriittiieess bbyy UUnnlliinnkkeedd PPaasssseennggeerr TTrriippss:: 22000011

NNOOTTEESS:: Oregon Tri-County is a municipal corporation of theState of Oregon. Green Transit Jamaica Corporation is a con-tractor for the New York City Department of Transportation.

SSOOUURRCCEE:: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal TransitAdministration, National Transit Database, available athttp://www.ntdprogram.com, as of February 2003.


76

SSeecc

ttiioonn

77:: AA

vvaaiillaa

bbiilliitt

yy ooff

MMaass

ss TT

rraannss

iitt aann

dd NN

uummbbee

rr ooff

PPaass

sseenngg

eerrss

SSeerr

vveedd

The nationwide fleet of lift- or ramp-equippedtransit buses increased to 87 percent (58,785

buses) in 2001 from 52 percent of the bus fleet(29,088 buses) in 1993 (figure 48). Whileincreased compliance with Americans withDisabilities Act (ADA) requirements (see box)occurred from 1993 to 2001, the rate of compli-ance has differed among bus types (figure 49).The large bus fleet had the highest level of com-pliance in 1993 and articulated buses the lowest.By 2001, the large bus fleet continued to have thehighest rate (95 percent, or 40,501 vehicles), fol-lowed by medium buses with 94 percent (7,337vehicles). Meanwhile, small buses had the lowestlevel of compliance (85 percent, or 9,176 vehi-cles). Articulated bus compliance fell in the mid-dle at 89 percent, or 1,771 vehicles [2].

Rail transit infrastructure consists of track andstations. In 2001, 50 percent (1,374) stationswere ADA accessible, serving automated guide-way transit, cable cars, commuter rail, heavy rail,inclined plane, light rail, monorail, and theAlaska Railroad. In 2001, light-rail riders enjoyed76 percent accessibility (408 stations), followedby commuter-rail riders with 50 percent accessi-bility (583 stations) and heavy-rail riders with 35percent accessibility (352 stations) [1].

Sources

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalTransit Administration, National Transit Database2001, available at http://www.ntdprogram.com, asof March 2003.

2. _____, National Transit Summaries and Trends,2002 draft, available at http://www.ntdprogram.com, as of February 2003.

Lift- or Ramp-Equipped Buses and Rail Stations

TTrraannssiitt AAcccceessssiibbiilliittyy UUnnddeerr tthhee AADDAA

While the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of1990 requires public transit services, under specificconditions, to be accessible to persons with specialneeds, it did not impose a statutory deadline for fleetaccessibility. The ADA did require all key stations tobe accessible by July 1993, but allowed the FederalTransit Administration to grant an extension up toJuly 2020 for stations requiring structural modifica-tions to bring them into compliance [1].

The ADA was enacted in 1990; data have been col-lected since 1993.

SSoouurrccee

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal TransitAdministration, FY 2002 Performance Plan(Washington, DC: 2003), also available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/performfy2001/pg2.html, as of February2003.


77





eerrvveedd

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

20

40

60

80

100Percent

FFIIGGUURREE 4488 SShhaarree ooff TTrraannssiitt BBuusseess tthhaatt aarree LLiifftt-- oorr RRaammpp--EEqquuiippppeedd:: 11999933––22000011

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

20

40

60

80

100

Small busesMedium buses

Large buses

Articulated buses

Percent

FFIIGGUURREE 4499 SShhaarree ooff TTrraannssiitt BBuusseess tthhaatt aarree LLiifftt-- oorr RRaammpp--EEqquuiippppeedd bbyy BBuuss TTyyppee:: 11999933––22000011

NNOOTTEESS:: Large buses have more than 35 seats, medium buses have 25–35 seats, andsmall buses have less than 25 seats. Articulated buses are extra-long buses that measurebetween 54 and 60 feet.

SSOOUURRCCEE:: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, "NationalTransit Summaries and Trends," 2002 draft, available at http://www.ntdprogram.com, as ofFebruary 2003.


78

SSeecc

ttiioonn

88:: FF

rreeqquu

eennccyy

ooff

VVeehh

iiccllee

aanndd

TTrraa

nnssppoo

rrttaatt

iioonn

FFaacc

iilliittyy

RReepp

aaiirrss

In the United States, there were nearly 600,000motor carriers—common, contract, or pri-

vate—using buses or trucks to provide commer-cial transportation of passengers or freight in2000 [2]. These companies accounted for 28percent of the nation’s freight ton-miles and 3percent of passenger-miles that year1 [1]. Repairdata for most of this fleet are not public infor-mation.

Over 2.0 million roadside truck inspectionswere completed in 2001, up from 1.6 million in1990, to ensure that trucks are in compliancewith federal safety regulations and standards(figure 50). Nearly one-quarter of thoseinspected in 2001 were taken out of service forrepairs (figure 51). Although the number ofinspected trucks taken out of service for repairshas remained fairly constant, the proportion ofthose trucks as a percentage of all inspectedtrucks has declined from 34 percent in 1990 to23 percent in 2001.

The downtime for a truck undergoing aninspection can vary from 30 to 60 minutes.Trucks that are placed out-of-service for repairsmay be delayed from a few minutes to severaldays, depending on circumstances.

Sources

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, National Transporta-tion Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002),tables 1-34 and 1-44, also available athttp://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003.

2. U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalMotor Carrier Safety Administration data, ascited in American Trucking Associations,American Trucking Trends 2002 (Washington,DC: 2002).

Commercial Motor Vehicle Repairs

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


79

SSeeccttiioonn 88:: FF

rreeqquueennccyy ooff VVeehhiiccllee aanndd TT

rraannssppoorrttaattiioonn FFaacciilliittyy RR

eeppaaiirrss

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Inspected Trucks taken out of service

Inspections (millions)

FFIIGGUURREE 5500 RRooaaddssiiddee TTrruucckk IInnssppeeccttiioonnss:: 11999900––22000011

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

5

10

15

20

25

30

35Percent

FFIIGGUURREE 5511 IInnssppeecctteedd TTrruucckkss TTaakkeenn OOuutt ooff SSeerrvviiccee ffoorr RReeppaaiirrss:: 11999900––22000011

SSOOUURRCCEESS:: 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. 11999999––22000011 ddaattaa ((ffiigguurree 5500)) aanndd 22000011 ddaattaa ((ffiigguurree 5511))—personalcommunication, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Aug. 11, 2003.


80

SSeecc

ttiioonn

88:: FF

rreeqquu

eennccyy

ooff

VVeehh

iiccllee

aanndd

TTrraa

nnssppoo

rrttaatt

iioonn

FFaacc

iilliittyy

RReepp

aaiirrss

Work zones on freeways cause an estimated24 percent of the nonrecurring delays on

freeways and principal arterials [1]. Accordingto the Federal Highway Administration, the pur-pose of maintenance—which includes restora-tion, resurfacing, minor widening, and recon-struction—is to keep highways in usablecondition not to extend service life. Pavementresurfacing represented just over half (51 per-cent) of the miles of federal-aid roads undergo-ing federally supported construction or mainte-nance in 2001 (figure 52), up from about 42percent in 1997.1

The level of funding applied to highway main-tenance is an indirect measure of the amount ofmaintenance activity and, thus, presence ofwork zones on highways. Although well-main-tained roads are vital to a smoothly functioningtransportation system, the maintenance activitymay temporarily disrupt the flow of vehicles,causing traffic delays and congestion.

Funding for highway maintenance increasedby 15 percent (in constant 1987 dollars)2

between 1990 and 2001 (figure 53). Theamount of funds disbursed by federal, state, andlocal governments for maintenance activitiestotaled $20.3 billion in 2001. This represented24 percent of total disbursements for highwaysin 2001 [2].

Sources

1. Chin, S.M., O. Franzese, D.L. Greene, H.L.Hwang, and R. Gibson. “Temporary Losses ofHighway Capacity and Impacts on Perfor-mance,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, May2002.

2. U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalHighway Administration, Highway Statistics2001 (Washington, DC: 2002), table HF-2, alsoavailable at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim, as ofFebruary 2003.

Highway Maintenance and Repairs

1 1997 is the earliest year for which these data are available.

2 Instead of chained 1996 dollars, constant 1987 dollars are usedhere because the Federal Highway Administration publishes itsdata accordingly.


81




eeppaaiirrss

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 200116.0

16.5

17.0

17.5

18.0

18.5

19.0

19.5

20.0

20.5

21.0Constant 1987 $ (billions)

FFIIGGUURREE 5533 FFeeddeerraall,, SSttaattee,, aanndd LLooccaall GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt HHiigghhwwaayy MMaaiinntteennaannccee EExxppeennddiittuurreess:: 11999911––22000011

Restor

ation

Resurf

acing

Minor

widenin

g

Recon

struc

tion

Major

widenin

g

Reloca

tion

New ro

ute0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000Miles

FFIIGGUURREE 5522 FFeeddeerraall--AAiidd RRooaaddwwaayy PPrroojjeeccttss UUnnddeerrwwaayy bbyy IImmpprroovveemmeenntt TTyyppee:: 22000011

NNOOTTEESS:: Maintenance includes any work required to keep highways in usable condition thatdoes not extend the service life of the roadway beyond the original design. Restorationincludes renovation. Although the following categories are not generally considered mainte-nance, they are included for comparison: major widening, relocation, and new route.

SSOOUURRCCEE:: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, HighwayStatistics 2001 (Washington, DC: 2002), "Miles of Federal-Aid Roadway Projects Underway byImprovement Type" chart, also available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim, as of June 2003.

NNOOTTEE:: Although dollar values in most other sections of this book have been converted tochained 1996 dollars, these data are presented in constant 1987 dollars. The FederalHighway Administration, which collects the data, adjusts current dollar data to constant1987 dollars using an index it designed for that purpose.

SSOOUURRCCEE:: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, HighwayStatistics 2001 (Washington DC: 2002), "Highway Expenditures by Government Type, Currentand Constant Dollars" chart, also available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim, as of June 2003.


82

SSeecc

ttiioonn

88:: FF

rreeqquu

eennccyy

ooff

VVeehh

iiccllee

aanndd

TTrraa

nnssppoo

rrttaatt

iioonn

FFaacc

iilliittyy

RReepp

aaiirrss

Class I railroads1 provide vital freight trans-portation services—carrying more than

one-third of domestic freight ton-miles2 eachyear [2]. In order to provide efficient and timelyservices, these companies maintained nearly170,000 miles of track in 2001, down fromnearly 200,000 miles in 1991 [1]. Class I trackmileage has been declining for many decadesespecially on lower density lines, in part becauseownership and maintenance is expensive. Assuch, rail companies have focused more onreplacing worn rails and crossties than on layingnew track.

Throughout the 1990s, rail companiesreplaced an average of 743,000 tons of rail eachyear (figure 54). The yearly replacements, whichcan vary substantially because of the long life ofrails, ranged from a high of 875,000 tons in1992 to a low of 643,000 tons in 1997. Usingthe most common rail weight (130 to 139 lbsper yard), it would take approximately 120 tonsof rail to cover one mile [1].

There was some growth in the amount of newrails added to the Class I system in the late1990s as firms increased capacity to handlegrowing amounts of coal traffic and reconfig-ured their systems as a result of mergers. Over200,000 tons of new rail were added both in1998 and 1999, up from 19,000 in 1990.

Railroads also replace crossties periodically inorder to ensure the integrity of their tracks.

Throughout the 1990s, railroads replaced anaverage of 12.2 million crossties each year (fig-ure 55). The yearly replacements ranged from ahigh of 14.1 million crossties in 1990 to a low of10.4 million in 1998. There was some growth inthe number of new crossties added to the Class Isystem in the late 1990s as firms increasedcapacity or reconfigured their systems. In 1998,1.8 million new crossties were added; but by2001, the number of new crossties addeddeclined to almost the level seen a decade earlier.

Railroads also periodically replace or rebuildlocomotives and freight cars. On average, newand rebuilt locomotives made up 4 percent ofClass I railroad fleets between 1990 and 2001(figure 56). The number of locomotives thatwere new or rebuilt varied from a low of 3 per-cent in 1992 to a high of 7 percent in 1994.Likewise, the number of freight cars that werenew or rebuilt varied from 3 percent in 1992 to6 percent in 1998.

Sources

1. Association of American Railroads, RailroadFacts 2002 Edition (Washington, DC: 2002).

2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, National Transpor-tation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002),table 1-44 and appendix D, also available athttp://www.bts.gov.

Rail Infrastructure and Equipment Repairs

1 Rail companies with annual operating revenues of $266.6 mil-lion or more in 2001.2 Ton-miles are calculated by multiplying the weight in tons ofeach shipment transported by the miles hauled.


83




eeppaaiirrss

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

200

400

600

800

1,000Tons (thousands)

Replacement rail Installation of new rail

FFIIGGUURREE 5544 RRaaiill IInnssttaalllleedd oorr RReeppllaacceedd bbyy UU..SS.. CCllaassss II RRaaiillrrooaaddss:: 11999900––22000011

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16Millions

Replacement crossties Installation of new crossties

FFIIGGUURREE 5555 CCrroossssttiieess IInnssttaalllleedd oorr RReeppllaacceedd bbyy UU..SS.. CCllaassss II RRaaiillrrooaaddss:: 11999900––22000011

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

2

4

6

8

10

Freight cars

Locomotives

Fleet (%)

FFIIGGUURREE 5566 NNeeww oorr RReebbuuiilltt LLooccoommoottiivveess aanndd FFrreeiigghhtt CCaarrss:: 11999900––22000011

NNOOTTEE:: Locomotive data are for Class I railroads only. Freight car data cover Class I rail-roads, other railroads, and private car owners.

SSOOUURRCCEESS:: EExxcceepptt aass nnootteedd—Association of American Railroads, Railroad Ten-YearTrends, 1990–2000 (Washington, DC: 2000); 22000000––22000011 ddaattaa—Association of AmericanRailroads, Analysis of Class I Railroads (Washington, DC: 2000 and 2001). FFiigguurree 5566—Association of American Railroads, Railroad Facts (Washington, DC: 1999 and 2002).


84

SSeecc

ttiioonn

88:: FF

rreeqquu

eennccyy

ooff

VVeehh

iiccllee

aanndd

TTrraa

nnssppoo

rrttaatt

iioonn

FFaacc

iilliittyy

RReepp

aaiirrss

Transit service1 interruptions due to mechan-ical failures remained relatively level from

1995 through 2000,2 averaging between 18 and19 mechanical problems per 100,000 revenuevehicle-miles [1, 2] (figure 57).

Among transit vehicles, buses and light railhad the highest rates of mechanical failure in2000. Buses broke down an average of 28 timesper 100,000 revenue vehicle-miles, while light-rail vehicles broke down 15 times per 100,000revenue vehicle-miles. Light-rail vehicle break-downs have changed the most since 1995. Inthat year, there were 32 mechanical failures per100,000 revenue vehicle-miles. However,

between 1995 and 2000, the number of light-rail authorities rose to 25, up from 22 in 1995[1, 2].

Sources

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalTransit Administration, National Summaries andTrends (Washington, DC: Annual issues), alsoavailable at http://www.ntdprogram.com/, as ofApril 2003.

2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, National Transpor-tation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002),table 1-32 and Transit Profile, also available athttp://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003.

Transit Vehicle Reliability

1 Here transit service includes:Light rail—streetcar-type vehicles operated on city streets, semi-exclusive rights-of-way, or exclusive rights-of-way. Service may beprovided by step-entry vehicles or by level boarding. Commuter rail—urban passenger train service for short-distancetravel between a central city and adjacent suburb.Heavy rail—electric railways with the capacity to transport aheavy volume of passenger traffic and characterized by exclusiverights-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 vehiclesthat operate in response to calls from passengers or their agents tothe transit operator or dispatcher.2 Data prior to 1995 and later than 2000 were collected using dif-ferent definitions of what constitutes an interruption of service andare not comparable.


85




eeppaaiirrss

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20000

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Motor bus

Light rail

Average

Heavy railCommuter railDemand responsive

Number per 100,000 revenue vehicle-miles

FFIIGGUURREE 5577 IInntteerrrruuppttiioonnss ooff SSeerrvviiccee bbyy TTyyppee ooff TTrraannssiitt:: 11999955––22000000

NNOOTTEE:: Interruptions of service include major and minor mechnical failures. If the vehicleoperator was able to fix the problem and return the vehicle to service without assistance,the incident is not considered an interruption of service. For modal definitions, see table 57in appendix B.

SSOOUURRCCEESS:: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, NationalTransit Library, 2001 Reporting Manual, available at http://www.ntdprogram.com/, as ofApril 2003; and American Public Transportation Association, Maintenance data tables,available at http://www.apta.com/research/stats/maint/index.cfm, as of April 2003.


86

SSeecc

ttiioonn

88:: FF

rreeqquu

eennccyy

ooff

VVeehh

iiccllee

aanndd

TTrraa

nnssppoo

rrttaatt

iioonn

FFaacc

iilliittyy

RReepp

aaiirrss

Great Lakes Saint Lawrence Seaway System(the Seaway) locks are usually closed dur-

ing the winter for several months due to ice.Excluding the winter closure, the 2001 seasonconsisted of 277 days. The lock system of theportion of the Seaway operated and maintainedby the United States experienced 111 hours(about 4½ days) of downtime during the 2001season. Lock equipment malfunctions causedonly seven hours of delay during the 2001 sea-son, 6 percent of all downtime. Weather-relatedpoor visibility, high winds, and ice caused overhalf of all lock downtime. Vessel incidentscaused another 45 percent of delays. Over thelast decade, weather has been the cause of mostdelays (figure 58). Exceptions occurred in 1993when water level/flow caused 124½ hours ofdelay and in 1998 and 1999 when vessel inci-dents caused over 40 hours of delay.

The Seaway is a waterway operated jointly bythe United States and Canada. It encompassesthe Saint Lawrence River, the five Great Lakes,and the waterways connecting the Great Lakes.It extends 2,300 miles—from the Gulf of theSaint Lawrence at the Atlantic Ocean in the eastto Lake Superior in the west [1]. The U.S. SaintLawrence Seaway Development Corporation(the Corporation) operates and maintains theU.S. portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway,which includes two locks.

Operations and maintenance represent thebulk of the Corporation’s expenditures. Over 80percent of Corporation expenditures wenttoward personal services and benefits—mainlyfor staffing the locks—during fiscal year 2000.Maintenance and engineering cost $3.3 million.In December 1999, the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers surveyed the two lock structures oper-ated and maintained by the United States. Theyconcluded that the locks were generally wellmaintained but recommended maintenance andcapital improvements [2]. The Corporation hasdeveloped five-year capital and maintenanceplans for the years 2001 through 2005 thatinclude $6 million in capital expenditures.

Sources

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, Maritime Administra-tion, and U.S. Coast Guard, Maritime Trade &Transportation 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002).

2. U.S. Department of Transportation, SaintLawrence Seaway Development Corp., Fiscal2000 Annual Report, Great Lakes Seaway SystemMoves Forward in the 21st Century (Washington,DC: 2001), also available at http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/en/pdf/fy2000ar.pdf, as of February2003.

Lock Repairs on the Great Lakes Saint LawrenceSeaway System


87




eeppaaiirrss

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

50

100

150

200

250Delay (hours)

Weather-related causes

All other causes

FFIIGGUURREE 5588 SSaaiinntt LLaawwrreennccee SSeeaawwaayy LLoocckk DDeellaayyss bbyy CCaauussee:: 11999900––22000011

NNOOTTEESS:: “Weather-related” includes poor visibility and high wind/ice; “All other” includesvessel incidents, lock equipment malfunction, civil interference, and water level/flow.

SSOOUURRCCEE:: U.S. Department of Transportation, Saint Lawrence Seaway DevelopmentCorporation, Annual Reports (Washington, DC: various years). Reports for years1993–2000 available at http://www.greatlakes-seaway.com/en/aboutus/slsdc_annrept.html,as of April 2003.


88

SSeecc

ttiioonn

88:: FF

rreeqquu

eennccyy

ooff

VVeehh

iiccllee

aanndd

TTrraa

nnssppoo

rrttaatt

iioonn

FFaacc

iilliittyy

RReepp

aaiirrss

Natural disasters, accidents, labor disputes,terrorism, security breaches, and other

unforeseeable incidents can result in major dis-ruptions to the transportation system. Althougha comprehensive account of these unpredictableinterruptions has not been undertaken nor datacompiled on them, numerous studies and otheranalyses have sought to evaluate the effects ofindividual events on the transportation system.

Terrorist attacks and security alerts haveaffected transportation services for decades.However, efforts to increase transportation secu-rity have grown markedly since the attacks ofSeptember 11, 2001. The short- and long-termeffects of September 11 on transportation andancillary services are still being assessed. In theshort-term, airport enplanements and flightactivity were substantially lower immediatelyafter September 11 (figure 59). In fact, all flightsscheduled for September 12 were canceled, andmany other flights were canceled during theremainder of the month and the months that fol-lowed. Air passenger traffic has not fully recov-ered two years after the attacks, however otherfactors, such as an economic downturn, mayalso be part of the cause.

Vehicle accidents are a common cause oftransportation delays. National estimates, basedon model simulations, suggest that nearly 40percent of nonrecurring delays on freeways andprincipal arterials are due to crashes. Weather,another unpredictable factor, accounts for 27percent of highway delays. Relatively fewerdelays resulted from road work-zones (24 per-cent) and vehicle breakdowns (11 percent) [1].Although motor vehicle accidents are, by far, the

most frequent type of transportation accident,other modes also experience major disruptionsdue to accidents. A freight train carrying haz-ardous materials derailed in a Baltimore tunnelin 2001 [2]. The resulting fire lasted several daysand forced the city to close some highways andrail passages. Freight and passengers weredelayed as trains were diverted hundreds ofmiles throughout the Middle Atlantic region.

The United States, because of its size and var-ied geography, is vulnerable to many types ofnatural disasters that can affect transportation.The flooding of the Mississippi River in 1993shut down large portions of the inland water-way system, washed out rail track, damaged railbridges, and closed an estimated 250 highwaysegments and bridges [3]. The following year,the Northridge earthquake had a major impacton the Los Angeles metropolitan area trans-portation system. Measuring 6.8 on the Richterscale, the earthquake knocked out four free-ways, caused the collapse of parking structures,and ruptured numerous natural gas distributionlines [4, 5].

Disputes initiated by labor or business andother business adjustments can disrupt the pas-senger and freight transportation system. Forexample, a strike by San Francisco Bay AreaRapid Transit employees caused huge trafficjams on bridges and highways in 1997; a strikeby United Parcel Service employees stalled ship-ments of goods later that year; and a labor lock-out by terminal operators shut down west coastports for 10 days in 2002 [6, 7]. A different typeof business-related disruption caused problemson the Union Pacific Railroad in 1997.

Intermittent Interruptions of Transportation Services


89




eeppaaiirrss

Following a merger with Southern PacificRailroad in 1996, accidents and congestionoverwhelmed the expanded railroad, resulting infederal intervention [6].

Sources

1. Chin, S.M., O. Franzese, D.L. Greene, H.L.Hwang, and R. Gibson. “Temporary Losses ofHighway Capacity and Impacts on Perfor-mance,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, May2002.

2. National Transportation Safety Board, “Updateon July 18, 2001 CSXT Derailment in BaltimoreTunnel,” press release, Dec. 4, 2002, available athttp://www.ntsb.gov/, as of April 2003.

3. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, TransportationStatistics Annual Report 1994 (Washington, DC:1994).

4. _____, Transportation Statistics Annual Report1995 (Washington, DC: 1995).

5. _____, Journal of Transportation and Statistics:Special Issue on the Northridge Earthquake 1(2),May 1998.

6. _____, Transportation Statistics Annual Report1998 (Washington, DC: 1998).


5 6 7 8 90

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Flights Cancellations

151413121110 1716

Number of flights (thousands)

Date in September 2001

FFIIGGUURREE 5599 UU..SS.. DDoommeessttiicc FFlliigghhtt OOppeerraattiioonnss:: SSeepptteemmbbeerr 55––1177,, 22000011

SSOOUURRCCEE:: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Form234 Delay Data for September 2001, tabulated Nov. 5, 2001.


90

SSeecc

ttiioonn

99:: AA

cccciidd

eennttss

There were 45,130 fatalities related to trans-portation in 2001, almost 16 fatalities per

100,000 U.S. residents [1, 2, 3, 5]. This is adecline of 11 percent from 18 fatalities per100,000 residents in 1991, when there were44,320 fatalities. Nearly 93 percent of all trans-portation fatalities in 2001 were highway-related (figure 60). Most of these people whodied were occupants of passenger cars or lighttrucks (including pickups, sport utility vehicles,and minivans). Air, rail, transit, water, andpipeline transportation result in comparativelyfew deaths per capita (see box). Transit, forinstance, led to about 0.11 deaths per 100,000residents in 2001.

Highway safety improved between 1991 and2001. Highway-related fatalities declined from16 fatalities per 100,000 U.S. residents to 15fatalities per 100,000 residents (or 6 percent)over the period. The decline in highway fatali-ties is most apparent for occupants of passengercars (figure 61). During the period, only fatali-ties per 100,000 residents of occupants of lighttrucks rose, from 3 to 4 per 100,000 residents.(This is a period during which the number ofregistered light trucks increased from 53 millionto 84 million [4].) Motorcyclist fatalities per100,000 residents have been rising since 1997.

Similar trends in highway fatality rates areapparent when the rate is based on vehicle-milestraveled (vmt). Passenger car occupant fatalitiesper 100 million vmt declined 25 percentbetween 1991 and 2001, while light truck occu-pant fatalities per 100 million vmt rose slightly(figure 62). Motorcyclist fatalities grew 59 per-

cent by 2001 after falling from 30.6 fatalitiesper 100 million vmt in 1991 to 21.0 fatalitiesper 100 million vmt in 1997.1

Sources

1. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. CensusBureau, Census 2000, available at http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html, as of June2003.

2. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S.Coast Guard, Data Administration Division, per-sonal communication, June 6, 2003.

3. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, National Transport-ation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002),table 2-1, also available at http://www.bts.gov/,as of April 2003.

4. U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalHighway Administration, Highway Statistics1991 and Highway Statistics 2001 (Washington,DC: 1991 and 2001), table VM-1, 2001 editionavailable at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hss/index.htm, as of June 2003.

5. U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalTransit Administration, National Trends andSummary 2001 (Washington, DC: 2002).

Transportation Fatality Rates

FFaattaalliittyy DDaattaa

Each transportation mode tends to define fatality dif-ferently and may generate its fatality data using different methods. Therefore, comparisons acrossmodes should be viewed very carefully. For furtherinformation on modal fatality definitions, see theglossary section of this report.

1 These motorcycle data are not shown in figure 62 but appear intable 62 in appendix B.


91


cccciiddeennttss

Air Highway Railroad Transit Waterborne Pipeline0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16Per 100,000 U.S. residents

0.32

14.79

0.34 0.11 0.29 0.002

FFIIGGUURREE 6600 TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn FFaattaalliittyy RRaatteess bbyy MMooddee:: 22000011

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010123456789

10Number

Passenger car occupants

Light truck occupants

Motorcycle occupantsLarge truck occupants

FFIIGGUURREE 6611 HHiigghhwwaayy FFaattaalliittiieess ppeerr 110000,,000000 RReessiiddeennttss ffoorr SSeelleecctteeddVVeehhiiccllee TTyyppeess:: 11999911––22000011

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

1991 2001200019991998199819961995199419931992

Large truck occupants

Light truck occupants

Passenger car occupants

Number

FFIIGGUURREE 6622 HHiigghhwwaayy FFaattaalliittiieess ppeerr 110000 MMiilllliioonn VVeehhiiccllee--MMiilleess ffoorr SSeelleecctteedd VVeehhiiccllee TTyyppeess:: 11999911––22000011

NNOOTTEESS:: Air includes commercial and general aviation.Waterborne includes commercial and recreational vessels. Seenote on table 60 for complete information on inclusions by modeand definitions of light and large trucks for figures 61 snd 62.Commercial aviation data for 2001 do not include fatalities thatresulted from the terrorist attacks on New York City andWashington, DC.

Figure 62 excludes the motorcycle occupant fatality rate data,because the rate is much higher than for the other selected high-way modes. Those data are available on table 62 in appendix B.

SSOOUURRCCEESS:: EExxcceepptt aass nnootteedd—U.S. Department ofTransportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, NationalTransportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), table 2-1, also available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003.PPooppuullaattiioonn—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. CensusBureau, Census 2000, available athttp://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html, as of June2003. 22000011 WWaatteerrbboorrnnee—U.S. Department of HomelandSecurity, U.S. Coast Guard, Data Administration Division, per-sonal communication, June 6, 2003. 22000011 TTrraannssiitt— U.S.Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration,National Trends and Summaries 2001 (Washington, DC: 2002).


92

SSeecc

ttiioonn

99:: AA

cccciidd

eennttss

For people under 65 years of age, the Centersfor Disease Control (CDC) has ranked

transportation accidents as the third leadingcause of death in the United States (after cancerand heart disease) each year from 1991 to 2000[1]. During those years, an average of nearly36,000 people under 65 died each year fromtransportation accidents.1

While transportation accidents amounted to6 percent of the deaths of those under age 65between 1991 and 2000, these fatalities repre-sented 10 percent of the total years of potentiallife lost (YPLL) during this period (figure 63).YPLL, which is computed by adding up theremaining life expectancies of all victims (up to65 years of age) at their deaths, is a measure-ment that accounts for the age distributionamong different causes of injury mortality andother common causes of death (see box).Accordingly, the difference between the percent-age of deaths and YPLL indicates that peoplewho die from transportation accidents tend tobe younger on average than victims of othercauses of death.

Motor vehicle crashes are the most frequentcause of transportation-related fatalities. YPLLsassociated with deaths related to motor vehicleaccidents can be compared with YPLLs for

deaths from all other modes of transportation(figure 64). This shows that, over the 10 years,motor vehicle deaths also contributed to thebulk of YPLLs due to transportation accidents.

Source

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,Centers for Disease Control, National Center forHealth Statistics, National Vital StatisticsReports: Deaths, 1991–2000 issues, available athttp://www.cdc.gov/nchs/, as of March 2003.

Years of Potential Life Lost from Transportation Accidents

DDaattaa ffoorr CCaallccuullaattiinngg YYeeaarrss ooff PPootteennttiiaall LLiiffee LLoosstt

Data used here come from a national mortality data-base compiled by the Centers for Disease Control’sNational Center for Health Statistics. Years of poten-tial life lost (YPLL) are computed from this data bymatching the ages of victims with the correspondingentries in the life expectancy tables. Remainingyears of life expectancy from the age of death to 65years are counted toward YPLL. Victims 65 yearsand older are not included. YPLL data for 1982through 2000 are available online through the Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System(WISQARS).

SSoouurrccee

Centers for Disease Control, National Center for InjuryPrevention and Control, Web-Based Injury Statistics Queryand Reporting System (WISQARS), available at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/, as of March 2003.

1 Because of methodological differences, fatality data from theCDC differ from those collected by the individual modal adminis-trations.


93


cccciiddeennttss

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20000

2

4

6

8

10

12% of total deaths and YPLL

Deaths YPLL

FFIIGGUURREE 6633 DDeeaatthhss aanndd YYeeaarrss ooff PPootteennttiiaall LLiiffee LLoosstt DDuuee ttooTTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn AAcccciiddeennttss:: 11999911––22000000

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20000

2

4

6

8

10

12% of total YPLL

Motor vehicle accidents

Other transportation accidents

FFIIGGUURREE 6644 YYeeaarrss ooff PPootteennttiiaall LLiiffee LLoosstt DDuuee ttoo MMoottoorr VVeehhiiccllee aannddOOtthheerr TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn AAcccciiddeennttss:: 11999911––22000000

NNOOTTEE:: Years of potential life lost (YPLL) is the difference between the age of death and 65years of age. Fatalities of people 65 years old and older are not included in this calculation.

SSOOUURRCCEE:: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control,National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-Based Injury Statistics Query andReporting System (WISQARS), available at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/, as ofFebruary 2003.


94

SSeecc

ttiioonn

99:: AA

cccciidd

eennttss

Each year a far larger number of people areinjured than killed in transportation-related

accidents. An estimated 3.1 million people suf-fered some kind of injury involving passengerand freight transportation in 2001 (see box).Most of these injuries, about 98 percent,resulted from highway crashes1 [1].

Highway injury rates vary by the type of vehi-cle used (figure 65). In 2001, 75 passenger caroccupants were injured per 100 million passen-ger-miles traveled (pmt) compared with 58 lighttruck occupants. Occupants of large trucks andbuses are even less likely to sustain an injury permile of travel. Motorcycle riders are, by far, themost likely to get hurt. Transit-related injuriesare also relatively high per mile. This is due, atleast in part, to the inclusion of injuries on tran-sit property, including those not caused by tran-sit vehicle operations, such as injuries on escala-tors and in parking lots. (These transit injurydata will be disaggregated starting with 2002data.)

Injury rates for most modes declined between1991 and 2001, with some exceptions.2 Ratesfor light truck occupants rose 15 percent, from50 per 100 million pmt in 1991 to 58 per 100

million pmt in 2001 (figure 66). Motorcyclinghas become safer per mile ridden over thedecade, but since 1999, the injury rate hasincreased from 429 per 100 million pmt to 575per 100 million pmt in 2001. Bus injuries per100 million pmt have declined recently afterincreases in the mid-1990s.

Source

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, National Transpor-tation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002),tables 1-34 and 2-2, also available athttp://www.bts.gov/, as of February 2003.

Transportation Injury Rates

IInnjjuurryy DDaattaa

Each transportation mode tends to define injury dif-ferently. In addition, each mode may generate itsinjury data using different methods. Therefore, com-parisons across modes should be viewed very care-fully. For further information on modal injury defini-tions, see the glossary section of this report.

In the following pages, another source of highwayinjury data—the National Electronic Injury Sur-veillance System operated by the U.S. ConsumerProduct Safety Commission—results in yet anotherset of highway injury data that differs from modaldata presented here.

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


95


cccciiddeennttss

Passenger car

Motorcycle Light truck

Large truck

Bus Total0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700Injuries per 100 million passenger-miles

FFIIGGUURREE 6655 IInnjjuurryy RRaatteess ffoorr OOccccuuppaannttss ooff HHiigghhwwaayy VVeehhiicclleess:: 22000011

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Motorcycle

Passenger carLight truck

Injuries per 100 million passenger-miles

FFIIGGUURREE 6666 IInnjjuurryy RRaatteess ffoorr OOccccuuppaannttss ooff SSeelleecctteedd HHiigghhwwaayy VVeehhiicclleess aanndd MMoottoorrccyycclliissttss:: 11999911––22000011

NNOOTTEE:: Bus and large truck occupant injury rates, 1991–2001, are included in table 66 inappendix B.

SSOOUURRCCEESS:: 11999911––22000000—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of TransportationStatistics, National Transportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), tables 1–34and 2-2, also available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003. 22000011 ddaattaa—See correspon-ding tables in appendix B for full citation.


96

SSeecc

ttiioonn

99:: AA

cccciidd

eennttss

There were an estimated 3.6 million highway-related injuries in the United States in 2001,

according to data reported to the U.S. ConsumerProduct Safety Commission (CPSC)1 (see box)[1]. An estimated 3.3 million of these injuriesinvolved motor vehicle occupants. The restinvolved about 131,000 pedestrians, 111,000motorcyclists, and 60,000 pedalcyclists.

More females than males were treated forminor injuries in 2001 across most age groups,with spikes for people aged 15 to 24 (figure 67).This age group sustained almost 1 million minormotor vehicle-related injuries. For serious injuries,more males than females were treated across allage groups up to about 65 years (figure 68).Again, serious injuries spiked at ages 15 to 24, butmale injuries spiked substantially higher. This agegroup incurred about 84,000 serious injuries in2001 of which 61 percent happened to males.

In summary, there were sharp peaks in injuriesassociated with youth: for motor vehicle occu-pants and motorcyclists, the peak spanned ages15 to 24; for pedalcyclists and pedestrians, thepeak spanned ages 10 to 14. Young males exhib-ited a substantially greater peak in serious injuriesthan young females. In addition, the percentageof injuries classified as serious was greater formotorcyclists (20 percent of all motorcyclistinjuries were serious), pedestrians (19 percent),and pedalcyclists (10 percent) than it was formotor vehicle occupants (7 percent) (figure 69).

This analysis comes from a Bureau ofTransportation Statistics (BTS) comprehensive

study using 2001 data from the CPSC’s NationalElectronic Injury Surveillance System. Only asmall portion of the BTS study is presented here.The study included data on motor vehicle occu-pants, motorcyclists, pedalcyclists, and pedestri-ans injured on or near public roads,2 but only oninjuries involving collisions with moving motorvehicles.3 BTS also compared data on minor andserious injuries.

Source

1. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,National Electronic Injury Surveillance System(NEISS), information available at http://www.cpsc.gov/Neiss/oracle.html, as of June 2003.

Motor Vehicle-Related Injuries

NNaattiioonnaall EElleeccttrroonniicc IInnjjuurryy SSuurrvveeiillllaannccee SSyysstteemm ((NNEEIISSSS)) IInnjjuurryy DDaattaa

Use of NEISS data from the U.S. Consumer ProductSafety Commission (CPSC) enables analyses ofinjuries by factors such as age and gender, type ofvehicle, and severity of injuries sustained. NEISS dataare a probability sample of reports from hospital emer-gency rooms in the United States and territories open24 hours a day with at least 6 beds. Each hospital hasa computer linked to CPSC headquarters. Staff con-sistently computer code information in emergencyroom medical reports, which allows injuries to be ana-lyzed and compared within and across transportationmodes and over time. Physicians diagnose injuries,specify injured body part(s), determine disposition,and give other detailed medical information. NEISSdata cannot estimate injuries treated at sites otherthan hospital emergency rooms (e.g., HMOs, physi-cian’s offices, and on-site medical facilities) and do notinclude investigative information aside from emer-gency room medical reports.

1 Because of methodological differences, highway injury datafrom CPSC differ from those estimated by the National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the U.S. Department ofTransportation. For 2001, NHTSA reported an estimated 3.0 mil-lion highway injuries.

2 This includes injuries involving traffic on public roads and indriveways and parking lots, and at other locations near, but noton, public roads.3 This excludes occupants injured when entering or exiting parkedvehicles, pedalcyclists injured by parked cars or other fixed objects,and pedestrians struck by pedalcyclists or off-road vehicles.


97


cccciiddeennttss

0

50

100

150

200

250

300Thousands

0–4

5–910

–1415

–1920

–2425

–2930

–3435

–3940

–4445

–4950

–5455

–5960

–6465

–6970

–7475

–7980

–8485

–8990

–9495

–99

100+

Females

Males

Age

FFIIGGUURREE 6677 MMiinnoorr MMoottoorr VVeehhiiccllee--RReellaatteedd IInnjjuurriieess bbyy AAggee aanndd GGeennddeerr:: 22000011

100+

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0–4

5–910

–1415

–1920

–2425

–2930

–3435

–3940

–4445

–4950

–5455

–5960

–6465

–6970

–7475

–7980

–8485

–8990

–9495

–99

Thousands

Males

Females

Age

FFIIGGUURREE 6688 SSeerriioouuss MMoottoorr VVeehhiiccllee--RReellaatteedd IInnjjuurriieess bbyy AAggee aanndd GGeennddeerr:: 22000011

Vehicle occupants Motorcyclists Pedalcyclists Pedestrians02468

101214161820

% of injuries within each type that are serious22

FFIIGGUURREE 6699 SSeerriioouuss MMoottoorr VVeehhiiccllee--RReellaatteedd IInnjjuurriieess bbyy TTyyppee:: 22000011

NNOOTTEESS:: A pedalcyclist is a person on a vehicle that is poweredsolely by pedals. A minor injury is one in which the victim wastreated and released. A serious injury is one in which the victimwas either hospitalized or treated and transferred to anotherfacility. FFiigguurree 6699—Data are the share of injuries that were seri-ous for one person type (e.g., the share of seriously injuredpedestrians of all injured pedestrians).

SSOOUURRCCEE:: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, calculations based on data from U.S.Consumer Product Safety Commission, National ElectronicInjury Surveillance (NEISS) System, available athttp://www.cpsc.gov/Neiss/oracle.html, as of June 2003.


98

SSeecc

ttiioonn

99:: AA

cccciidd

eennttss

Motor vehicle crashes in the United Statescost an estimated $231 billion1 in 2000,

about $820 per person or 2 percent of the GrossDomestic Product2 [1]. The largest componentsof the total cost (26 percent each) are marketproductivity—the cost of foregone paid labordue to death and disability—and property dam-age (figure 70). Household productivity—thecost of foregone household (unpaid) labor—accounted for 9 percent of the total cost.Workplace cost (2 percent) is the disruptionfrom the loss or absence of an employee suchthat it requires training a new employee, over-time to accomplish the work of the injuredemployee, and administrative costs to processpersonnel changes.

Alcohol-involved crashes cost $50.9 billion or22 percent of the total costs. Costs related tospeeding were estimated to be $40.4 billion, 18percent of the total. The failure of drivers andpassengers to wear safety belts cost an estimated$26 billion, but the use of safety belts saved $50billion [1].

Ultimately, all people pay for the cost ofmotor vehicle crashes through insurance premi-ums, taxes, out-of-pocket expenses, and the like.About one-quarter of the cost of crashes is paiddirectly by those involved, while society in gen-eral pays the rest (figure 71). Insurance compa-nies, funded by all insured drivers whether theyare involved in a crash or not, paid about halfthe cost in 2000. Government paid 9 percent ofthe cost. “Other” (13 percent) includes unpaidcharges of health care providers and charities,costs borne by employers, and the cost of delayborne by travelers.

Source

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration, TheEconomic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000(Washington, DC: 2002), also available athttp://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/economic, as ofDecember 2002.

Economic Impacts of Motor Vehicle Crashes

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


99


cccciiddeennttss

Market productivity 26%

Property damage 26%Medical costs

14%

Travel delay 11%

Household productivity

9%

Insurance administration 7%

Legal costs 5%

Workplace costs 2% Emergency services

1%

FFIIGGUURREE 7700 CCoommppoonneennttss ooff tthhee EEccoonnoommiicc CCoossttss ooff MMoottoorr VVeehhiiccllee CCrraasshheess:: 22000000

Total government Insurer Self0

10

20

30

40

NA NA NA NA NA

Emergency services

Market productivity Medical

Household productivity

Insurance administration Legal

Property damage

Current $ (billions)

NA NA NA

FFIIGGUURREE 7711 EEssttiimmaatteedd SSoouurrcceess ooff PPaayymmeenntt ffoorr MMoottoorr VVeehhiiccllee CCrraasshheess:: 22000000

KKEEYY:: NA = not applicable.

NNOOTTEE:: 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 bil-lion, mainly for travel delays.

SSOOUURRCCEE:: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration, The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2000 (Washington, DC:2002), available at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/economic/, as of December 2002.


100

SSeecc

ttiioonn

1100::

CCooll

llaattee

rraall DD

aammaagg

ee ttoo

tthhee

HHuumm

aann aa

nndd NN

aattuurr

aall EE

nnvviirroo

nnmmeenn

tt

Transportation in 2001 emitted 66 percent ofthe nation’s carbon monoxide (CO), 47 per-

cent of nitrogen oxides (NOx), 35 percent ofvolatile organic compounds (VOC), 5 percent ofparticulates, 6 percent of ammonia, and 4 per-cent of sulfur dioxide.1 Highway vehicles emittedalmost all of transportation’s share of CO in2001, 80 percent of the NOx, and 75 percent ofall VOC (figure 72). Marine vessels and railroadlocomotives each contributed 10 percent oftransportation’s NOx emissions, and other non-road vehicles2 had a 20 percent share of VOCemissions. With the exception of ammonia,transportation air emissions have declined since1991 (figure 73). NOx shows only a slightdecrease between 1991 and 2001.

Gasoline powered highway vehicles experi-enced the greatest decline in NOx emissions,while diesel-powered highway vehicles and air-craft show increases between 1991 and 2001(figure 74). New, tightened NOx emissions stan-dards for diesel and gasoline trucks are due to gointo effect in 2007 and 2008 [1]. In addition,new NOx standards will apply to certain marineengines built in 2004. The U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency has also proposed new NOxemissions standards for motorcycles and recre-ational boats. NOx emissions standards for loco-motives went into effect in 2000, and tightenedstandards will apply to locomotives built in2005 and later [2].

These key air emissions data (see box) are themost widely used indicator of transportation’simpact on the environment. Key air emissionsgenerated during the use of various vehicles,locomotives, aircraft, and vessels affect thenation’s air quality and human health.

Sources

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, National Transpor-tation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2003),tables 4-30 through 4-32, also available athttp://www.bts.gov/, as of January 2003.

2. U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalRailroad Administration, personal communica-tion, July 2003.

Key Air Emissions

1 With its 2001 updates, the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency is no longer estimating lead emissions. In 2000, transporta-tion emitted 13 percent of the nation’s lead emissions. Aircraftemitted almost 96 percent of all transportation lead emissions.While the substance is no longer used in most fuels, it is still pres-ent in aviation fuels.2 Other nonroad vehicles include recreational marine vessels, air-port service vehicles, and road maintenance equipment.

TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn AAiirr EEmmiissssiioonnss

National data on air emissions are estimated by theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA’sNational Emissions Inventory (NEI) is updated annu-ally and covers mobile, stationary, and area sourcesof pollution regulated under the Clean Air Act. Thesepollutants include the so-called “criteria” and haz-ardous air pollutants.1 Most criteria emissions havebeen estimated since 1970, hazardous emissionsonly since 1996.

EPA’s mobile source category contains “onroad”(highway) and “nonroad” (all other modes) emissions.However, its nonroad category includes nontrans-portation sources such as farming and constructionequipment, lawn and garden equipment, and logging,industrial, and light commercial equipment. To moreaccurately assess transportation air emissions, theBureau of Transportation Statistics removes the non-transportation components from EPA’s criteria mobilesource emissions. It is this subset that is presentedhere as “transportation” emissions.

1 For details on transportation’s contribution to hazardousair pollutants, see U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureauof Transportation Statistics, Transportation Statistics AnnualReport 2000, available at http://www.bts.gov/.


101

SSeeccttiioonn 1100:: CC

oollllaatteerraall DDaamm

aaggee ttoo tthhee HHuumm

aann aanndd NNaattuurraall EE

nnvviirroonnmmeenntt

0

20

40

60

80

100

Carbon monoxide Nitrogen oxides Volatile organic compounds

Percent

0.3 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.60.8

Highway gasoline Highway diesel

0.2

Aircraft

Marine vessels Railroad Other

1.4

FFIIGGUURREE 7722 SShhaarree ooff SSeelleecctteedd AAiirr PPoolllluuttiioonn EEmmiissssiioonnss bbyy MMooddee:: 22000011

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8Index: 1991 = 1.0

Ammonia

NOxPM-10

PM-2.5

Lead

CO VOC

FFIIGGUURREE 7733 TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn AAiirr EEmmiissssiioonnss bbyy TTyyppee ooff PPoolllluuttaanntt:: 11999911––22000011

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

Aircraft

Highway diesel OtherRailroad

Marine vessels

Highway gasoline

Index: 1991 = 1.0

FFIIGGUURREE 7744 NNiittrrooggeenn OOxxiiddee EEmmiissssiioonnss bbyy MMooddee:: 11999911––22000011

NNOOTTEESS:: FFiigguurree 7722—EPA no longer estimates lead emissions.Modal shares in 2000 were: highway gasoline vehicles, 4.1%; air-craft, 95.9%. FFiigguurree 7733—Revisions to previous estimates are allrelated to the development of the 1999 National EmissionsInventory (NEI). The 1999 estimates in the table are taken fromVersion 2 of the 1999 NEI and reflect many new data submis-sions from state and local air management agencies. The 1999emissions estimates from mobile sources are in most casesbased on the new MOBILE6 and the draft NONROAD2002 emis-sions models. This is the first time that estimates using thesemodels have appeared in this format. Some but relatively few

mobile source estimates were provided by state air agencies.The largest set of state-submitted data in 1999 was fromCalifornia. Estimates for mobile sources for years prior to 1999were made consistent with the estimates for 1999 and later,allowing for a generally consistent time trend except that state-submitted data were incorporated for 1999 only. See the tables inappendix B for definitions of "highway" and "other" vehicles.SSOOUURRCCEE:: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, National Emissions Inventory,Air Pollutant Emission Trends, available athttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/index.html/, as of August 2003.


102

SSeecc

ttiioonn

1100::

CCooll

llaattee

rraall DD

aammaagg

ee ttoo

tthhee

HHuumm

aann aa

nndd NN

aattuurr

aall EE

nnvviirroo

nnmmeenn

tt

U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions totaled6,936 teragrams (trillion grams) of carbon

dioxide equivalent (TgCO2Eq) in 2001,1 of which1,867 TgCO2Eq (27 percent) were emitted bytransportation. Transportation emissions havegrown 22 percent since 1990, while total U.S.emissions rose 13 percent. Carbon dioxide (CO2),the predominant greenhouse gas, accounted for 84percent of all U.S. emissions in 2001 [1]. Nearly all(97 percent) of CO2 emissions are generated bythe combustion of fossil fuels. Transportation wasresponsible for 1,780.9 TgCO2Eq, or 31 percentof all CO2 emissions. Transportation CO2 emis-sions grew 24 percent between 1991 and 2001, anaverage annual change of 2 percent.

Highway vehicle emissions rose at an averageannual rate of 2 percent between 1991 and 2001(figure 75). At the same time, locomotive emis-sions grew at 3 percent and domestic aircraftemissions rose less than 1 percent. Domesticmaritime emissions increased 2 percent but werevolatile throughout the period. Under the UnitedNations Framework Convention on ClimateChange reporting guidelines, only domestic air-craft and maritime emissions are included in themodal data. The balance of emissions, labeledinternational bunker fuels, declined 2 percent onan annual average basis between 1991 and 2001.

Highway vehicles emitted 79 percent of alltransportation CO2 emissions in 2001.Passenger cars and light-duty vehicles, whichinclude pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, andvans, were responsible for 78 percent of those

highway emissions (figure 76). Over the period1991 to 2001, emissions of all other trucks grewfastest, at 4 percent annually. The second high-est average annual growth rate among highwayvehicles was 3 percent for light-duty trucks.

Most air pollutants impact local or regional airquality. Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, couldalter the earth’s climate on a regional and globalscale. These potential changes include long-termfluctuations in temperature, wind, precipitation, andother perturbations of the Earth’s climate system.GHGs, including CO2, methane, and nitrous oxideoccur naturally and as a result of human activities.

Source

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventoryof U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:1990–2001 (Washington, DC: April 2003),tables ES-3 and ES-8.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

1 Including sinks, net U.S. emissions totaled 6,098 TgCO2Eq in2001. A natural sink, according to the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, is “A reservoir that uptakes a pollutant fromanother part of its cycle. Soil and trees tend to act as natural sinksfor carbon.” Unnatural sinks are manmade depositories for pollu-tants (e.g., the Department of Energy is creating underground sinksinto which CO2 can be pumped).

GGHHGG EEmmiissssiioonnss DDaattaa

Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and the Energy Information Administration(EIA) produce estimated annual U.S. GHG emis-sions data. EPA is responsible for producing the offi-cial inventory of U.S. emissions, as required underthe United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change. Both agencies use EIA fuel con-sumption data as a basis for estimating most GHGemissions but differences in their methodologies canresult in different datasets.1 EIA usually releases itsdata about six months before EPA does. EPA pro-vides more detail of interest to transportation, suchas emissions by mode. EIA presents emissions inmillion metric tons of carbon equivalent (mmtce),while EPA uses teragrams of carbon dioxide equiva-lent (TgCO2Eq) as required under the Convention.[1 TgCO2Eq = 1 mmtce x (44/12)]

1 For further information, see U.S. Department ofTransportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics,Transportation Statistics Annual Report 2001 (WashingtonDC: 2002), page 239.


103






1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Boats and vessels Locomotives

Highway

Other2

Aircraft

Teragrams ofCO equivalent(1991 = 1.0)

21

FFIIGGUURREE 7755 CCaarrbboonn DDiiooxxiiddee EEmmiissssiioonnss bbyy TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn MMooddee:: 11999911––22000011

Passenger cars

Light-duty trucks

All other trucks

BusesAlternative fuel vehicles

45%

<1%1%

21%

33%

FFIIGGUURREE 7766 SShhaarree ooff HHiigghhwwaayy MMooddee CCaarrbboonn DDiiooxxiiddee EEmmiissssiioonnss bbyy VVeehhiiccllee TTyyppee:: 22000011

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, agri-cultural machinery, pipelines, and lubricants.

NNOOTTEE:: FFiigguurree 7755—Highway includes passenger cars, buses, light-duty trucks, and othertrucks.

SSOOUURRCCEE:: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse GasEmissions and Sinks: 1990–2001 (Washington, DC: April 2003), table 1-14, also availableat http://www.epa.gov, as of June 2003.


104

SSeecc

ttiioonn

1100::

CCooll

llaattee

rraall DD

aammaagg

ee ttoo

tthhee

HHuumm

aann aa

nndd NN

aattuurr

aall EE

nnvviirroo

nnmmeenn

tt

Transportation-related sources typicallyaccount for most oil reported to be spilled

into U.S. waters reported each year.1 Forinstance, transportation’s share of the total vol-ume of oil spilled between 1991 and 2000 var-ied from a high of 97 percent in 1996 to a lowof 77 percent in 1992. The volume of each spillvaries significantly from incident to incident:one catastrophic incident can, however, spill mil-lions of gallons into the environment.Consequently, the total volume of oil spilledeach year is volatile (figure 77).

Maritime incidents are the source of most oilspills, particularly on a volume basis. On aver-age, 1.8 million gallons of various types of oilwere spilled each year by all transportation andnontransportation sources between 1991 and2000. Of this, 77 percent of oil spilled came fromincidents associated with maritime transporta-tion, nearly 11 percent from pipeline incidents,and over 1 percent from all other transportationmodes (figure 78). Oil cargo accounted for 58percent of the total volume spilled in 2000 [1].

Failures in transportation systems (vessels,pipelines, highway vehicles, and railroad equip-ment) or errors made by operators can result in

spillage of crude oil, refined petroleum prod-ucts, and other materials and cause seriousdamage to the environment. The ultimateimpact of each spill depends on the location andvolume of the spill, weather conditions, and thenatural resources affected. While data exist onoil spilled into U.S. waters, there is less informa-tion available on the resulting consequences tothe environment.

Source

1. American Petroleum Institute, Oil Spills in U.S.Navigable Waters: 1991–2000 (Washington, DC:Feb. 11, 2003).

Oil Spills into U.S. Waters

AAggggrreeggaattiinngg OOiill SSppiillll DDaattaa

The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) summarizes reportedoil spill data in its Pollution Incidents In and AroundU.S. Waters, A Spill Release Compendium:1969–2000. USCG aggregates the source data intofive categories: marine vessels, pipelines, facilities,other, and unknown. The Bureau of TransportationStatistics has reviewed USCG’s detailed source dataand classified each transportation-related reportedoil spill incident by transportation mode. The datapresented here are preliminary, as research on thedataset is ongoing.

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


1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20000

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5Gallons (millions)

Maritime

All other transportation

NontransportationUnknown and other

FFIIGGUURREE 7777 VVoolluummee ooff OOiill SSppiillllss RReeppoorrtteedd ttoo tthhee UU..SS.. CCooaasstt GGuuaarrdd bbyySSoouurrccee:: 11999911––22000000

Maritimefacilities 22%

Maritime nontank vessels and other 18%

Waterborne tank vessels 37%

Pipeline 11%

Nontransportation structures and facilities 4%

Unknown and other 7%

Highway, aircraft, rail, and other 2%

FFIIGGUURREE 7788 AAvveerraaggee VVoolluummee ooff OOiill SSppiillllss bbyy SSoouurrccee:: 11999911––22000000

NNOOTTEE:: Data are preliminary.

SSOOUURRCCEE:: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, basedon U.S. Coast Guard, Pollution Incidents In and Around U.S. Waters, available athttp://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/nmc/response/stats/ac.htm, as of September 2002.

105







106

SSeecc

ttiioonn

1100::

CCooll

llaattee

rraall DD

aammaagg

ee ttoo

tthhee

HHuumm

aann aa

nndd NN

aattuurr

aall EE

nnvviirroo

nnmmeenn

tt

Transportation firms reported more than17,700 hazardous materials incidents in

2001.1 These incidents resulted in 7 deaths and143 injuries, compared with annual averages of21 deaths and 445 injuries between 1991 and2001. During that decade, the number ofreported hazardous materials incidents in-creased (figure 79). However, much of theincrease may be attributed to improved report-ing and an expansion of reporting requirements2

(see box).

Highway vehicles transported 56 percent ofthe tons of hazardous materials shipped in 1997[2]. Between 1991 and 2001, 62 percent of theinjuries and 53 percent of the fatalities attrib-uted to hazardous materials were the result ofhighway incidents. Fatal hazardous materialstransportation incidents in other modes tend tobe infrequent. After a DC-9 aircraft crashed inFlorida in 1996 killing 110 people, the NationalTransportation Safety Board found that thecrash was caused by ignited oxygen leaking fromimproperly stored oxygen generators [1]. Withthe exception of occasional spikes, injuries gen-erally declined in the 1990s, especially fromhighway incidents (figure 80). Of the 926injuries attributed to rail incidents in 1996, 787resulted from chlorine released when a trainderailed in February in Alberton, Montana [3].

Environmental contamination can occur as theresult of hazardous materials incidents, but data arenot routinely collected on the extent of the damage.Their environmental impacts will depend on theconcentration and type of material spilled, the loca-tion and volume of the spill, and exposure rates.

Sources

1. National Transportation Safety Board, NTSBReport AAR-97/06, Docket No. DCA96MA054.

2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, and U.S. Department ofCommerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Com-modity Flow Survey, Hazardous Materials(Washington, DC: December 1999).

3. U.S. Department of Transportation, Researchand Special Programs Administration, personalcommunication, May 2003.

Hazardous Materials Incidents and Injuries

1 A reported incident is a report of any unintentional release ofhazardous materials while in transportation (including loading,unloading, and temporary storage). It excludes pipeline and bulkshipments by water, which are reported separately. 2 Incident reporting requirements were extended to intrastatemotor carriers on Oct. 1, 1998, which may partly explain the sub-sequent increased volume of reports. Beginning in April 1993,there was a sharp improvement in reporting of incidents by smallpackage carriers.

HHaazzaarrddoouuss MMaatteerriiaallss RReeppoorrttiinngg

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s HazardousMaterials Information System (HMIS) is the primarysource of national data on hazardous materials trans-portation safety. Hazardous materials, as defined inregulations, include nine classes of gases and liquidsand other substances.1 However, the vast majority ofthe hazardous materials shipped within the UnitedStates each year (81 percent in 1997) are flammableand combustible liquids, primarily petroleum products.There have been an estimated 800,000 hazardousmaterials shipments per day (or more than 3.1 billiontons) annually in recent years.

SSoouurrcceeU.S. Department of Transportation, Research and SpecialPrograms Administration, Office of Hazardous MaterialsSafety, Hazardous Materials Shipments (Washington, DC:October 1998).

1 The nine classes are: explosives; flammable, nonflam-mable, and poisonous gases; flammable and combustibleliquid; flammable, spontaneously combustible, and danger-ous-when-wet materials; oxidizers and organic peroxides;poisonous materials and infectious substances; radioactivematerials; corrosive materials; and miscellaneous haz-ardous materials.


107






1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Rail

Highway

Air

Incidents (thousands)

FFIIGGUURREE 7799 HHaazzaarrddoouuss MMaatteerriiaallss TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn IInncciiddeennttss bbyy MMooddee:: 11999911––22000011

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

200

400

600

800

1,000

Rail

Highway

Air

Injuries

FFIIGGUURREE 8800 HHaazzaarrddoouuss MMaatteerriiaallss TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn IInnjjuurriieess bbyy MMooddee:: 11999911––22000011

NNOOTTEESS:: Water data are not included. On an average annual basis, 9 incidents are reportedby vessels. Two injuries were reported in 1998; none in other years. Annual data for theseincidents and injuries are in table 80 in appendix B.

The 1996 spike in rail injuries resulted from 1 train derailment in which 787 people wereinjured by the release of chlorine gas.

SSOOUURRCCEE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Special ProgramsAdministration, Hazardous Materials Information System database, available at http://hazmat.dot.gov/files/hazmat/10year/10yearfrm.htm, as of January 2003.


108

SSeecc

ttiioonn

1111::

CCoonn

ddiittiioo

nn ooff

tthhee

TTrraa

nnssppoo

rrttaatt

iioonn

SSyyss

tteemm

Highway-related capital stock (highwayinfrastructure, consumer motor vehicles,

and trucking and warehousing) represented themajority of the nation’s transportation capitalstock, $2,166 billion in 2000 (in 1996 chaineddollars1). Highway infrastructure constituted 57percent of highway-related capital stock in2000, or $1,234 billion (figure 81). Rail—at$342 billion—also represented a substantialportion of transportation capital stock;although, it was still less than one-sixth of high-way-related capital stocks. The combined valueof capital stocks for other modes of the trans-portation system, including rail, water, air,pipeline, and transit, is less than the value ofconsumer motor vehicles alone (figure 82).

All highway-related capital stocks increasedbetween 1990 and 2000. In-house transporta-tion grew substantially (81 percent).Transportation services, a component of allmodes, also experienced rapid growth, with an83 percent increase in capital stock. In fact, railand water were the only modes that experienceda decrease in capital stock, shrinking by 6 per-cent and 3 percent, respectively. Pipeline capitalstocks increased only modestly, growing 5 per-cent between 1990 and 2000.

Capital stock is a commonly used economicmeasure of the capacity of the transportationsystem. It combines the capabilities of modes,

components, and owners into a single measureof capacity in dollar value. This measure takesinto account both the quantity of each compo-nent (through initial investment) and its condi-tion (through depreciation and retirements).

With the exception of highway and streetdata, the capital stock data presented here per-tain only to that owned by the private sector. Forinstance, railroad companies own their owntrackage. All of these data are available from theBureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau ofLabor Statistics [1, 2]. The Bureau of Transpor-tation Statistics is currently developing data onpublicly owned capital stock, such as airports,waterways, and transit systems.

Sources

1. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau ofEconomic Analysis, Standard Fixed Asset Tables(table 7.1 and 8.1); Private Non-ResidentialFixed Assets by Detailed Industry and DetailedAsset Type, Real Cost Net Stocks; NationalIncome and Product Accounts, Quantity andPrice Indexes, various tables; available athttp://www.bea.gov/, as of March 2003.

2. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of LaborStatistics, Consumer Producer Price Indexes, AllUrban Consumers, various series, available athttp://www.bls.gov/ppi/home.htm/, as of March2003.

Transportation Capital Stock



109


oonnddiittiioonn ooff tthhee TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn SS

yysstteemm

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20000

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Highways and streets

Consumer motor vehicles

In-house transportation stock

Railroad transportation stock

Chained 1996 $ (billions)

FFIIGGUURREE 8811 TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn CCaappiittaall SSttoocckk ffoorr SSeelleecctteedd MMooddeess:: 11999900––22000000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20000

40

80

120

160

200

Trucking and warehousing

Pipelines, except natural gas Transportation services


Air

Water

Transit

FFIIGGUURREE 8822 TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn CCaappiittaall SSttoocckk ffoorrSSeelleecctteedd MMooddeess:: 11999900––22000000

NNOOTTEESS:: Data include only privately owned capital stock, except for highways and streets.Consumer motor vehicles are consumer durable goods. In-house transportation includestransportation 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 theirwarehouses to their retail outlets.


SSOOUURRCCEE:: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Fixed Assetsand Consumer Durable Goods in the United States, available at http://www.bea.gov, as ofMarch 2003.


110

SSeecc

ttiioonn

1111::

CCoonn

ddiittiioo

nn ooff

tthhee

TTrraa

nnssppoo

rrttaatt

iioonn

SSyyss

tteemm

The condition of roads in the United Statesimproved between 1993 and 2001.1 For

instance, the percentage of rural Interstatemileage in poor or mediocre condition declinedfrom 35 percent in 1993 to 14 percent in 2001(figure 83). Moreover, poor or mediocre urbanInterstate mileage decreased from 42 to 28 per-cent over this period (figure 84).

Just over 40 percent of all U.S. urban andrural roads were in good or very good conditionin 2001, while nearly 19 percent were in poor ormediocre condition. The rest were in fair condi-tion.2 In general, rural roads are in better condi-tion than urban roads. In 2001, for instance, 28percent of urban road-miles were classified aspoor or mediocre compared with only 15 per-cent of rural-miles.

Highway Condition

All U.S. roads

Rural Urban

Arterials Collectors Local Arterials Collectors Local

Principal Minor MinorMajor Principal Minor

Interstate

Other principal arterials

Interstate

Other freeway and expressway

Other principal arterialSOURCESU.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).

HHiigghhwwaayy FFuunnccttiioonnaall CCllaassssiiffiiccaattiioonn SSyysstteemm

1 The data presented here start at 1993; in that year the FederalHighway Administration changed to a new indicator for pavementcondition. Thus, combining pre-1993 data and 1993 and laterdata is inappropriate.

2 These percentages include all classes of roads except local roadsor minor collector roads.


111



yysstteemm

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50Percent

Interstates

Collectors

Minor arterials


FFIIGGUURREE 8833 RRuurraall RRooaaddss iinn PPoooorr oorr MMeeddiiooccrree CCoonnddiittiioonn bbyy FFuunnccttiioonnaall CCllaassss:: 11999933––22000011

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50Percent

Interstates

Collectors


Minor arterials

Other freeways and expressways

FFIIGGUURREE 8844 UUrrbbaann RRooaaddss iinn PPoooorr oorr MMeeddiiooccrree CCoonnddiittiioonn bbyy FFuunnccttiioonnaall CCllaassss:: 11999933––22000011

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


112

SSeecc

ttiioonn

1111::

CCoonn

ddiittiioo

nn ooff

tthhee

TTrraa

nnssppoo

rrttaatt

iioonn

SSyyss

tteemm

The condition of bridges nationwide hasimproved markedly since the early 1990s.

Of the nearly 600,000 roadway bridges in 2001,the Federal Highway Administration found that14 percent were structurally deficient and 14percent were functionally obsolete. About 40percent of bridges were either structurally defi-cient or functionally obsolete in 1991 [1].

Structurally deficient bridges are those thatare restricted to light vehicles, require immediaterehabilitation to remain open, or are closed.Functionally obsolete bridges are those withdeck geometry (e.g., lane width), load carryingcapacity, clearance, or approach roadway align-ment that no longer meet the criteria for the sys-tem of which the bridge is a part.1 In the 1990s,while the number of structurally deficientbridges steadily declined, the number of func-tionally obsolete bridges remained fairly con-stant (figure 85).

In general, bridges in rural areas suffer morefrom structural deficiencies than functionalobsolescence (particularly on local roads),whereas the reverse is true for bridges on roadsin urban areas (figures 86 and 87) [1]. A largeproportion of problem bridges nationwide arethose supporting local rural roads: about 71,000of the 165,000 deficient bridges in 2001 (43 per-cent) are rural local bridges. Problems are muchless prevalent on other parts the highway net-work. Nevertheless, in 2001, 20 percent ofurban Interstate bridges and 12 percent of ruralInterstate bridges were deficient.

Source

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalHighway Administration, Office of Engineering,Bridge Division, National Bridge Inventory data-base, available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/britab.htm/, as of December 2002.

Bridge Condition

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


113



yysstteemm

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

20

40

60

80

100

120

140Thousands

Structurally deficient

Functionally obsolete

FFIIGGUURREE 8855 SSttrruuccttuurraallllyy DDeeffiicciieenntt aanndd FFuunnccttiioonnaallllyy OObbssoolleettee BBrriiddggeess:: AAllllRRooaaddwwaayyss——11999911––22000011

Principal arterial— Interstate

Other principal arterial

Minor arterial

Major collector

Minor collector

Local0

10

20

30

40Percent



Total

FFIIGGUURREE 8866 RRuurraall BBrriiddggee CCoonnddiittiioonn bbyy FFuunnccttiioonnaall CCllaassss:: 22000011

Interstate Other freeways or expressways

Other principal arterial

Minor arterial

Collector Local0

10

20

30

40Percent



Total

FFIIGGUURREE 8877 UUrrbbaann BBrriiddggee CCoonnddiittiioonn bbyy FFuunnccttiioonnaall CCllaassss:: 22000011

KKEEYY:: Functionally obsolete refers to bridges that do not have the lane widths, shoulderwidths, or vertical clearances adequate to serve traffic demand, or the bridge may not beable to handle occasional roadway flooding. Structurally deficient refers to bridges needingsignificant maintenance attention, rehabilitation, or replacement.

NNOOTTEE:: Figures 86 and 87 data may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

SSOOUURRCCEE:: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office ofEngineering, Bridge Division, National Bridge Inventory database, available athttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/britab.htm, as of December 2002.


114

SSeecc

ttiioonn

1111::

CCoonn

ddiittiioo

nn ooff

tthhee

TTrraa

nnssppoo

rrttaatt

iioonn

SSyyss

tteemm

Airport runway conditions improved at thenation’s major public-use airports between

1990 and 2001 [1]. At the nation’s commercialservice airports, pavement in poor conditiondeclined from 5 percent of runways in 1990 to 2percent in 2001 (figure 88). At the larger groupof National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems(NPIAS) airports, the Federal Aviation Admin-istration (FAA) found poor conditions on 5 per-cent of runways in 2001, down from 10 percentin 1990 (figure 89).

FAA inspects runways at public-use airportsand classifies runway condition as good, fair, orpoor. A runway is classified as good if all cracksand joints are sealed. Fair condition means thereis mild surface cracking, unsealed joints, andslab edge spalling.1 Runways are in poor condi-tion if there are large open cracks, surface andedge spalling, and/or vegetation growingthrough cracks and joints [1].

Source

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalAviation Administration, National Plan ofIntegrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) (2001–2005)(Washington, DC: 2002).

Airport Runway Conditions

CCllaassssiiffiiccaattiioonn ooff AAiirrppoorrttss iinn tthhee UUnniitteedd SSttaatteess

As of January 2001, there were 19,306 airports1 inthe United States, with 5,314 of these open to thepublic and known as public-use airports. The FederalAviation Administration includes 3,364 of the existingpublic-use airports in its National Plan of IntegratedAirport Systems (NPIAS). The NPIAS includes bothcommercial and general aviation airports that are eli-gible to receive grants under the Air ImprovementProgram. Commercial service airports are definedas public airports receiving scheduled passengerservice with at least 2,500 enplaned passengers peryear. These airports handle the vast majority ofenplanements in the United States. In 2001, therewere 546 commercial service airports. FAA esti-mates that 67 percent of the U.S. population liveswithin 20 miles of at least 1 of these airports.

SSoouurrccee

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal AviationAdministra-tion, National Plan of Integrated AirportSystems (NPIAS) (2001–2005) (Washington, DC: 2002).

1 Includes civil and joint-use civil-military airports, heli-ports, STOL (short takeoff and landing) ports, and sea-plane bases in the United States and its territories.

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


115



yysstteemm

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

20

40

60

80

100Good condition Fair condition Poor condition

N N N N N N

Percent

FFIIGGUURREE 8888 RRuunnwwaayy PPaavveemmeenntt CCoonnddiittiioonn ooff 554466 CCoommmmeerrcciiaall SSeerrvviiccee AAiirrppoorrttss:: 11999900––22000011

100

80

60

40

20

01990 1991 199719961995199419931992 2001200019991998

Good condition Fair condition Poor condition

N N N N N N

Percent

FFIIGGUURREE 8899 RRuunnwwaayy PPaavveemmeenntt CCoonnddiittiioonn ooff 33,,336644 NNPPIIAASS AAiirrppoorrttss

KKEEYY:: N = data are nonexistent; NPIAS = National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems.

SSOOUURRCCEE:: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, NationalTransportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2003), also available athttp://www.bts.gov/, as of January 2003. Based on data obtained from U.S. Department ofTransportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Airport Planning andProgramming, National Planning Division, personal communication, 2003.


116

SSeecc

ttiioonn

1111::

CCoonn

ddiittiioo

nn ooff

tthhee

TTrraa

nnssppoo

rrttaatt

iioonn

SSyyss

tteemm

Because of improvements in the longevity ofpassenger cars, the median age of the auto-

mobile fleet in the United States has increasedsignificantly, from 7.0 years in 1992 to 8.4 yearsin 2002. The median age of the truck fleet,1 bycontrast, began to increase in the early 1990sbut has been declining since 1997 as new pur-chases of light trucks have increased substan-tially (figure 90). As a result, the truck medianage of 6.8 years in 2002 is less than its 7.2 yearsin 1990.

The age of transit vehicle fleets varies by tran-sit and vehicle type (figure 91). Ferryboatsbecame substantially older between 1990 and2000, increasing from an average of 21.7 years

to 25.6 years. By contrast, the average age offull-size transit buses decreased over this periodfrom 8.2 years to 8.1 years [1].

The age of fleets as a measure of condition isnot very precise. Because of the different charac-teristics of vehicle fleets across the modes—someserving freight and other passenger, some ownedpredominantly by businesses, and others by indi-viduals—the measure varies widely.

Source

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, National Transpor-tation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002),tables 1-25 and 1-28, also available athttp://www.bts.gov/, as of June 2003.

Age of Highway and Transit Fleet Vehicles

1 This includes all truck categories: light, heavy, and heavy-heavy.


117



yysstteemm

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Years

Cars

Trucks

FFIIGGUURREE 9900 MMeeddiiaann AAggee ooff CCaarrss aanndd TTrruucckkss:: 11999922––22000022

30

25

20

15

10

5

01990 2000199919981997199619951994199319921991

Years

Ferryboats Commuter-rail passenger coaches

Heavy-rail passenger cars

Light rail

Full-size transit buses

Vans

FFIIGGUURREE 9911 AAvveerraaggee AAggee ooff SSeelleecctteedd UUrrbbaann TTrraannssiittVVeehhiicclleess:: 11999900––22000000

NNOOTTEESS:: FFiigguurree 9900—“Trucks” represents all types of trucks, including light trucks (sportutility vehicles, vans, and pickup trucks). FFiigguurree 9911—Full-size buses have more than 35seats.

SSOOUURRCCEESS:: 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. FFiigguurree 9900 ((22000011––22000022))—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.


118

SSeecc

ttiioonn

1111::

CCoonn

ddiittiioo

nn ooff

tthhee

TTrraa

nnssppoo

rrttaatt

iioonn

SSyyss

tteemm

The average age of Amtrak locomotives andpassenger train cars fluctuated in a narrow

range for most of the 1990s (figure 92). Theaverage age of locomotives was 11 years in2000, down 7 percent from 12 years in 1990.Meanwhile, Amtrak railcar age dropped from20 to 19 years over this period. Of the 20,028Class I freight locomotives in service in 2000, 42percent were built before 1980, 21 percentbetween 1980 and 1989, and 37 percent from1990 onwards [1].

Overall, about 28 percent of the U.S. flag ves-sel fleet was 25 years old or more in 2000 (fig-ure 93). This is up from 17 percent in1990–1991.1 Towboats are some of the oldesttypes of vessels plying U.S. waters, and they aregetting older: about 50 percent were 25 yearsold or older in 2000, up from 33 percent in1990–1991. Tank and liquid barges older than25 years made up 43 percent of the total fleet in2000, up from 27 percent in 1990–1991 [2].

The average age of U.S. commercial aircraftwas 13 years in 2000, up from 11 years in 1991

(figure 94). Commercial airlines are air carriersproviding scheduled or nonscheduled passengeror freight service, including commuter and airtaxi on-demand services. Major airlines—thosewith $1 billion or more in annual revenues—accounted for nearly 80 percent of commercialaircraft in 2000 [3]. These aircraft were approx-imately one year younger on average than allcommercial aircraft during the 1990s. The aver-age age of major airlines aircraft was 12 years in2000, up from 11 years in 1991.

Sources

1. Association of American Railroads, RailroadFactbook 2001 (Washington, DC: 2002).

2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, National Transpor-tation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 20020,table 1-31, also available at http://www.bts.gov,as of January 2003.

3. Calculation based on U.S. Department ofTransportation, Bureau of TransportationStatistics, Form 41, Schedule B-43, 1991–2000.

Age of Amtrak, Aircraft, and Maritime Vessel Fleets

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


119



yysstteemm

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20000

5

10

15

20

25Years

Passenger and other train cars

Locomotives

FFIIGGUURREE 9922 AAvveerraaggee AAggee ooff AAmmttrraakk LLooccoommoottiivvee aanndd CCaarr FFlleeeettss:: 11999900––22000000

Tanker (135)

Towboat (4,990)

Passenger (915)

Support (1,420)

Dry barge (29,009)

Liquid barge (3,987)

Total(41,182)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% < 6 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 > 25

Ship type (number of vessels)

Dry cargo (733)

FFIIGGUURREE 9933 AAggee ooff UU..SS.. FFllaagg VVeesssseellss bbyy TTyyppee:: 22000000

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20000

4

8

12

16Years

All commercial aircraft

Major airlines aircraft

FFIIGGUURREE 9944 AAvveerraaggee AAggee ooff UU..SS.. CCoommmmeerrcciiaall aanndd MMaajjoorr AAiirrlliinneess AAiirrccrraafftt:: 11999911––22000000

NNOOTTEESS:: FFiigguurree 9933—Support includes offshore support andcrewboats. Liquid barge includes tank barges. FFiigguurree 9944—Commercial airlines are air carriers providing scheduled or non-scheduled passenger or freight service, including commuter andair taxi on-demand services. Major airlines includes only com-mercial airlines with operating revenues greater than $1 billionin 2000. See table 94 notes in appendix B for additional infor-mation.

SSOOUURRCCEESS:: FFiigguurreess 9922 aanndd 9933—U.S. Department ofTransportation (USDOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics(BTS), National Transportation Statistics 2002 (Washington,DC: 2002), tables 1-30 and 1-31, also available athttp://www.bts.gov/, as of April 2003. FFiigguurree 9944—Calculationsbased on USDOT, BTS, Form 41, Schedule B-43, 1991–2000).


120

SSeecc

ttiioonn

1122::

TTrraa

nnssppoo

rrttaatt

iioonn--

RReell

aatteedd

VVaarr

iiaabbll

eess tt

hhaatt

IInnfflluu

eennccee

GGlloo

bbaall CC

oommppee

ttiittiivv

eenneess

ss

The United States had relatively lower pricesfor transportation goods and services in

19991 than did 15 out of 25 Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development(OECD) countries (figure 95). However, thenation’s top two overall merchandise trade part-ners, Canada and Mexico, had lower relativeprices in 1999 than did the United States. Pricesin Japan and the United Kingdom—both majorU.S. trade partners—were much higher than inthe United States. Half of the OECD countriesthat had less expensive transportation goods andservices than the United States are developingand transitional economies.

Further analytical research is needed to clarifytransportation’s contribution to America’sglobal competitiveness. One theory is thatAmericans’ incomes would go further if trans-portation consumer goods and services were rel-atively cheaper than in other countries. Sincetransportation goods and services are a majorinput of business production, relatively lowertransportation prices might also result in rela-

tively lower production costs. Furthermore, itcould be expected that an inexpensive and effi-cient transportation system would stimulatemarket expansion and result in more specializa-tion, faster distribution, and lower productioncosts.

The comparisons here may indicate howdomestic U.S. transportation industries, goods,and services fare against their foreign counter-parts. The relative price for a good or servicetraded between two countries is the price forthat commodity in one country divided by theprice for the same commodity in another coun-try, with the prices for the goods and services inboth countries expressed in a common currency.However, relative prices alone do not reveal whytransportation is more expensive in one countrythan another. Nor do they justify making trans-portation relatively cheaper than it is. They alsodo not reveal the quality or reliability of thetransportation or fully take into account differ-ences in geospatial factors between countries.

Relative Prices for Transportation Goods and Services

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


121


rraannssppoorrttaattiioonn--RReellaatteedd VV

aarriiaabblleess tthhaatt IInnfflluueennccee GGlloobbaall CC

oommppeettiittiivveenneessss

MexicoPolan

dHungary

TurkeyGree

ce

AustraliaCanada

New Zeal

and

Luxembourg

United State

sSpain Ital

y

Portugal

Germany

Belgium

France

Austria

Netherla

ndsIrel

andSweden

Switzerlan

d

United Kingdom

Japan

DenmarkNorway

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8Relative price: U.S. = 1.0

FFIIGGUURREE 9955 RReellaattiivvee PPrriicceess ffoorr TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn GGooooddss aanndd SSeerrvviicceess ffoorr tthhee UUnniitteeddSSttaatteess aanndd SSeelleecctteedd MMaajjoorr TTrraaddee PPaarrttnneerrss:: 11999999

NNOOTTEESS:: 1999 is the most recent year for which these data are available by country. For these countries, thedata are unavailable for goods and services separately.

Relative prices are based on purchasing power parity for transportation-related goods and services. All dol-lar amounts are in current 1999 dollars.

SSOOUURRCCEE:: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, calculation based on datafrom Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Purchasing Power Parities and RealExpenditures, 1999 Results (Paris, France: August 2002), table 11.


122

SSeecc

ttiioonn

1122::

TTrraa

nnssppoo

rrttaatt

iioonn--

RReell

aatteedd

VVaarr

iiaabbll

eess tt

hhaatt

IInnfflluu

eennccee

GGlloo

bbaall CC

oommppee

ttiittiivv

eenneess

ss

The United States traded $299.6 billionworth (in current dollars1) of transporta-

tion-related goods (e.g., cars, trains, boats, andairplanes and their related parts) in 2002 withits partners (figure 96). Although motor vehiclesand automotive parts constituted by far thelargest share of U.S. international trade in trans-portation-related goods ($233.0 billion) in2002, trade in aircraft, spacecraft, and parts($61.9 billion) generated the largest single sur-plus of any transportation-related commoditycategory ($25.9 billion) [1]. This surplus wasdue to trade with several partners, particularlythe United Kingdom. The only deficits for air-craft products were with France and Canada,countries that have large aviation manufacturingsectors (see box).

As is the case with overall international trade,the United States had a merchandise trade deficitin transportation-related exports and imports,totaling $82.1 billion in 2002 (figure 97). Thedeficit arose from a $108.0 billion U.S. tradedeficit for motor vehicles and parts, whichaccounted for 23 percent of the total U.S. mer-chandise trade deficit of $470.3 billion. Overone-third of the motor vehicles and parts deficitinvolved U.S. trade with Japan, while about one-fifth was with Canada [2].

The United States had a relatively small deficit($90 million) in trade of ships, boats, and float-ing structures in 2002, following a $693 millionsurplus in 2001 [1]. A $53 million trade surplus

for railway locomotives and parts was downfrom $149 million in 2001. The 2002 surpluscan largely be attributed to the United Statessupplying railcars and parts to Canada, thelargest U.S. trade partner for rail products [2].

Sources

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, calculations based ondata from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S.International Trade Commission, InteractiveTariff and Trade DataWeb, available athttp://dataweb.usitc.gov/, as of February 2003.


U.S. International Trade in Transportation-Related Goods

MMeerrcchhaannddiissee TTrraaddee BBaallaannccee TTrreennddss

Trade balances indirectly measure the U.S. competi-tiveness in supplying transportation-related goodsglobally and indicate the U.S. competitive position inthe production, provision, and delivery of thesegoods compared with other major trading partners.Between 1990 and 2002, the United States had agrowing overall trade balance deficit in all categoriesof transportation-related goods, due primarily toincreased demand for imported motor vehicles. TheU.S. trade deficit during this period in these com-modity groups included trade with our top three trad-ing partners: Canada, Mexico, and Japan.

SSoouurrccee

U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, U.S. International Trade andFreight Transportation Trends (Washington, DC: 2003).

1 All dollar amounts in this section are in current dollars. Whileit is important to compare trends in economic activity using con-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 figureand tables 96 and 97 in appendix B).


123





1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

50

100

150

200

250

300Current $ (billions)

Total (gross)

Imports (payments toforeign countries)

Exports (receiptsby U.S. entities)

FFIIGGUURREE 9966 UU..SS.. TTrraaddee iinn TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn--RReellaatteedd GGooooddss:: 11999900––22000022

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

–80

–60

–40

–20

0


Surp

lus

Defic

it

FFIIGGUURREE 9977 UU..SS.. TTrraaddee BBaallaannccee iinn TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn--RReellaatteedd GGooooddss:: 11999900––22000022

NNOOTTEESS:: Transportation-related goods are motor vehicles and parts, aircraft and spacecraftand parts, railway vehicles and parts, and ships and boats.

All dollar amounts are in current dollars. These data have not been adjusted for inflationbecause there is no specific deflator available for transportation-related goods. In addition,it is difficult to control for trading partners' inflation rates as well as currency exchange fluc-tuations when adjusting the value of internationally traded goods and services for inflation.

SSOOUURRCCEE:: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, calcula-tions based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. International TradeCommission, Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb, available at http://dataweb.usitc.gov/, as of February 2003.


124

SSeecc

ttiioonn

1122::

TTrraa

nnssppoo

rrttaatt

iioonn--

RReell

aatteedd

VVaarr

iiaabbll

eess tt

hhaatt

IInnfflluu

eennccee

GGlloo

bbaall CC

oommppee

ttiittiivv

eenneess

ss

U.S. trade in transportation services in 2002totaled $105.4 billion (in current dollars1),

down 2 percent from $107.6 billion in 2001(figure 98). This decline was smaller than the 8percent drop between 2000 and 2001. Of thetrade in 2001, 57 percent was for imports (pay-ments to foreign countries) and 43 percent wasfor exports (receipts by U.S. entities), resulting ina $14.9 billion trade deficit for transportationservices.

The United States had a surplus in transporta-tion services from 1990 through 1997 (figure99). The trade surplus was highest in 1992, at$3.8 billion (in current dollars), but exportsexceeded imports by over $3 billion in otheryears prior to 1997, as well. Then, between1997 and 1998, imports increased 7 percentwhile exports decreased 5 percent, resulting in a$4.6 billion deficit. The deficit continued togrow at an average annual rate of 32 percentbetween 1998 and 2002, when the deficitreached $13.9 billion.

The United States exports and imports trans-portation services, including freight services pro-vided by carriers; port services provided by air-ports, seaports, and terminals; and passengertravel services provided by carriers. U.S. trade intransportation services generates substantial revenues for U.S. businesses in receipts to U.S.

carriers and ports. These services also result inpayments by U.S. companies to foreign freightand passenger carriers and ports. Because anefficient transportation system puts a premiumon system reliability and speed, the performanceof freight carriers and ports directly influencesthe competitiveness of U.S. businesses engagedin international trade.

U.S. International Trade in Transportation-Related Services

CCoommppoonneennttss ooff SSeerrvviiccee TTrraaddee

Exports of freight transportation services occurwhen a U.S. carrier receives payments from a for-eign company or individual for transporting merchan-dise. Imports of freight transportation services occurwhen a U.S. company or individual pays a foreigncarrier for transporting merchandise. Similarly, U.S.exports of port services occur when foreign carrierspurchase services and goods (e.g., fuel) at U.S. air-ports and seaports. U.S. imports of port servicesoccur when a U.S. carrier purchases services andgoods at ports in foreign countries. For passengertravel services, exports consist of fares received byU.S. carriers from foreign residents for travelbetween the United States and foreign countries andbetween two foreign points. Imports of travel servic-es consist of fares paid by U.S. residents to foreigncarriers for travel between the United States and for-eign countries.

SSoouurrccee

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of EconomicAnalysis, Survey of Current Business, November 2001.

1 All dollar amounts in this section are in current dollars. Whileit is important to compare trends in economic activity using con-stant or chained dollars to eliminate the effects of price inflation,it is not possible to do so in this instance (see the note on the fig-ure and tables 98 and 99 in appendix B).


1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

20

40

60

80

100

120


Total

Imports(payments to foreign countries)

Exports(receipts by U.S. entities)

FFIIGGUURREE 9988 UU..SS.. IInntteerrnnaattiioonnaall TTrraaddee iinn TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn--RReellaatteeddSSeerrvviicceess:: 11999900––22000022

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002–20

–15

–10

–5

0


Surp

lus

Defic

it

FFIIGGUURREE 9999 UU..SS.. TTrraaddee BBaallaannccee iinn TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn--RReellaatteedd SSeerrvviicceess:: 11999900––22000022

NNOOTTEESS:: Transportation services include passenger fares, and freight and port services. Itexcludes receipts and payments for travel services, which includes purchases of goodsand services (e.g., food, lodging, recreation, gifts, entertainment, and any incidentalexpense on a foreign visit).

These data have not been adjusted for inflation, because there is no specific deflator avail-able for transportation-related services. In addition, it is difficult to control for trading part-ners' inflation rates as well as currency exchange fluctuations when adjusting the value ofinternationally traded goods and services for inflation.

SSOOUURRCCEE:: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, calcula-tion based on data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis,International Transactions Accounts data, available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/di1.htm,as of April 2003.

125






126

SSeecc

ttiioonn

1133::

TTrraa

nnssppoo

rrttaatt

iioonn

aanndd

EEccoo

nnoomm

iicc GG

rrooww

tthh

Total transportation-related final demandrose by 37 percent between 1990 and 2001

(in 1996 chained dollars1) from $719.8 billionto $984.1 billion (figure 100). However, trans-portation-related final demand as a share ofGDP showed little change throughout theperiod. This implies that transportation-relatedfinal demand grew at about the same rate asGDP. In 2001, the share of transportation-related final demand in GDP was 11 percent, thesame as in 1990.

Personal consumption of transportation—which includes household purchases of motorvehicles and parts, gasoline and oil, and trans-portation services—is the largest component oftransportation-related final demand. Itamounted to $751.8 billion in 2001 andaccounted for 76 percent of the total transporta-tion-related final demand (figure 101). Govern-ment purchases used to be the second largestcomponent of transportation-related finaldemand. Since the mid-1990s, however, govern-ment purchases and private investment haveaccounted for about the same share. Governmentpurchases and private domestic investment in2001 reached $167.2 billion and $168.6 billion,respectively, for shares of 17 percent each.

Net exports were a negative component oftransportation-related final demand between1990 and 2001. In other words, the United Statesimported more transportation-related goods andservices than it exported. This gap has widened in

recent years. In 1990, net exports had a –4 percentshare in total transportation-related final demand,hitting a low point of –5 percent in 1995. After ris-ing somewhat through 1997, they dropped to –11percent in 2001. Deficits in the trade of automo-biles and other vehicles and parts have been theprimary component of the negative net exports oftransportation-related goods and services.

Transportation-related final demand is thetotal value of transportation-related goods andservices purchased by consumers and govern-ment and by business as part of their invest-ments.2 Transportation-related final demand ispart of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), andits share in GDP provides a direct measure of theimportance of transportation in the economyfrom the demand side. The goods and servicesincluded in transportation-related final demandare diverse and extensive, ranging from automo-biles and parts, fuel, maintenance, auto insur-ance, and so on, for user-operated transportationto various transportation services provided byfor-hire transportation establishments.

Source

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, calculations based ondata from U.S. Department of Commerce,Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Incomeand Product Account Tables, available athttp://www.bea.gov, as of October 2002.

Transportation-Related Final Demand


2 Also included are the net exports of these goods and servicesbecause they represent spending by foreigners on transportationgoods and services produced in the United States. Imports, how-ever, are deducted because consumers, businesses, and governmentpurchases include imported goods and services. Therefore, deduct-ing imports ensures that total transportation-related spendingreflects spending on domestic transportation goods and services.


127


rraannssppoorrttaattiioonn aanndd EEccoonnoomm

iicc GGrrooww

tthh

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

Value of transportation demand


0

2

4

6

8

10

12Share in GDP (%)

Percent

FFIIGGUURREE 110000 VVaalluuee ooff TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn--RReellaatteedd FFiinnaall DDeemmaanndd aanndd IIttss SShhaarree iinn GGDDPP:: 11999900––22000011

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001–20

0

20

40

60

80Percent

Personal consumption

Gross private domestic investment

Government purchases

Net exports (exports minus imports)

FFIIGGUURREE 110011 PPeerrcceennttaaggee SShhaarree ooff TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn--RReellaatteedd FFiinnaall DDeemmaanndd bbyy TTyyppee:: 11999900––22000011

NNOOTTEESS:: Total transportation-related final demand is the sum of all consumer, private busi-ness, and government purchases of transportation-related goods and services, and netexports (i.e., transportation imports subtracted from transportation exports). Gross privatedomestic investment constitutes railroad and petroleum pipelines only.


SSOOUURRCCEE:: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, calcula-tions 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 ofFebruary 2003.


128

SSeecc

ttiioonn

1133::

TTrraa

nnssppoo

rrttaatt

iioonn

aanndd

EEccoo

nnoomm

iicc GG

rrooww

tthh

The contribution of for-hire transportationindustries to the U.S economy, as measured

by their value-added (or net output), increased(in 1996 chained dollars1) from $181 billion in1990 to $270 billion in 2001 (figure 102). In thesame time period, this segment’s share in GrossDomestic Product (GDP) fluctuated slightly,increasing from 2.7 percent in 1990 to 3.0 per-cent in 1999 before declining to 2.9 percent in2001. The decreased share of for-hire trans-portation services in 2001 can largely be attrib-uted to the decrease in output of air transporta-tion, reflecting significant reductions in personaland business air travel after the September 11,2001, terrorist attacks.

Among for-hire transportation industries,trucking and air contribute the largest amount toGDP (figure 103). In 2001, they contributed $99billion and $78 billion, respectively [1]. Together,they accounted for more than two-thirds of thetotal for-hire transportation industries’ net out-put. Between 1990 and 2001, local and inter-urban transit grew significantly, followed bytrucking and transportation supporting services.Railroad and pipeline transportation showed theleast growth during this period.

There are two major components of trans-portation services—for-hire transportation, asdetailed above, and in-house transportationservices. For-hire transportation services areprovided by firms for a fee. In-house transporta-tion services are provided by nontransportationestablishments for their own use. For instance,when a retail store uses its own trucks to movegoods from one place to another it is providingan in-house service.

Time-series data on in-house transportationservices are not readily available. The Bureau ofTransportation Statistics last analyzed in-housetransportation services in early 2000 using 1996data. At that time, in-house transportation con-tributed $142 billion (in 1996 dollars) to theeconomy, while for-hire transportation con-tributed $243 billion.2

Source

1. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau ofEconomic Analysis, “Gross Domestic Product byIndustry and the Components of Gross DomesticIncome,” available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn2.htm, as of February 2003.

Transportation Services


2 The full results of that study appear in Transportation StatisticsAnnual Report 2000, available at http://www.bts.gov/.


129


rraannssppoorrttaattiioonn aanndd EEccoonnoomm

iicc GGrrooww

tthh

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400 3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0


Share in GDP (%)

Value

Percent

FFIIGGUURREE 110022 VVaalluuee AAddddeedd bbyy FFoorr--HHiirree TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn SSeerrvviicceess ttoo UU..SS.. GGDDPP aanndd IIttss SShhaarree iinn TToottaall UU..SS.. GGDDPP:: 11999900––22000011

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40Percent

Trucking and warehousing

Air

Transportation services

RailTransit

WaterPipelines, except natural gas

FFIIGGUURREE 110033 SShhaarree ooff FFoorr--HHiirree TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn VVaalluuee AAddddeedd bbyy MMooddee:: 11999900––22000011

KKEEYY:: GDP = Gross Domestic Product.

NNOOTTEESS:: For-hire transportation services include railroad transportation, local and inter-urban passenger transit, trucking and warehousing, water transportation, air transporta-tion, pipelines (except natural gas), and transportation services. Transportation servicescover establishments furnishing services incidental to transportation (e.g., forwarding andpacking services and the arrangement of passenger and freight transportation). All dollaramounts are expressed in chained 1996 dollars, unless otherwise specified. Current dollaramounts (which are available in appendix B of this report) were adjusted to eliminate theeffects of inflation over time.

SSOOUURRCCEE:: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, calcula-tions 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.


130

SSeecc

ttiioonn

1144::

GGoovv

eerrnnmm

eenntt

TTrraa

nnssppoo

rrttaatt

iioonn

FFiinn

aannccee

Federal, state, and local government trans-portation revenues earmarked to finance

transportation programs1 increased from $82.2billion in 1990 to $113.6 billion in 2000 (in1996 chained dollars2) for an annual inflation-adjusted growth rate of 3 percent (figure 104).However, the share of transportation revenues intotal government revenues decreased slightlyfrom 4.4 percent to 4.2 percent in the sameperiod [1].

The federal government share of revenuesaveraged 32 percent per year between 1990 and1997 and then rose to an average share of 38percent per year from 1998 to 2000. On theother hand, the state government share of rev-enues dropped from an average share of 48 per-cent in 1990 through 1997 to a share of 43 per-cent between 1998 and 2000. The rise in thefederal government share after 1997 can beattributed to increased federal motor fuel taxes,the introduction of new transportation usercharges, and the shift of transportation receiptsfrom the general fund for deficit reduction totransportation trust funds [1].

Among all transportation modes, highwayusage generates the largest amount of trans-portation revenues, accounting for $79.2 billionor 70 percent of the total in 2000 (figure 105).Air transportation produces the second largestshare of transportation revenues (17 percent).Transit revenues, a combination of money paidinto the Mass Transit Account of the HighwayTrust Fund and proceeds from operations of thepublic mass transportation system, represent 10percent of the total. With annual growth rates of11 percent and 5 percent, respectively, pipelineand air revenues grew faster than did othermodes from 1990 to 2000 [1]. Rail is not repre-sented in revenues because fuel and property taxreceipts from rail are channeled into the generalfund for deficit reduction and hence do not fallunder the definition of transportation revenuesused by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.Amtrak generates revenues from passengerfares, but since Amtrak is not considered a gov-ernment entity, its revenues are not included.

Source

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, Government Trans-portation Financial Statistics 2001, available athttp://www.bts.gov, as of February 2003.

Government Transportation Revenues

1 Money collected by government from transportation usercharges and taxes, which are earmarked to finance transportationprograms, are counted by the Bureau of Transportation Statisticsas transportation-related revenues. The following types of receiptsare excluded: 1) revenues collected from users of the transporta-tion system that are directed to the general fund and used for non-transportation purposes, 2) nontransportation general fund rev-enues 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 areavailable in appendix B of this report) were adjusted to eliminatethe effects of inflation over time.


131

SSeeccttiioonn 1144:: GG

oovveerrnnmmeenntt TT

rraannssppoorrttaattiioonn FFiinnaannccee

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20000

20

40

60

80

100

120

140Chained 1996 $ (billions)

Total

State

Federal

Local

FFIIGGUURREE 110044 FFeeddeerraall,, SSttaattee,, aanndd LLooccaall GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn--RReellaatteedd RReevveennuueess:: 11999900––22000000

Highway 69.8%

Transit 10.1%

Air17.2%

Water 2.9%

Pipeline 0.03%

FFIIGGUURREE 110055 FFeeddeerraall,, SSttaattee,, aanndd LLooccaall GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn--RReellaatteedd RReevveennuueess bbyy MMooddee:: 22000000

SSOOUURRCCEESS:: AAllll eexxcceepptt aass nnootteedd—U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, "Government Transportation Financial Statistics SearchableDatabase," available at http://www.bts.gov, as of February 2003. SSttaattee aanndd llooccaall ppoorrttiioonn ffoorr22000000—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, "State and Local GovernmentFinances," available at ftp://ftp2.census.gov/pub/outgoing/govs/Finance/, as of February2003. CChhaaiinn--ttyyppee pprriiccee iinnddeexx—U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of EconomicAnalysis, "National Income and Product Accounts Tables," table 7.1, available athttp://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/, as of February 2003.


132

SSeecc

ttiioonn

1144::

GGoovv

eerrnnmm

eenntt

TTrraa

nnssppoo

rrttaatt

iioonn

FFiinn

aannccee

Spending on building, maintaining, operating,and administering the nation’s transportation

system by all levels of government totaled$149.0 billion in 2000 (in chained 1996 dol-lars1). The federal government spent 30 percentof the funds; state and local governments, 70percent (figure 106). Between 1990 and 2000,these transportation expenditures grew fasterthan total government expenditures, increasingtransportation’s share in the total from 5.6 per-cent to 6.1 percent. State and local governmentspending grew faster (at an average annual rateof 3 percent) than the federal government’sspending (at 2 percent). State and local govern-ments also spent a higher percentage of theirtotal expenditures on transportation than thefederal government. In 2000, the respectiveshares were 13 percent and 3 percent [1].

Among all modes of transportation, highwaysreceive the largest amount of total governmenttransportation funds. In 2000, this amounted to$93.6 billion and accounted for nearly 63 per-cent of the total (figure 107). Transit and airmodes accounted for 19 percent and 13 percent,respectively, while rail and pipeline modesaccounted for less than 1 percent each. Between1990 and 2000, government expenditures onhighway, transit, and air transportationincreased at about the same rate, leaving theoverall modal distribution of government trans-portation expenditures almost unchanged [1].

Source

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, Government Trans-portation Financial Statistics 2001, available athttp://www.bts.gov, as of February 2003.

Government Transportation Expenditures



133




1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20000

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160Chained 1996 $ (billions)

Total

State and local

Federal

FFIIGGUURREE 110066 FFeeddeerraall,, SSttaattee,, aanndd LLooccaall GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn--RReellaatteedd EExxppeennddiittuurreess ffrroomm OOwwnn FFuunnddss:: FFiissccaall YYeeaarrss 11999900––22000000

Highway 63%

Transit 19%

Rail<1%

Air 13%

Water 5%

General support <1%

Pipeline <1%

FFIIGGUURREE 110077 SShhaarreess ooff FFeeddeerraall,, SSttaattee,, aanndd LLooccaall GGoovveerrnnmmeennttTTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn--RReellaatteedd EExxppeennddiittuurreess bbyy MMooddee ffrroomm OOwwnnFFuunnddss:: FFiissccaall YYeeaarr 22000000

NNOOTTEESS:: Federal expenditures from own funds consists of out-lays of the federal government including not only direct spend-ing but also grants to state and local governments. State andlocal expenditures from own funds include outlays of state andlocal governments from all sources of funds excluding federalgrants. State and local data are reported together because dis-aggregated federal grants data are not available.

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 eliminatethe effects of inflation over time.

SSOOUURRCCEESS:: EExxcceepptt aass nnootteedd—U.S. Department of Transporta-tion, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, "GovernmentTransportation Financial Statistics Searchable Database," avail-able at http://www.bts.gov, as of February 2003. SSttaattee aanndd llooccaallppoorrttiioonn ffoorr 22000000—U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. CensusBureau, "State and Local Government Finances," available atftp://ftp2.census.gov/pub/outgoing/govs/Finance/, as of February2003.


134

SSeecc

ttiioonn

1144::

GGoovv

eerrnnmm

eenntt

TTrraa

nnssppoo

rrttaatt

iioonn

FFiinn

aannccee

Gross government transportation invest-ment,1 including infrastructure and vehi-

cles, has increased steadily over the last decade.The Bureau of Transportation Statistics has esti-mated that total gross government transporta-tion investment reached $76.0 billion in 2000(in chained 1996 dollars2), compared with $59.0billion in 1990, an average annual growth rateof 3 percent (figure 108). Government trans-portation investment grew faster than did othergovernment investments. As a result, the shareof transportation in total government invest-ment increased from 24 percent in 1990 to 27percent in 2000 [1, 2]. However, the share ofgovernment transportation investment in theGross Domestic Product (GDP) changed little,remaining at almost 1 percent each year [2].This indicates that funds allocated by govern-ment for improving and expanding transporta-tion capital have been growing at the same paceas GDP.

State and local governments are the maininvestors in transportation infrastructure, buttheir relative role has decreased slightly overtime. Direct federal infrastructure investment

rose from $2.4 billion to $3.9 billion—an aver-age annual growth rate of 5 percent between1990 and 2000. State and local investment intransportation infrastructure grew from $49.6billion to $63.0 billion, an average annualgrowth rate of 2 percent (figure 109).

Infrastructure accounted for nearly 90 per-cent of the total government transportationinvestment during the 1990s, the bulk of which(almost three-quarters of the total) was allocatedto highways (figure 110). Nevertheless, the shareof highway investment in total infrastructureinvestment has gone down, whereas that fortransit and air has gone up. Air investment grewat an average annual rate of 4 percent, fasterthan all other modes in the 1990s.

Sources

1. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau ofEconomic Analysis, National Income andProduct Account Tables, available athttp://www.bea.gov, as of February 2003.

2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, “TransportationInvestment: Concepts, Data and Analysis,” com-piled based on data from U.S. Department ofCommerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, FixedAssets and Consumer Durables, available athttp://www.bea.gov, as of July 2002.

Government Transportation Investment

1 Transportation investment is the purchase value of transporta-tion equipment and the purchase or construction value of trans-portation facilities and structures, namely, roads, railways, air-ports, air control facilities, water ports, pipelines, and so forth,that have a service life of longer than one year. The total purchaseor construction value of new transportation capital in a year isgross investment. While investment increases the stock of trans-portation capital, the existing transportation capital stock depreci-ates or wears out over time. Therefore, gross investment minusdepreciation provides net investment.2 All dollar amounts are expressed in chained 1996 dollars,unless otherwise specified. Current dollar amounts (which areavailable in appendix B of this report) were adjusted to eliminatethe effects of inflation over time.

NNOOTTEESS:: Investment in transportation infrastructure includes thepurchase or construction value of transportation facilities andstructures. Data on state and local transportation investment arenot available separately. For rail infrastructure, only state andlocal investment from 1993 to 2000 are included. Governmentinvestment in pipeline infrastructure and federal investmentspending on railroads are not covered due to lack of data.Investment in rolling stock consists of government outlays formotor vehicles only. Government spending on other rollingstocks (e.g., aircrafts, vessels, and boats) and other machineryand equipment used by federal, state, and local DOTs are notcounted in the estimates due to lack of data. All dollar amountsare expressed in chained 1996 dollars, unless otherwise speci-

fied. Current dollar amounts (which are available in appendix Bof this report) were adjusted to eliminate the effects of inflationover time.

SSOOUURRCCEESS:: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, "Transportation Investment-Concepts,Data and Analysis," draft, compiled based on data from U.S.Department of Commerce (USDOC), Bureau of EconomicAnalysis (BEA), "Fixed Assets and Consumer Durables," andpersonal communications with BEA; and USDOC, U.S. CensusBureau, "Value of Construction Put in Place Statistics," DetailedConstruction Expenditure Tables, available at http://www.census.gov, as of February 2003.





1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20000

40

60

80Infrastructure Rolling stock


20

FFIIGGUURREE 110088 GGrroossss GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt IInnvveessttmmeennttss iinn TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn IInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree aanndd RRoolllliinngg SSttoocckk:: 11999900––22000000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20000

40

60

80Federal (direct) State and local


20

FFIIGGUURREE 110099 GGrroossss GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt IInnvveessttmmeennttss iinn TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonnIInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree bbyy LLeevveell ooff GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt:: 11999900––22000000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20000

10

20

30

40

50

60

Highway

WaterRail

TransitAir


FFIIGGUURREE 111100 GGrroossss GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt IInnvveessttmmeenntt iinn TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonnIInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree bbyy MMooddee:: 11999900––22000000

135


136

SSeecc

ttiioonn

1155::

TTrraa

nnssppoo

rrttaatt

iioonn

EEnnee

rrggyy

Transportation energy use grew 22 percentbetween 1991 and 2001, to 28 percent of

the nation’s total energy consumption in 2001(figure 111) [4]. Highway vehicles consumed anestimated 81 percent of transportation sectorenergy [5].

Still, transportation energy use has grownmore slowly than has the Gross DomesticProduct (GDP) over the decade. As a result, theamount of transportation energy used per dollarof GDP declined at the average annual rate ofover 1 percent between 1991 and 20011 [2, 3](figure 112).

Over 96 percent of all transportation energyconsumed comes from petroleum. Total U.S.petroleum usage increased 16 percent during thelast decade, with transportation responsible for83 percent of that rise [1]. In 2001, transporta-tion consumed 67 percent of all petroleum, upfrom 65 percent in 1991 (figure 113). Becauseover half of U.S. petroleum is imported, theUnited States, and especially the transportation

sector, may be vulnerable to supply disruptionswith fuel price fluctuations having the potentialto contribute to economic instability.

Sources

1. Davis, S., Transportation Energy Data Book:Edition 22 (Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory, September 2002), table 2.4.

2. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau ofEconomic Analysis, National Income andProduct Account Tables, available athttp://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm, as ofFebruary 2003.

3. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy InformationAdministration, Annual Energy Review 2001,available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html, as of February 2003.

4. _____, Monthly Energy Review, February 2003,available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/contents.html, as of February 2003.

5. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, National Transpor-tation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2003),table 4-6.

Transportation Sector Energy Use

1 GDP is in chained 1996 dollars.


137


rraannssppoorrttaattiioonn EEnneerrggyy

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40BTU (quadrillion)

Industrial

Transportation

Residential

Commercial

FFIIGGUURREE 111111 UU..SS.. EEnneerrggyy CCoonnssuummppttiioonn bbyy SSeeccttoorr:: 11999911––22000011

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5Index: 1991 = 1.0

GDP

Transportation sector energy use

Transportation energyuse per dollar of GDP

FFIIGGUURREE 111122 TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn SSeeccttoorr EEnneerrggyy UUssee aanndd GGrroossss DDoommeessttiicc PPrroodduucctt:: 11999911––22000011

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

2

4

6

8

10

12

14Barrels/day (millions)

Transportation

Industry

UtilitiesBuildings

FFIIGGUURREE 111133 UU..SS.. PPeettrroolleeuumm UUssee bbyy SSeeccttoorr:: 11999911––22000011

KKEEYY:: BTU = British thermal units. The average heat content ofmotor gasoline is 129,024 BTU per gallon. One quadrillion BTUis equivalent to 7.75 billion gallons of motor gasoline. GDP =Gross Domestic Product. GDP is shown in 1996 chained dol-lars.

SSOOUURRCCEESS:: FFiigguurree 111111—U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),Energy Information Administration (EIA), Monthly Energy

Review (Washington, DC: August 2002), table 2.1. FFiigguurreess 111122aanndd 111133—DOE, EIA, Annual Energy Review 2001, available athttp://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/contents.html, as of February2003. GGDDPP—U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau ofEconomic Analysis, "National Income and Product AccountTables," available at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm, as ofFebruary 2003.


138

SSeecc

ttiioonn

1155::

TTrraa

nnssppoo

rrttaatt

iioonn

EEnnee

rrggyy

Transportation fuel prices (in chained 1996dollars1) experienced short-term fluctua-

tions between 1992 and 2002 (figure 114). Theaverage price of motor fuel (all types of gasoline)decreased 15 percent in 1998, to $1.08 per gal-lon from $1.27 per gallon in 1997. Two yearslater, transportation fuel prices rebounded to thehighest levels in more than a decade. Motor fuelprices jumped 25 percent, to $1.46 per gallon in2000. Other fuels, such as aviation fuels anddiesel used by railroads, underwent similar pricefluctuations. Fuel prices decreased slightly dur-ing 2001 and 2002, so that most transportationfuels cost approximately the same amount in2002 as in 1992. Aviation gasoline—used pri-marily in general aviation planes—was oneexception, remaining 6 percent more expensivein 2002 than in 1992.

Transportation fuel prices are correlated withthe world price of crude oil, because crude oilrepresents a large percentage of the final price oftransportation fuel. This correlation can be seenin the price trends from 1992 to 2002 for crudeoil and various transportation fuels. Crude oilprices increased 9 percent, while all other typesof transportation fuel (except aviation gasoline)increased 2 percent or less [1].

While prices of transportation fuels fluctuateover time, per capita vehicle-miles traveled (vmt)for all modes of transportation have increased inalmost every year. For instance, between 1991and 2001, per capita highway vmt rose about 1percent annually, while that of large air carriersgrew 3 percent (figures 115 and 116).

Transportation fuel prices can affect overallconsumer transportation prices. As measured bythe Consumer Price Index, between 1991 and2001, motor fuel prices and transportationprices increased at the same average annual rate(2 percent). This inflation rate for transportationwas lower than average annual inflation for allgoods and services (3 percent) [2]. In fact, trans-portation-related consumer prices increased lessthan all other major spending categories exceptapparel, which decreased less than 1 percentfrom 1991 to 2001.

Sources

1. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy InformationAdministration, Monthly Energy Review(Washington, DC: August 2002 and June 2003).

2. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of LaborStatistics, Consumer Price Index, available athttp://www.bls.gov, as of June 2003.

Transportation Energy Prices



139



1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6Chained 1996 $ per gallon

Gasoline, all types

Aviation gasoline

Diesel no. 2

Railroad diesel

Jet fuel, kerosene

Crude oil

FFIIGGUURREE 111144 TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn FFuueell PPrriicceess:: 11999922––22000022

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

1,350

2,700

4,050

5,400

6,750

8,100

9,450

10,800

Per capita vehicle-miles traveled

Per capita vehicle-miles

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

Gasoline price, all types

Chained 1996 $ per gallon

FFIIGGUURREE 111155 MMoottoorr FFuueell PPrriicceess CCoommppaarreedd WWiitthh ppeerr CCaappiittaa MMoottoorrVVeehhiiccllee--MMiilleess TTrraavveelleedd:: 11999911––22000011

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20010

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

Per capita aircraft-miles

Jet fuel price

Per capita aircraft-miles Chained 1996 $ per gallon

FFIIGGUURREE 111166 JJeett FFuueell PPrriicceess CCoommppaarreedd WWiitthh ppeerr CCaappiittaa AAiirrccrraafftt--MMiilleess TTrraavveelleedd:: 11999911––22000011

NNOOTTEE:: Current dollar data are available in table 114 in appendixB and were adjusted using a chain-type index to eliminate theeffects of inflation over time.

SSOOUURRCCEE:: 11999911––22000011 ffuueell pprriicceess—U.S. Department ofTransportation (USDOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics(BTS), National Transportation Statistics 2002 (Washington,DC: 2002), table 3-8, also available at http://www.bts.gov.

22000022 ffuueell pprriicceess—See table 114 source. PPeerr ccaappiittaa vveehhiiccllee-- aannddaaiirrccrraafftt--mmiilleess—Calculations based on USDOT, BTS, NationalTransportation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), table 1-29, also available at http:// www.bts.gov; and U.S. Department ofCommerce, U.S. Census Bureau, International Database (IDB),available at http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/ idbnew.html, as ofApril 2003.


140

SSeecc

ttiioonn

1155::

TTrraa

nnssppoo

rrttaatt

iioonn

EEnnee

rrggyy

Passenger travel was 5 percent more energyefficient in 2000 than in 1990 (figure 117),

mainly due to gains by domestic commercial avi-ation. Improved aircraft fuel economy andincreased passenger loads resulted in a 32 per-cent increase in commercial air passenger energyefficiency between 1990 and 2000 [2]. Aircraftfuel economy improved by 20 percent between1990 and 2000. Domestic commercial air pas-senger-miles rose 49 percent between 1990 and2000, while energy use grew 13 percent [1].

Highway passenger travel—by automobiles,motorcycles, and light trucks—represented 85percent of all passenger-miles and 91 percent ofpassenger travel energy use in 2000. Highwaytravel was 2 percent more energy efficient in2000 compared with 1990 [1]. This gain wasdue to a 6 percent increase in the energy effi-ciency of passenger cars and motorcycles, offsetby a 5 percent loss in efficiency of light trucks1

[2]. Furthermore, light truck passenger-milesgrew 47 percent between 1990 and 2000, com-pared with 12 percent for passenger cars and 22percent for all highway passenger vehicles.

Freight energy efficiency (ton-miles per BTU)declined 7 percent from 1990 to 2000 (figure118). The decline in freight energy efficiencyoccurred as a result of 2 percent average annualgrowth rate in ton-miles paired with a relativelyrapid average annual growth rate of 3 percent in

freight energy consumption. Contributing to thistrend was the decline in the energy efficiency ofthe freight truck and waterborne modes [2].

Sources

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, National Transpor-tation Statistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002),calculation based on tables 1-34, 1-44, 4-6, and4-8, also available at http://www.bts.gov/, as ofMay 2003.

2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, Transportation EnergyEfficiency Trends in the 1990s, Issue Brief, avail-able at http://www.bts.gov/, as of May 2003.

Transportation Energy Efficiency

TTeerrmmss UUsseedd aanndd CCaallccuullaattiioonnss MMaaddee

The following definitions apply to the discussionhere:

■ Energy is measured in British thermal units(BTU).

■ A passenger-mile traveled is one passengertransported one mile.

■ A ton-mile is one ton transported one mile.

■ Passenger energy efficiency is the ratio of pas-senger miles traveled to BTU (or to energy con-sumed).

■ Freight energy efficiency is the ratio of ton-milesto BTU (or to energy consumed).

■ Fuel economy is the ratio of miles per gallon offuel.

1 Light trucks include minivans, pickup trucks, and sport utilityvehicles.


141



1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20000.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

Energy consumption

Passenger-miles

Energy efficiency

Index: 1990 = 1.01.4

FFIIGGUURREE 111177 PPaasssseennggeerr--MMiilleess,, EEnneerrggyy CCoonnssuummppttiioonn,, aanndd EEnneerrggyyEEffffiicciieennccyy:: 11999900––22000000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20000.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Energy consumption

Ton-miles

Energy efficiency

Index: 1990 = 1.0

FFIIGGUURREE 111188 FFrreeiigghhtt TToonn--MMiilleess,, EEnneerrggyy CCoonnssuummppttiioonn,, aanndd EEnneerrggyyEEffffiicciieennccyy:: 11999900––22000000

SSOOUURRCCEESS:: PPaasssseennggeerr--mmiilleess,, ttoonn--mmiilleess,, aanndd eenneerrggyy uussee ((uunnlleessss ootthheerrwwiissee nnootteedd))—U.S.Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National TransportationStatistics 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), tables 1-34, 1-44, 4-6, and 4-8, also available athttp://www.bts.gov/, as of May 2003. TTrruucckk ttoonn--mmiilleess ffoorr 22000000—The Eno TransportationFoundation, Transportation in America, 19th Edition (Washington, DC: 2002), p. 45. TTrraannssiitteenneerrggyy uussee ccaallccuullaatteedd ffrroomm—American Public Transportation Association, Transit Statistics,tables 30 and 33, available at http://www.apta.com, as of May 2003.

Chapter 3

State of TransportationStatistics

145

State of Transportation Statistics

ransportation statistics arise from an array of data systems eachconstructed for specific, sometimes narrow, purposes. These systems

exist much like a collection of pieces from different jigsaw puzzles of thesame picture. The pieces answer some questions well but leave manyothers unanswered or partly or poorly answered. The pieces do not con-stitute a whole because of a number of factors, such as incompatibledefinitions, diverse collection methods, data overlaps and omissions,coverage and timeliness of data collection and releases, and apparentinconsistencies. In addition, transportation statistics need to satisfy avariety of users (see table 1).

This chapter focuses on five core transportation areas: freight, passen-ger travel, air transportation, economic, and geospatial data. Each sec-tion provides an analysis of why these data are important, a review ofexisting data, and possible options for filling crucial data gaps. The chal-lenge 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 nationaland global economies and the continuing improvements and innovationsin technology. Alterations in the mix of manufactured products, shifts inglobal production and trade patterns, and growing domestic demandsfrom industry and consumers all affect freight transportation and relateddata needs.

The consensus on collected freight data is that they are often too outof date to capture current developments and, despite progress, there aremany missing pieces to the freight picture. Furthermore, data are oftennot comparable across modes. Table 2 compares features of severalfreight 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, andinternational levels;

T


146

■ true origins and destinations of shipments(not necessarily the same as the place ofrecord);

■ commodities (type; value; whether hazard-ous, containerized, or bulk);

■ transit times (how long it takes to shipcommodities);

■ shipment costs;

■ intermodal connections (seaports, airports,railyards) through which freight passes;and

■ infrastructure, vehicles, vessels, airplanes,and pipelines used.

In many of these categories, some of the datamay be available but not on a comprehensivebasis.

Existing Freight Data and Data Programs

Commodity Flow Survey (CFS)The CFS, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureaufor BTS, is the broadest, most comprehensivenational survey available of multimodal freight

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. Department of Transportation and other Executive Branch agencies; state and local agencies; metropolitan planning organizations; port authorities

Safety regulation, security, congestion analysis, international trade and travel, environmental issues, economic impact and cost-benefit analyses, modal choice issues (e.g., cost allocation studies and analysis of factors affecting modal choice), competition analysis (e.g., market share and effects on prices)

Planners Transportation infrastructure planners at all levels of government; private sector officials; environmental, economic development, and emergency response planners

Forecasting regional or national freight and passenger travel demand and its effects on and need for public or private infrastructure, effects of transportation on the environment and the economy, national security issues, performance planning and budgeting

Shippers, operators, carriers, intermediaries, and transportation equipment manufacturers

Public sector authorities responsible for transit and ports; private sector businesses

Planning for infrastructure needs, tracking vehicle or cargo location, planning for service offerings or marketing initiatives, understanding market potential, understanding commodity movements and passenger flows

Transportation regulators Government officials; private security organizations

Allocating enforcement resources; ensuring the 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

Chapter 3: State of Transportation Statistics

147

TABLE 2 Selected Freight Flow Data Programs of Nationwide Scope

Program/agency ModesShipment variables

covered Limitations

Data-collection frequency

Data-collection

methodology

Commodity Flow Survey

Bureau of Transportation Statistics—(BTS)—in conjunction with the U.S. Census Bureau

All(including intermodal)

Kind of commodity and its value, weight, true origin and destination (if domestic)

Only domestic shippers surveyed; most retail, all government, and some other establishments (e.g., farms, logging) are not surveyed; most imports not covered; crude petroleum pipeline shipments not covered

Every 5 years as part of the economic census; previous data-collection years were 1993, 1997, and 2002

Survey of domestic shippers

Sample size:200,000 in 1993, 100,000 in 1997, and 50,000 in 2002

Railcar Waybill Sample

Surface Transportation Board

Rail Commodity and its weight and rail line system origin and destination

Does not reveal true origin and destination of most shipments; export traffic only picked up if rebilled at border; does not provide shipment value data

Annual Stratified sample of rail waybill

Sample rate varies from 2.5% to 50% depending on shipment size

Waterborne Commerce Data

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Maritime Commodity; shipment weight; origin, destination, and routing of waterborne portion of shipment

Includes domestic and foreign shipments

Value data not collected for domestic shipments

Data collection continuous; some data released monthly for inland waterways; most other data issued annually

Census of companies and vessels operating in U.S. waterborne trade, both domestic and foreign

Air carrier freight data

BTS

Air Freight weight enplaned by each carrier at each airport; weight of freight carried over airport-to-airport segments; available ton-miles of capacity; revenue ton-miles flown by each carrier

Covers domestic, transborder, and foreign flights of U.S. carriers.

Does not identify the commodity shipped, its value, or true origin and destination; air origin and destination points may not be identified if cargo is interchanged at an airport; very small carriers, such as air taxi, not covered

Does not cover flights of foreign carriers

Monthly U.S. air carriers file monthly reports with BTS

(Table 2 continues on the next page)


148

trends. Every five years, the U.S. CensusBureau surveys shippers for the CFS. Releaseof 2002 survey data will begin in late 2003; pre-viously available data cover 1993 and 1997. Fora sample of shipments, shippers are asked toprovide information on the shipment’s originand destination, its value and weight, the modeor modes of transportation, and the commoditytype (using codes from the Standard Classifica-tion of Transportable Goods—SCTG).

Uses of CFS data include:

■ determination of the magnitude of freightmoving over the national transportationsystem,

■ projection of growth in freight transporta-tion demand,

■ calculation of ton-miles using origin anddestination points,

■ estimation of traffic routing, and

■ calculation of the modal distribution ofshipments by value, tonnage, and ton-miles.

While the CFS is the most extensive surveyavailable of domestic freight activity, it does notcover all sectors of the economy. The shipmentsof farms, logging and fishing operations, govern-ments, construction firms, service establish-ments, transportation firms, and most retailfirms are not within the scope of the CFS. Thedistribution center or warehouse of a retail firmwill be in scope, but its retail store will not. Forinstance, farm produce is not captured when it istransported from the farm to a grain elevator orprocessor but is when reshipped by the elevatoror processor. Pipeline shipments of crude petro-leum are also outside the scope of the CFS.

The CFS excludes imports unless the ship-ment is received by an importer at its establish-ment within the United States and thenreshipped; the reshipment portion would becounted. The CFS includes the value and ton-nage of exports. However, only the domesticportion of the shipment mileage is counted; theinternational portion is not. The CFS excludes

Program/agency ModesShipment variables

covered Limitations

Data-collection frequency

Data-collection

methodology

U.S. foreign trade data: transport of freight into and out of the United States

U.S. Customs, U.S. Census Bureau, BTS, Canadian and Mexican agencies

Truck, rail, pipeline, government mail, and certain other modes involved in trade between the United States and Canada, and the United States and Mexico

For surface modes, shipment weight (imports only), its value and commodity classification, mode of transportation when crossing border, port of entry or exit, freight charges, and whether shipment is containerized

Data specify state or province of origin and destination

Transportation data derived from U.S. foreign trade data currently provide only limited information on air and water modes, even with Canada and Mexico, and do not identify intermodal combinations used in shipping cargo from its origin to its destination. Data on transportation of exports to other countries are collected, but limited in availability. Some trade records may be filed by intermediaries (e.g., a freight forwarder) that may list an administrative office located in a place other than the point of entry or exit, and can result in misreporting of the origin or destination of a shipment.

Monthly Data derived from official U.S. international merchandise import and export trade documents and extracted from records filed with administering agencies

An increasing number of these records are filed electronically

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


149

“landbridge” cargo carried across the UnitedStates (i.e., cargo that does not originate or ter-minate in the United States—truck traffic fromCanada to Mexico, or rail traffic carryingPacific Rim freight from West Coast seaports toEast Coast seaports for shipment to Europe).

The relatively small sample size of the CFSlimits its geographic and commodity detail.The 1993 CFS had an establishment samplesize of 200,000; the 1997 sample was reducedto 100,000 (covering 5 million shipments); andthe 2002 sample was halved again to 50,000(covering 2.7 million shipments). The CensusBureau designs the CFS to survey national andstate-to-state flows, so data on flows to andfrom metropolitan areas are often not avail-able. Planners and policymakers have indicateda strong need for greater geographic detail—atthe county level—for analysis and forecasting.

Carload Waybill SampleThis specialized database provides detailedinformation on freight movements by rail. TheSurface Transportation Board collects this strati-fied sample of rail waybills, with the samplerate varying from 2.5 percent to 50 percentdepending on the size of the shipment. About577,000 shipments were sampled in 2001.

Data collected include rail system origin anddestination, weight, commodity (by 7-digit Stan-dard Transportation Commodity Classification(STCC) code), and mileage. No value data arecollected. The main weakness of the CarloadWaybill Sample is the lack of true origin anddestination data. The sample gathers no informa-tion beyond the scope of the rail system, so thatthe origin and destination are treated as occur-ring when the shipment is tendered to or deliv-ered by the system. The true origin anddestination, if it requires a connection to the railsystem by truck, is not shown. Moreover, ship-

ments interlined between two railroads are oftenshown as two movements, with the interchangepoint being listed as the destination of the firstshipment and the origin of the second. Exporttraffic is also excluded unless it is rebilled at theborder.

Waterborne Commerce DataThe Waterborne Commerce Data collected bythe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers providedetails on maritime freight. It is a complete cen-sus of all waterborne domestic and foreignmovements and gathers data on the weight ofthe shipment, the origin, destination, and rout-ing of the waterborne portion of the shipment,the waterborne distance traveled, and a codefor the commodity carried (using the Corps ofEngineers’ own commodity coding system). Novalue data are collected for domestic ship-ments, but the Corps collects customs data onthe value of foreign shipments. The foreigndata lack information on routing.

Air Freight DataBTS gathers data on air freight directly from thecarriers. For each carrier, these data show theenplaned weight of freight at each airport, theweight of freight carried over airport-to-airportsegments, available ton-miles of capacity, andactual revenue ton-miles flown. The data do notinclude information on the commodity classifi-cation of the freight carried or its value. Thedata also generally do not report the true originand destination of cargo, that is, the point fromwhich it is shipped by truck to the airport and towhich it is delivered from the airport. Moreover,when the cargo is interchanged at an airport,even by the same airline, it is treated as a newshipment, so even the airborne origin and desti-nation points are lost. The database also doesnot count cargo moved by the smallest carriers(i.e., air taxis).


150

International DataThe U.S. Census Bureau provides surfacefreight import data collected from the Bureauof Customs and Border Protection1 to BTS.These data are then reported as part of BTS’sTransborder Surface Freight Data. BTS alsogathers data on exports from Canada andMexico to the United States to complete thedatabase. The data measure the weight ofimports (but not exports), the value of ship-ments, the modes of transportation, the com-modity classifications (from the 2-digitHarmonized Schedule), the ports of entry orexit, the freight charges, and codes to indicateif the shipments were containerized. Data onorigin and destination show only the state orprovince. Similar data are not available for airand water exports and imports to and fromCanada and Mexico, and the data available onexports and imports from other countries areeven more limited.

The federal government plans to substan-tially improve the quality of internationalfreight data using an International Trade DataSystem (ITDS). The ITDS, a multiple agencyeffort spearheaded by the Bureau of Customsand Border Protection, promises to providecomprehensive data on imports and exports,including origin and destination, mode, com-modity, weight, and value.

Motor Carrier DataData on the number of vehicles passingthrough the transportation network are neededfor many purposes. For instance, the number ofvehicles is important for calculating the level ofcongestion in the transportation system. Many

freight vehicles travel empty, contributing tohighway congestion but not showing up infreight statistics.

The U.S. Census Bureau conducts the VehicleInventory and Use Survey (VIUS) every fiveyears. The VIUS provides data on the numberof trucks (including data on the size of truckfleets owned by carriers), their types, vehicleweights and lengths, fuel economy, the indus-tries they serve, the kinds of commodities theycarry, their range of operation (e.g., local,regional, or long distance) and the percentageof miles operated out-of-state, weeks operated,model years, how they are acquired, and thenature of the carriers (e.g., for-hire, private, orcontract). These data do not provide any infor-mation about freight flows themselves, such asorigins and destinations, but are useful in con-junction with other databases for understand-ing truck movements.

Options for Filling Freight Data GapsAs the above discussion suggests, there are manyimportant freight data gaps. Two pressing exam-ples are the lack of good origin and destinationdata for truck shipments and data on intermodalshipments. While the CFS is, in principle, a com-prehensive freight database, it in fact omitsmany sectors of the economy and reports limiteddetails on a relatively small sample of shippers.Moreover, the sample may contain significanterrors in the reported mode of transportationwhen the shipper often has incomplete informa-tion (e.g., the shipper that hires a trucking com-pany to transport the shipment may not knowthat the trucking company contracts with a rail-road to move the trailers by rail flatcar for aconsiderable portion of the trip). Databases onrail, air, and maritime shipments fill some ofthese gaps, but little data are available for truckand intermodal shipments. Moreover, other

1 In 2003, functions of the Immigration and Naturalization Ser-vice, the U.S. Customs Service, the Animal and Plant InspectionService, and the Border Patrol were combined into the U.S.Department of Homeland Security’s Bureau of Customs and Bor-der Protection.


151

databases cover only the portion of the trip han-dled by the mode on which they focus and donot cover intermodal connections.

The Committee on National Statistics of theNational Academy of Science’s TransportationResearch Board (TRB) released a study on theCFS in March 2003 [8]. The committee recom-mended that the five-year survey be continueduntil an improved alternative could be estab-lished. The committee reasoned that the exist-ing CFS provided unique and important dataon domestic freight movements, despite its lim-itations and shortcomings. Among the limita-tions cited by the committee were gaps inshipment and industry coverage and a lack ofgeographic and commodity detail. These limi-tations, according to the committee, are com-pounded by the survey’s shrinking sample size.(Recommendations from another report onfreight data options—by the TRB Committeeon Freight Transportation Data—A Frame-work for Development—were not available intime for inclusion in this report.)

A new American Freight Data Programwould aim to fill in key data gaps. It could havemany elements, but the extent to which gapscould be eliminated would depend on resourcesavailable. Three specific components of a newprogram could be:

■ filling the most important gaps and makingfreight data more timely by changing theCommodity Flow Survey to an annual orcontinuous collection of data that includesspecialized sample frames of construction,agricultural, retail, and services shippers;

■ providing complete statistical coverage oftransportation of imports and exportsthrough the ITDS; and

■ developing a mail-out survey of nonpassen-ger vehicles to collect data on vehicle move-ments and vehicle and driver characteristics.

Such approaches would build on existing dataefforts. Over the longer term, new innovationsand approaches may emerge as practical alterna-tives for gathering data. Two of these—electronic transmission of operational datafrom vehicles and infrastructure and possibleadoption of transportation data elements aspart of a universal bill of lading—are discussedin box 1.

CFS EnhancementFor the foreseeable future, a survey such as theCFS is likely to remain a central component of anational freight data program. A top priority forCFS enhancement would be to gather informa-tion from shippers currently outside the scope ofthe survey. The focus for sample frames for theshippers could be those that generate the mostvehicle-miles of traffic (e.g., construction, ser-vices, retail trade, and agriculture).

Two other key weaknesses in the CFS arelack of timely data and a sample size that is toosmall for local planning. It may never be possi-ble in a national freight flow survey to generatesufficiently detailed data to meet the needs ofall local planners, but if data were collectedannually they could be aggregated to providelarger sample sizes. This would allow the mostrecent data to be analyzed if the focus is on cur-rency at the expense of geographical detail; itwould allow data for the last five years to beanalyzed if the focus is on maximum geo-graphic or commodity detail.

BTS lacks independent authority to requireresponses to a survey. Previously, BTS collectedfreight data under an interagency agreementwith the Census Bureau, which has mandatoryauthority under its five-year economic census.It has been demonstrated that voluntaryresponses are less timely, complete, and accu-rate than responses collected under a manda-tory survey, reducing the quality of the dataand increasing the cost of the survey.


152

Another way to provide data for local plan-ning might be through partnerships with stateand local governments willing to provideresources to increase sampling rates in geo-graphical areas in which they have a specialinterest. This approach would add data to theCFS while allowing state and local govern-ments to obtain information on their own localtraffic flows, probably at a lower cost thanconducting their own surveys. This is similar tothe approach taken with the 2001 NationalHousehold Travel Survey.

While the CFS lacks import data, some dataare available from the Bureau of Customs andBorder Protection. The ITDS, while still in theplanning stage, will eventually remedy this exist-ing data gap in the CFS.

Vehicle Movement DataEven if all the gaps in the CFS are filled, certainkinds of data will still not be available. As indi-cated above, the CFS only tracks movements offreight, whereas for many transportation plan-

ners and policymakers, movement of all non-passenger vehicles is of interest, whether thosevehicles carry freight or not.

There are also other important data needsthat cannot be met through a freight surveyalone. Safety exposure data describe the driversoperating vehicles (e.g., their age, level of expe-rience, number of hours on duty), but moredescriptive vehicle data than that provided bythe VIUS are needed (e.g., tare weights, axleloadings, safety equipment), as are data onwhere vehicles are operating.

A number of approaches already exist forsurveying vehicles. The United Kingdom uses amail-out vehicle survey in which truck opera-tors fill in weekly diaries on the operations of aparticular vehicle for a week’s period. Thesediaries report, for each trip during the week,information on the origin and destination ofthe trip, the number of miles operated full andempty, the weight of the shipment, and the typeof goods carried (with a special code to note

BOX 1Other Ways to Collect Freight Data

Freight data are collected from both shippers andcarriers, but no record follows a shipment through itsentire trip. Shippers often have only partial informationon the mode and routing of the shipment. The carrierknows the routing for its portion of the trip but mayhave little information on other portions of the trip oreven the type or value of commodities carried. Norecords are available to tie together the informationthat is known by the shipper and the various carriers.

A universal bill of lading could record all theneeded data and be sampled to provide acomprehensive freight database. Currently, a bill oflading accompanies all shipments, but the data on itare not standardized. Surface Transportation Boardregulations (49 CFR 1035) specify certainrequirements for bills of lading on rail and watershipments, as do the Federal Motor Carrier SafetyAdministration requirements for truck shipments (49CFR Part 373). The bills of lading list the weight ofthe shipment but may provide no information on thetype of commodity (which may be recorded simply as

“Freight All Kinds”), the true origin or destination, therouting, or the mode or modes of transportationused. The carrier with whom the shipper contractsmay be shown on the bill of lading, but if the carriersubcontracts all or part of the carriage, those othercarriers will not be listed.

While a universal bill of lading might be a long-termsolution to the freight data problem, it would beimportant to develop consensus within thetransportation community that costs of implementingsuch a concept would be justified by the benefits ofthe data made possible by it.

As information technologies advance, the potentialgrows to capture data collected automatically as freightpasses through electronic interchanges, although manyinstitutional barriers exist in using such data for publicpurposes. In theory, such a data-collection approachcould replace most surveys and carrier reports.Barriers, such as the proprietary nature of this data andincompatible systems, constrain use.


153

hazardous materials). While these diaries donot provide data on transit times or the vehi-cle’s driver, this approach could be used togather this information.

Canada uses a roadside intercept survey, inwhich data collectors stop trucks at 238 road-side points and ask the driver questions aboutorigin, destination, routing, and transit time ofthe trip (including information on stops), theweight and commodity classification of thecargo, the nature of the truck, and informationabout the driver and the carrier. Data are col-lected on handheld computers.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB),in conjunction with the Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA), conducted a one-timestudy in 1999 using global positioning system(GPS) technology to track vehicles in SouthernCalifornia. CARB obtained usable data from 140trucks and tracked them for 4 months. Data werecollected on truck routes and stops, travel timesand speeds, idling times, and times of starts andstops. This approach gives the most detailed dataon the actual route used by the truck, the actualtimes when the truck was in operation, and theamount of time required to make a trip at partic-ular times of the day, week, and year.

PASSENGER TRAVEL STATISTICS

A much-valued feature of American life is theability to travel from place to place with rela-tive ease, at a reasonable expense, and rela-tively quickly, whether it is across town, acrosscountry, or to a foreign destination. Americansaverage 1,500 daily trips annually, covering anaverage of 14,500 miles per person [19]. Manykinds of data are needed to evaluate this demandfor passenger travel and how well the supplymeets the demand. For instance, data areneeded for the different modes of transporta-tion and at various levels of detail, including

geographic scale. Questions that help evaluatethe needs of current and future travelersinclude why people travel, how and when theytravel, what their origins and destinations are,how long travel takes, and how much it costs.Travel data, in combination with other types ofdata, can also be used to assess the costs andbenefits of travel, including transportationsafety and its environmental effects.

Government and private organizations needpassenger travel data. Policymakers, planners,and forecasters use these data to determineinfrastructure investment requirements and tomeasure and design strategies to influencetransportation demand, particularly in the faceof growing congestion. Data can also be used toidentify geographic areas and groups of individ-uals who may be underserved by public trans-portation. Passenger travel data, including thenumber, type, and use of motor vehicles, canprovide measures of exposure for safety analy-ses, energy efficiency, and the environmentalimpacts of travel. State-by-state estimates ofvehicle travel are the foundation of decisionsabout funding, cost, and fee allocation.

Businesses and other private sector entities(e.g., consumer organizations and public interestgroups) also want passenger travel data for awide variety of reasons, and despite the cost,they frequently collect data for their own pur-poses. These data are often of use to others andmay be available to the public. Privately col-lected data may be supplemented with govern-ment data; however, in many cases, governmentdata are the only source of information availablefor business planning and other analyses.

Existing Passenger Travel Dataand Data ProgramsThere are three main types of passenger traveldata: survey, regulatory/administrative, and


154

operations/industry data. Each type providesdifferent levels of detail in terms of coverage,periodicity, and geography; and each possessesdifferent strengths and weaknesses.

Passenger Transportation SurveysSince the 1960s, the federal government hasperiodically conducted nationwide surveys ofpassenger travel in the United States. The mostrecent, the 2001 National Household TravelSurvey (NHTS), combines two previous sur-veys: the Nationwide Personal TransportationSurvey (NPTS—a survey primarily of dailytravel), and the American Travel Survey (ATS—a survey of long-distance travel). BTS andFHWA conduct the NHTS.2 The 2001 NHTSnational sample surveyed 26,000 householdsnationwide on their daily travel and askedabout the number and purpose of their trips,the mode(s) of transportation used, the dis-tance traveled, as well as the social and demo-graphic characteristics of the household. Inaddition, the survey asked household respon-dents to report all long-distance trips (trips of50 miles or more one way) during a four-weekperiod. Additional detail on purpose, mode,duration, overnight stops made to and from thefarthest destination, and so on, were collectedfor each of these trips. In addition to thenational sample, another 40,000 householdswere surveyed from 9 additional jurisdictions:5 local, mostly urban, areas and 4 states [19].

The NHTS travel data along with the demo-graphic data collected on households and indi-viduals provide one of the few tools to analyzethe travel patterns of sociodemographic groups.For instance, a recent study by TRB used dataon the travel of children from the 1995 NPTS toassess their safety going to and from school [9].

Several improvements were introduced in the2001 NHTS, including data collection on thetravel of children under the age of five and bet-ter data on walking and medium-range trips(from 50 to 100 miles). These changes meanthat the most recent survey data cannot alwaysbe easily compared with data from prior yearsurveys. An important supplement to this kindof travel survey is the upcoming time-use surveybeing developed by the U.S. Department ofLabor [13].

Commuting behavior, which affects conges-tion and the scheduling of work, is capturedmost fully by the long form of the decennialcensus. Mode, origin and destination, starttime, and travel time can be linked to the fullrange of social, economic, and demographiccharacteristics of the population at a very finegeographic scale. Information from the decen-nial census is relied on for federal policymakingand program development; for metropolitantransportation planning, including air qualityanalyses under the Clean Air Act; and fortransit planning. The U.S. Census Bureau plansto eliminate the long form from the 2010 cen-sus and replace it with an annual AmericanCommunity Survey to provide up-to-datedemographic and housing data on a continuingbasis. National-level journey-to-work data arealso collected every two years in the AmericanHousing Survey, conducted by the U.S. CensusBureau for the Department of Housing andUrban Development.

Some other, more specialized surveys alsoexist. For instance, the Office of Travel andTourism Industries in the Department ofCommerce surveys between 69,000 and 95,000passengers per year through a Survey ofInternational Air Travelers (In-Flight) Program,providing information on the origin and desti-nation of foreign visitors coming to the UnitedStates by air and the foreign travel of Ameri-

2 Prior to the 2001 NHTS, the NPTS was conducted in 1969,1977, 1983, 1990, and 1995, and the ATS (or similar surveys)was conducted in 1963, 1967, 1972, 1977, and 1995.


155

cans by air [12]. This information is supple-mented by arrivals and departures data fromthe Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.Additional information on the travel of Cana-dians to the United States and Americans toCanada is provided by Statistics Canada. TheFederal Aviation Administration conducts theGeneral Aviation and Air Taxi Activity Surveyannually. The VIUS, discussed earlier in theFreight section, collects information on privateand commercial trucks, including passenger-oriented light trucks, their use, and a host ofother related variables at the state level [11].Examples of private surveys include the TravelIndustry Association of America’s survey oftourist travel [10] and the American Bus Asso-ciation’s survey of the intercity bus industry [3].

Regulatory Data and Administrative RecordsRegulatory programs that require service pro-viders to report information to the governmentgenerate passenger travel data, as do administra-tive records and other data collections by statesand localities. Regulatory program data includeinformation on airlines, intercity bus travel, andtransit. Administrative records and other datacollected by state and local governments includethe Highway Performance Monitoring System(HPMS) and fuel tax revenue data. Since deregu-lation of the transportation industry, beginningin the late 1970s, availability of regulatory datahas declined.

The National Transit Database, the mostcomprehensive information on transit, containsdata collected from major urban transit agen-cies receiving federal aid and is maintained bythe Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Datacover services supplied and consumed, finances,safety, and security.

Airline data, collected by BTS’s Office of Air-line Information, include flight on-time data,

other service quality indicators (mishandled bag-gage and oversales), enplanements by airportand airline, airplane- and passenger-miles, andfinancial data. Other airline data include thePassenger Origin and Destination Survey, a sam-ple of 10 percent of all airline tickets used inscheduled service, as discussed later in the AirTransportation Statistics section.

FHWA, through the HPMS, collects datafrom states on vehicle-miles traveled by vehicleand road type, as well as information on theextent and condition of the road system. Thisinformation is available for states and urban-ized areas. Among other things, HPMS data areused for federal funding apportionment and fora major annual congestion study by the TexasTransportation Institute [7]. States also reportother types of information to FHWA derivedfrom administrative records, such as fuel con-sumption from state fuel tax revenue recordsand motor vehicle registrations.

Operations and Industry DataPublic operators of the transportation system,particularly state and local departments oftransportation and industry groups, collect avast amount of data. Industry sources releasingoperations data include the American PublicTransportation Association (APTA) (transit),Amtrak (intercity train travel), and airline asso-ciations. APTA’s transit database adds to theNational Transit Database by collecting datathat their members do not report to the federalgovernment. Amtrak operations data includenumber of passengers served, miles traveled,and on-time performance.

Real-time monitoring of vehicle travel byroadside sensors can provide data for a numberof purposes such as evaluating the impacts ofintelligent transportation systems, computermodel calibration, congestion monitoring, andtransportation planning. For instance, an


156

FHWA-sponsored project is using roadside sen-sor data to develop indicators of congestion in10 urban areas on a monthly basis [6]. TheTexas Transportation Institute is working on asimilar project [7]. Ensuring confidentiality andprivacy of this type of data collection is an areathat is and will continue to be important.

Operations data also exist in air travel.FAA’s Air Traffic Control System CommandCenter monitors, in real-time, air traffic overthe continental United States and provides real-time airport status information to the public.

The Bureau of Customs and Border Protec-tion captures inbound border crossing informa-tion by vehicle type (passenger car, bus, andtrain) and of pedestrians [17]. The Bureau doesnot collect comparable data on outbound vehi-cles. Other sources of information include indi-vidual bridge operators, border stategovernments, and the Mexican and Canadiangovernments.

Options for Filling Passenger Travel Data GapsData exist for all modes of passenger travel andrelated factors on a wide range of variables, butsignificant gaps exist. A data gap can resultfrom deficiencies in data existence, complete-ness, detail, quality, timeliness, integration, andaccessibility.

Timeliness and quality are virtually alwaysissues. Options for making passenger travelsurveys more timely are limited, because theytend to be conducted five or more years apartand the data usually take more than a year topublish after collection. Continuous measure-ment may help solve the problem of timeliness,although it has its own set of challenges [15].Operational and administrative data also takestime to produce, compile, and publish. Forinstance, it takes about a year to assemble and

publish a national set of annual data for theNational Transit Database.

Variability in definitions, populations sur-veyed, reference periods and timeframes, sam-pling question formats, and so on also affectcomparability of data collected. Sometimes agood deal of data exist on a topic from varioussources, but the collection method has not beenstandardized so that integrating the data in astatistically valid way is difficult or impossible.Much data collected and analyzed pertains toonly one mode of transportation. Only a fewdata sources, such as the NHTS, identify theways in which different modes are used in com-bination to make a single trip. Consequently,there is little information on subjects such aswait times between different trip segments.

Data integration is also a problem for stateand local users who need system data, such asinfrastructure extent and condition, integratedwith data on system use and surrounding char-acteristics such as land use. Indeed, data toassess the link between transportation and landuse is typically a top concern for analysts at thelocal level.

Several types of important passenger traveldata are not available in usable form, because,among other things, they are not publicly avail-able or cannot be aggregated. Data gaps existfor travel cost and time. Some cost informationis available for commercial modes and from theBureau of Labor Statistics’s (BLS’s) ConsumerExpenditure Survey, but these sources generallydo not provide information on the prices con-sumers paid nor do they relate costs to specifictrips or types of trips [16]. Using the BTS Pas-senger Origin and Destination Survey data,BTS is working with BLS to develop an airlineprice index. Travel time or on-time perfor-mance is available for air carriers and Amtrak,and the decennial census collects data on time


157

spent commuting. In addition, the BTS/FHWANHTS includes travel times for all trips. How-ever, NHTS data provide national averages,making it difficult to assess highway congestionor transit reliability trends in specific areas.

Publicly available information on intercitybus and rail are limited even on a national level,not to mention corridor-specific data or use ofthese modes by population subgroups. Further-more, data on these long-distance modes in the2001 NHTS are more limited than the data thatwere collected in the 1995 ATS. And, despitework by FTA and the Community Transporta-tion Association of America, rural transit dataare also quite poor [20].

Publicly available information on passengertravel using commercial water transportation,such as cruise vessels, are limited although arecent congressionally mandated ferry surveyby FHWA provides important information forthat segment of the industry. Historically, dataon the use of recreational boats (e.g., motor-boats, jet skis, and sailboats) have not been col-lected, limiting safety analysis. However, a newNational Boating Survey conducted by the U.S.Coast Guard may begin to correct this defi-ciency. Exposure measures for general aviationaircraft are also limited.

The U.S. Census Bureau initiated the Longi-tudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)pilot program to demonstrate the potential forlinking existing economic and demographicadministrative and survey data. BTS is partici-pating in this pilot to conduct research ondeveloping detailed origin and destinationtables based on residence and employmentinformation of U.S. workers. This researcheffort will combine information about workers(place of residence, employment, and income)and employers (location, type of business, num-ber of employees, and payroll). Once available,

these data will illustrate the travel flow ofworkers to places of employment and will bemade available to the transportation commu-nity, subject to confidentiality requirements. Itis anticipated that the LEHD data will providegreater geographic specificity than has beenavailable in the past and will lead to the abilityto derive enhanced travel demand patterns foruse by transportation researchers, planners,and engineers.

In many instances, few or no data exist onpopulations with special transportation needs;for example, people with disabilities and spe-cial segments of the elderly population such asthe housebound, those living in special carefacilities, and those living in rural areas. BTSsponsored questions about the travel of peoplewith disabilities in the 1995 National HealthInterview Survey on Disability conducted bythe National Center for Health Statistics, butthe survey provided very limited information.In 2002, BTS conducted its own small-scale3

national survey about how persons with dis-abilities use transportation, the barriers theyface, and their overall satisfaction with thetransportation system [18]. A preliminary find-ings report will be available in late 2003.

Detail and completeness are problems withmost travel datasets in even the major travelsurveys. Despite its utility, the NHTS does notinclude origin and destination information forlocal trips. Data for state and local analyses arelimited to the few “add-on” areas where statesor locations have supported collection of addi-tional data. The decennial census, conductedevery 10 years, is limited to commuting, tripsthat account for only a small percentage of alltrips made. To improve pedestrian data, BTSincludes related questions in its bimonthly

3 The completed survey sample consisted of 2,698 nondisabledrespondents and 2,321 disabled respondents.


158

Omnibus Survey. In addition, BTS and theNational Highway Traffic Safety Administra-tion conducted a small national survey in 2002on bicycling and walking to ascertain the scopeand magnitude of these activities and the pub-lic’s behavior and attitudes regarding them[21].

More comprehensive solutions to passengerdata issues may be appropriate. In late 2001,BTS asked TRB and the Committee onNational Statistics to convene a panel ofexperts to review the key BTS survey programs.The Expert Panel to Review BTS Survey Pro-grams recommended the following options intheir June 2002 letter report:4

■ An enhanced NHTS. This could involve: 1)improving the sample size and representa-tiveness, 2) increasing the overall precisionof resulting estimates, 3) providing moretimely data to users by changing the fre-quency of the data collection, 4) addingmore statistical rigor in data processing andfinal products, and 5) expanding the use ofexisting and emerging technologies.

■ A new, targeted data-collection program.The program would develop and imple-ment ways to address known data gapsbut be flexible enough to handle new gapsthat arise.

AIR TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS

Airline traffic and financial statistics were firstcollected by the federal government in the1930s for use in monitoring and promoting thefledgling air transport industry. Today, the U.S.Department of Transportation (DOT) collectstraffic, operational, and financial statistics

from more than 240 domestic and foreign air-lines serving the United States.

Prior to deregulation of commercial airlinesin 1978, traffic and financial statistics sup-ported the federal government’s responsibilityto ensure universal air service through regula-tion of routes, airfares, and freight and mailrates. After deregulation, the federal govern-ment’s responsibilities were reduced, althoughkey data series in such areas as safety, financial,and operating statistics were retained. Air car-riers have also increased their use of traffic andfinancial information as they monitor andadjust their competitive position and determinenew route opportunities.

While scheduled service enplanements grewby 47 percent from 452 million to 665 millionfrom 1991 to 2000, by 2001 these enplane-ments decreased to 622 million [14]. Thedecrease was due primarily to the economicdownturn and to the September 11, 2001, ter-rorist attacks on the United States, after whichthe aviation system was shut down entirely forone day and then partially for several days,costing the airline industry an estimated $330million per day [1]. Since that time, the airlineindustry has faced a fundamental shift in travelpatterns and increased security and safety mea-sures. Higher operational costs and narrowprofit margins create economic challenges forthe airlines. Financial, operational, air traffic,pricing, and safety airline statistics aid inaddressing these and other issues and providepolicymakers and industry stakeholders withinformation to understand airline travel trends.

Air transport data supports policy initiativesand international air service negotiations, moni-toring of air carrier fitness, allocating airportimprovement funds, ensuring the provision ofessential air services, setting international andintra-Alaska mail rates, and safety and security

4 A comprehensive final report by the Expert Panel is expected inlate fall 2003. As of August 2003, three letter reports had beenissued by the Committee, covering the NHTS, Omnibus, andCFS.


159

analyses. For instance, the Department of Laboruses aviation data in their computation of produc-tivity and consumer price indices. The Depart-ment of Justice uses data to monitor the collectionof customs service fees and for anti-trust cases.

Examples of other uses of air transport sta-tistics include airport planning, traffic forecast-ing, and development of tourism initiatives bystate and local governments; travel planning bythe general public; planning and marketing bythe travel and tourism industry; and forecastingand analysis by airlines.

Existing Air Transport Data and Data ProgramsThe four categories of airline statistics—financial,operational and traffic, pricing and fees, andsafety—provide different levels of detail in termsof coverage, periodicity, and focus. The federalgovernment collects the majority of publiclyavailable aggregated airline statistics directly fromair carriers. The Air Transport Association (ATA)reports member data on a quarterly and monthlybasis on airfares, a cost index, and passenger andcargo traffic.5 The International Civil AviationOrganization (ICAO) collects international airdata covering 188 countries.

Financial DataBTS, through its Office of Airline Information(OAI), collects air carrier financial data, includ-ing income data and limited carrier operatingexpense data. Fuel constitutes the industry’ssecond-largest operating expense. Air carriersreport to OAI monthly on the gallons and costsof fuel consumed, which allows OAI to calcu-late and publish the average price per gallon.BTS also collects, on a monthly basis, the

weighted average number of full time employ-ees per labor category and the maintenancecosts for flight equipment for carriers by air-craft type.

ICAO reports annual data on the fleets andpersonnel of both international and domesticscheduled and nonscheduled carriers. The sta-tistics cover the number and types of aircraftoperated, their capacity and utilization, and thenumbers of airline personnel by job categoryand the annual expenditures for these person-nel. ICAO also collects financial data frominternational scheduled airlines on annual reve-nues and expenditures, year-end assets and lia-bilities, retained earnings, and summary trafficdata. [5]

Operational and Traffic DataOperational and traffic airline statistics coverinformation such as aircraft departures per-formed, delays, fleets, aircraft revenue-miles,and passenger and cargo revenue-hours.Additional data cover information, such asrevenue passenger-miles, available seat-miles,revenue ton-miles (for passengers, freight,and mail), segment and market traffic andcapacity by airport-pair, and enplanementsby airport.

Particular OAI data collections include flighton-time data, other service quality indicators(mishandled baggage and oversales), enplane-ments by airport and airline, airplane- andpassenger-miles, and financial data. Monthly datasubmitted to OAI include arrivals, departures,and aircraft revenue-miles and hours. Twelve ofthe largest U.S. air carriers report to OAI onscheduled and actual arrival/departure times andcancellations by flight number and day of month.Finally, information on aircraft operatingexpenses by aircraft type and changes in aircraftfleet inventory are also reported to OAI.

5 ATA members are common carriers in air transportation ofpassengers and/or cargo that operate a minimum of 20 millionrevenue ton-miles annually and have done so for 1 year precedingthe date of application, and operate under a valid certificateissued by the Federal Aviation Administration [2].


160

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)collects data in a variety of areas of aviationincluding the Operations Network database,which captures flight operations and delays;the Air Traffic Control System Command Cen-ter, which monitors air traffic in real-time overthe continental United States as well as provid-ing airport status information to the public;and the Enhanced Traffic Management System(ETMS), which contains detailed informationon flights for which a flight plan has been filed.FAA uses the ETMS to strategically managetraffic flow in the National Airspace System,balancing demand and capacity to avoid con-gestion that eventually translates to delays.

Every year, FAA conducts the General Avia-tion and Air Taxi Activity Survey, which pro-vides estimates of the number of active aircraft,hours flown, primary use, and many othercharacteristics by aircraft type. Additionalsources of information are ATA reports on pas-senger and cargo traffic, as well as ICAO col-lections of monthly traffic data for majorinternational airports that include internationalaircraft movements, number of passengersembarked and disembarked, and tons of freightand mail loaded and unloaded.

Pricing and Fees DataOAI’s Passenger Origin and Destination (O&D)Survey samples 10 percent of all airline ticketsused in scheduled service and reports on the fullticket itinerary, operating and ticketing carrieron each coupon, fare basis codes, and total dol-lar value of the ticket. BLS publishes both aConsumer Price Index (CPI) and a ProducerPrice Index (PPI) for airfares. The CPI measureschanges in the prices paid by consumers fordomestic and international airline trips, includ-ing taxes and any distribution costs not receivedby the carriers (e.g., travel agents’ fees). The PPImeasures changes in revenues received by pro-ducers of domestic airline trips only. Monthly

prices for the two programs are gathered fromdifferent data sources: CPI prices come from theSABRE system,6 while PPI prices are gathereddirectly from airline pricing departments. Addi-tional sources of this category of informationare available from ATA, which reports on mem-ber passenger prices.

SafetyThe National Transportation Safety Board(NTSB) investigates the causes of accidents anduses the information gathered to make safetyrecommendations to the transportation industry.

The National Airspace Incident MonitoringSystem is a repository that includes the FAAAccident/Incident Data System, the Near Mid-Air Collision System, the Pilot Deviation System,and other aviation safety-related databases. TheAccident/Incident Data System contains NTSB’srecommendations to FAA and FAA’s responses.

The Aviation Safety Reporting System(ASRS) is a voluntary, confidential, and anony-mous incident reporting system that collectsinformation used to identify hazards and safetydiscrepancies in the National Airspace System.Data from the ASRS are also used to formulatepolicy and to strengthen the foundation of avi-ation human factors safety research.

Options for Filling Air Transportation Data GapsThe discussion above illustrates the variety ofair transport data currently available. However,many gaps exist. One important gap is themultimodal nature of passenger and freight airtravel, that is, movement to and from airports.Passengers arrive at airports in cars (their ownor taxis), by transit, by shuttle and intercitybuses, and, to some extent, by rail. Nearly all

6 A commercial system that provides users with airline schedules,availability, pricing, and other information, as well as reserva-tions and ticketing capability.


161

air freight arrives by truck, but the extent ofprior movement is not known. Some of thesedata may be captured but in data systems withdifferent formats, definitions, and data ele-ments, increasing the challenge to integrate thedata into single trips.

One major challenge in the collection of air-line statistics is air carrier concern about reveal-ing proprietary information that could putthem at a competitive disadvantage. A secondchallenge is that the immense volume of datathat could be collected by carriers is expensiveto house and analyze.

In collaboration with BLS, BTS is investigat-ing a new method of computing price indicesfor air travel. The research aims to produce anairfare index series based on actual transactionprices, because the current BLS price indices forair travel do not capture the effects of specialdiscounts (e.g., Internet specials or frequentflyer awards) on price trends. The BTS serieswill also provide more geographic detail; forexample, estimate indices for particular citiesof itinerary origin to facilitate local area eco-nomic analysis. However, greater detail isneeded for the O&D data to be able to distin-guish different products or services and theirassociated prices.

Options for improving air transportationdata include:

■ Traffic data on air taxis (on-demand aircarriers) and corporate jets, when com-bined with information from NTSB, couldbe used to conduct exposure/risk analyses.The information would also be useful inassessing the degree to which these forms ofair transportation substitute for traditionalcarriers.

■ On-time statistics for smaller carriers andinternational flights could be used to calcu-late delays and travel time for an important

segment of the U.S. aviation industry andwould benefit consumers of these services.

■ Flight-specific data would allow more accu-rate estimates of the performance of the air-line industry, including the cost topassengers of flying, the time required totravel, the reliability of travel times, and thenumber of passengers affected by airlinedelays. Currently, however, BTS is unableto collect these data because of a legislativeprohibition on collecting passenger data byflight number.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMIC DATA

Transportation economics refers to industry per-formance on key economic measures such asprices, quantities, productivity, and externalities.It looks at not only how the industry performsdirectly in meeting the needs of its customers,but also how it affects the economy as a whole,based on, for example, measures of employ-ment, output, and international competitiveness.

Existing Economic Data

PricesMany customers focus on the price they pay fortransportation as the key indicator of how wellthe transportation system is meeting their needs.The costs of passenger transportation rise andfall in line with prices in the overall economy butare particularly affected by energy prices and theproductivity of individual modes. Good dataexist on the component costs of automobiletransportation, which represents the bulk of pas-senger movement. Reasonably good data areavailable on the price of passenger rail transpor-tation and transit.

On the freight side, there are some data avail-able on all modes of transportation, but thesedata often do not show the actual prices paid on


162

particular routes or for particular commodities.Without this information it is difficult to deter-mine which customers benefit from lower prices,even when average prices go down. Price dataare also often not adjusted for changes in qual-ity, such as delivery time and reliability.

QuantitiesQuantities are the physical amount of trans-portation produced and thus measure the levelof mobility that the transportation systemenables. Quantities (e.g., passenger-miles orton-miles) are essential to understanding theimpacts of transportation on the economy andto making investment and other economic pol-icy decisions.

Reasonably good data on physical move-ment, except for trucking, are publicly avail-able, but details on specific routes, particulartimes, and vehicle types are not. Data on high-way transportation of freight and passengers,which account for a substantial portion of allmovement, have gaps in completeness, accu-racy, and timeliness. Better data are needed fortruck ton-miles and highway passenger-miles,as well as those for transit, intercity bus, andAmtrak (discussed earlier under Freight Dataand Passenger Travel Statistics).

InvestmentTransportation investment includes public andprivate infrastructure and vehicles and affectsboth the capacity and condition of the trans-portation system. Capital stock is the accumu-lated stock of these investments over a periodof years, reflecting new investments and depre-ciation of existing investments. Information oncapital stock is essential for measuring the pro-ductivity of the transportation system and itseffect on economic growth.

Reasonably good data are available on mostcomponents of private capital stock: railroads,privately owned automobiles, trucking, airlines,waterway operators, pipelines, privately ownedlocal transit, transportation services (e.g., travelagents and freight brokers), and the transporta-tion-related capital stock of in-house transporta-tion companies, as well as public highways andstreets. All of these forms of transportation capi-tal stock have increased with the growth of theeconomy over the last 50 years, with the excep-tion of railroad capital stock, which declined (ininflation-adjusted terms), and privately ownedlocal transit, which declined (in inflation-adjusted terms) until recently.

ProductivityProductivity measures how effectively eco-nomic inputs are converted into output. Laborproductivity measures the output per hour oflabor. Multifactor productivity, which is a morecomprehensive measure, relates changes in out-put to changes in all inputs, including capital,labor, energy, materials, and services. If thetransportation system becomes more produc-tive, then fewer resources are needed and pricescan decline.

Labor productivity data are widely availablefor a large number of industries. Multifactorproductivity data are not as widely available

BOX 2Transportation Services Output Indices

Experimental indices of overall transportationoutput under development by the Bureau ofTransportation Statistics show that some types oftransportation tend to rise and fall in advance ofcorresponding changes in the overall economy.These transportation services output indices,which measure passenger, freight, and total outputof services for-hire, are being studied in contextwith the growth cycles of the U.S. economy. Theturning points of the freight measure, in particular,seem to lead the economic turning points byseveral months, potentially providing a usefulforecasting tool.


163

for the economy as a whole and are only avail-able for the railroad industry in the transporta-tion sector. Railroad multifactor productivityincreased more rapidly than that of either man-ufacturing or business over the last decade.

Externalities and RegulationTransportation often generates negative effectssuch as pollution, collisions, congestion, andnoise, which are known as externalities and arethe driving force behind regulation and manyother public policies affecting transportation.Measures of the costs of external effects oftransportation (e.g., on safety, congestion, andthe environment) are important in determiningwhether various kinds of regulation of trans-portation are appropriate.

The physical quantity data described earliercan be used to determine the amount of totalpollution and noise emissions, but not neces-sarily the exact locations of these emissions ortheir costs. The physical quantity data also canbe used to analyze the growth of congestion,although questions remain about the impactson travel patterns of urban growth, system anddemand management policies, and changes intechnology. In addition, congestion tends to bevery site- and time-specific, so estimates or pol-icy decisions may need to be based on specificlocal data.

Historically, transportation has also beensubject to economic regulation. Reduced eco-nomic regulation over the last 20 years has ledto increased competition and lower prices forconsumers. However, some carriers have foundit difficult to stay in business in the face ofincreased competition. There is also consider-able debate about whether transportationmergers have reversed some of the benefits ofderegulation. Data on prices, quantities, invest-ment, and productivity are crucial to under-standing these trends.

Impact on the EconomyThe transportation system links producers andconsumers to markets. Public and privateinvestment and other improvements to thetransportation system increase capacity, reducecost, and improve service. Improvements infreight transportation allow economies of scalein production, diversity in products availableto consumers and sources available to produc-ers, and increased competition in markets. Allof these factors lower the cost of goods Ameri-cans buy and broaden the markets for thegoods produced.

Similarly, passenger transportation affectsseveral areas of the economy. Improved localcommuter transportation supports broaderlabor markets, increasing the choice of jobs andeconomic efficiency. Better intercity transporta-tion allows greater opportunity for personaltravel and makes possible better management ofgeographically decentralized business organiza-tions. Transportation also represents a majorsource of demand for many industries, both forsuppliers to the transportation industry andproducers of complementary services, such asthe hotel and restaurant industries. Transporta-tion thus creates efficiencies throughout thegeneral economy, increasing incomes, providinghigher paying jobs, and enhancing the interna-tional competitiveness of the economy.

Considerable debate continues, however,about appropriate means of measuring theseeffects. While data are available on severalaspects of the overall efficiency of the trans-portation system (e.g., the productivity andphysical flow data mentioned earlier), data arelacking on other important aspects, such as theefficiency of specific port and intermodal yardfacilities and their related surface transporta-tion links.


164

BTS’s Transportation Satellite Accounts(TSAs) provide a broad measure of the value oftransportation services to the economy, includ-ing both for-hire transportation and a largeportion of in-house transportation, such astrucks owned by manufacturing companies.BTS continues to develop the TSAs as a way ofmeasuring the more direct impacts of transpor-tation on the economy.

Options for Filling Transportation Economic Data GapsResearch is underway at BTS to fill some of theknown gaps in economic data. One project willimprove the quality of data on airline transpor-tation prices with the development of an Air-fare Index, covering both domestic andinternational travel. This research could even-tually be extended to other modes.

Other key projects include the following:

■ expansion of Transportation SatelliteAccounts data to include additional modes,such as private barge, rail, and air, andupdating of the household production oftransportation services (e.g., local errandsin a private automobile and people com-muting to work) component;

■ augmentation of available privately ownedcapital stock data by developing data onpublicly owned capital stock, such as air-ports, waterways, and transit systems; and

■ development of multifactor productivitymeasures for modes other than railroads tobetter measure transportation industry pro-ductivity in relation to the rest of the indus-try sector of the economy.

GEOSPATIAL DATA

Geospatial information technologies havebecome increasingly useful decisionmakingtools for the transportation industry and agen-

cies responsible for transportation planning.Previously used only by expert operators onspecialized mainframe systems, they are nowavailable for desktop systems and distributedcomputing services that give nontechnical usersaccess to spatial analytical tools. One exampleof this technology, geographic informationsystems (GIS), provides desktop computerapplications, Internet mapping services, andother information technology systems designedto store, display, and analyze geographicallyreferenced information (geospatial data). Thistechnology enables the presentation of massesof data in more useable forms (see map).

Geospatial data describe both manmade andnatural features on the earth’s surface, such asroads, rivers, and political boundaries. Thesefeatures reference the geographic coordinatesor location on the earth and also include asso-ciated characteristics that describe the features.These characteristics may define the type ofroad, river depth, or political boundaries.These data for use in a GIS are collectedthrough a number of methods including the useof Global Positioning System (GPS) satellitesand receivers to collect accurate geographiclocations, remote sensing technology to captureearth images, and conversion of tabular data orpaper maps through digitization.

As the use of geographic information tech-nologies spreads, the range of applicationsexpands. Today, GIS is used to track urbancrime patterns, coordinate emergency responseefforts, visualize data critical to national secu-rity, and support city zoning decisions. Fromurban planning support systems to on-boardglobal positioning systems (GPS) and mappingtechnologies for public transport vehicles andautomobiles, GIS tools provide a means fordisplaying and analyzing transportation data inreal-world physical contexts. Public transporta-tion agencies use these tools to plan system


165

Map Showing Part of the Supporting Data

ID Item1 Item6a Item7 Item9 longdd latdd

56 251 HWY RIVER RD US 5 S END BR JCT US 5 & RIVER RD. -72.58557222220 42.08092777780 61 251 ST 57 W TRAFFIC CIR US 5 .1 MI SE OF WESTFIELD RIV 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 62 251 ST 57 E TRAFFIC CIR US 5 .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 SOUTHWICK -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 .1 MI N EXIT 55 -70.91712777780 42.84772500000 109 251 RR BMRR BURIED I 495 SB .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 251 251 WATER LAKE ROHUNTA ST 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 N WSHNGTN ST AT CHAS RIV NR BOS GARDEN 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 586 251 WATER CHARLES RIVER HWY N WSHNGTN ST AT CHAS RIV NR BOS GARDEN 0.00000000000 0.00000000000 595 251 HWY CHELSEA LOCAL STS US 1 NB 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 MYSTIC 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 RV 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 HWY MORTON ST .8 KM SW OF JCTSR28&SR203 -71.08548888890 42.28102500000 752 251 WATER CHARLES RIVER ST109 SPRING ST @ 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

National Bridge Inventory

BTS is geocoding FHWA's bridge condition data to help decision-makers prioritize bridge investments.

n|

|

!.

▲

▲▲▲▲▲

▲

▲

▲▲▲▲

▲▲

▲▲▲▲▲▲▲

▲▲▲

▲

▲ ▲

▲▲▲▲

▲

▲

▲▲▲

▲

▲

▲▲

Lynn

Quincy

Newton

Malden

Boston

Waltham

Medford

Weymouth

Cambridge

Brookline

Somerville

Structurally Deficient Bridges▲


166

services and expansion, as well as maintainmaps and analyze service areas. Geographicinformation technology enables freight andpassenger carriers to warehouse data on operat-ing resources and model the flow of goods andpassengers across the transportation system.

Existing Geospatial Data and Data ProgramsBTS creates, maintains, and distributes geospa-tial data through the National TransportationAtlas Database (NTAD) Program. These dataare obtained from multiple sources and includethe National Highway Planning Network, anational rail network, public-use airports andrunways, and Amtrak stations. In addition, theNTAD includes state, county, congressionaldistrict, and metropolitan statistical areaboundary files to provide a geographic refer-ence for transportation features.

Geospatial information depicting transporta-tion infrastructure can be stored and managedin a GIS for development and maintenanceplanning. For instance, the National BridgeInventory maintained by FHWA contains infor-mation on structurally deficient bridges. Infor-mation describing the location and bridgeconditions can be displayed cartographicallyand analyzed. Geographically accurate mapscan be produced using a variety of data tablesor layers placed one on top of the other toshow geographic relationships (see map).

BTS in partnership with the DOT Officeof Intermodalism and FHWA developedGeoFreight: The Intermodal Freight DisplayTool. GeoFreight calculates and measures theintensity of infrastructure use for intermodalfacilities (e.g., airports, seaports, and truck-railinterchanges). The information is displayed onregional or national maps. A CD-ROM ver-sion of GeoFreight is expected to be issued inlate 2003.

New transportation applications for GIScontinue to be developed, such as emergencyresponse planning for crisis management. Newapplications place a premium not only ontimely development of geospatial data but alsoon commonly agreed-on standards for dataquality, content, and technology. As GISbecomes a more mainstream information tech-nology tool, issues of open access to geographicdata and software interoperability will grow inimportance.

Organizations such as the Federal Geo-graphic Data Committee (FGDC) and theOpen GIS Consortium work to facilitate thewide availability and implementation of stan-dardized geospatial data and technologies.FGDC is an interagency committee of represen-tatives from the Executive Office of the Presi-dent and cabinet-level and independentagencies. FGDC, in cooperation with state,local, and tribal governments, the academiccommunity, and the private sector, is develop-ing the National Spatial Data Infrastructure(NSDI). The NSDI is composed of geospatialdata themes of national significance; documen-tation describing the data, standards (meta-data), and partnerships; and the NationalSpatial Data Clearinghouse, which providesaccess to documented geospatial data andmetadata from a variety of publicly availabledata sources [4].

The Geospatial One-Stop, a federal e-govern-ment initiative that extends the goals of theNSDI, facilitates public and private access togeographic data, with particular reference tothe framework themes of the NSDI. In keepingwith the trend toward development of datastandards, Internet GIS applications, and onlinedata warehousing, the Geospatial One-Stopeffort will result in the creation of an onlineportal through which users can freely accessgeospatial data from the federal governmentand other sources, as well as gather information


167

on spatial analytical tools and data standards.The Departments of the Interior, Commerce,and Transportation are the federal agencieswith lead responsibilities for coordinating thenational coverage and stewardship of specificNSDI framework data themes. The Bureau ofTransportation Statistics (BTS) is the operatingadministration within DOT responsible forcoordinating the development of the NSDItransportation standards.

Options for Filling Geospatial Data GapsGeospatial information technologies andgeospatial data have become permanent fix-tures in the information technology landscape,and the variety of Internet GIS applications anddata available to the public and private sectorwill continue to develop and expand. Key areasfor future geospatial data and standards devel-opment critical for transportation analysisinclude land-use planning, employee-basedtravel pattern analysis, and fine-grained dataon infrastructure and operations critical totransportation safety and security analysis. Spe-cific areas include:

■ integration of bridge, tunnel, and transitdata into the National Transportation AtlasDatabase;

■ development of a North American Trans-portation Atlas Database covering theUnited States, Mexico, and Canada;

■ expansion of the current web-based map-ping center to enable customers to generateinteractive maps and spatial analysis tosupport their projects and requirements;and

■ provision of technical assistance/trainingworkshops on geospatial data to state DOTsand metropolitan planning organizations.

CONCLUSION

A focused yet comprehensive transportation sta-tistics program can be concentrated in five keyareas: freight, passenger travel, air transporta-tion, transportation economics, and geospatialinformation. The preceding review shows that,while a wealth of data exist to inform stakehold-ers about the state of transportation, much workremains to be done. Data need to be collected orcollected differently, relevant linkages amongdatasets need to be established, and data need tobe analyzed and offered in ways useful for stake-holders at all levels of government and the pri-vate sector.

Sources1. Air Transport Association, Airlines in Crisis:

The Perfect Economic Storm, available athttp://www.airlines.org/public/industry/binAirlines InCrisis.pdf, as of July 2003.

2. ______, data available at http://www.airlines.org/public/home/default1.asp, as of March 2003.

3. American Bus Association, MotorcoachCensus 2000 (Washington, DC: 2000), avail-able at http://www,buses.org/industry/ABA-RLBanksReport.pdf, as of February 2003.

4. Federal Geographic Data Committee, availableat http://www.fgdc.gov, as of March 2003.

5. International Civil Aviation Organization, dataavailable at http://www.icao.org, as of March2003.

6. Jung, S., J. Larkin, A. Toppen, and K. Wunder-lich, “Urban Congestion Reporting,” draftreport prepared by Mitretek for the U.S.Department of Transportation, Federal High-way Administration, January 2003.

7. Texas Transportation Institute, 2002 UrbanMobility Study (College Station, TX: 2002).

8. Transportation Research Board, “Letter Reportto the Bureau of Transportation Statistics,”Mar. 20, 2003.

9. ______, The Relative Risks of School Travel(Washington, DC: 2002).

10. Travel Industry Association of America, Travel-Scope Survey (Washington, DC: 2003), alsoavailable at http://www.tia.org/Travel/, as ofFebruary 2003.


168

11. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. CensusBureau, 1997 Economic Census: Vehicle Inven-tory and Use Survey (Washington, DC: 1999).

12. U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Traveland Tourism Industries, Survey of InternationalAir Travelers, available at http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/, as of February 2003.

13. U.S. Department of Labor, American Time UseSurvey, available at http://www.bls.gov/tus/#docs, as of March 2003.

14. U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, Annual Historical AirTraffic Statistics, 1981–2001, available athttp://www.bts.gov/oai/, as of March 2003.

15. ______, Implications of Continuous Measure-ment for the Uses of Census Data in Transpor-tation Planning (Washington, DC: 1996).

16. ______, Transportation Statistics BeyondISTEA: Critical Gaps and Strategic Responses(Washington, DC: January 1998).

17. ______, Border Crossing Data, available athttp://www.bts.gov/itt/cross/, as of February2003.

18. ______, National Transportation Availabilityand Use Survey for Persons with Disabilities,2002, information on the survey available athttp://www.bts.gov/omnibus/, as of April 2003.

19. U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalHighway Administration and Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, 2001 National House-hold Travel Survey, Preliminary Data ReleaseVersion 1, available at http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/index.shtml, as of February 2003.

20. U.S. Department of Transportation, FederalTransit Administration and Community Trans-portation Association of America, Status ofRural Public Transportation: 2000 (Washing-ton, DC: April 2001).

21. U.S. Department of Transportation, NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration andBureau of Transportation Statistics, NationalSurvey of Pedestrian & Bicyclist Attitudes andBehaviors, Highlights Report (Washington,DC: nd).

Appendices

AADT average annual daily trafficADA Americans with Disabilities ActAFV alternative fuel vehicle

BAC blood alcohol concentrationBEA Bureau of Economic AnalysisBLS Bureau of Labor StatisticsBTS Bureau of Transportation StatisticsBtu British thermal unit

CAA Clean Air ActCAFE Corporate Average Fuel EconomyCFR Code of Federal RegulationsCFS Commodity Flow SurveyCO carbon monoxideCO2 carbon dioxideCRAF Civil Reserve Air Fleet

DGPS Differential Global Positioning SystemDOC U.S. Department of CommerceDOD U.S. Department of DefenseDOE U.S. Department of EnergyDOI U.S. Department of the InteriorDOL U.S. Department of LaborDOT U.S. Department of Transportationdwt deadweight tons

EDS Explosive Detection SystemsEIA Energy Information AdministrationEJ environmental justiceEPA U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyETC electronic toll collectionETMS Enhanced Traffic Management System

FAA Federal Aviation AdministrationFAF Freight Analysis FrameworkFARs Federal Aviation RegulationsFARS Fatality Analysis Reporting SystemFHWA Federal Highway AdministrationFMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety AdministrationFRA Federal Railroad AdministrationFTA Federal Transit Administration

171

Appendix A: List of Acronyms and Glossary

FY fiscal yearGA general aviationGAO General Accounting OfficeGDD Gross Domestic DemandGDP Gross Domestic ProductGHG greenhouse gasGIS geographic information systemsGPRA Government Performance and Results ActGPS Global Positioning System

HAPs hazardous air pollutantsHELP Heavy Vehicle Electronic License PlateHMIS Hazardous Materials Information SystemHPMS Highway Performance Monitoring SystemHSR high-speed railHTF Highway Trust Fund

IBET Intermodal Bottleneck Evaluation ToolINS Immigration and Naturalization ServiceIPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency ActIT information technologyITS intelligent transportation system

LNG liquefied natural gasLPG liquefied petroleum gasLTV light trucks and vans

MARAD Maritime AdministrationMMLD Merchant Mariner Licensing Documentationmmtc million metric tons of carbonmpg miles per gallonmph miles per hourMPO metropolitan planning organizationMSATs mobile source air toxicsMSP Maritime Security ProgramsMSW municipal solid wasteMTBE methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether

NAFTA North American Free Trade AgreementNAS National Airspace System planNASS GES National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates SystemNDRF National Defense Reserve FleetNHTS National Household Travel SurveyNHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNO2 nitrogen dioxideNOX nitrogen oxidesNPIAS National Plan of Integrated Airport SystemsNPL National Priorities ListNPTS Nationwide Personal Transportation SurveyNTL National Transportation Library


172

NTSB National Transportation Safety BoardOMB Office of Management and BudgetOPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting CountriesOPS Office of Pipeline SafetyOSRA Ocean Shipping Reform Act

PFD personal flotation devicePM-2.5 particulate matter of 2.5 microns in diameter or smallerPM-10 particulate matter of 10 microns in diameter or smallerpmt passenger-miles of travelPSC Port State ControlPSR Present Serviceability RatingPTC positive train controlPUV personal-use vehicle

quads quadrillion

RFG reformulated gasolineROR run-off-the-roadRRF Ready Reserve FleetRSPA Research and Special Programs Administration

SCTG Standard Classification of Transported GoodsSO2 sulfur dioxideSTRAHNET Strategic Highway NetworkSUV sport utility vehicle

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st CenturyTEU 20-foot equivalent container unitTICSA Transportation Infrastructure Capital Stock AccountTTI Texas Transportation Institute

UNFCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUSCG U.S. Coast GuardUSGS U.S. Geological SurveyUST underground storage tank

vmt vehicle-miles of travelVOC volatile organic compounds

Appendix A

173

14 CFR 121 (air): Code of Federal Regulations,Title 14, part 121. Prescribes rules governing theoperation of domestic, flag, and supplementalair carriers and commercial operators of largeaircraft.

14 CFR 135 (air): Code of Federal Regulations,Title 14, part 135. Prescribes rules governing theoperations of commuter air carriers (scheduled)and on-demand air taxi (unscheduled).

ACCIDENT (aircraft): As defined by theNational Transportation Safety Board, anoccurrence incidental to flight in which, as aresult of the operation of an aircraft, any person(occupant or nonoccupant) receives fatal or seri-ous injury or any aircraft receives substantialdamage.

ACCIDENT (automobile): See Crash (high-way).

ACCIDENT (gas): 1) An event that involves therelease of gas from a pipeline or of liquefied nat-ural gas (LNG) or other gas from an LNG facil-ity resulting in personal injury necessitatingin-patient hospitalization or a death; or estimat-ed property damage of $50,000 or more to theoperator or others, or both, including the valueof the gas that escaped during the accident; 2)an event that results in an emergency shutdownof an LNG facility; or 3) an event that is signifi-cant in the judgment of the operator eventhough it did not meet the criteria of (1) or (2).

ACCIDENT (hazardous liquid or gas): Releaseof hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide whilebeing transported, resulting in any of the fol-lowing: 1) an explosion or fire not intentionallyset by the operator; 2) loss of 50 or more barrels

of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide; 3)release to the atmosphere of more than 5 barrelsa day of highly volatile liquids; 4) death of anyperson; 5) bodily harm resulting in one or moreof the following—a) the loss of consciousness,b) the necessity of carrying a person from thescene, c) the necessity for medical treatment, d)disability that prevents the discharge of normalduties, and 6) estimated damage to the propertyof the operators and/or others exceeding$50,000.

ACCIDENT (highway-rail grade-crossing): Animpact between on-track railroad equipmentand an automobile, bus, truck, motorcycle,bicycle, farm vehicle, or pedestrian or otherhighway user at a designated crossing site. Side-walks, pathways, shoulders, and ditches associ-ated with the crossing are considered to be partof the crossing site.

ACCIDENT (rail): A collision, derailment, fire,explosion, act of God, or other event involvingoperation of railroad on-track equipment(standing or moving) that results in railroaddamage exceeding an established dollar thresh-old.

ACCIDENT (recreational boating): An occur-rence involving a vessel or its equipment thatresults in 1) a death; 2) an injury that requiresmedical treatment beyond first aid; 3) damageto a vessel and other property, totaling morethan $500 or resulting in the complete loss of avessel; or 4) the disappearance of the vesselunder circumstances that indicate death orinjury. Federal regulations (33 CFR 173–4)require the operator of any vessel that is num-bered or used for recreational purposes to sub-mit an accident report.


174

Glossary

ACCIDENT (transit): An incident involving amoving vehicle, including another vehicle, anobject, or person (except suicides), or a derail-ment/left roadway.

AIR CARRIER: The commercial system of airtransportation comprising large certificated aircarriers, small certificated air carriers, com-muter air carriers, on-demand air taxis, supple-mental air carriers, and air travel clubs.

AIR TAXI: An aircraft operator who conductsoperations for hire or compensation in accor-dance with 14 CFR 135 (for safety purposes) orFAR Part 135 (for economic regulations orreporting purposes) in an aircraft with 30 orfewer passenger seats and a payload capacity of7,500 pounds or less. An air taxi operates on anon-demand basis and does not meet the flightschedule qualifications of a commuter air carrier(see below).

AIRPORT: A landing area regularly used by air-craft for receiving or discharging passengers orcargo.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS: The Energy Policy Actof 1992 defines alternative fuels as methanol,denatured ethanol, and other alcohol; mixturescontaining 85 percent or more (but not less than70 percent as determined by the Secretary ofEnergy by rule to provide for requirementsrelating to cold start, safety, or vehicle func-tions) by volume of methanol, denaturedethanol, and other alcohols with gasoline orother fuels. Includes compressed natural gas,liquid petroleum gas, hydrogen, coal-derivedliquid fuels, fuels other than alcohols derivedfrom biological materials, electricity, or anyother fuel the Secretary of Energy determines byrule is substantially not petroleum and wouldyield substantial energy security and environ-mental benefits.

AMTRAK: Operated by the National RailroadPassenger Corporation, this rail system was cre-ated by the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970

(Public Law 91-518, 84 Stat. 1327) and giventhe responsibility for the operation of intercity,as distinct from suburban, passenger trainsbetween points designated by the Secretary ofTransportation.

ARTERIAL HIGHWAY: A major highway usedprimarily for through traffic.

ASPHALT: A dark brown to black cement-likematerial containing bitumen as the predominantconstituent. The definition includes crudeasphalt and finished products such as cements,fluxes, the asphalt content of emulsions, andpetroleum distillates blended with asphalt tomake cutback asphalt. Asphalt is obtained bypetroleum processing.

AVAILABLE SEAT-MILES (air carrier): Theaircraft-miles flown in each interairport hopmultiplied by the number of seats available onthat hop for revenue passenger service.

AVERAGE HAUL: The average distance, inmiles, one ton is carried. It is computed bydividing ton-miles by tons of freight originated.

AVERAGE PASSENGER TRIP LENGTH(bus/rail): Calculated by dividing revenue pas-senger-miles by the number of revenue passen-gers.

AVIATION GASOLINE (general aviation): Allspecial grades of gasoline used in aviation recip-rocating engines, as specified by American Soci-ety of Testing Materials Specification D910 andMilitary Specification MIL-G5572. Includesrefinery products within the gasoline range mar-keted as or blended to constitute aviation gaso-line.

BARREL (oil): A unit of volume equal to 42U.S. gallons.

BLOOD ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION(highway): A measurement of the percentage ofalcohol in the blood by grams per deciliter.

Appendix A

175

BRITISH THERMAL UNIT (Btu): The quantityof heat needed to raise the temperature of 1pound (approximately 1 pint) of water by 1 °Fat or near 39.2 °F.

BULK CARRIER (water): A ship with special-ized holds for carrying dry or liquid commodi-ties, such as oil, grain, ore, and coal, inunpackaged bulk form. Bulk carriers may bedesigned to carry a single bulk product (crudeoil tanker) or accommodate several bulk prod-uct types (ore/bulk/oil carrier) on the same voy-age or on a subsequent voyage after holds arecleaned.

BUS: Large motor vehicle used to carry morethan 10 passengers, including school buses,intercity buses, and transit buses.

CAFE STANDARDS: See Corporate AverageFuel Economy Standards.

CAR-MILE (rail): The movement of a railroadcar a distance of one mile. An empty or loadedcar-mile refers to a mile run by a freight car withor without a load. In the case of intermodalmovements, the designation of empty or loadedrefers to whether the trailers or containers aremoved with or without a waybill.

CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCEAND NECESSITY (air carrier): A certificateissued by the U.S. Department of Transporta-tion to an air carrier under Section 401 of theFederal Aviation Act authorizing the carrier toengage in air transportation.

CERTIFICATED AIR CARRIER: An air carrierholding a Certificate of Public Convenience andNecessity issued by the U.S. Department ofTransportation to conduct scheduled servicesinterstate. These carriers may also conduct non-scheduled or charter operations. Certificated aircarriers operate large aircraft (30 seats or moreor a maximum load of 7,500 pounds or more)in accordance with FAR Part 121. See alsoLarge Certificated Air Carrier.

CERTIFICATED AIRPORTS: Airports thatservice air carrier operations with aircraft seat-ing more than 30 passengers.

CHAINED DOLLARS: A measure used toexpress real prices, defined as prices that areadjusted to remove the effect of changes in thepurchasing power of the dollar. Real prices usu-ally reflect buying power relative to a referenceyear. The “chained-dollar” measure is based onthe average weights of goods and services in suc-cessive pairs of years. It is “chained” becausethe second year in each pair, with its weights,becomes the first year of the next pair. Prior to1996, real prices were expressed in constantdollars, a weighted measure of goods and servic-es in a single year. See also Constant Dollars andCurrent Dollars.

CLASS I RAILROAD: A carrier that has anannual operating revenue of $250 million ormore after applying the railroad revenue defla-tor formula, which is based on the RailroadFreight Price Index developed by the U.S.Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statis-tics. The formula is the current year’s revenuesmultiplied by the 1991 average index or currentyear’s average index.

COASTWISE TRAFFIC (water): Domestic traf-fic receiving a carriage over the ocean or theGulf of Mexico (e.g., between New Orleans andBaltimore, New York and Puerto Rico, SanFrancisco and Hawaii, Alaska and Hawaii).Traffic between Great Lakes ports and seacoastports, when having a carriage over the ocean, isalso considered coastwise.

COLLECTOR (highway): In rural areas, routesthat serve intracounty rather than statewidetravel. In urban areas, streets that provide directaccess to neighborhoods and arterials.

COMBINATION TRUCK: A power unit (trucktractor) and one or more trailing units (a semi-trailer or trailer).


176

COMMERCIAL BUS: Any bus used to carrypassengers at rates specified in tariffs; chargesmay be computed per passenger (as in regularroute service) or per vehicle (as in charter serv-ice).

COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRPORT: Airportreceiving scheduled passenger service and hav-ing 2,500 or more enplaned passengers per year.

COMMUTER AIR CARRIER: Different defini-tions are used for safety purposes and for eco-nomic regulations and reporting. For safetyanalysis, commuter carriers are defined as aircarriers operating under 14 CFR 135 that carrypassengers for hire or compensation on at leastfive round trips per week on at least one routebetween two or more points according to pub-lished flight schedules, which specify the times,days of the week, and points of service. OnMarch 20, 1997, the size of the aircraft subjectto 14 CFR 135 was reduced from 30 to fewerthan 10 passenger seats. (Larger aircraft aresubject to the more stringent regulations of 14CFR 121.) Helicopters carrying passengers orcargo for hire, however, are regulated underCFR 135 whatever their size. Although, in prac-tice, most commuter air carriers operate aircraftthat are regulated for safety purposes under 14CFR 135 and most aircraft that are regulatedunder 14 CFR 135 are operated by commuterair carriers, this is not necessarily the case.

For economic regulations and reporting require-ments, commuter air carriers are those carriersthat operate aircraft of 60 or fewer seats or amaximum payload capacity of 18,000 poundsor less. These carriers hold a certificate issuedunder section 298C of the Federal Aviation Actof 1958, as amended.

COMMUTER RAIL (transit): Urban passengertrain service for short-distance travel between acentral city and adjacent suburb. Does notinclude rapid rail transit or light rail service.

COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS: Natural gascompressed to a volume and density that ispractical as a portable fuel supply. It is used as afuel for natural gas-powered vehicles.

CONSTANT DOLLARS: Dollar value adjustedfor changes in the average price level by dividinga current dollar amount by a price index. Seealso Chained Dollars and Current Dollars.

CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMYSTANDARDS (CAFE): Originally establishedby Congress for new automobiles and later forlight trucks. This law requires automobile man-ufacturers to produce vehicle fleets with a com-posite sales-weighted fuel economy not lowerthan the CAFE standards in a given year. Forevery vehicle that does not meet the standard, afine is paid for every one-tenth of a mile per gal-lon that vehicle falls below the standard.

CRASH (highway): An event that producesinjury and/or property damage, involves amotor vehicle in transport, and occurs on a traf-ficway or while the vehicle is still in motion afterrunning off the trafficway.

CRUDE OIL: A mixture of hydrocarbons thatexists in the liquid phase in natural under-ground reservoirs and remains liquid at atmos-pheric pressure after passing throughsurface-separating facilities.

CURRENT DOLLARS: Dollar value of a goodor service in terms of prices current at the timethe good or service is sold. See also ChainedDollars and Current Dollars.

DEADWEIGHT TONNAGE (water): The car-rying capacity of a vessel in long tons (2,240pounds). It is the difference between the numberof tons of water a vessel displaces “light” andthe number of tons it displaces when submergedto the “load line.”

Appendix A

177

DEMAND RESPONSIVE VEHICLE (transit):A nonfixed-route, nonfixed-schedule vehiclethat operates in response to calls from passen-gers or their agents to the transit operator ordispatcher.

DIESEL FUEL: A complex mixture of hydrocar-bons with a boiling range between approxi-mately 350 and 650 °F. Diesel fuel is composedprimarily of paraffins and naphthenic com-pounds that auto-ignite from the heat of com-pression in a diesel engine. Diesel is usedprimarily by heavy-duty road vehicles, construc-tion equipment, locomotives, and by marineand stationary engines.

DISTILLATE FUEL OIL: A general classifica-tion for one of the petroleum fractions producedin conventional distillation operations. Includedare No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4 fuel oils and No. 1,No. 2, and No. 4 diesel fuels. Distillate fuel oil isused primarily for space heating, on- and off-highway diesel engine fuel (including railroadengine fuel and fuel for agricultural machinery),and electric power generation.

DOMESTIC FREIGHT (water): All waterbornecommercial movement between points in theUnited States, Puerto Rico, and the VirginIslands, excluding traffic with the PanamaCanal Zone. Cargo moved for the military incommercial vessels is reported as ordinary com-mercial cargo; military cargo moved in militaryvessels is omitted.

DOMESTIC OPERATIONS (air carrier): All aircarrier operations having destinations within the50 United States, the District of Columbia, theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S.Virgin Islands.

DOMESTIC PASSENGER (water): Any persontraveling on a public conveyance by waterbetween points in the United States, PuertoRico, and the Virgin Islands.

DRY CARGO BARGES (water): Large flat-bottomed, nonself-propelled vessels used totransport dry-bulk materials such as coal andore.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY: The ratio of energyinputs to outputs from a process, for example,miles traveled per gallon of fuel (mpg).

ENPLANED PASSENGERS (air carrier): SeeRevenue Passenger Enplanements.

ETHANOL: A clear, colorless, flammable oxy-genated hydrocarbon with a boiling point of78.5 °C in the anhydrous state. It is used in theUnited States as a gasoline octane enhancer andoxygenate (10 percent concentration). Ethanolcan be used in high concentrations in vehiclesoptimized for its use. Otherwise known as ethylalcohol, alcohol, or grain-spirit.

FATAL CRASH (highway): A police-reportedcrash involving a motor vehicle in transport ona trafficway in which at least 1 person dies with-in 30 days of the crash as a result of that crash.

FATAL INJURY (air): Any injury that results indeath within 30 days of the accident.

FATALITY: For purposes of statistical reportingon transportation safety, a fatality is considereda death due to injuries in a transportation crash,accident, or incident that occurs within 30 daysof that occurrence.

FATALITY (rail): 1) Death of any person froman injury within 30 days of the accident or inci-dent (may include nontrain accidents or inci-dents); or 2) death of a railroad employee froman occupational illness within 365 days after theoccupational illness was diagnosed by a physi-cian.

FATALITY (recreational boating): All deaths(other than deaths by natural causes) and miss-


178

ing persons resulting from an occurrence thatinvolves a vessel or its equipment.

FATALITY (transit): A transit-caused deathconfirmed within 30 days of a transit incident.Incidents include collisions, derailments, per-sonal casualties, and fires associated with transitagency revenue vehicles, transit facilities ontransit property, service vehicles, maintenanceareas, and rights-of-way.

FATALITY (water): All deaths and missing per-sons resulting from a vessel casualty.

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COM-MISSION (FERC): The federal agency withjurisdiction over, among other things, gas pric-ing, oil pipeline rates, and gas pipeline certifica-tion.

FERRYBOAT (transit): Vessels that carry pas-sengers and/or vehicles over a body of water.Generally steam or diesel-powered, ferryboatsmay also be hovercraft, hydrofoil, and otherhigh-speed vessels. The vessel is limited in its useto the carriage of deck passengers or vehicles orboth, operates on a short run on a frequentschedule between two points over the mostdirect water routes other than in ocean or coast-wise service, and is offered as a public service ofa type normally attributed to a bridge or tunnel.

FOSSIL FUELS: Any naturally occurring organ-ic fuel formed in the Earth’s crust, such as petro-leum, coal, and natural gas.

FREIGHT REVENUE (rail): Revenue from thetransportation of freight and from the exerciseof transit, stopoff, diversion, and reconsignmentprivileges as provided for in tariffs.

FREIGHTERS (water): General cargo carriers,full containerships, partial containerships, roll-on/rolloff ships, and barge carriers.

GAS TRANSMISSION PIPELINES: Pipelinesinstalled for the purpose of transmitting gasfrom a source or sources of supply to one ormore distribution centers, or to one or morelarge volume customers; or a pipeline installedto interconnect sources of supply. Typically,transmission lines differ from gas mains in thatthey operate at higher pressures and the distancebetween connections is greater.

GASOHOL: A blend of finished motor gasoline(leaded or unleaded) and alcohol (generallyethanol but sometimes methanol) limited to 10percent by volume of alcohol.

GASOLINE: A complex mixture of relativelyvolatile hydrocarbons, with or without smallquantities of additives that have been blended toproduce a fuel suitable for use in spark ignitionengines. Motor gasoline includes both leaded orunleaded grades of finished motor gasoline,blending components, and gasohol. Leadedgasoline is no longer used in highway motorvehicles in the United States.

GENERAL AVIATION: 1) All civil aviationoperations other than scheduled air services andnonscheduled air transport operations for taxis,commuter air carriers, and air travel clubs thatdo not hold Certificates of Public Convenienceand Necessity. 2) All civil aviation activity exceptthat of air carriers certificated in accordancewith Federal Aviation Regulations, Parts 121,123, 127, and 135. The types of aircraft used ingeneral aviation range from corporate multi-engine jet aircraft piloted by professional crewsto amateur-built single-engine piston-drivenacrobatic planes to balloons and dirigibles.

GENERAL ESTIMATES SYSTEM (highway):A data-collection system that uses a nationallyrepresentative probability sample selected fromall police-reported highway crashes. It beganoperation in 1988.

Appendix A

179

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT (U.S.): Thetotal output of goods and services produced bylabor and property located in the United States,valued at market prices. As long as the laborand property are located in the United States,the suppliers (workers and owners) may beeither U.S. residents or residents of foreigncountries.

GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RATING (truck):The maximum rated capacity of a vehicle,including the weight of the base vehicle, alladded equipment, driver and passengers, and allcargo.

HAZARDOUS MATERIAL: Any toxic sub-stance or explosive, corrosive, combustible, poi-sonous, or radioactive material that poses a riskto the public’s health, safety, or property, partic-ularly when transported in commerce.

HEAVY RAIL (transit): An electric railway withthe capacity to transport a heavy volume of pas-senger traffic and characterized by exclusiverights-of-way, multicar trains, high speed, rapidacceleration, sophisticated signaling, and high-platform loading. Also known as “subway,”“elevated (railway),” or “metropolitan railway(metro).”

HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING (rail): Alocation where one or more railroad tracks arecrossed by a public highway, road, street, or aprivate roadway at grade, including sidewalksand pathways at or associated with the crossing.

HIGHWAY TRUST FUND: A grant-in-aid typefund administered by the U.S. Department ofTransportation, Federal Highway Administra-tion. Most funds for highway improvements areapportioned to states according to formulas thatgive weight to population, area, and mileage.

HIGHWAY-USER TAX: A charge levied on per-sons or organizations based on their use of publicroads. Funds collected are usually applied toward

highway construction, reconstruction, and main-tenance.

INCIDENT (hazardous materials): Any unin-tentional release of hazardous material while intransit or storage.

INCIDENT (train): Any event involving themovement of a train or railcars on track equip-ment that results in a death, a reportable injury,or illness, but in which railroad property dam-age does not exceed the reporting threshold.

INCIDENT (transit): Collisions, derailments,personal casualties, fires, and property damagein excess of $1,000 associated with transitagency revenue vehicles; all other facilities onthe transit property; and service vehicles, main-tenance areas, and rights-of-way.

INJURY (air): See Serious Injury (air carrier/general aviation).

INJURY (gas): Described in U.S. Department ofTransportation Forms 7100.1 or 7100.2 as aninjury requiring “in-patient hospitalization”(admission and confinement in a hospitalbeyond treatment administered in an emergencyroom or out-patient clinic in which confinementdoes not occur).

INJURY (hazardous liquid pipeline): An injuryresulting from a hazardous liquid pipeline acci-dent that results in one or more of the following:1) loss of consciousness, 2) a need to be carriedfrom the scene, 3) a need for medical treatment,and/or 4) a disability that prevents the dischargeof normal duties or the pursuit of normal dutiesbeyond the day of the accident.

INJURY (highway): Police-reported highwayinjuries are classified as follows:

Incapacitating Injury: Any injury, other than afatal injury, that prevents the injured personfrom walking, driving, or normally continuing


180

the activities the person was capable of perform-ing before the injury occurred. Includes severelacerations, broken or distorted limbs, skull orchest injuries, abdominal injuries, unconscious-ness at or when taken from the accident scene,and inability to leave the accident scene withoutassistance. Exclusions include momentary uncon-sciousness.

Nonincapacitating Evident Injury: Any injury,other than a fatal injury or an incapacitatinginjury, evident to observers at the scene of theaccident. Includes lumps on head, abrasions,bruises, minor lacerations, and others. Excludeslimping.

Possible Injury: Any injury reported or claimedthat is not evident. Includes, among others,momentary unconsciousness, claim of injuriesnot obvious, limping, complaint of pain, nau-sea, and hysteria.

INJURY (highway-rail grade crossing): 1) Aninjury to one or more persons other than rail-road employees that requires medical treatment;2) an injury to one or more employees thatrequires medical treatment or that results inrestriction of work or motion for one or moredays, or one or more lost work days, transfer toanother job, termination of employment, or lossof consciousness; 3) any occupational illnessaffecting one or more railroad employees that isdiagnosed by a physician.

INJURY (rail): 1) Injury to any person otherthan a railroad employee that requires medicaltreatment, or 2) injury to a railroad employeethat requires medical treatment or results inrestriction of work or motion for one or moreworkdays, one or more lost workdays, termina-tion of employment, transfer to another job,loss of consciousness, or any occupational ill-ness of a railroad employee diagnosed by aphysician.

INJURY (recreational boating): Injury requiringmedical treatment beyond first aid as a result ofan occurrence that involves a vessel or its equip-ment.

INJURY (transit): Any physical damage or harmto a person requiring medical treatment or anyphysical damage or harm to a person reportedat the time and place of occurrence. For employ-ees, an injury includes incidents resulting in timelost from duty or any definition consistent witha transit agency’s current employee injuryreporting practice.

INJURY (water): All personal injuries resultingfrom a vessel casualty that require medical treat-ment beyond first aid.

INLAND AND COASTAL CHANNELS:Includes the Atlantic Coast Waterways, theAtlantic Intracoastal Waterway, the New YorkState Barge Canal System, the Gulf Coast Water-ways, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, the Mis-sissippi River System (including the IllinoisWaterway), the Pacific Coast Waterways, theGreat Lakes, and all other channels (waterways)of the United States, exclusive of Alaska, that areusable for commercial navigation.

INTERCITY CLASS I BUS: As defined by theBureau of Transportation Statistics, an inter-state motor carrier of passengers with an aver-age annual gross revenue of at least $1 million.

INTERCITY TRUCK: A truck that carriesfreight beyond local areas and commercialzones.

INTERNAL TRAFFIC (water): Vessel move-ments (origin and destination) that take placesolely on inland waterways located within theboundaries of the contiguous 48 states or withinthe state of Alaska. Internal traffic also appliesto carriage on both inland waterways and the

Appendix A

181

water on the Great Lakes; carriage between off-shore areas and inland waterways; and carriageoccurring within the Delaware Bay, ChesapeakeBay, Puget Sound, and the San Francisco Bay,which are considered internal bodies of waterrather than arms of the ocean.

INTERSTATE HIGHWAY: Limited access,divided highway of at least four lanes designat-ed by the Federal Highway Administration aspart of the Interstate System.

JET FUEL: Includes kerosene-type jet fuel (usedprimarily for commercial turbojet and turbo-prop aircraft engines) and naphtha-type jet fuel(used primarily for military turbojet and turbo-prop aircraft engines).

LAKEWISE OR GREAT LAKES TRAFFIC:Waterborne traffic between U.S. ports on theGreat Lakes system. The Great Lakes system istreated as a separate waterways system ratherthan as a part of the inland system.

LARGE CERTIFICATED AIR CARRIERS: Anair carrier holding a certificate issued under sec-tion 401 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, asamended, that: 1) operates aircraft designed tohave a maximum passenger capacity of morethan 60 seats or a maximum payload capacityof more than 18,000 pounds, or 2) conductsoperations where one or both terminals of aflight stage are outside the 50 states of the Unit-ed States, the District of Columbia, the Com-monwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. VirginIslands. Large certificated air carriers aregrouped by annual operating revenues: 1)majors (more than $1 billion in annual operat-ing revenues), 2) nationals (between $100 mil-lion and $1 billion in annual operatingrevenues), 3) large regionals (between $20 mil-lion and $99,999,999 in annual operating rev-enues), and 4) medium regionals (less than $20million in annual operating revenues).

LARGE REGIONALS (air): Air carrier groupswith annual operating revenues between $20million and $99,999,999.

LARGE TRUCK: Trucks over 10,000 poundsgross vehicle weight rating, including single-unittrucks and truck tractors.

LEASE CONDENSATE: A mixture consistingprimarily of pentanes and heavier hydrocar-bons, which are recovered as a liquid from natu-ral gas in lease or field separation facilities. Thiscategory excludes natural gas liquids, such asbutane and propane, which are recovered atnatural gas processing plants or facilities.

LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE: A vehicle categorythat combines light automobiles and trucks.

LIGHT RAIL: A streetcar-type vehicle operatedon city streets, semi-exclusive rights-of-way, orexclusive rights-of-way. Service may be providedby step-entry vehicles or by level boarding.

LIGHT TRUCK: Trucks of 10,000 poundsgross vehicle weight rating or less, includingpickups, vans, truck-based station wagons, andsport utility vehicles.

LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG): Naturalgas, primarily methane, that has been liquefiedby reducing its temperature to –260 °F at atmos-pheric pressure.

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS (LPG): Pro-pane, propylene, normal butane, butylene,isobutane, and isobutylene produced at refiner-ies or natural gas processing plants, includingplants that fractionate new natural gas plant liq-uids.

LOCOMOTIVE: Railroad vehicle equippedwith flanged wheels for use on railroad tracks,powered directly by electricity, steam, or fossil


182

fuel, and used to move other railroad rollingequipment.

LOCOMOTIVE-MILE: The movement of alocomotive unit, under its own power, the dis-tance of 1 mile.

MAINS (gas): A network of pipelines that servesas a common source of supply for more thanone gas service line.

MAJORS (air): Air carrier groups with annualoperating revenues exceeding $1 billion.

MEDIUM REGIONALS (air): Air carriergroups with annual operating revenues less than$20 million.

MERCHANDISE TRADE EXPORTS: Mer-chandise transported out of the United States toforeign countries whether such merchandise isexported from within the U.S. Customs Serviceterritory, from a U.S. Customs bonded ware-house, or from a U.S. Foreign Trade Zone. (For-eign Trade Zones are areas, operated as publicutilities, under the control of U.S. Customs withfacilities for handling, storing, manipulating,manufacturing, and exhibiting goods.)

MERCHANDISE TRADE IMPORTS: Com-modities of foreign origin entering the UnitedStates, as well as goods of domestic originreturned to the United States with no change incondition or after having been processed and/orassembled in other countries. Puerto Rico is aCustoms district within the U.S. Customs terri-tory, and its trade with foreign countries isincluded in U.S. import statistics. U.S. importstatistics also include merchandise tradebetween the U. S. Virgin Islands and foreigncountries even though the Islands are not offi-cially a part of the U.S. Customs territory.

METHANOL: A light, volatile alcohol pro-duced commercially by the catalyzed reaction ofhydrogen and carbon monoxide. Methanol is

blended with gasoline to improve its operationalefficiency.

METHYL-TERTIARY-BUTYL-ETHER(MTBE): A colorless, flammable, liquid oxy-genated hydrocarbon that contains 18.15 per-cent oxygen. It is a fuel oxygenate produced byreacting methanol with isobutylene.

MINOR ARTERIALS (highway): Roads linkingcities and larger towns in rural areas. In urbanareas, roads that link but do not penetrateneighborhoods within a community.

MOTORBUS (transit): A rubber-tired, self-pro-pelled, manually steered bus with a fuel supplyonboard the vehicle. Motorbus types includeintercity, school, and transit.

MOTORCYCLE: A two- or three-wheeledmotor vehicle designed to transport one or twopeople, including motor scooters, minibikes,and mopeds.

NATIONALS (air): Air carrier groups withannual operating revenues between $100 mil-lion and $1 billion.

NATURAL GAS: A naturally occurring mixtureof hydrocarbon and nonhydrocarbon gasesfound in porous geologic formations beneath theEarth’s surface, often in association with petro-leum. The principal constituent is methane.

NATURAL GAS PLANT LIQUIDS: Liquidsrecovered from natural gas in processing plantsor field facilities, or extracted by fractionators.They include ethane, propane, normal butane,isobutane, pentanes plus, and other products,such as finished motor gasoline, finished avia-tion gasoline, special naphthas, kerosene, anddistillate fuel oil produced at natural gas pro-cessing plants.

NEAR MIDAIR COLLISION (air): An incidentin which the possibility of a collision occurred

Appendix A

183

as a result of aircraft flying with less than 500feet of separation, or a report received from apilot or flight crew member stating that a colli-sion hazard existed between two or more air-craft.

NONOCCUPANT (Automobile): Any personwho is not an occupant of a motor vehicle intransport (e.g., bystanders, pedestrians, pedalcy-clists, or an occupant of a parked motor vehicle).

NONSCHEDULED SERVICE (air): Revenueflights not operated as regular scheduled service,such as charter flights, and all nonrevenue flightsincident to such flights.

NONSELF-PROPELLED VESSEL (water): Avessel without the means for self-propulsion.Includes dry cargo barges and tanker barges.

NONTRAIN INCIDENT: An event that resultsin a reportable casualty, but does not involve themovement of ontrack equipment and does notcause reportable damage above the thresholdestablished for train accidents.

NONTRESPASSERS (rail): A person lawfully onany part of railroad property used in railroadoperations or a person adjacent to railroadpremises when injured as the result of railroadoperations.

NONVESSEL-CASUALTY-RELATED DEATH(water): A death that occurs onboard a commer-cial vessel but not as a result of a vessel casualty,such as a collision, fire, or explosion.

OCCUPANT (highway): Any person in or on amotor vehicle in transport. Includes the driver,passengers, and persons riding on the exterior ofa motor vehicle (e.g., a skateboard rider holdingonto a moving vehicle). Excludes occupants ofparked cars unless they are double parked ormotionless on the roadway.

OCCUPATIONAL FATALITY: Death resultingfrom a job-related injury.

OPERATING EXPENSES (air): Expensesincurred in the performance of air transporta-tion, based on overall operating revenues andexpenses. Does not include nonoperating incomeand expenses, nonrecurring items, or incometaxes.

OPERATING EXPENSES (rail): Expenses offurnishing transportation services, includingmaintenance and depreciation of the plant usedin the service.

OPERATING EXPENSES (transit): The total ofall expenses associated with operation of an indi-vidual mode by a given operator. Includes distri-butions of “joint expenses” to individual modesand excludes “reconciling items,” such as inter-est expenses and depreciation. Should not beconfused with “vehicle operating expenses.”

OPERATING EXPENSES (truck): Includesexpenditures for equipment maintenance, super-vision, wages, fuel, equipment rental, terminaloperations, insurance, safety, and administrativeand general functions.

OPERATING REVENUES (air): Revenues fromthe performance of air transportation and relat-ed incidental services. Includes l) transportationrevenues from the carriage of all classes of trafficin scheduled and nonscheduled services, and 2)nontransportation revenues consisting of federalsubsidies (where applicable) and services relatedto air transportation.

OTHER FREEWAYS AND EXPRESSWAYS(highway): All urban principal arterials with lim-ited access but not part of the Interstate system.

OTHER PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS (highway):Major streets or highways, many of multi-laneor freeway design, serving high-volume trafficcorridor movements that connect major genera-tors of travel.

OTHER RAIL REVENUE: Includes revenuesfrom miscellaneous operations (i.e., dining- and


184

bar-car services), income from the lease of roadand equipment, miscellaneous rental income,income from nonoperating property, profit fromseparately operated properties, dividend income,interest income, income from sinking and otherreserve funds, release or premium on fundeddebt, contributions from other companies, andother miscellaneous income.

OTHER REVENUE VEHICLES (transit): Otherrevenue-generating modes of transit service,such as cable cars, personal rapid transit sys-tems, monorail vehicles, inclined and railwaycars, not covered otherwise.

OTHER 2-AXLE 4-TIRE VEHICLES (truck):Includes vans, pickup trucks, and sport utilityvehicles.

OXYGENATES: Any substance that whenadded to motor gasoline increases the amount ofoxygen in that gasoline blend. Includes oxygen-bearing compounds such as ethanol, methanol,and methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether. Oxygenated fueltends to give a more complete combustion ofcarbon into carbon dioxide (rather than monox-ide), thereby reducing air pollution from exhaustemissions.

PASSENGER CAR: A motor vehicle designedprimarily for carrying passengers on ordinaryroads, includes convertibles, sedans, and sta-tions wagons.

PASSENGER-MILE: 1) Air: One passenger trans-ported 1 mile; passenger-miles for 1 interairportflight are calculated by multiplying aircraft-miles flown by the number of passengers carriedon the flight. The total passenger-miles for allflights is the sum of passenger-miles for allinterairport flights. 2) Auto: One passenger trav-eling 1 mile; e.g., 1 car transporting 2 passengers4 miles results in 8 passenger-miles. 3) Transit:The total number of miles traveled by transitpassengers; e.g., 1 bus transporting 5 passengers3 miles results in 15 passenger-miles.

PASSENGER REVENUE: 1) Rail: Revenue fromthe sale of tickets. 2) Air: Revenues from thetransport of passengers by air. 3) Transit: Fares,transfer, zone, and park-and-ride parkingcharges paid by transit passengers. Prior to1984, fare revenues collected by contractorsoperating transit services were not included.

PASSENGER VESSELS (water): A vesseldesigned for the commercial transport of passen-gers.

PEDALCYCLIST: A person on a vehicle that ispowered solely by pedals.

PEDESTRIAN: Any person not in or on a motorvehicle or other vehicle. Excludes people inbuildings or sitting at a sidewalk cafe. TheNational Highway Traffic Safety Administrationalso uses an “other pedestrian” category to referto pedestrians using conveyances and people inbuildings. Examples of pedestrian conveyancesinclude skateboards, nonmotorized wheelchairs,rollerskates, sleds, and transport devices used asequipment.

PERSON-MILES: An estimate of the aggregatedistances traveled by all persons on a given tripbased on the estimated transportation-network-miles traveled on that trip.

PERSON TRIP: A trip taken by an individual.For example, if three persons from the samehousehold travel together, the trip is counted asone household trip and three person trips.

PERSONAL CASUALTY (transit): 1) An inci-dent in which a person is hurt while getting onor off a transit vehicle (e.g., falls or door inci-dents), but not as a result of a collision, derail-ment/left roadway, or fire. 2) An incident inwhich a person is hurt while using a lift to get onor off a transit vehicle, but not as a result of acollision, derailment/left roadway, or fire. 3) Anincident in which a person is injured on a transitvehicle, but not as a result of a collision, derail-

Appendix A

185

ment/left roadway, or fire. 4) An incident inwhich a person is hurt while using a transit facil-ity. This includes anyone on transit property(e.g., patrons, transit employees, trespassers),but does not include incidents resulting from ill-ness or criminal activity.

PETROLEUM (oil): A generic term applied tooil and oil products in all forms, such as crudeoil, lease condensate, unfinished oils, petroleumproducts, natural gas plant liquids, and nonhy-drocarbon compounds blended into finishedpetroleum products.

PROPERTY DAMAGE (transit): The dollaramount required to repair or replace transitproperty (including stations, right-of-way, busstops, and maintenance facilities) damaged dur-ing an incident.

PUBLIC ROAD: Any road under the jurisdictionof and maintained by a public authority (federal,state, county, town or township, local govern-ment, or instrumentality thereof) and open topublic travel.

RAPID RAIL TRANSIT: Transit service usingrailcars driven by electricity usually drawn froma third rail, configured for passenger traffic, andusually operated on exclusive rights-of-way. Itgenerally uses longer trains and has longer sta-tion spacing than light rail.

REFORMULATED GASOLINE: Gasolinewhose composition has been changed to meetperformance specifications regarding ozone-forming tendencies and release of toxic sub-stances into the air from both evaporation andtailpipe emissions. Reformulated gasolineincludes oxygenates and, compared with gaso-line sold in 1990, has a lower content of olefins,aromatics, volatile components, and heavyhydrocarbons.

RESIDUAL FUEL OIL: The heavier oils thatremain after the distillate fuel oils and lighterhydrocarbons are distilled away in refinery oper-

ations and that conform to American Society forTesting and Materials Specifications D396 and976. Includes, among others, Navy Special oilused in steam-powered vessels in governmentservice and No. 6 oil used to power ships.Imports of residual fuel oil include importedcrude oil burned as fuel.

REVENUE: Remuneration received by carriersfor transportation activities.

REVENUE PASSENGER: 1) Air: Person receiv-ing air transportation from an air carrier forwhich remuneration is received by the carrier.Air carrier employees or others, except ministersof religion, elderly individuals, and handicappedindividuals, receiving reduced rate charges (lessthan the applicable tariff) are considered non-revenue passengers. Infants, for whom a tokenfare is charged, are not counted as passengers. 2)Transit: Single-vehicle transit rides by initial-board (first-ride) transit passengers only.Excludes all transfer rides and all nonrevenuerides. 3) Rail: Number of one-way trips made bypersons holding tickets.

REVENUE PASSENGER ENPLANEMENTS(air): The total number of passengers boardingaircraft. Includes both originating and connect-ing passengers.

REVENUE PASSENGER LOAD FACTOR (air):Revenue passenger-miles as a percentage ofavailable seat-miles in revenue passenger ser-vices. The term is used to represent the propor-tion of aircraft seating capacity that is actuallysold and utilized.

REVENUE PASSENGER-MILE: One revenuepassenger transported one mile.

REVENUE PASSENGER TON-MILE (air): Oneton of revenue passenger weight (including allbaggage) transported one mile. The passengerweight standard for both domestic and interna-tional operations is 200 pounds.


186

REVENUE TON-MILE: One short ton offreight transported one mile.

REVENUE VEHICLE-MILES (transit): Onevehicle (bus, trolley bus, or streetcar) travelingone mile, while revenue passengers are on board,generates one revenue vehicle-mile. Revenuevehicle-miles reported represent the totalmileage traveled by vehicles in scheduled orunscheduled revenue-producing services.

ROAD OIL: Any heavy petroleum oil, includingresidual asphaltic oil, that is used as a dust pallia-tive and surface treatment on roads and high-ways. It is generally produced in six grades fromzero, the most liquid, to five, the most viscous.

ROLL ON/ROLL OFF VESSEL (water): Shipsthat are designed to carry wheeled containers orother wheeled cargo and use the roll on/roll offmethod for loading and unloading.

RURAL HIGHWAY: Any highway, road, orstreet that is not an urban highway.

RURAL MILEAGE (highway): Roads outsidecity, municipal district, or urban boundaries.

SCHEDULED SERVICE (air): Transport serviceoperated on published flight schedules.

SCHOOL BUS: A passenger motor vehicle thatis designed or used to carry more than 10 pas-sengers, in addition to the driver, and, as deter-mined by the Secretary of Transportation, islikely to be significantly used for the purpose oftransporting pre-primary, primary, or secondaryschool students between home and school.

SCHOOL BUS-RELATED CRASH: Any crashin which a vehicle, regardless of body designand used as a school bus, is directly or indirectlyinvolved, such as a crash involving school chil-dren alighting from a vehicle.

SCOW (water): Any flat-bottomed, nonself-pro-pelled, rectangular vessel with sloping ends.

Large scows are used to transport sand, gravel,or refuse.

SELF-PROPELLED VESSEL: A vessel that hasits own means of propulsion. Includes tankers,containerships, dry bulk cargo ships, and gener-al cargo vessels.

SERIOUS INJURY (air carrier/general aviation):An injury that requires hospitalization for morethan 48 hours, commencing within 7 days fromthe date when the injury was received; results ina bone fracture (except simple fractures of fin-gers, toes, or nose); involves lacerations thatcause severe hemorrhages, or nerve, muscle, ortendon damage; involves injury to any internalorgan; or involves second- or third-degree burnsor any burns affecting more than 5 percent ofthe body surface.

SMALL CERTIFICATED AIR CARRIER: Anair carrier holding a certificate issued under sec-tion 401 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, asamended, that operates aircraft designed to havea maximum seating capacity of 60 seats or feweror a maximum payload of 18,000 pounds orless.

STATE AND LOCAL HIGHWAY EXPENDI-TURES: Disbursements for capital outlays,maintenance and traffic surfaces, administrationand research, highway law enforcement andsafety, and interest on debt.

STREETCARS: Relatively lightweight passengerrailcars operating singly or in short trains, or onfixed rails in rights-of-way that are not alwaysseparated from other traffic. Streetcars do notnecessarily have the right-of-way at grade cross-ings with other traffic.

SUPPLEMENTAL AIR CARRIER: An air carri-er authorized to perform passenger and cargocharter services.

TANKER: An oceangoing ship designed to haulliquid bulk cargo in world trade.

Appendix A

187

TON-MILE (truck): The movement of one tonof cargo the distance of one mile. Ton-miles arecalculated by multiplying the weight in tons ofeach shipment transported by the miles hauled.

TON-MILE (water): The movement of one tonof cargo the distance of one statute mile. Domes-tic ton-miles are calculated by multiplying tonsmoved by the number of statute miles moved onthe water (e.g., 50 short tons moving 200 mileson a waterway would yield 10,000 ton-miles forthat waterway). Ton-miles are not computed forports. For coastwise traffic, the shortest routethat safe navigation permits between the port oforigin and destination is used to calculate ton-miles.

TRAFFICWAY (highway): Any right-of-wayopen to the public as a matter of right or customfor moving persons or property from one placeto another, including the entire width betweenproperty lines or other boundaries.

TRAIN LINE MILEAGE: The aggregate lengthof all line-haul railroads. It does not include themileage of yard tracks or sidings, nor does itreflect the fact that a mile of railroad mayinclude two or more parallel tracks. Jointly-usedtrack is counted only once.

TRAIN-MILE: The movement of a train, whichcan consist of many cars, the distance of onemile. A train-mile differs from a vehicle-mile,which is the movement of one car (vehicle) thedistance of one mile. A 10-car (vehicle) traintraveling 1 mile is measured as 1 train-mile and10 vehicle-miles. Caution should be used whencomparing train-miles to vehicle-miles.

TRANSIT VEHICLE: Includes light, heavy, andcommuter rail; motorbus; trolley bus; van pools;automated guideway; and demand responsivevehicles.

TRANSSHIPMENTS: Shipments that enter orexit the United States by way of a U.S. Customsport on the northern or southern border, but

whose origin or destination is a country otherthan Canada or Mexico.

TRESPASSER (rail): Any person whose presenceon railroad property used in railroad operationsis prohibited, forbidden, or unlawful.

TROLLEY BUS: Rubber-tired electric transitvehicle, manually steered and propelled by amotor drawing current, normally through over-head wires, from a central power source.

TRUST FUNDS: Accounts that are designatedby law to carry out specific purposes and pro-grams. Trust Funds are usually financed withearmarked tax collections.

TUG BOAT: A powered vessel designed for tow-ing or pushing ships, dumb barges, pushed-towed barges, and rafts, but not for the carriageof goods.

U.S.-FLAG CARRIER OR AMERICAN FLAGCARRIER (air): One of a class of air carriersholding a Certificate of Public Convenience andNecessity, issued by the U.S. Department ofTransportation and approved by the President,authorizing scheduled operations over specifiedroutes between the United States (and/or its ter-ritories) and one or more foreign countries.

UNLEADED GASOLINE: See Gasoline.

UNLINKED PASSENGER TRIPS (transit): Thenumber of passengers boarding public trans-portation vehicles. A passenger is counted eachtime he/she boards a vehicle even if the boardingis part of the same journey from origin to desti-nation.

URBAN HIGHWAY: Any road or street withinthe boundaries of an urban area. An urban areais an area including and adjacent to a municipal-ity or urban place with a population of 5,000 ormore. The boundaries of urban areas are fixedby state highway departments, subject to theapproval of the Federal Highway Administra-


188

tion, for purposes of the Federal-Aid HighwayProgram.

VANPOOL (transit): Public-sponsored com-muter service operating under prearrangedschedules for previously formed groups of ridersin 8- to 18-seat vehicles. Drivers are also com-muters who receive little or no compensationbesides the free ride.

VEHICLE MAINTENANCE (transit): All activ-ities associated with revenue and nonrevenue(service) vehicle maintenance, including admin-istration, inspection and maintenance, and serv-icing (e.g., cleaning and fueling) vehicles. Inaddition, it includes repairs due to vandalism orto revenue vehicle accidents.

VEHICLE-MILES (highway): Miles of travel byall types of motor vehicles as determined by thestates on the basis of actual traffic counts andestablished estimating procedures.

VEHICLE-MILES (transit): The total number ofmiles traveled by transit vehicles. Commuterrail, heavy rail, and light rail report individualcar-miles, rather than train-miles for vehicle-miles.

VEHICLE OPERATIONS (transit): All activitiesassociated with transportation administration,

including the control of revenue vehicle move-ments, scheduling, ticketing and fare collection,system security, and revenue vehicle operation.

VESSEL CASUALTY (water): An occurrenceinvolving commercial vessels that results in 1)actual physical damage to property in excess of$25,000; 2) material damage affecting theseaworthiness or efficiency of a vessel; 3)stranding or grounding; 4) loss of life; or 5)injury causing any person to remain incapaci-tated for a period in excess of 72 hours, exceptinjury to harbor workers not resulting in deathand not resulting from vessel casualty or vesselequipment casualty.

VESSEL-CASUALTY-RELATED DEATH (water):Fatality that occurs as a result of an incident thatinvolves a vessel or its equipment, such as a col-lision, fire, or explosion. Includes drowningdeaths.

WATERBORNE TRANSPORTATION: Trans-port of freight and/or people by commercial ves-sels under U.S. Coast Guard jurisdiction.

WAYBILL: A document that lists goods andshipping instructions relative to a shipment.

Appendix A

189

Appendix B: Tables

Appendix B

193

TAB

LE

1

Lab

or

Pro

du

ctiv

ity

of

Maj

or

Sec

tors

: 19

90–2

000

Outp

ut p

er h

our

Inde

x: 1

990

=100

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Tran

spor

tatio

n10

0.0

103.

510

8.8

112.

111

5.2

115.

311

9.1

121.

111

7.4

120.

511

9.7

Man

ufac

turin

g10

0.0

102.

310

7.6

109.

711

3.0

117.

312

1.4

126.

613

2.7

139.

614

5.2

Busi

ness

100.

010

1.2

105.

010

5.6

107.

010

7.8

110.

711

3.2

116.

211

9.2

122.

8

NO

TE

S:

Labo

r pr

oduc

tivity

for

tran

spor

tatio

n is

cal

cula

ted

by d

ivid

ing

an in

dex

of o

utpu

t by

an in

dex

of e

mpl

oyee

hou

rs.

Tran

spor

tatio

n ou

tput

inde

x is

a w

eigh

ted

aver

age

of o

utpu

t ind

exes

of r

ailro

ad, t

ruck

ing,

air,

bus

and

pip

elin

e tr

ansp

orta

tion.

The

sh

ares

of e

ach

mod

e in

tota

l tra

nspo

rtat

ion

valu

e ad

ded

(GD

P)

are

used

as

annu

al w

eigh

ting

fact

ors.

Inde

x of

tran

spor

tatio

n em

ploy

ee h

ours

is c

ompu

ted

by w

eigh

ting

the

empl

oyee

hou

r in

dexe

s of

eac

h m

ode

by it

s sh

are

in to

tal t

rans

port

atio

n em

ploy

ees.

T

he m

odal

out

put a

nd e

mpl

oyee

hou

r in

dexe

s w

ere

initi

ally

est

imat

ed b

y th

e B

urea

u of

Lab

or S

tatis

tics

usin

g 19

87 a

s th

e ba

se

year

. Raw

dat

a ar

e no

t ava

ilabl

e fr

om th

e so

urce

s.

SO

UR

CE

S:

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, c

alcu

late

d ba

sed

on d

ata

from

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Lab

or, B

urea

u of

Lab

or S

tatis

tics,

Offi

ce o

f Pro

duct

ivity

and

Tec

hnol

ogy,

"In

dust

ry P

rodu

ctiv

ity D

atab

ase,

" av

aila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ls.g

ov, a

s of

Feb

ruar

y 20

03; a

nd U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Bur

eau

of E

cono

mic

Ana

lysi

s, "

Gro

ss

Dom

estic

Pro

duct

by

Indu

stry

," a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ea.g

ov, a

s of

Mar

ch 2

003.

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g a

nd

bu

sin

ess—

U.S

. D

epar

tmen

t of L

abor

, Bur

eau

of L

abor

Sta

tistic

s, O

ffice

of P

rodu

ctiv

ity a

nd T

echn

olog

y, "

Indu

stry

Pro

duct

ivity

Dat

abas

e,"

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bls

.gov

, as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

.


194

TAB

LE

2

Lab

or

Pro

du

ctiv

ity

of

the

Fo

r-H

ire

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

Ind

ust

ries

: 19

90–2

000

Inde

x: 1

990

= 10

0

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Railr

oad

100.

010

7.8

117.

812

2.7

126.

813

1.8

140.

914

3.3

146.

215

4.0

165.

2

Truc

king

, ex

cept

loca

l10

0.0

105.

211

1.1

114.

011

6.6

112.

911

7.8

119.

211

6.9

118.

511

8.1

Loca

l tru

ckin

g10

0.0

104.

912

0.7

123.

412

9.0

134.

813

8.0

141.

615

4.6

163.

016

5.3

Bus

carr

iers

, Cl

ass

I10

0.0

107.

510

9.5

113.

510

3.2

114.

011

0.3

129.

510

9.3

139.

911

6.2

Air

100.

099

.610

4.3

107.

911

3.8

116.

911

9.6

120.

111

6.7

117.

411

9.2

Pipe

line

100.

096

.697

.810

1.9

105.

511

3.3

127.

513

1.1

134.

014

1.9

137.

7

NO

TE

S:

Labo

r pr

oduc

tivity

for

tran

spor

tatio

n m

easu

res

qual

ity-a

djus

ted

ton-

and

pas

seng

er-m

iles

per

hour

. Qua

lity-

adju

stm

ent

corr

ects

for

diffe

renc

es in

ser

vice

s an

d ha

ndlin

g, e

.g.,

the

diffe

renc

e be

twee

n fly

ing

first

cla

ss a

nd c

oach

or

diffe

renc

es in

the

hand

ling

requ

irem

ents

and

rev

enue

gen

erat

ion

of h

igh-

and

low

-val

ue c

omm

oditi

es. P

ipel

ine

labo

r pr

oduc

tivity

is m

easu

red

by

outp

ut p

er e

mpl

oyee

. No

data

are

ava

ilabl

e fo

r w

ater

tran

spor

tatio

n. R

aw d

ata

are

not a

vaila

ble

from

the

sour

ces.

Loca

l tru

ckin

g in

clud

es e

stab

lishm

ents

that

gen

eral

ly p

rovi

de tr

ucki

ng s

ervi

ces

with

in a

sin

gle

mun

icip

ality

, con

tiguo

us

mun

icip

aliti

es, o

r a

mun

icip

ality

and

its

subu

rban

are

as. T

ruck

ing,

exc

ept l

ocal

, inc

lude

s co

mm

on o

r co

ntra

ct c

arrie

rs th

at g

ener

ally

pr

ovid

e tr

ucki

ng s

ervi

ce b

eyon

d a

sing

le m

unic

ipal

ity, c

ontig

uous

mun

icip

aliti

es, o

r a

mun

icip

ality

and

its

subu

rban

are

as.

SO

UR

CE

S:

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

cal

cula

tion

base

d on

dat

a fr

om U

.S.

Dep

artm

ent o

f Lab

or, B

urea

u of

Lab

or S

tatis

tics'

Offi

ce o

f Pro

duct

ivity

and

Tec

hnol

ogy,

"In

dust

ry P

rodu

ctiv

ity D

atab

ase,

" av

aila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ls.g

ov, a

s of

Feb

ruar

y 20

03; a

nd U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Bur

eau

of E

cono

mic

Ana

lysi

s, "

Gro

ss D

omes

tic

Pro

duct

by

Indu

stry

," a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ea.g

ov, a

s of

Mar

ch 2

003.

Appendix B

195

TAB

LE

3

Mu

ltif

acto

r P

rod

uct

ivit

y: 1

990–

2001

Inde

x: 1

990

=100

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Railr

oad

indu

stry

100.

010

3.3

109.

911

3.5

115.

912

2.8

127.

412

7.4

126.

113

0.1

Busi

ness

se

ctor

(all

indu

strie

s)10

0.0

98.9

101.

210

1.7

102.

810

3.0

104.

710

5.9

107.

310

8.3

109.

910

8.8

NO

TE

: R

ail p

rodu

ctiv

ity d

ata

are

only

ava

ilabl

e th

roug

h 19

99. S

ourc

e da

ta a

re in

dexe

s w

ith b

ase

year

s of

198

7 (r

ail)

and

1996

(b

usin

ess)

. The

y ha

ve b

een

rein

dexe

d so

that

199

0 =

100

.

SO

UR

CE

S:

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Lab

or S

tatis

tics,

ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bls

.gov

, as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

. Bu

sin

ess

sect

or—

“Mul

tifac

tor

Pro

duct

ivity

Tre

nds,

” ta

ble

1. R

ail—

“Ind

ustr

y M

ultif

acto

r P

rodu

ctiv

ity D

ata

Tabl

e by

Indu

stry

, 198

7–19

99.”

TAB

LE

4

Pas

sen

ger

-Mile

s by

Mo

de:

200

0M

illio

n pa

ssen

ger-

mile

s

2000

Air c

arrie

r51

6,12

9

Gene

ral a

viat

ion

14,0

00

Pass

enge

r car

2,54

4,45

7

Ligh

t tru

ck1,

467,

664

Mot

orcy

cle

11,5

16

Bus

160,

919

Tran

sit,

excl

udin

g bu

s26

,425

Amtra

k5,

498

NO

TES

: Tra

nsit

incl

udes

mot

or b

us, h

eavy

rail,

co

mm

uter

rail,

ligh

t rai

l, fe

rryb

oat,

trolle

y bu

s, d

eman

d re

spon

sive

, and

oth

ers.

Mot

or b

us a

nd d

eman

d re

spon

sive

figu

res

are

also

incl

uded

in th

e bu

s fig

ure

for

high

way

.

SO

UR

CE

: U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

Nat

iona

l Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s 20

02 (W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, tab

le 1

-34,

av

aila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ts.g

ov/,

as o

f Apr

il 20

03.


196

TAB

LE

5a

Ch

ang

e in

Pas

sen

ger

-Mile

s by

Sel

ecte

d M

od

eIn

dex

1990

= 1

.00

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Air c

arrie

r1.

000.

981.

031.

051.

121.

171.

261.

301.

341.

411.

49

Pass

enge

r car

1.00

0.96

0.97

0.97

0.99

1.00

1.02

1.05

1.08

1.09

1.12

Ligh

t tru

ck1.

001.

121.

201.

251.

271.

261.

301.

351.

381.

431.

47

Bus

1.00

1.00

1.01

1.07

1.12

1.12

1.15

1.19

1.22

1.34

1.33

Tran

sit

1.00

0.99

0.98

0.96

0.96

0.97

1.01

1.03

1.07

1.11

1.16

Amtra

k1.

001.

041.

011.

020.

980.

920.

830.

850.

880.

880.

91

NO

TE

S:

Tran

sit i

nclu

des

mot

or b

us, h

eavy

rai

l, co

mm

uter

rai

l, lig

ht r

ail,

ferr

yboa

t, tr

olle

y bu

s, d

eman

d re

spon

sive

, and

oth

ers.

M

otor

bus

and

dem

and

resp

onsi

ve fi

gure

s ar

e al

so in

clud

ed in

the

bus

figur

e fo

r hi

ghw

ay.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, N

atio

nal T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

2002

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, tab

le 1

-34,

ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bts

.gov

/, as

of A

pril

2003

.

TAB

LE

5b

P

asse

ng

er-M

iles

by S

elec

ted

Mo

de

Mill

ion

pass

enge

r-m

iles

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Air c

arrie

r 3

58,8

73 3

50,1

85 3

65,5

64 3

72,1

30 3

98,1

99 4

14,6

88 4

46,6

52 4

63,1

12 4

76,3

62 5

01,8

57 5

30,1

29

Pass

enge

r car

2,2

81,3

91 2

,200

,260

2,2

08,2

26 2

,213

,281

2,2

49,7

42 2

,286

,887

2,3

37,0

68 2

,389

,065

2,4

63,8

28 2

,494

,870

2,5

44,4

57

Ligh

t tru

ck 9

99,7

54 1

,116

,958

1,2

01,6

67 1

,252

,860

1,2

69,2

92 1

,256

,146

1,2

98,2

99 1

,352

,675

1,3

80,5

57 1

,432

,625

1,4

67,6

64

Bus

121

,398

121

,906

122

,496

129

,852

135

,871

136

,104

139

,136

145

,060

148

,558

162

,445

160

,919

Tran

sit

41,

143

40,

703

40,

241

39,

384

39,

585

39,

808

41,

378

42,

339

44,

128

45,

857

47,

666

Amtra

k 6

,057

6,2

73 6

,091

6,1

99 5

,921

5,5

45 5

,050

5,1

66 5

,304

5,3

30 5

,498

NO

TE

S:

Tran

sit i

nclu

des

mot

or b

us, h

eavy

rai

l, co

mm

uter

rai

l, lig

ht r

ail,

ferr

yboa

t, tr

olle

y bu

s, d

eman

d-re

spon

sive

, and

oth

ers.

Mot

or b

us a

nd d

eman

d-re

spon

sive

figu

res

are

also

in

clud

ed in

the

bus

figur

e fo

r hi

ghw

ay.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, N

atio

nal T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

2002

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, tab

le 1

-34,

ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bts

.gov

/, as

of A

pril

2003

.

Appendix B

197

TAB

LE

6a

To

tal U

.S. P

op

ula

tio

n a

nd

Gro

ss D

om

esti

c P

rod

uct

: 19

90–2

000

Inde

x 19

90 =

1.0

0

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Gros

s do

mes

tic

prod

uct (

GDP)

1.00

1.00

1.03

1.05

1.10

1.12

1.16

1.22

1.27

1.32

1.37

Tota

l U.S

. pop

ulat

ion

1.00

1.01

1.03

1.04

1.05

1.07

1.08

1.09

1.11

1.12

1.13

GDP

per c

apita

1.00

0.98

1.00

1.01

1.04

1.05

1.08

1.11

1.15

1.18

1.22

SO

UR

CE

S:

Gro

ss D

om

esti

c P

rod

uct

—B

ased

on

chai

ned

1996

dol

lar

data

from

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce, B

urea

u of

E

cono

mic

Ana

lysi

s, N

atio

nal I

ncom

e an

d P

rodu

ct A

ccou

nts,

sum

mar

y G

DP

tabl

e, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ea.d

oc.g

ov/b

ea/

dn1.

htm

, as

of M

ay 2

003.

Po

pu

lati

on

—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, U.S

. Cen

sus

Bur

eau,

Nat

iona

l Int

erce

nsal

Est

imat

es

1990

–200

0, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

eire

.cen

sus.

gov/

pope

st/d

ata/

natio

nal/t

able

s/in

terc

ensa

l/US

-ES

T90

INT-

01.p

hp, a

s of

May

200

3.

TAB

LE

6b

To

tal U

.S. P

op

ula

tio

n a

nd

Gro

ss D

om

esti

c P

rod

uct

: 19

90–2

000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Gros

s do

mes

tic p

rodu

ct (G

DP)

(Bill

ions

of c

hain

ed

1996

dol

lars

) 6

,708

6,6

76 6

,880

7,0

63 7

,348

7,5

44 7

,813

8,1

60 8

,509

8,8

59 9

,191

Tota

l res

iden

t U.S

. pop

ulat

ion

(Tho

usan

ds)

249,

623

252

,981

256,

514

259

,919

263,

126

266,

278

269,

394

272,

647

275,

854

279,

040

282,

125

GDP

per c

apita

26,

872

26,

391

26,

821

27,

172

27,

925

28,

331

29,

003

29,

927

30,

846

31,

748

32,

579

SO

UR

CE

S:

Gro

ss D

om

esti

c P

rod

uct

—B

ased

on

chai

ned

1996

dol

lar

data

from

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce, B

urea

u of

Eco

nom

ic A

naly

sis,

Nat

iona

l Inc

ome

and

Pro

duct

Acc

ount

s, s

umm

ary

GD

P ta

ble,

ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bea

.doc

.gov

/bea

/dn1

.htm

, as

of M

ay 2

003.

Po

pu

lati

on

—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, U.S

. C

ensu

s B

urea

u, N

atio

nal I

nter

cens

al E

stim

ates

199

0–20

00, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

eire

.cen

sus.

gov/

pope

st/d

ata/

natio

nal/t

able

s/in

terc

ensa

l/US

-ES

T90

INT-

01.p

hp, a

s of

M

ay 2

003.


198

TAB

LE

7a

Ch

ang

e in

Do

mes

tic

Fre

igh

t To

n-M

iles

by M

od

e: 1

990–

2000

Inde

x 19

90 =

1.0

0

Year

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Air

1.00

0.98

1.08

1.18

1.30

1.38

1.42

1.50

1.53

1.57

1.63

Truc

k1.

001.

021.

051.

091.

161.

221.

251.

311.

341.

391.

41

Railr

oad

1.00

0.98

1.03

1.07

1.15

1.24

1.29

1.31

1.36

1.41

1.45

Wat

er1.

001.

021.

030.

950.

980.

970.

920.

850.

810.

790.

77

Oil p

ipel

ine

1.00

0.99

1.01

1.02

1.01

1.03

1.06

1.06

1.06

1.06

1.06

TOTA

L1.

001.

001.

031.

031.

091.

131.

151.

151.

171.

191.

20

TAB

LE

7b

D

om

esti

c F

reig

ht

Ton

-Mile

s by

Mo

de:

199

0–20

00Bi

llion

s

Year

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Air

99

1011

1213

1314

1414

15

Truc

k84

886

788

992

798

71,

033

1,06

01,

109

1,13

81,

175

1,19

3

Railr

oad

1,06

41,

042

1,09

81,

135

1,22

11,

317

1,37

71,

391

1,44

81,

504

1,54

6

Wat

er83

484

885

779

081

580

876

570

767

365

664

6

Oil p

ipel

ine

584

579

589

593

591

601

619

617

620

618

617

TOTA

L3,

339

3,34

53,

443

3,45

63,

626

3,77

23,

834

3,83

83,

893

3,96

74,

017

SO

UR

CE

S:

Air

, pip

elin

e, a

nd

wat

er—

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

Nat

iona

l Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Sta

tistic

s 20

02 (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

2), t

able

1-4

4. T

ruck

—B

TS

cal

cula

tion

base

d on

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tr

ansp

orta

tion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s A

nnua

l Rep

ort 2

000

(Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

1), p

age

124;

and

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Fed

eral

Hig

hway

Adm

inis

trat

ion,

Hig

hway

Sta

tistic

s 20

01 (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

2),

tabl

e V

M-1

. Rai

l—B

TS

cal

cula

tion

base

d on

Sur

face

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Boa

rd, C

arlo

ad W

aybi

ll S

ampl

e; T

rans

port

Can

ada,

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

In C

anad

a (A

nnua

l Rep

ort)

, tab

le 1

2-1;

Am

eric

an A

ssoc

iatio

n of

Rai

lroad

s, R

ailro

ad F

acts

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C:

1991

–200

1 is

sues

), p

age

36.

Appendix B

199

TAB

LE

8

Mo

dal

Sh

ares

of

Do

mes

tic

Fre

igh

t To

n-M

iles:

200

0

2000

Air

0.4

Truc

k29

.7

Railr

oad

38.5

Wat

er16

.1

Oil p

ipel

ine

15.4

SO

UR

CE

S:

Air

, pip

elin

e, a

nd

wat

er—

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

Nat

iona

l Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Sta

tistic

s 20

02 (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

2), t

able

1-4

4. T

ruck

—B

TS

cal

cula

tion

base

d on

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tr

ansp

orta

tion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s A

nnua

l Rep

ort 2

000

(Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

1), p

age

124;

and

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Fed

eral

Hig

hway

Adm

inis

trat

ion,

Hig

hway

Sta

tistic

s 20

01 (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

2),

tabl

e V

M-1

. Rai

l—B

TS

cal

cula

tion

base

d on

Sur

face

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Boa

rd, C

arlo

ad W

aybi

ll S

ampl

e; T

rans

port

Can

ada,

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

In C

anad

a (A

nnua

l Rep

ort)

, tab

le 1

2-1;

Am

eric

an A

ssoc

iatio

n of

Rai

lroad

s, R

ailro

ad F

acts

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C:

1991

–200

1 is

sues

), p

age

36.

[NO

TE

: F

igur

es 9

, 10,

and

11

are

truc

k, r

ail,

and

wat

er fr

eigh

t flo

w m

aps,

res

pect

ivel

y,

and

corr

espo

ndin

g ta

bles

are

not

incl

uded

her

e.]

TAB

LE

12

Ch

ang

es in

Ave

rag

e C

ity-

Pai

r S

ched

ule

Tim

e:

Feb

ruar

y 19

95 a

nd

Feb

ruar

y 20

02Nu

mbe

r of c

ity-p

airs

Incr

ease

d sc

hedu

le ti

me

Decr

ease

d or

unc

hang

ed

sche

dule

tim

e

Air

177

84

Rail

154

92

Bus

115

135

NO

TE

: A

ir da

ta c

over

non

-sto

p se

rvic

e on

ly. B

us a

nd r

ail d

ata

incl

ude

dire

ct a

nd c

onne

ctin

g se

rvic

e.

SO

UR

CE

S:

Nat

iona

l Pas

seng

er R

ailro

ad C

opor

atio

ns (

Am

trak

), N

atio

nal,

Nor

thea

st a

nd S

ched

ule

Cha

nge

Tim

etab

les

(Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 199

4/19

95 a

nd 2

001/

2002

issu

es);

Rus

sell’

s G

uide

s, O

ffici

al N

atio

nal M

otor

Coa

ch G

uide

s (C

edar

Rap

ids,

IA:

Janu

ary

1995

and

Jan

uary

200

2 ed

ition

s); G

reyh

ound

Lin

es, S

yste

m T

imet

able

(D

alla

s, T

X: J

anua

ry 1

995)

.


200

TAB

LE

13/

14

Trav

el T

ime

Ind

ex a

nd

Ch

ang

e by

Met

ro A

rea

Po

pu

lati

on

for

75 M

etro

Are

as:

1990

an

d 2

000

Popu

latio

n (0

00)

Trav

el T

ime

Inde

x Ch

ange

Urba

n ar

eas

2000

1990

2000

1990

–200

0

New

Yor

k NY

-Nor

thea

ster

n NJ

17,0

901.

311.

410.

10Lo

s An

gele

s CA

12,6

801.

911.

90–0

.01

Chic

ago

IL-N

orth

wes

tern

IN8,

090

1.37

1.47

0.10

Phila

delp

hia

PA-N

J4,

590

1.18

1.28

0.10

San

Fran

cisc

o-Oa

klan

d CA

4,03

01.

501.

590.

09

Detro

it M

I4,

025

1.28

1.34

0.06

Dalla

s-Fo

rt W

orth

TX

3,80

01.

181.

330.

15W

ashi

ngto

n DC

-MD-

VA3,

560

1.34

1.46

0.12

Hous

ton

TX3,

375

1.31

1.38

0.07

Bost

on M

A3,

025

1.27

1.45

0.18

Atla

nta

GA2,

975

1.14

1.36

0.22

San

Dieg

o CA

2,71

01.

251.

370.

12Ph

oeni

x AZ

2,60

01.

211.

400.

19M

inne

apol

is-S

t. Pa

ul M

N2,

475

1.12

1.38

0.26

Mia

mi-H

iale

ah F

L2,

270

1.32

1.45

0.13

Balti

mor

e M

D2,

170

1.21

1.29

0.08

St. L

ouis

MO-

IL2,

040

1.11

1.23

0.12

Seat

tle-E

vere

tt W

A2,

000

1.34

1.45

0.11

Tam

pa-S

t Pet

ersb

urg-

Clea

rwat

er F

L1,

950

1.26

1.29

0.03

Denv

er C

O1,

910

1.17

1.42

0.25

Clev

elan

d OH

1,88

51.

061.

130.

07Pi

ttsbu

rgh

PA1,

790

1.10

1.10

0.00

San

Jose

CA

1,67

51.

441.

42–0

.02

Ft. L

aude

rdal

e-Ho

llyw

ood-

Pom

pano

Bch

FL

1,56

01.

141.

370.

23No

rfol

k-Ne

wpo

rt Ne

ws-

Virg

inia

Bea

ch V

A1,

500

1.15

1.18

0.03

Portl

and-

Vanc

ouve

r OR-

WA

1,50

01.

161.

400.

24Ka

nsas

City

MO-

KS1,

420

1.03

1.10

0.07

San

Bern

ardi

no-R

iver

side

CA

1,41

01.

241.

340.

10Sa

cram

ento

CA

1,39

51.

201.

310.

11M

ilwau

kee

WI

1,36

51.

121.

260.

14

Cinc

inna

ti OH

-KY

1,28

51.

121.

260.

14Sa

n An

toni

o TX

1,25

01.

081.

230.

15La

s Ve

gas

NV1,

200

1.23

1.35

0.12

Orla

ndo

FL1,

200

1.16

1.29

0.13

Buffa

lo-N

iaga

ra F

alls

NY

1,11

01.

041.

080.

04

New

Orle

ans

LA1,

105

1.16

1.18

0.02

Okla

hom

a Ci

ty O

K1,

080

1.03

1.09

0.06

Colu

mbu

s OH

1,04

01.

101.

190.

09W

Pal

m B

ch-B

oca

Rato

n-De

lray

Bch

FL1,

030

1.12

1.25

0.13

Indi

anap

olis

IN1,

020

1.06

1.24

0.18

Appendix B

201

Popu

latio

n (0

00)

Trav

el T

ime

Inde

x Ch

ange

Urba

n ar

eas

2000

1990

2000

1990

-200

0

Mem

phis

TN-

AR-M

S97

51.

091.

210.

12Pr

ovid

ence

-Paw

tuck

et R

I-MA

915

1.12

1.21

0.09

Salt

Lake

City

UT

900

1.08

1.17

0.09

Jack

sonv

ille

FL86

51.

111.

150.

04Lo

uisv

ille

KY-IN

840

1.08

1.24

0.16

Tuls

a OK

800

1.05

1.12

0.07

Aust

in T

X73

01.

121.

270.

15Na

shvi

lle T

N70

01.

101.

180.

08Ho

nolu

lu H

I69

51.

221.

20–0

.02

Tucs

on A

Z68

01.

111.

200.

09

Birm

ingh

am A

L67

01.

061.

170.

11El

Pas

o TX

-NM

655

1.04

1.17

0.13

Roch

este

r NY

650

1.03

1.06

0.03

Char

lotte

NC

645

1.16

1.27

0.11

Hartf

ord-

Mid

dlet

own

CT64

51.

091.

120.

03

Rich

mon

d VA

640

1.05

1.10

0.05

Omah

a NE

-IA62

51.

091.

150.

06Ta

com

a W

A60

51.

111.

230.

12Al

buqu

erqu

e NM

595

1.10

1.26

0.16

Fres

no C

A55

51.

131.

200.

07

Alba

ny-S

chen

ecta

dy-T

roy

NY51

51.

041.

060.

02Co

lora

do S

prin

gs C

O46

51.

041.

200.

16Ch

arle

ston

SC

455

1.15

1.19

0.04

Bake

rsfie

ld C

A40

51.

031.

060.

03Sp

okan

e W

A33

01.

041.

080.

04

Corp

us C

hris

ti TX

315

1.03

1.04

0.01

Pens

acol

a FL

305

1.08

1.14

0.06

Fort

Mye

rs-C

ape

Cora

l FL

290

1.09

1.15

0.06

Anch

orag

e AK

260

1.05

1.04

–0.0

1Eu

gene

-Spr

ingf

ield

OR

220

1.04

1.12

0.08

Sale

m O

R19

51.

041.

100.

06La

redo

TX

185

1.03

1.06

0.03

Brow

nsvi

lle T

X15

51.

041.

080.

04Be

aum

ont T

X14

51.

031.

050.

02Bo

ulde

r CO

110

1.03

1.09

0.06

NO

TE

: T

he T

rave

l Tim

e In

dex

is th

e ra

tio o

f pea

k pe

riod

trav

el ti

me

to fr

ee-f

low

trav

el ti

me.

The

Tra

vel T

ime

Inde

x ex

pres

ses

the

aver

age

amou

nt o

f ext

ra ti

me

it ta

kes

to tr

avel

in th

e pe

ak r

elat

ive

to fr

ee-f

low

trav

el.

SO

UR

CE

: T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

, Tex

as T

rans

port

atio

n In

stitu

tue,

200

2 U

rban

Mob

ility

Rep

ort

(Col

lege

Sta

tion,

TX

: 20

02),

ava

ilabl

e at

http

://tti

.tam

u.ed

u/, a

s of

May

200

3.

TAB

LE

13/

14

Trav

el T

ime

Ind

ex a

nd

Ch

ang

e by

Met

ro A

rea

Po

pu

lati

on

for

75 M

etro

Are

as:

1990

an

d 2

000

(con

tinue

d)


202

TAB

LE

15

U.S

. A

ir C

arri

er O

n-T

ime

Per

form

ance

: 19

96–2

002

Num

ber o

f flig

hts 1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

On-ti

me

fligh

ts 3

,989

,281

4

,218

,165

4

,156

,980

4

,207

,293

4

,130

,185

4

,619

,234

4

,329

,635

Late

arr

ival

s 1

,220

,045

1

,083

,834

1

,070

,071

1

,152

,725

1

,356

,450

1

,104

,439

8

68,2

25

Dive

rted

fligh

ts 1

4,12

1 1

2,08

1 1

3,16

1 1

3,55

5 1

4,25

4 1

2,90

9 8

,356

Canc

eled

flig

hts

128

,536

97,

763

144

,509

154

,311

187

,599

231

,198

65,

143

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, A

irlin

e O

n-T

ime

Per

form

ance

Dat

abas

e, p

erso

nal

com

mun

icat

ion,

Nov

embe

r 20

00 a

nd N

ovem

ber

2002

.

TAB

LE

16

Am

trak

On

-Tim

e P

erfo

rman

ce:

1993

–200

2Pe

rcen

t

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Syst

em o

n-tim

e pe

rfor

man

ce72

7276

7174

7979

7875

77

Shor

t dis

tanc

e (<

400

mi)

7978

8176

7981

8081

NA1

NA1

Long

dis

tanc

e (>

=400

mi)

4749

5749

5359

6156

NA1

NA1

1 A

s of

200

1, A

mtr

ak n

o lo

nger

rep

orts

sho

rt-

and

long

-hau

l dat

a se

para

tely

.

KE

Y:

NA

= n

ot a

pplic

able

. N

OT

E:

Am

trak

on-

time

perf

orm

ance

dat

a is

pro

vide

d as

a p

erce

ntag

e. R

aw d

ata

are

not r

eadi

ly a

vaila

ble.

SO

UR

CE

S:

1993

–199

9—A

mtr

ak, N

atio

nal R

ailro

ad P

asse

nger

Cor

pora

tion,

Ann

ual R

epor

ts (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

0 an

d 20

01 is

sues

).

2000

–200

2—A

mtr

ak, p

erso

nal c

omm

unic

atio

n, M

ar. 3

, 200

3.

Appendix B

203

TAB

LE

17

Am

trak

Ho

urs

of

Del

ay b

y C

ause

: 19

90–1

999

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Amtra

k13,

565

5,91

56,

433

8,48

88,

538

5,52

75,

193

5,31

04,

796

4,89

1

Frei

ght2

4,24

47,

743

8,22

912

,827

14,3

1911

,224

11,4

3812

,904

14,2

0216

,158

Othe

r34,

316

7,42

68,

185

11,6

7511

,871

8,49

78,

425

7,61

18,

291

8,20

3

Tota

l12

,125

21,0

8422

,847

32,9

9134

,729

25,2

4825

,056

25,8

2527

,289

29,2

52

1 In

clud

es e

quip

men

t mal

func

tions

, tra

in s

ervi

cing

in s

tatio

ns, a

nd p

asse

nger

-rel

ated

del

ays.

2 In

clud

es d

elay

s fo

r tr

ack

repa

irs/tr

ack

cond

ition

s, fr

eigh

t tra

in in

terf

eren

ce, a

nd s

igna

l del

ays.

3 In

clud

es p

asse

nger

trai

n in

terf

eren

ce, w

aitin

g fo

r co

nnec

tions

, run

ning

tim

e, w

eath

er-r

elat

ed d

elay

s, a

nd m

isce

llane

ous.

NO

TE

: Am

trak

cha

nged

its

met

hod

for

repo

rtin

g de

lays

in 2

000.

The

refo

re, d

ata

afte

r 19

99 a

re n

ot c

ompa

rabl

e to

prio

r ye

ars

and

are

not

pres

ente

d he

re.

SO

UR

CE

: 19

93–1

999—

Nat

iona

l Rai

lroad

Pas

seng

er C

orpo

ratio

n (A

mtr

ak),

Ann

ual R

epor

t (W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

000

and

2001

issu

es).


204

TAB

LE

18

Nu

mb

er o

f Tr

uck

s by

Veh

icle

Wei

gh

t: 1

992

and

199

7

Thou

sand

s of

truc

ks

1992

1997

Ligh

t tru

cks

(< 6

,001

lb)

50,5

45.7

62,7

98.4

Med

ium

truc

ks (6

,001

to 1

9,50

0 lb

)5,

906.

56,

737.

1

Ligh

t-hea

vy tr

ucks

(19,

501

to 2

6,00

0 lb

)73

2.0

729.

3

Heav

y tru

cks

(> 2

6,00

0 lb

)3,

074.

53,

986.

9

KE

Y:

lb =

pou

nd.

NO

TE

S:

Wei

ght i

s th

e em

pty

wei

ght o

f the

veh

icle

plu

s th

e av

erag

e ve

hicl

e lo

ad.

Exc

lude

s ve

hicl

es o

wne

d by

fede

ral,

stat

e, o

r lo

cal g

over

nmen

ts;

ambu

lanc

es; b

uses

; mot

or h

omes

; far

m tr

acto

rs; u

npow

ered

trai

ler

units

; an

d tr

ucks

rep

orte

d to

hav

e be

en s

old,

junk

ed, o

r w

reck

ed p

rior

to J

uly

1 of

th

e ye

ar p

rece

ding

the

surv

ey.

SO

UR

CE

S:

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

Nat

iona

l Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s 20

02 (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

2),

tabl

e 1-

21, a

lso

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bts

.gov

/, as

of A

pril

2003

.T

he o

rigin

al s

ourc

e of

thes

e da

ta a

re th

e U

.S. C

ensu

s B

urea

u’s

Veh

icle

In

vent

ory

and

Use

Sur

vey

(VIU

S).

The

truc

k ca

tego

ries

in N

atio

nal

Tran

spor

tatio

n S

tatis

tics

2002

and

this

rep

ort d

iffer

from

thos

e in

the

VIU

S,

whi

ch h

as th

e fo

llow

ing

cate

gorie

s: li

ght t

ruck

s—10

,000

lbs

or le

ss; m

ediu

m

truc

ks—

10,0

01 lb

s–19

,500

lbs;

ligh

t-he

avy

truc

ks—

19,5

01 lb

s–26

,000

lbs;

an

d he

avy-

heav

y tr

ucks

—26

,001

lbs

or m

ore.

Appendix B

205

TAB

LE

19/

20

Sh

are

of

Lo

adin

gs

on

Inte

rsta

te H

igh

way

s: 2

001

Perc

ent

Loca

tion

Pass

enge

r car

s,bu

ses,

and

ligh

ttru

cks

Heav

ysi

ngle

-uni

ttru

cks

3- a

nd 4

-axl

eco

mbi

natio

ntru

cks

5-ax

le o

r mor

eco

mbi

natio

ntru

cks

Rura

l2

64

89

Urba

n3

145

77

NO

TE

S:

Bas

ed o

n da

ta fr

om th

e Tr

uck

Wei

ght S

tudy

whi

ch a

re c

olle

cted

by

the

Sta

tes

for

vary

ing

time

perio

ds e

ach

year

and

are

not

adj

uste

d to

typi

fy a

nnua

l ave

rage

s. L

oadi

ngs

are

base

d on

equ

ival

ent s

ingl

e ax

le lo

ads

(ES

ALs

), a

st

anda

rd u

nit o

f pav

emen

t dam

age

base

d on

the

amou

nt o

f for

ce a

pplie

d to

pav

emen

t by

an 1

8,00

0-po

und

axle

, w

hich

is r

ough

ly e

quiv

alen

t to

a st

anda

rd tr

uck

axle

. Raw

dat

a ar

e no

t ava

ilabl

e.

SO

UR

CE

: U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Fed

eral

Hig

hway

Adm

inst

ratio

n, H

ighw

ay S

tatis

tics

2001

(W

ashi

ngto

n,

DC

: 200

2), t

able

TC

-3.

Tab

le 2

1 A

vera

ge

Cap

acit

y o

f V

esse

ls C

allin

g a

t U

.S. P

ort

s: 1

998–

2001

Dead

wei

ght t

ons

1998

1999

2000

2001

Tank

er78

,534

78,0

2778

,782

79,0

04

Dry

bulk

40,9

3041

,211

41,0

3141

,072

Cont

aine

rshi

p35

,671

36,5

8037

,814

38,9

22

Ro-R

o19

,848

18,7

3418

,402

19,1

04

Chem

ical

tank

ers

27,3

0327

,499

27,7

5027

,544

Gas

carr

iers

30,4

3530

,973

31,3

3933

,898

Othe

r29

,364

32,1

5133

,790

33,8

95

Tota

l44

,519

44,9

5145

,467

46,2

38

KE

Y:

Ro-

Ro

= r

oll-o

n, r

oll-o

ff ve

ssel

s, w

hich

are

esp

ecia

lly d

esig

ned

to c

arry

whe

eled

con

tain

ers

trai

lers

, or

othe

r w

heel

ed c

argo

, and

use

the

roll-

on/r

oll-o

ff m

etho

d fo

r lo

adin

g an

d un

load

ing.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, c

alcu

latio

n ba

sed

on U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, M

ariti

me

Adm

inis

trat

ion,

Ves

sel C

alls

at U

.S. P

orts

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: A

nnua

l iss

ues)

, tab

les

H-6

and

H-8

.


206

TAB

LE

22

Mea

sure

s o

f U

.S. R

ailr

oad

Fre

igh

t Vo

lum

e: 1

991–

2001

Mill

ions

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Tons

1,

383

1,39

91,

397

1,47

01,

550

1,61

11,

585

1,64

91,

717

1,73

81,

742

Carlo

ads

2121

2223

2424

2526

2728

27

SO

UR

CE

: A

ssoc

iatio

n of

Am

eric

an o

f Rai

lroad

s, R

ailro

ad F

acts

200

1 an

d 20

02 (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

1 an

d 20

02 is

sues

).

TAB

LE

23

Ave

rag

e L

oad

ed U

.S. R

ailc

ar W

eig

ht:

199

1–20

01

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Tons

per

car

load

6666

6463

6567

6364

6363

64

NO

TE

: A

vera

ge r

ailc

ar w

eigh

t is

tota

l ton

s tr

ansp

orte

d di

vide

d by

tota

l car

load

s tr

ansp

orte

d.

SO

UR

CE

: A

ssoc

iatio

n of

Am

eric

an o

f Rai

lroad

s, R

ailro

ad F

acts

200

1 an

d 20

02 (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

1 an

d 20

02

issu

es).

Appendix B

207

TAB

LE

24

Ave

rag

e L

oad

ed U

.S. R

ailc

ar W

eig

ht

for

Sel

ecte

d C

om

mo

dit

ies:

199

1 an

d 2

001

Tons

per

car

1991

2001

Farm

pro

duct

s 9

0 9

4

Coal

99

110

Nonm

etal

lic m

iner

als

92

96

Food

and

kin

dred

pro

duct

s 6

3 6

8

Chem

ical

s an

d al

lied

prod

ucts

81

84

Tran

spor

tatio

n eq

uipm

ent

21

21

Mis

cella

neou

s m

ixed

shi

pmen

ts 1

7 1

5

NO

TE

S:

Mis

cella

neou

s m

ixed

shi

pmen

ts is

mos

tly in

term

odal

tr

affic

. Som

e in

term

odal

traf

fic is

incl

uded

in c

omm

odity

-spe

cific

ca

tego

ries

inst

ead.

SO

UR

CE

S:

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

mer

ican

of R

ailro

ads,

Rai

lroad

Fa

cts

2001

and

200

2 (W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

001

and

2002

issu

es).

19

91 d

ata—

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of

Tran

spor

tatio

n S

tatis

tics,

cal

cula

tions

bas

ed o

n A

ssoc

iatio

n of

A

mer

ican

of R

ailro

ads,

Rai

lroad

Ten

-Yea

r Tr

ends

199

0–19

99

(Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

0).

TAB

LE

25

Mile

s Tr

avel

ed P

er D

ay:

2001

Pers

on m

iles

for a

ll m

odes

40

Pers

on m

iles

in p

erso

nal v

ehic

les

35

NO

TE: D

ata

are

from

the

daily

trav

el s

egm

ent o

f the

20

01 N

atio

nal H

ouse

hold

Tra

vel S

urve

y. L

ong-

dist

ance

tra

vel d

ata

(i.e.

, trip

s of

50

mile

s or

mor

e co

llect

ed

durin

g a

4-w

eek

trave

l per

iod)

are

not

incl

uded

her

e.

SO

UR

CE

: U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s an

d F

eder

al

Hig

hway

Adm

inis

trat

ion,

Nat

iona

l Hou

seho

ld T

rave

l S

urve

y, P

relim

inar

y D

ata

Rel

ease

Ver

sion

1,

avai

labl

e at

http

://nh

ts.o

rnl.g

ov, a

s of

Jan

uary

200

3.


208

TAB

LE

27

Ave

rag

e Tr

ip D

ista

nce

by

Pu

rpo

se:

2001

Mile

s

Purp

ose

Aver

age

trip

leng

th

Vaca

tion

(incl

udes

rest

and

rela

xatio

n)37

Wor

k-re

late

d bu

sine

ss

29

Visi

t frie

nds/

rela

tives

14

To/fr

om w

ork

12

Med

ical

/den

tal

10

Tota

l rep

orte

d10

Othe

r soc

ial/r

ecre

atio

nal

8

Othe

r fam

ily/p

erso

nal

7

Shop

ping

7

Scho

ol/c

hurc

h 6

NO

TE

S: T

he 2

001

Nat

iona

l Hou

seho

ld T

rave

l Sur

vey

defin

ed a

trip

as

each

tim

e a

pers

on w

ent f

rom

one

add

ress

to a

noth

er. “

Com

mut

e”

trip

s w

ere

defin

ed a

s th

ose

trip

s m

ade

for

the

purp

ose

of g

oing

to o

r re

turn

ing

from

wor

k. H

owev

er, g

iven

the

defin

ition

of a

trip

, tho

se

repo

rted

as

com

mut

ing

trip

s w

ere

not n

eces

saril

y an

chor

ed b

y th

e ho

me

or w

orkp

lace

(fo

r re

turn

com

mut

es).

The

refo

re, c

are

shou

ld b

e ta

ken

in a

naly

zing

wor

k tr

ips,

rec

ogni

zing

that

the

dist

ance

for

thes

e tr

ips

is o

ften,

but

not

alw

ays,

the

dist

ance

from

hom

e to

wor

k. D

ata

are

from

the

daily

trav

el s

egm

ent o

f the

200

1 N

atio

nal H

ouse

hold

Tr

avel

Sur

vey.

Lon

g-di

stan

ce tr

avel

dat

a (i.

e., t

rips

of 5

0 m

iles

or m

ore

colle

cted

dur

ing

a 4-

wee

k tr

avel

per

iod)

are

not

incl

uded

her

e.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Sta

tistic

s an

d F

eder

al H

ighw

ay A

dmin

istr

atio

n,

Nat

iona

l Hou

seho

ld T

rave

l Sur

vey,

Pre

limin

ary

Dat

a R

elea

se V

ersi

on

1 (d

ay tr

ip d

ata

only

), a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

nhts

.orn

l.gov

/, as

of J

anua

ry

2003

.

TAB

LE

26

Tri

ps

Co

mp

lete

d P

er D

ay:

2001

Pers

on tr

ips

for a

ll m

odes

4.1

Pers

on tr

ips

in p

erso

nal v

ehic

les

3.5

NO

TE

: Dat

a ar

e fr

om th

e da

ily tr

avel

seg

men

t of t

he

2001

Nat

iona

l Hou

seho

ld T

rave

l Sur

vey.

Lon

g-di

stan

ce tr

avel

dat

a (i.

e., t

rips

of 5

0 m

iles

or m

ore

colle

cted

dur

ing

a 4-

wee

k tr

avel

per

iod)

are

not

in

clud

ed h

ere.

SO

UR

CE

: U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s an

d F

eder

al

Hig

hway

Adm

inis

trat

ion,

Nat

iona

l Hou

seho

ld T

rave

l S

urve

y, P

relim

inar

y D

ata

Rel

ease

Ver

sion

1,

avai

labl

e at

http

://nh

ts.o

rnl.g

ov, a

s of

Jan

uary

200

3.

Appendix B

209

TAB

LE

28

Per

son

Tri

ps

by P

urp

ose

: 20

01

Trip

pur

pose

Tota

l per

son

trips

(m

illio

ns)

Perc

ent

To/fr

om w

ork

60,8

9314

.9

Wor

k-re

late

d bu

sine

ss

11,7

172.

9

Shop

ping

79

,715

19.5

Othe

r fam

ily/p

erso

nal b

usin

ess

94,8

8623

.2

Med

ical

/den

tal

8,86

32.

2

Scho

ol/c

hurc

h 40

,220

9.8

Vaca

tion

(incl

udes

rest

and

re

laxa

tion)

2,67

50.

7

Visi

t frie

nds/

rela

tives

32

,269

7.9

Othe

r soc

ial/r

ecre

atio

nal

75,7

7918

.5

Othe

r 2,

250

0.6

All r

epor

ted

409,

267

100.

0

NO

TE

S:

The

200

1 N

atio

nal H

ouse

hold

Tra

vel S

urve

y de

fined

a tr

ip a

s ea

ch

time

a pe

rson

wen

t fro

m o

ne a

ddre

ss to

ano

ther

. “C

omm

ute”

trip

s w

ere

defin

ed a

s th

ose

trip

s m

ade

for

the

purp

ose

of g

oing

to o

r re

turn

ing

from

w

ork.

How

ever

, giv

en th

e de

finiti

on o

f a tr

ip, t

hose

rep

orte

d as

com

mut

ing

trip

s w

ere

not n

eces

saril

y an

chor

ed b

y th

e ho

me

or w

orkp

lace

(fo

r re

turn

co

mm

utes

). T

here

fore

, car

e sh

ould

be

take

n in

ana

lyzi

ng to

/from

wor

k tr

ips,

re

cogn

izin

g th

at th

e di

stan

ce fo

r th

ese

trip

s is

ofte

n, b

ut n

ot a

lway

s, th

e di

stan

ce fr

om h

ome

to w

ork.

Dat

a ar

e fr

om th

e da

ily tr

avel

seg

men

t of t

he

2001

Nat

iona

l Hou

seho

ld T

rave

l Sur

vey.

Lon

g-di

stan

ce tr

avel

dat

a (i.

e., t

rips

of 5

0 m

iles

or m

ore

colle

cted

dur

ing

a 4-

wee

k tr

avel

per

iod)

are

not

incl

uded

he

re. E

xclu

ded

from

wor

k-re

late

d bu

sine

ss tr

ips

are

trip

s m

ade

by p

eopl

e w

ho a

re d

irect

ly p

rovi

ding

the

tran

spor

tatio

n of

pas

seng

ers

or g

oods

, suc

h as

bu

s or

truc

k dr

iver

s, d

eliv

ery

pers

ons,

etc

.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s an

d F

eder

al H

ighw

ay A

dmin

istr

atio

n, N

atio

nal H

ouse

hold

Tra

vel

Sur

vey,

Pre

limin

ary

Dat

a R

elea

se V

ersi

on 1

(da

y tr

ip d

ata

only

), a

vaila

ble

at

http

://nh

ts.o

rnl.g

ov/,

as o

f Jan

uary

200

3.

TAB

LE

29a

M

od

al S

har

e o

f P

erso

n T

rip

s: 2

001

Num

ber

(mill

ions

)Pe

rcen

tage

of

tota

l

Pers

onal

veh

icle

355,

260

86.5

Air

405

0.1

Tran

sit

6,45

51.

6

Scho

ol b

us6,

986

1.7

Bicy

cle/

wal

k38

,848

9.5

Othe

r2,

748

0.7

Tota

l41

0,70

210

0.0

NO

TE

: D

ata

are

from

the

daily

trav

el s

egm

ent o

f the

20

01 N

atio

nal H

ouse

hold

Tra

vel S

urve

y. L

ong-

dist

ance

tr

avel

dat

a (i.

e., t

rips

of 5

0 m

iles

or m

ore

colle

cted

du

ring

a 4-

wee

k tr

avel

per

iod)

are

not

incl

uded

her

e.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s an

d F

eder

al H

ighw

ay

Adm

inis

trat

ion,

Nat

iona

l Hou

seho

ld T

rave

l Sur

vey,

P

relim

inar

y D

ata

Rel

ease

Ver

sion

1, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

nhts

.orn

l.gov

/, as

of J

anua

ry 2

003.


210

TAB

LE

29b

P

erso

n T

rip

s by

Per

son

al V

ehic

le:

2001

Tran

spor

tatio

n m

ode

Num

ber

(mill

ions

)Pe

rcen

t

Pers

onal

veh

icle

(inc

ludi

ng m

otor

cycl

e)35

5,26

010

0.0

Ca

r20

8,87

558

.8

Va

n50

,116

14.1

SU

V46

,265

13.0

Pi

ckup

truc

k46

,990

13.2

Ot

her t

ruck

, RV,

mot

orcy

cle

3,01

40.

8

KE

Y:

RV

= r

ecre

atio

nal v

ehic

le; S

UV

= s

port

util

ity v

ehic

le.

NO

TE

S:

Dat

a ar

e fr

om th

e da

ily tr

avel

seg

men

t of t

he 2

001

Nat

iona

l H

ouse

hold

Tra

vel S

urve

y. L

ong-

dist

ance

trav

el d

ata

(i.e.

, trip

s of

50

mile

s or

m

ore

colle

cted

dur

ing

a 4-

wee

k tr

avel

per

iod)

are

not

incl

uded

her

e.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s an

d F

eder

al H

ighw

ay A

dmin

istr

atio

n, N

atio

nal H

ouse

hold

Tra

vel

Sur

vey,

Pre

limin

ary

Dat

a R

elea

se V

ersi

on 1

, ava

ilabl

e at

http

://nh

ts.o

rgnh

ts.o

rnl.g

ov/,

as o

f Jan

uary

200

3.

TAB

LE

29c

P

erso

n T

rip

s by

Tra

nsi

t: 2

001

Tran

spor

tatio

n m

ode

Num

ber

(mill

ions

)Pe

rcen

t

Tran

sit

6,45

510

0.0

Bu

s4,

295

66.5

Su

bway

/ele

vate

d ra

il 1,

643

25.5

St

reet

car

/trol

ley

101

1.6

Co

mm

uter

trai

n37

05.

7

Pa

ssen

ger l

ine/

ferr

y 46

0.7

NO

TE

S:

Dat

a ar

e fr

om th

e da

ily tr

avel

seg

men

t of t

he 2

001

Nat

iona

l H

ouse

hold

Tra

vel S

urve

y. L

ong-

dist

ance

trav

el d

ata

(i.e.

, trip

s of

50

mile

s or

m

ore

colle

cted

dur

ing

a 4-

wee

k tr

avel

per

iod)

are

not

incl

uded

her

e.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s an

d F

eder

al H

ighw

ay A

dmin

istr

atio

n, N

atio

nal H

ouse

hold

Tra

vel

Sur

vey,

Pre

limin

ary

Dat

a R

elea

se V

ersi

on 1

, ava

ilabl

e at

http

://nh

ts.o

rnl.g

ov/,

as o

f Jan

uary

200

3.

Appendix B

211

TAB

LE

30b

P

erso

n-M

iles

by P

erso

nal

Veh

icle

Tran

spor

tatio

n m

ode

Mile

s (m

illio

ns)

Perc

ent

Pers

onal

veh

icle

(inc

ludi

ng m

otor

cycl

e)3,

531,

205

100.

0

Car

1,94

9,10

055

.2

Van

477,

915

13.5

SUV

468,

598

13.3

Pic

kup

truck

544,

411

15.4

Oth

er tr

uck,

RV,

mot

orcy

cle

91,1

812.

6

KE

Y:

RV

= r

ecre

atio

nal v

ehic

le; S

UV

= s

port

util

ity v

ehic

le.

NO

TE

S:

Dat

a ar

e fr

om th

e da

ily tr

avel

seg

men

t of t

he 2

001

Nat

iona

l H

ouse

hold

Tra

vel S

urve

y. L

ong-

dist

ance

trav

el d

ata

(i.e.

, trip

s of

50

mile

s or

m

ore

colle

cted

dur

ing

a 4-

wee

k tr

avel

per

iod)

are

not

incl

uded

her

e.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s an

d F

eder

al H

ighw

ay A

dmin

istr

atio

n, N

atio

nal H

ouse

hold

Tra

vel

Sur

vey,

Pre

limin

ary

Dat

a R

elea

se V

ersi

on 1

, ava

ilabl

e at

http

://nh

ts.o

rnl.g

ov/,

as o

f Jan

uary

200

3.

TAB

LE

30a

M

od

al S

har

e o

f P

erso

n-M

iles:

200

1

Mile

s (m

illio

ns)

Perc

ent o

f tot

al

Pers

onal

veh

icle

3,53

1,20

588

.1

Air

322,

801

8.1

Tran

sit

44,8

901.

1

Scho

ol b

us45

,431

1.1

Bicy

cle/

wal

k32

,397

0.8

Othe

r32

,821

0.8

Tota

l rep

orte

d4,

009,

545

100.

0

NO

TE

S:

Dat

a ar

e fr

om th

e da

ily tr

avel

seg

men

t of t

he

2001

Nat

iona

l Hou

seho

ld T

rave

l Sur

vey.

Lon

g-di

stan

ce tr

avel

dat

a (i.

e., t

rips

of 5

0 m

iles

or m

ore

colle

cted

dur

ing

a 4-

wee

k tr

avel

per

iod)

are

not

in

clud

ed h

ere.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

and

Fed

eral

H

ighw

ay A

dmin

istr

atio

n, N

atio

nal H

ouse

hold

Tra

vel

Sur

vey,

Pre

limin

ary

Dat

a R

elea

se V

ersi

on 1

, ava

ilabl

e at

http

://nh

ts.o

rnl.g

ov/,

as o

f Jan

uary

200

3.


212

TAB

LE

31a

U

.S. H

ou

seh

old

s by

Nu

mb

er o

f V

ehic

les:

200

1

Num

ber o

f veh

icle

s M

illio

nsPe

rcen

t

None

8.5

7.9

1 3

3.7

31.4

2 3

9.9

37.1

3 1

6.2

15.1

4 6

.05.

6

5 or

mor

e 3

.23.

0

All

107

.410

0.0

NO

TE

S: D

ata

are

from

the

daily

trav

el s

egm

ent o

f the

200

1 N

atio

nal

Hou

seho

ld T

rave

l Sur

vey.

Lon

g-di

stan

ce tr

avel

dat

a (i.

e., t

rips

of 5

0 m

iles

or m

ore

colle

cted

dur

ing

a 4-

wee

k tra

vel p

erio

d) a

re n

ot in

clud

ed

here

cted

dur

ing

a 4-

wee

k tra

vel p

erio

d) a

re n

ot in

clud

ed h

ere.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Sta

tistic

s an

d F

eder

al H

ighw

ay A

dmin

istr

atio

n,

Nat

iona

l Hou

seho

ld T

rave

l Sur

vey,

Pre

limin

ary

Dat

a R

elea

se

Ver

sion

1, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

nhts

.orn

l.gov

/, as

of J

anua

ry 2

003.

TAB

LE

30c

P

erso

n-M

iles

by T

ran

sit:

200

1

Tran

spor

tatio

n m

ode

Mile

s(m

illio

ns)

Perc

ent

Tran

sit

44,8

9010

0.00

Bus

23,6

4952

.7

Sub

way

/ele

vate

d ra

il 11

,488

25.6

Stre

et c

ar/tr

olle

y 61

51.

4

Com

mut

er tr

ain

8,19

118

.2

Pas

seng

er li

ne/fe

rry

947

2.1

NO

TE

S: D

ata

are

from

the

daily

trav

el s

egm

ent o

f the

200

1 N

atio

nal H

ouse

hold

Tra

vel S

urve

y. L

ong-

dist

ance

trav

el

data

(i.e

., tr

ips

of 5

0 m

iles

or m

ore

colle

cted

dur

ing

a 4-

wee

k tr

avel

per

iod)

are

not

incl

uded

her

e.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Sta

tistic

s an

d F

eder

al H

ighw

ay

Adm

inis

trat

ion,

Nat

iona

l Hou

seho

ld T

rave

l Sur

vey,

P

relim

inar

y D

ata

Rel

ease

Ver

sion

1, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

nhts

.orn

l.gov

/, as

of J

anua

ry 2

003.

Ap

pen

dix B

213

TABLE 31b Person Trips by Mode by Households: 2001

Households without vehicles Households with one or more vehicles

Transportation modePerson trips (millions)

Person trips (percent) Transportation mode

Person trips (millions)

Person trips (percent)

Personal vehicle 5,008 35.6 Personal vehicle 349,672 88.2

Motorcycle 0 0.0 Motorcycle 579 0.1

Air 21 0.2 Air 384 0.1

Transit 2,859 20.3 Transit 3,597 0.9

Bus 2,033 14.5 Bus 2,262 0.6

Subway/elevated rail 754 5.4 Subway/elevated rail 890 0.2

Street car/trolley 34 0.2 Street car/trolley 67 0.0

Commuter train 38 0.3 Commuter train 333 0.1

Passenger line/ferry 0 0.0 Passenger line/ferry 45 0.0

Charter/tour/intercity bus 109 0.8 Charter/tour/intercity bus 349 0.1

School bus 298 2.1 School bus 6,689 1.7

Taxi, limo, shuttle bus 148 1.1 Taxi, limo, shuttle bus 573 0.1

Intercity train 6 0.0 Intercity train 107 0.0

Bicycle 307 2.2 Bicycle 3,214 0.8

Walk 5,155 36.7 Walk 30,170 7.6

Other 150 1.1 Other 1,306 0.3

Total reported 14,061 100.0 Total reported 396,640 100.0

NOTES: 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, National Household Travel Survey, Preliminary Data Release Version 1, available at http://nhts.ornl.gov/, as of January 2003.


214

TAB

LE

32a

P

rop

ort

ion

of

Ho

use

ho

lds

Wit

ho

ut

Veh

icle

s by

Ho

use

ho

ld T

ype:

200

1

Perc

ent

Hous

ehol

d in

com

e 25

K or

mor

e2.

3

Hous

ehol

d in

com

e le

ss th

an 2

5K20

.3

Resi

denc

e is

ow

ned/

othe

r3.

1

Resi

denc

e is

rent

ed17

.7

Resi

denc

e is

not

a c

ondo

/apt

.4.

0

Resi

denc

e is

a c

ondo

/apt

.21

.9

Mul

ti-pe

rson

hou

seho

ld4.

1

Sing

le-p

erso

n ho

useh

old

18.7

Hous

ehol

d in

rura

l are

a3.

6

Hous

ehol

d in

urb

an a

rea

9.0

All h

ouse

hold

s7.

9K

EY

: co

ndo

= c

ondo

min

ium

; apt

. = a

part

men

t.

NO

TE

S:

Dat

a ar

e fr

om th

e da

ily tr

avel

seg

men

t of

the

2001

Nat

iona

l Hou

seho

ld T

rave

l Sur

vey.

Lo

ng-d

ista

nce

trav

el d

ata

(i.e.

, trip

s of

50

mile

s or

mor

e co

llect

ed d

urin

g a

4-w

eek

trav

el p

erio

d)

are

not i

nclu

ded

here

.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

and

Fed

eral

H

ighw

ay A

dmin

istr

atio

n, N

atio

nal H

ouse

hold

Tr

avel

Sur

vey,

Pre

limin

ary

Dat

a R

elea

se V

ersi

on

1, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

nhts

.orn

l.gov

/, as

of J

anua

ry

2003

.

TAB

LE

32b

A

vera

ge

Trip

s an

d M

iles

by H

ou

seh

old

s

Wit

h a

nd

Wit

ho

ut

Veh

icle

s: 2

001

Hous

ehol

ds

with

out

vehi

cles

Hous

ehol

ds

with

one

or

mor

e ve

hicl

es

Trip

s pe

r per

son

1,00

51,

508

Mile

s pe

r per

son

6,87

314

,931

NO

TE

S:

Dat

a ar

e fr

om th

e da

ily tr

avel

seg

men

t of t

he

2001

Nat

iona

l Hou

seho

ld T

rave

l Sur

vey.

Lon

g-di

stan

ce

trav

el d

ata

(i.e.

, trip

s of

50

mile

s or

mor

e co

llect

ed d

urin

g a

4-w

eek

trav

el p

erio

d) a

re n

ot in

clud

ed h

ere.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s an

d F

eder

al H

ighw

ay

Adm

inis

trat

ion,

Nat

iona

l Hou

seho

ld T

rave

l Sur

vey,

P

relim

inar

y D

ata

Rel

ease

Ver

sion

1, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

nhts

.orn

l.gov

/, as

of J

anua

ry 2

003.

Appendix B

215

TAB

LE

33a

A

vera

ge

Ho

use

ho

ld T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Exp

end

itu

res:

199

1–20

01Ch

aine

d 19

96 d

olla

rs 1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Vehi

cle

purc

hase

s2,

445

2,46

82,

528

2,86

82,

682

2,81

52,

743

2,99

63,

335

3,43

63,

585

Gaso

line

and

mot

or o

il1,

063

1,04

31,

058

1,06

31,

068

1,08

21,

098

1,16

81,

113

1,06

61,

095

Othe

r veh

icle

exp

ense

s1,

716

1,73

91,

835

1,95

62,

011

2,05

82,

243

2,23

82,

300

2,32

02,

356

Othe

r tra

nspo

rtatio

n35

032

033

439

836

142

738

040

937

740

337

0

NO

TE

S:

Dat

a ar

e ba

sed

on s

urve

y re

sults

. The

Bur

eau

of L

abor

Sta

tistic

s us

es th

e te

rm "

cons

umer

uni

t" r

athe

r th

an "

hous

ehol

d."

The

re a

re a

n av

erag

e of

2.

5 pe

rson

s in

eac

h co

nsum

er u

nit,

whi

ch is

def

ined

as

mem

bers

of a

hou

seho

ld r

elat

ed b

y bl

ood,

mar

riage

, ado

ptio

n, o

r ot

her

lega

l arr

ange

men

t; a

sing

le

pers

on li

ving

alo

ne o

r sh

arin

g a

hous

ehol

d w

ith a

noth

er b

ut w

ho is

fina

ncia

lly in

depe

nden

t; or

two

or m

ore

pers

ons

livin

g to

geth

er w

ho s

hare

res

pons

ibili

ty fo

r at

leas

t tw

o-th

irds

of m

ajor

type

s of

exp

ense

s—fo

od, h

ousi

ng, a

nd o

ther

exp

ense

s.

Oth

er tr

ansp

orta

tion

incl

udes

bot

h lo

cal t

rans

it, s

uch

as b

us a

nd ta

xi tr

avel

, and

long

-dis

tanc

e tr

avel

, suc

h as

air

plan

e tr

ips.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of L

abor

, Bur

eau

of L

abor

Sta

tistic

s, C

onsu

mer

Exp

endi

ture

Sur

vey

data

que

ry, F

ebru

ary

2003

.

TAB

LE

33b

A

vera

ge

Ho

use

ho

ld T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Exp

end

itu

res:

199

1–20

01Cu

rren

t dol

lars

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Vehi

cle

purc

hase

s2,

111

2,18

92,

319

2,72

52,

638

2,81

52,

736

2,96

43,

305

3,41

83,

579

Gaso

line

and

mot

or o

il99

597

397

798

61,

006

1,08

21,

098

1,01

71,

055

1,29

11,

279

Othe

r veh

icle

exp

ense

s1,

741

1,77

61,

843

1,95

32,

015

2,05

82,

230

2,20

62,

254

2,28

12,

375

Othe

r tra

nspo

rtatio

n30

429

031

438

135

542

739

342

939

742

740

0

NO

TE

S:

Dat

a ar

e ba

sed

on s

urve

y re

sults

. The

Bur

eau

of L

abor

Sta

tistic

s us

es th

e te

rm "

cons

umer

uni

t" r

athe

r th

an "

hous

ehol

d."

The

re a

re a

n av

erag

e of

2.

5 pe

rson

s in

eac

h co

nsum

er u

nit,

whi

ch is

def

ined

as

mem

bers

of a

hou

seho

ld r

elat

ed b

y bl

ood,

mar

riage

, ado

ptio

n, o

r ot

her

lega

l arr

ange

men

t; a

sing

le

pers

on li

ving

alo

ne o

r sh

arin

g a

hous

ehol

d w

ith a

noth

er b

ut w

ho is

fina

ncia

lly in

depe

nden

t; or

two

or m

ore

pers

ons

livin

g to

geth

er w

ho s

hare

res

pons

ibili

ty fo

r at

leas

t tw

o-th

irds

of m

ajor

type

s of

exp

ense

s—fo

od, h

ousi

ng, a

nd o

ther

exp

ense

s.

Oth

er tr

ansp

orta

tion

incl

udes

bot

h lo

cal t

rans

it, s

uch

as b

us a

nd ta

xi tr

avel

, and

long

-dis

tanc

e tr

avel

, suc

h as

air

plan

e tr

ips.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of L

abor

, Bur

eau

of L

abor

Sta

tistic

s, C

onsu

mer

Exp

endi

ture

Sur

vey

data

que

ry, F

ebru

ary

2003

.


216

TAB

LE

34a

A

vera

ge

per

Mile

Co

st o

f O

wn

ing

an

d O

per

atin

g a

n A

uto

mo

bile

: 19

91–2

001

Chai

ned

1996

dol

lars

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Tota

l0.

430.

430.

420.

420.

420.

430.

450.

470.

480.

480.

50

Varia

ble

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.05

0.05

0.05

0.06

Fixe

d0.

320.

340.

320.

320.

320.

330.

340.

360.

370.

370.

37

NO

TE

: D

ata

are

the

cost

per

mile

bas

ed o

n 15

,000

mile

s pe

r ye

ar.

SO

UR

CE

S: 1

991–

1998

—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, N

atio

nal T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

2002

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, tab

le 3

-14.

199

9–20

01—

Am

eric

an A

utom

obile

Ass

ocia

tion,

"Yo

ur D

rivin

g C

osts

" (H

eath

row

, FL:

199

9–20

02

issu

es).

TAB

LE

34b

A

vera

ge

per

Mile

Co

st o

f O

wn

ing

an

d O

per

atin

g a

n A

uto

mo

bile

: 19

91–2

002

Curr

ent d

olla

rs

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Tota

l0.

370.

390.

390.

390.

410.

430.

450.

460.

470.

490.

510.

50

Varia

ble

0.10

0.09

0.09

0.09

0.10

0.10

0.11

0.11

0.11

0.12

0.14

0.12

Fixe

d0.

280.

300.

300.

300.

320.

330.

340.

350.

360.

370.

370.

38

NO

TE

: D

ata

are

the

cost

per

mile

bas

ed o

n 15

,000

mile

s pe

r ye

ar.

SO

UR

CE

S:

1991

–199

8—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, N

atio

nal T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

2002

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, tab

le 3

-14.

199

9–20

02—

Am

eric

an A

utom

obile

Ass

ocia

tion,

"Yo

ur D

rivin

g C

osts

" (H

eath

row

, FL:

199

9–20

02 is

sues

).

Appendix B

217

TAB

LE

35a

A

mtr

ak A

vera

ge

Rev

enu

e p

er R

even

ue

P

asse

ng

er-M

ile:

1993

–200

1Cu

rren

t dol

lars

Yea

rRe

venu

e pe

r RPM

1993

0.13

1994

0.12

1995

0.14

1996

0.15

1997

0.15

1998

0.15

1999

0.20

2000

0.22

2001

0.23

TAB

LE

35b

A

mtr

ak A

vera

ge

Rev

enu

e p

er

R

even

ue

Pas

sen

ger

-Mile

: 19

93–2

001

Chai

ned

1996

dol

lars

Yea

rRe

venu

e pe

r RPM

1993

0.15

1994

0.14

1995

0.14

1996

0.15

1997

0.15

1998

0.15

1999

0.19

2000

0.20

2001

0.20

KE

Y F

OR

TA

BLE

S 3

5a a

nd 3

5b: R

PM

= re

venu

e pa

ssen

ger-

mile

.

NO

TES

FO

R T

AB

LES

35a

and

35b

: Am

trak

data

are

not

ava

ilabl

e pr

ior t

o 19

93. R

even

ue in

clud

es re

venu

e fro

m c

once

ssio

ns a

nd o

ther

pa

ssen

ger s

ervi

ces

in a

dditi

on to

pas

seng

er fa

res.

RP

M is

reve

nue

pass

enge

r-m

iles,

or t

he n

umbe

r of r

even

ue p

asse

nger

s m

ultip

lied

by th

e av

erag

e nu

mbe

r of m

iles

trave

led

by e

ach

pass

enge

r.

Cur

rent

dol

lar a

mou

nts

wer

e ad

just

ed to

elim

inat

e th

e ef

fect

s of

infla

tion

over

tim

e. A

mtra

k re

venu

e da

ta w

ere

adju

sted

for i

nfla

tion

usin

g th

e in

terc

ity ra

il de

flato

r fro

m th

e B

urea

u of

Eco

nom

ic A

naly

sis'

Cha

in-T

ype

Qua

ntity

and

Pric

e In

dexe

s fo

r Per

sona

l Con

sum

ptio

n E

xpen

ditu

res.

SO

UR

CE

FO

R T

AB

LES

35a

and

35b

: A

mer

ican

Ass

ocia

tion

of R

ailro

ads,

Rai

lroad

Fac

ts (W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 1

994–

2002

issu

es).


218

TAB

LE

36a

A

vera

ge

Cla

ss I

Inte

rcit

y B

us

Fare

: 19

90–2

000

Curr

ent d

olla

rs

1990

1

991

1

992

19

93

1994

199

5

1996

19

97

1998

19

99

2000

Clas

s I i

nter

city

bus

20.2

221

.86

21.1

521

.32

19.7

720

.10

22.8

520

.71

23.0

025

.43

29.4

6

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, N

atio

nal T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

2002

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, tab

le 3

-15a

.

TAB

LE

36b

A

vera

ge

Cla

ss I

Inte

rcit

y B

us

Fare

: 19

90–2

000

Chai

ned

1996

dol

lars

1990

1

991

1

992

19

93

1994

199

5

1996

19

97

1998

19

99

2000

Clas

s I i

nter

city

bus

20.5

721

.25

20.2

321

.05

19.5

520

.49

22.8

520

.62

21.7

223

.47

26.0

2

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, N

atio

nal T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

2002

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, tab

le 3

-15b

.

Appendix B

219

TAB

LE

37/

38a

Ave

rag

e Tr

ansi

t Fa

re p

er P

asse

ng

er-M

ile:

Fis

cal Y

ears

199

0–20

00Cu

rren

t dol

lars

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Bus

0.14

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.17

0.17

0.18

0.18

0.20

0.20

0.21

Com

mut

er ra

il0.

130.

130.

130.

140.

140.

130.

140.

150.

140.

150.

15

Dem

and

resp

onsi

ve0.

090.

150.

150.

170.

300.

240.

240.

230.

190.

200.

20

Heav

y ra

il0.

150.

160.

170.

190.

190.

190.

200.

200.

190.

180.

18

Ligh

t rai

l0.

140.

150.

140.

150.

160.

150.

150.

130.

130.

140.

13

Trol

ley

bus

0.24

0.26

0.24

0.28

0.29

0.29

0.30

0.30

0.30

0.32

0.31

Othe

r0.

150.

140.

160.

150.

180.

170.

130.

140.

110.

120.

13

Tota

l0.

140.

150.

150.

160.

170.

170.

180.

180.

180.

180.

18

NO

TE

S: D

ata

for

2000

are

pre

limin

ary.

Beg

inni

ng in

199

1, fa

res

incl

ude

subs

idie

s fo

rmer

ly c

lass

ified

as

"Oth

er"

oper

atin

g fu

ndin

g.C

om

mu

ter

rail:

Urb

an/s

ubur

ban

pass

enge

r tr

ain

serv

ice

for

shor

t-di

stan

ce tr

avel

bet

wee

n a

cent

ral c

ity a

nd a

djac

ent s

ubur

bs r

un o

n tr

acks

of a

tr

aditi

onal

rai

lroad

sys

tem

. Doe

s no

t inc

lude

hea

vy-

or li

ght-

rail

tran

sit s

ervi

ce.

Hea

vy r

ail:

Hig

h-sp

eed

tran

sit r

ail o

pera

ted

on r

ight

s-of

-way

that

exl

cude

all

othe

r ve

hicl

es a

nd p

edes

tria

ns.

Lig

ht

rail:

Urb

an tr

ansi

t rai

l ope

rate

d on

a r

eser

ved

right

-of-

way

that

may

be

cros

sed

by r

oads

use

d by

mot

or v

ehic

les

and

pede

stria

ns.

Dem

and

res

po

nsi

ve:

A n

onfix

ed-r

oute

, non

fixed

-sch

edul

e fo

rm o

f tra

nspo

rtat

ion

that

ope

rate

s in

res

pons

e to

cal

ls fr

om p

asse

nger

s or

thei

r ag

ents

to th

e tr

ansi

t ope

rato

r or

dis

patc

her.

SO

UR

CE

S:

Am

eric

an P

ublic

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Ass

ocia

tion,

Pub

lic T

rans

port

atio

n Fa

ct B

ook

2001

, Tab

les

18 a

nd 2

6, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.a

pta.

com

/sta

ts/fa

res/

fare

mod

e.ht

m, a

s of

Feb

ruar

y 20

03. M

od

al d

efin

itio

ns—

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

on, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, P

ocke

t Gui

de to

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

2003

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

003)

, glo

ssar

y.


220

TAB

LE

37/

38b

A

vera

ge

Tran

sit

Fare

per

Pas

sen

ger

-Mile

: F

isca

l Yea

rs 1

990–

2000

Chai

ned

1996

dol

lars

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Bus

0.18

0.18

0.18

0.18

0.19

0.19

0.18

0.18

0.20

0.20

0.20

Com

mut

er ra

il0.

170.

160.

150.

160.

150.

140.

140.

140.

140.

150.

15

Dem

and

resp

onsi

ve0.

120.

190.

180.

190.

330.

260.

240.

220.

190.

200.

20

Heav

y ra

il0.

190.

200.

200.

210.

210.

210.

200.

190.

190.

180.

18

Ligh

t rai

l0.

180.

180.

160.

170.

180.

160.

150.

130.

130.

140.

13

Trol

ley

bus

0.30

0.33

0.29

0.32

0.33

0.32

0.30

0.30

0.30

0.32

0.31

Othe

r0.

190.

180.

180.

170.

200.

190.

130.

140.

110.

120.

13

Tota

l0.

180.

180.

180.

180.

190.

190.

180.

180.

180.

180.

18

NO

TE

S: D

ata

for

2000

are

pre

limin

ary.

Beg

inni

ng in

199

1, fa

res

incl

ude

subs

idie

s fo

rmer

ly c

lass

ified

as

"Oth

er"

oper

atin

g fu

ndin

g.

Co

mm

ute

r ra

il: U

rban

/sub

urba

n pa

ssen

ger

trai

n se

rvic

e fo

r sh

ort-

dist

ance

trav

el b

etw

een

a ce

ntra

l city

and

adj

acen

t sub

urbs

run

on

trac

ks o

f a

trad

ition

al r

ailro

ad s

yste

m. D

oes

not i

nclu

de h

eavy

- or

ligh

t-ra

il tr

ansi

t ser

vice

.H

eavy

rai

l: H

igh-

spee

d tr

ansi

t rai

l ope

rate

d on

rig

hts-

of-w

ay th

at e

xlcu

de a

ll ot

her

vehi

cles

and

ped

estr

ians

.L

igh

t ra

il: U

rban

tran

sit r

ail o

pera

ted

on a

res

erve

d rig

ht-o

f-w

ay th

at m

ay b

e cr

osse

d by

roa

ds u

sed

by m

otor

veh

icle

s an

d pe

dest

rians

.D

eman

d r

esp

on

sive

: A

non

fixed

-rou

te, n

onfix

ed-s

ched

ule

form

of t

rans

port

atio

n th

at o

pera

tes

in r

espo

nse

to c

alls

from

pas

seng

ers

or th

eir

agen

ts to

the

tran

sit o

pera

tor

or d

ispa

tche

r.

SO

UR

CE

S:

Am

eric

an P

ublic

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Ass

ocia

tion,

Pub

lic T

rans

port

atio

n Fa

ct B

ook

2001

, Tab

les

18 a

nd 2

6, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.a

pta.

com

/sta

ts/fa

res/

fare

mod

e.ht

m, a

s of

Feb

ruar

y 20

03. M

od

al d

efin

itio

ns—

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

on, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, P

ocke

t Gui

de to

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

2003

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

003)

, glo

ssar

y.

Appendix B

221

TAB

LE

39

Sh

are

of

Per

son

al In

com

e S

pen

t o

n

C

om

mu

tin

g b

y In

com

e G

rou

p:

1999

Curr

ent d

olla

rs

Year

ly p

erso

nal i

ncom

eM

edia

n sp

ent

Perc

ent

< $8

,000

339

9.5

$8,0

00–$

14,9

9976

26.

0

$15,

000–

$21,

999

800

4.6

$22,

000–

$29,

999

1,04

04.

1

$30,

000–

$44,

999

1,28

03.

5

>$45

,000

1,60

02.

2

Tota

l pop

ulat

ion

960

3.9

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Sta

tistic

s, c

alcu

latio

ns b

ased

on

data

from

U.S

. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, U.S

. Cen

sus

Bur

eau,

Sur

vey

of

Inco

me

and

Pro

gram

Par

ticip

atio

n (H

yatts

ville

, MD

: 200

1), a

lso

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bls

.cen

sus.

gov/

sipp

/, as

of A

pril

2003

.


222

TAB

LE

40

Sh

are

of

Per

son

al In

com

e S

pen

t o

n C

om

mu

tin

g b

y In

com

e G

rou

p a

nd

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n M

od

e: 1

999

Curr

ent d

olla

rs

Own

vehi

cle

Publ

ic tr

ansi

t

Year

ly p

erso

nal i

ncom

eM

edia

n sp

ent

Perc

ent

Med

ian

spen

tPe

rcen

t

< $8

,000

678

20.5

540

12.8

$8,0

00–$

14,9

9984

78.

070

25.

7

$15,

000–

$21,

999

960

5.6

765

3.9

$22,

000–

$29,

999

1,28

05.

176

53.

0

$30,

000–

$44,

999

1,60

04.

276

52.

2

> $45

,000

1,69

42.

61,

080

1.5

Tota

l pop

ulat

ion

1,28

04.

976

53.

3

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, c

alcu

latio

ns b

ased

on

data

from

U.S

. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, U.S

. Cen

sus

Bur

eau,

Sur

vey

of In

com

e an

d P

rogr

am P

artic

ipat

ion

(Hya

ttsvi

lle, M

D: 2

001)

, als

o av

aila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ls.c

ensu

s.go

v/si

pp/,

as o

f Apr

il 20

03.

Appendix B

223

TAB

LE

41

Ori

gin

an

d D

esti

nat

ion

Su

rvey

Ind

ex b

y C

ity

of

Ori

gin

for

Th

ree

Med

ium

-siz

ed U

.S. C

itie

s: 1

995–

2000

All

clas

ses

of s

ervi

ce, d

omes

tic c

arrie

rs o

nly

Q1

1995

= 1

00

Quar

ter

Char

lest

on, S

CCo

lora

do S

prin

gs, C

ODe

s M

oine

s, IA

95Q1

100.

010

0.0

100.

0

95Q2

102.

595

.510

2.5

95Q3

104.

590

.097

.1

95Q4

104.

981

.895

.7

96Q1

103.

276

.495

.5

96Q2

93.2

83.0

96.1

96Q3

98.8

83.8

95.7

96Q4

97.8

79.6

101.

3

97Q1

100.

280

.810

6.1

97Q2

102.

481

.910

5.5

97Q3

99.2

86.3

107.

1

97Q4

104.

993

.311

5.3

98Q1

104.

594

.610

3.0

98Q2

102.

493

.696

.5

98Q3

96.8

98.5

94.9

98Q4

98.9

98.0

91.1

99Q1

102.

110

4.8

93.1

99Q2

104.

410

6.2

94.9

99Q3

101.

610

5.9

92.8

99Q4

102.

010

7.8

91.9

00Q1

105.

011

1.9

94.8

00Q2

105.

311

3.0

100.

7

00Q3

103.

611

3.0

99.7

00Q4

108.

611

0.9

96.3

NO

TES

: The

se d

ata

have

bee

n de

velo

ped

for r

esea

rch

purp

oses

onl

y an

d ar

e no

t offi

cial

BT

S d

ata.

T

he O

&D

Sur

vey

indi

ces

are

com

pute

d us

ing

the

Fis

her I

ndex

form

ula,

whi

ch d

iffer

s fr

om th

e fo

rmul

as

used

to c

ompu

te th

e B

urea

u of

Lab

or S

tatis

tics

(BLS

) airl

ine

fare

Con

sum

er P

rice

Inde

x (C

PI).

SO

UR

CE

: U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Lab

or, B

urea

u of

Lab

or S

tatis

tics,

Airl

ine

Fare

Con

sum

er P

rice

Inde

x,

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bls

.gov

/cpi

/hom

e.ht

m, a

s of

Mar

ch 2

003.


224

TAB

LE

42

Ori

gin

an

d D

esti

nat

ion

Su

rvey

Ind

ex b

y C

ity

of

Ori

gin

for

Th

ree

Lar

ge

Inte

rnat

ion

al C

itie

s: 1

995–

2000

All

clas

ses

of s

ervi

ce c

ombi

ned

Q1

1995

= 1

00

Quar

ter

Fran

kfur

t, Ge

rman

yLo

ndon

, Eng

land

Toky

o, J

apan

95Q1

100.

010

0.0

100.

0

95Q2

108.

711

8.7

114.

9

95Q3

119.

613

2.1

122.

3

95Q4

106.

112

1.3

94.6

96Q1

97.4

120.

791

.9

96Q2

103.

311

3.1

91.2

96Q3

116.

311

2.3

100.

4

96Q4

93.3

106.

086

.4

97Q1

91.6

99.8

81.1

97Q2

88.3

108.

078

.8

97Q3

103.

012

3.8

93.5

97Q4

92.2

105.

473

.5

98Q1

80.0

91.0

67.4

98Q2

88.0

96.8

63.4

98Q3

101.

797

.468

.9

98Q4

86.4

81.5

67.7

99Q1

81.2

74.1

70.9

99Q2

83.6

71.6

70.6

99Q3

92.0

81.8

84.2

99Q4

84.0

71.3

79.2

00Q1

76.7

67.3

78.8

00Q2

79.5

70.9

81.9

00Q3

88.3

80.0

94.3

00Q4

74.0

67.4

80.4

NO

TES

: The

se d

ata

have

bee

n de

velo

ped

for r

esea

rch

purp

oses

onl

y an

d ar

e no

t offi

cial

BT

S d

ata.

T

he O

&D

Sur

vey

indi

ces

are

com

pute

d us

ing

the

Fis

her I

ndex

form

ula,

whi

ch d

iffer

s fr

om th

e fo

rmul

as

used

to c

ompu

te th

e B

urea

u of

Lab

or S

tatis

tics

(BLS

) airl

ine

fare

Con

sum

er P

rice

Inde

x (C

PI).

SO

UR

CE

: U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

(BT

S)

and

U.S

. D

epar

tmen

t of L

abor

, Bur

eau

of L

abor

Sta

tistic

s, c

alcu

latio

ns b

ased

on

data

from

BT

S's

qua

rter

ly

Pas

seng

er O

rigin

& D

estin

atio

n S

urve

y, M

arch

200

3.

Appendix B

225

TAB

LE

43

Co

mp

aris

on

of

Air

fare

Ind

ices

: 19

95–2

000

Not s

easo

nally

adj

uste

d, d

omes

tic c

arrie

rs o

nly

Q1 1

995

= 10

0

BLS

airli

ne fa

re C

PI,

O&D

surv

ey,

O&D

surv

ey,

O&D

surv

ey,

Quar

ter

quar

terly

ave

rage

all o

rigin

sU.

S. o

rigin

onl

yfo

reig

n or

igin

onl

y

95Q1

100

.0

100

.0 1

00.0

100

.0

95Q2

106

.1

101

.9 1

01.1

106

.7

95Q3

105

.7

102

.3 1

00.4

113

.6

95Q4

102

.6

98.

6 9

9.0

97.

6

96Q1

101

.1

98.

4 9

8.7

97.

3

96Q2

103

.6

97.

8 9

7.8

98.

4

96Q3

105

.5

99.

3 9

8.4

105

.6

96Q4

110

.1

98.

2 9

9.3

93.

4

97Q1

107

.9

100

.5 1

02.0

93.

3

97Q2

110

.1

101

.9 1

03.5

94.

4

97Q3

108

.4

101

.9 1

02.2

101

.9

97Q4

108

.8

105

.2 1

07.8

91.

8

98Q1

112

.4

101

.4 1

04.6

84.

5

98Q2

112

.1

97.

5 1

00.0

85.

2

98Q3

113

.1

97.

3 9

9.5

86.

3

98Q4

110

.8

96.

2 9

9.1

81.

1

99Q1

116

.3

98.

9 1

02.2

81.

6

99Q2

119

.4

98.

7 1

02.1

80.

7

99Q3

119

.1

98.

4 1

00.4

88.

0

99Q4

123

.1

98.

8 1

01.7

83.

6

00Q1

126

.1

102

.5 1

06.1

83.

0

00Q2

132

.1

104

.6 1

08.2

85.

1

00Q3

135

.1

106

.4 1

09.0

92.

8

00Q4

129

.7

107

.3 1

11.6

84.

4

NO

TE

S:

The

se d

ata

have

bee

n de

velo

ped

for

rese

arch

pur

pose

s on

ly a

nd a

re n

ot o

ffici

al B

TS

dat

a. T

he O

&D

Sur

vey

indi

ces

are

com

pute

d us

ing

the

Fis

her

Inde

x fo

rmul

a, w

hich

diff

ers

from

the

form

ulas

use

d to

com

pute

the

Bur

eau

of L

abor

S

tatis

tics

(BLS

) A

irlin

e fa

re C

onsu

mer

Pric

e In

dex

(CP

I).

SO

UR

CE

: U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

(BT

S)

and

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Lab

or,

Bur

eau

of L

abor

Sta

tistic

s, c

alcu

latio

ns b

ased

on

data

from

BT

S's

qua

rter

ly P

asse

nger

Orig

in &

Des

tinat

ion

Sur

vey,

Mar

ch

2003

.


226

TAB

LE

44

Pas

sen

ger

-Mile

s by

Typ

e o

f S

ervi

ce:

1991

–200

1M

illio

ns

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Bus

18,1

0417

,494

17,3

6417

,195

17,0

2416

,802

17,5

0917

,874

18,6

8418

,807

19,5

83

Heav

y ra

il10

,488

10,7

3710

,231

10,6

6810

,559

11,5

3012

,056

12,2

8412

,902

13,8

4414

,178

Com

mut

er ra

il7,

383

7,32

06,

912

7,99

68,

244

8,35

08,

037

8,70

28,

764

9,40

09,

544

Ligh

t rai

l66

170

070

483

185

995

51,

024

1,11

51,

190

1,33

91,

427

Othe

r83

790

21,

015

1,19

11,

285

1,34

61,

554

1,62

91,

739

1,71

01,

776

Tota

l37

,473

37,1

5336

,225

37,8

8237

,971

38,9

8440

,180

41,6

0543

,279

45,1

0046

,508

NO

TE

: O

ther

incl

udes

mod

es s

uch

as d

eman

d re

spon

sive

, aut

omat

ed g

uide

way

, Ala

ska

Rai

lroad

, cab

le c

ar, f

erry

boat

, inc

lined

pla

ne, m

onor

ail,

trol

leyb

us, a

nd v

anpo

ol.

SO

UR

CE

S: 1

991–

1994

—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, F

eder

al T

rans

it A

dmin

istr

atio

n, 1

994

Nat

iona

l Tra

nsit

Sum

mar

ies

and

Tren

ds (

Was

hing

ton,

D

C: 1

996)

; 199

5—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, F

eder

al T

rans

it A

dmin

istr

atio

n, 1

997

Nat

iona

l Tra

nsit

Sum

mar

ies

and

Tren

ds (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 19

99);

199

6–20

01—

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Fed

eral

Tra

nsit

Adm

inis

trat

ion,

Nat

iona

l Tra

nsit

Dat

abas

e, D

ata

Tabl

es (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 199

6–20

01 is

sues

).

TAB

LE

45/

46

Tran

sit

Rid

ersh

ip b

y S

elec

ted

Typ

e o

f S

ervi

ce:

1991

–200

1M

illio

ns

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Bus

4,82

64,

749

4,63

94,

629

4,57

94,

506

4,60

24,

754

4,99

25,

040

5,21

5

Com

mut

er ra

il32

431

432

133

934

435

235

738

139

641

341

8

Heav

y ra

il2,

167

2,20

72,

046

2,16

92,

034

2,15

72,

430

2,39

32,

521

2,63

22,

728

Ligh

t rai

l18

418

818

828

224

925

925

927

328

931

633

4

Tota

l7,

738

7,69

67,

433

7,70

27,

504

7,56

57,

954

8,11

58,

523

8,72

09,

008

NO

TE

: To

tal i

nclu

des

othe

r m

odes

not

sho

wn,

suc

h as

ferr

yboa

ts, d

eman

d re

spon

sive

, inc

lined

pla

nes,

and

trol

ley

buse

s.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, F

eder

al T

rans

it A

dmin

istr

atio

n, "

Nat

iona

l Tra

nsit

Sum

mar

ies

and

Tren

ds,"

200

2 dr

aft,

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.ntd

prog

ram

.com

, as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

.

Appendix B

227

TAB

LE

47

To

p 3

0 Tr

ansi

t A

uth

ori

ties

by

Un

linke

d P

asse

ng

er T

rip

s: 2

001

Agen

cyNu

mbe

r of u

nlin

ked

trips

(tho

usan

ds)

New

Yor

k Ci

ty T

rans

it, N

Y2,

667,

001

Chic

ago

Tran

sit A

utho

rity,

IL48

4,82

1

LA C

ount

y M

etro

Tra

nspo

rtatio

n Au

thor

ity, C

A39

8,11

1

Was

hing

ton-

Met

ro A

rea

Tran

sit A

utho

rity,

DC

378,

936

Mas

sach

uset

ts B

ay T

rans

it Au

thor

ity, M

A36

4,33

7

SE P

enns

ylva

nia

Tran

spor

tatio

n Au

thor

ity, P

A31

8,05

1

San

Fran

cisc

o M

unic

ipal

Rai

lway

, CA

235,

078

New

Jer

sey

Tran

sit,

NJ22

5,93

9

Met

ro A

tlant

a Ra

pid

Tran

sit A

utho

rity,

GA

164,

078

Mar

ylan

d Tr

ansi

t Adm

inis

tratio

n, M

D11

1,04

8

San

Fran

cisc

o Ba

y Ar

ea R

apid

Tra

nsit,

CA

103,

919

Long

Isla

nd R

ail R

oad,

NY

101,

923

King

Cou

nty

DOT,

Met

ro T

rans

it Di

stric

t, W

A10

1,00

0

Oreg

on T

ri-Co

unty

Dis

trict

, OR

91,1

86

Met

ro T

rans

it Au

thor

ity H

arris

Cou

nty,

TX

88,2

46

Mia

mi-D

ade

Tran

sit A

genc

y, F

L84

,005

Gree

n Tr

ansi

t Jam

aica

Cor

pora

tion,

NY

82,1

91

Port

Auth

ority

Tra

ns-H

udso

n Co

rpor

atio

n, N

J82

,038

Denv

er R

egio

nal T

rans

porta

tion

Dist

rict,

CO79

,651

Port

Auth

ority

Alle

ghen

y, P

A74

,827

Met

ro T

rans

it, M

N73

,348

Met

ro N

orth

Rai

l Roa

d, N

Y73

,213

NE IL

Reg

iona

l Com

mut

er R

ailro

ad, I

L72

,122

Milw

auke

e Co

unty

Tra

nspo

rtatio

n Sy

stem

, WI

71,2

50

City

and

Cou

nty

of H

onol

ulu,

HI

71,1

15(T

able

con

tinue

s on

the

next

pag

e)


228

Agen

cyNu

mbe

r of u

nlin

ked

trips

(tho

usan

ds)

Alam

eda-

Cont

ra C

osta

Tra

nsit

Dist

rict,

CA70

,809

Dalla

s Ar

ea R

apid

Tra

nsit,

TX

61,4

34

Grea

ter C

leve

land

Reg

iona

l Tra

nsit

Auth

ority

, OH

60,0

94

Oran

ge C

ount

y Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Auth

ority

, CA

57,3

28

Sant

a Cl

ara

Valle

y Tr

ansi

t Aut

horit

y, C

A57

,300

Tota

l, to

p 30

aut

horit

ies

6,78

9,77

0

Tota

l, al

l aut

horit

ies

9,00

7,80

0

Top

30 a

utho

ritie

s as

per

cent

of a

ll au

thor

ities

75.4

NO

TE

S: T

he 3

0 la

rges

t tra

nsit

agen

cies

as

of 2

001.

Tri-

Cou

nty

Met

ropo

litan

is a

mun

icip

al

corp

orat

ion

of th

e S

tate

of O

rego

n. G

reen

Tra

nsit

Jam

aica

Cor

pora

tion

is a

con

trac

tor

for

the

New

Yor

k C

ity D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n.

SO

UR

CE

: U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Fed

eral

Tra

nsit

Adm

inis

trat

ion,

Nat

iona

l Tra

nsit

Dat

abas

e, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.n

tdpr

ogra

m.c

om, a

s of

Feb

ruar

y 20

03.

TAB

LE

48

Lif

t- o

r R

amp

-Eq

uip

ped

Tra

nsi

t B

use

s: 1

993–

2001

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Tota

l num

ber o

f bus

es1

55,7

2657

,023

57,3

2257

,369

58,9

7560

,830

63,6

1865

,324

67,3

79

ADA-

lift o

r ram

p-eq

uipp

ed b

uses

29,0

8831

,065

35,3

8138

,316

40,9

3246

,278

51,2

1354

,585

58,7

85

ADA-

lift o

r ram

p-eq

uipp

ed b

uses

(per

cent

)52

5462

6769

7681

8487

1 In

clud

es b

uses

of t

rans

it ag

enci

es r

ecei

ving

fede

ral f

undi

ng fo

r bu

s pu

rcha

ses,

as

wel

l as

buse

s of

age

ncie

s no

t rec

eivi

ng fe

dera

l fun

ds th

at v

olun

taril

y re

port

dat

a to

the

Fed

eral

Tra

nsit

Adm

inis

trat

ion.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, F

eder

al T

rans

it A

dmin

istr

atio

n, "

Nat

iona

l Tra

nsit

Sum

mar

ies

and

Tren

ds,"

200

2 dr

aft,

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.ntd

prog

ram

.com

, as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

.

TAB

LE

47

To

p 3

0 Tr

ansi

t A

uth

ori

ties

by

Un

linke

d P

asse

ng

er T

rip

s: 2

001

(con

tinue

d)

Appendix B

229

TAB

LE

49a

L

ift-

or

Ram

p-E

qu

ipp

ed T

ran

sit

Bu

ses

by T

ype:

199

3–20

01Pe

rcen

t

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Larg

e bu

ses

79.4

80.1

84.5

87.8

90.4

91.6

93.4

94.5

95.4

Med

ium

bus

es54

.058

.366

.072

.880

.786

.990

.192

.993

.7

Smal

l bus

es50

.351

.959

.263

.865

.272

.676

.879

.984

.5

Artic

ulat

ed b

uses

38.4

44.6

50.2

57.6

61.4

68.4

81.3

85.5

88.5

NO

TE

S:

Larg

e bu

ses

have

mor

e th

an 3

5 se

ats,

med

ium

bus

es h

ave

25–3

5 se

ats,

and

sm

all b

uses

hav

e le

ss th

an 2

5 se

ats.

A

rtic

ulat

ed b

uses

are

ext

ra-lo

ng b

uses

that

mea

sure

bet

wee

n 54

and

60

feet

.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, F

eder

al T

rans

it A

dmin

istr

atio

n, "

Nat

iona

l Tra

nsit

Sum

mar

ies

and

Tren

ds,"

200

2 dr

aft,

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.ntd

prog

ram

.com

, as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

.

TAB

LE

49b

L

ift-

or

Ram

p-E

qu

ipp

ed T

ran

sit

Bu

ses

by T

ype:

199

3–20

01Nu

mbe

r

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Larg

e bu

ses

23,

338

24,

398

27,

420

29,

073

29,

684

33,

512

36,

029

37,

581

40,

501

Med

ium

bus

es 1

,911

2,1

53 2

,561

3,0

81 4

,143

5,1

50 5

,959

6,9

26 7

,337

Smal

l bus

es 3

,146

3,7

95 4

,539

5,2

69 6

,194

6,5

45 7

,722

8,3

66 9

,176

Artic

ulat

ed b

uses

693

719

861

893

911

1,0

71 1

,503

1,7

12 1

,771

NO

TE

S:

Larg

e bu

ses

have

mor

e th

an 3

5 se

ats,

med

ium

bus

es h

ave

25–3

5 se

ats,

and

sm

all b

uses

hav

e le

ss th

an 2

5 se

ats.

A

rtic

ulat

ed b

uses

are

ext

ra-lo

ng b

uses

that

mea

sure

bet

wee

n 54

and

60

feet

.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, F

eder

al T

rans

it A

dmin

istr

atio

n, "

Nat

iona

l Tra

nsit

Sum

mar

ies

and

Tren

ds,"

200

2 dr

aft,

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.ntd

prog

ram

.com

, as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

.


230

TAB

LE

50

Ro

adsi

de

Tru

ck In

spec

tio

ns:

199

0–20

01Th

ousa

nds

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Insp

ecte

d1,

601

1,57

41,

616

1,94

71,

974

1,84

02,

039

2,14

81,

763

1,86

21,

928

2,08

7

Truc

ks ta

ken

out o

f ser

vice

542

497

462

506

472

417

437

439

448

453

457

486

NO

TE

: D

ata

for

truc

ks ta

ken

out o

f ser

vice

in 2

001

not a

vaila

ble.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, F

eder

al M

otor

Car

rier

Saf

ety

Adm

inis

trat

ion

(FM

CS

A),

Mot

or C

arrie

r M

anag

emen

t Inf

orm

atio

n S

yste

m, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.fm

csa.

dot.g

ov, a

s of

Jun

e 20

03. 1

999–

2001

dat

a—pe

rson

al c

omm

unic

atio

n, F

MC

SA

, Aug

. 11,

200

3.

TAB

LE

51

In

spec

ted

Tru

cks

Take

n O

ut

of

Ser

vice

for

Rep

airs

: 19

90–2

001

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Perc

ent

33.8

31.6

28.6

26.0

23.9

22.7

21.4

20.4

25.4

24.3

23.7

23.3

NO

TE

: D

ata

for

truc

ks ta

ken

out o

f ser

vice

in 2

001

not a

vaila

ble.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, F

eder

al M

otor

Car

rier

Saf

ety

Adm

inis

trat

ion

(FM

CS

A),

Mot

or C

arrie

r M

anag

emen

t Inf

orm

atio

n S

yste

m, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.fm

csa.

dot.g

ov, a

s of

Jun

e 20

03. 2

001

dat

a—pe

rson

al c

omm

unic

atio

n, F

MC

SA

, Aug

. 11,

200

3.

Appendix B

231

TAB

LE

52

Fed

eral

-Aid

Ro

adw

ay P

roje

cts

Un

der

way

by

Imp

rove

men

t Ty

pe:

200

1

Impr

ovem

ent t

ype

Mile

s

Rest

orat

ion

5,16

7

Resu

rfac

ing

12,5

49

Min

or w

iden

ing

492

Reco

nstru

ctio

n3,

937

Maj

or w

iden

ing

1,47

6

Relo

catio

n24

6

New

rout

e73

8

TAB

LE

53

Fed

eral

, Sta

te, a

nd

Lo

cal G

over

nm

ent

Hig

hw

ay M

ain

ten

ance

Exp

end

itu

res:

199

1–20

01Bi

llion

s of

dol

lars

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Tota

l in

curr

ent $

21,2

2222

,578

22,8

9423

,553

24,3

1925

,564

26,7

7728

,173

29,9

9730

,636

31,6

77

Tota

l in

cons

tant

198

7 $

17,7

0018

,282

17,9

9818

,048

18,1

2118

,514

18,9

5219

,635

20,4

5520

,400

20,3

19

NO

TE

S: A

lthou

gh d

olla

r va

lues

in m

ost o

ther

sec

tions

of t

his

book

hav

e be

en c

onve

rted

to c

hain

ed 1

996

dolla

rs, t

hese

dat

a ar

e pr

esen

ted

in c

onst

ant 1

987

dolla

rs.

The

Fed

eral

Hig

hway

Adm

inis

trat

ion,

whi

ch c

olle

cts

the

data

, adj

usts

cur

rent

dol

lar

data

to c

onst

ant 1

987

dolla

rs u

sing

an

inde

x th

at th

ey h

ave

desi

gned

for

that

pu

rpos

e.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, F

eder

al H

ighw

ay A

dmin

istr

atio

n, H

ighw

ay S

tatis

tics

2001

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, "H

ighw

ay E

xpen

ditu

res

by

Gov

ernm

ent T

ype,

Cur

rent

and

Con

stan

t Dol

lars

" ch

art,

also

ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.fhw

a.do

t.gov

/ohi

m, a

s of

Jun

e 20

03.

NO

TE

S:

Mai

nten

ance

incl

udes

any

wor

k re

quire

d to

kee

p hi

ghw

ays

in u

sabl

e co

nditi

on th

at d

oes

not e

xten

d th

e se

rvic

e lif

e of

the

road

way

bey

ond

the

orig

inal

des

ign.

R

esto

ratio

n in

clud

es r

enov

atio

n. A

lthou

gh th

e fo

llow

ing

cate

gorie

s ar

e no

t gen

eral

ly c

onsi

dere

d m

aint

enan

ce, t

hey

are

incl

uded

for

com

paris

on: m

ajor

wid

enin

g,

relo

catio

n, n

ew r

oute

.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, F

eder

al H

ighw

ay A

dmin

istr

atio

n, H

ighw

ay S

tatis

tics

2001

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C),

"M

iles

of F

eder

al-A

id R

oadw

ay P

roje

cts

Und

erw

ay b

y Im

prov

emen

t Typ

e" c

hart

, ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.fhw

a.do

t.gov

/ohi

m, a

s of

Jun

e 20

03.


232

TAB

LE

54

Rai

l In

stal

led

or

Rep

lace

d b

y U

.S. C

lass

I R

ailr

oad

s: 1

990–

2001

Thou

sand

s of

tons

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Repl

acem

ent

781.

266

6.7

875.

382

4.3

728.

865

7.6

803.

364

2.7

679.

076

9.3

726.

166

0.1

Addi

tion

19.5

16.7

14.2

26.2

62.9

61.3

68.7

113.

820

4.8

213.

419

6.3

197.

0

SO

UR

CE

: Ass

ocia

tion

of A

mer

ican

Rai

lroad

s, R

ailro

ad T

en-Y

ear

Tren

ds, 1

990–

2000

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

000)

; 200

0–20

01 d

ata—

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

mer

ican

R

ailro

ads,

Ana

lysi

s of

Cla

ss I

Rai

lroad

s (W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

000

and

2001

).

TAB

LE

55

Cro

ssti

es In

stal

led

or

Rep

lace

d b

y U

.S. C

lass

I R

ailr

oad

s: 1

990–

2001

Mill

ions

of c

ross

ties

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Repl

acem

ents

14.1

12.6

13.5

12.8

12.3

12.1

13.4

11.9

10.4

10.8

10.8

11.4

Addi

tions

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.7

0.8

1.5

1.8

1.3

0.7

0.5

SO

UR

CE

S:

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

mer

ican

Rai

lroad

s, R

ailro

ad T

en-Y

ear

Tren

ds, 1

990–

2000

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

000)

; 200

0–20

01 d

ata—

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

mer

ican

R

ailro

ads,

Ana

lysi

s of

Cla

ss I

Rai

lroad

s (W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

000

and

2001

).

TAB

LE

56

New

or

Reb

uilt

Lo

com

oti

ves

and

Fre

igh

t C

ars:

199

0–20

01

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Loco

mot

ives

706

584

460

707

1214

1129

821

811

1061

865

721

755

Per

cent

age

of fl

eet

3.7

3.2

2.6

3.9

6.6

6.0

4.3

4.1

5.2

4.3

3.6

3.8

Frei

ght c

ars

37,7

6932

,083

28,8

7643

,332

51,0

7966

,052

59,9

9351

,963

83,0

7677

,901

58,2

4535

,475

Per

cent

age

of fl

eet

3.1

2.7

2.5

3.7

4.3

5.4

4.8

4.1

6.3

5.7

4.2

2.7

NO

TE

: Lo

com

otiv

e da

ta a

re fo

r C

lass

I ra

ilroa

ds o

nly.

Fre

ight

car

dat

a co

ver

Cla

ss I

railr

oads

, oth

er r

ailro

ads,

and

priv

ate

car

owne

rs.

SO

UR

CE

: A

ssoc

iatio

n of

Am

eric

an R

ailro

ads,

Rai

lroad

Fac

ts (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 199

9 an

d 20

02).

Appendix B

233

TAB

LE

57

In

terr

up

tio

ns

of

Ser

vice

by

Typ

e o

f Tr

ansi

t: 1

995–

2000

Num

ber p

er 1

00,0

00 re

venu

e ve

hicl

e-m

iles

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Mot

or b

us 2

8 2

7 2

7 2

9 2

8 2

8

Ligh

t rai

l 3

2 2

6 2

0 1

4 1

7 1

5

Heav

y ra

il 4

4 3

7 7

6

Com

mut

er ra

il 4

3 3

3 3

3

Dem

and

resp

onsi

ve 2

2 3

3 3

3

Aver

age

18.

8 1

8.1

17.

6 1

8.7

18.

6 1

8.1

NO

TE

S: I

nter

rupt

ions

of s

ervi

ce in

clud

e m

ajor

and

min

or m

echn

ical

failu

res.

If th

e ve

hicl

e op

erat

or w

as a

ble

to fi

x th

e pr

oble

m a

nd r

etur

n th

e ve

hicl

e to

ser

vice

with

out a

ssis

tanc

e, th

e in

cide

nt is

not

con

side

red

an in

terr

uptio

n of

ser

vice

.

Lig

ht

rail

incl

udes

str

eetc

ar-t

ype

vehi

cles

ope

rate

d on

city

str

eets

, sem

iexc

lusi

ve r

ight

s-of

-way

, or

excl

usiv

e rig

hts-

of-w

ay. S

ervi

ce m

ay

be p

rovi

ded

by s

tep-

entr

y ve

hicl

es o

r by

leve

l boa

rdin

g. C

om

mu

ter

rail

incl

udes

urb

an p

asse

nger

trai

n se

rvic

e fo

r sh

ort-

dist

ance

trav

el

betw

een

a ce

ntra

l city

and

adj

acen

t sub

urb.

Hea

vy r

ail i

nclu

des

elec

tric

rai

lway

s w

ith th

e ca

paci

ty to

tran

spor

t a h

eavy

vol

ume

of

pass

enge

r tra

ffic

and

char

acte

rized

by

excl

usiv

e rig

hts-

of-w

ay, m

ultic

ar tr

ains

, hig

h sp

eed,

rapi

d ac

cele

ratio

n, s

ophi

stic

ated

sig

nalin

g, a

nd

high

-pla

tform

load

ing.

Als

o kn

own

as “

subw

ay,”

“ele

vate

d (r

ailw

ay),”

or

“met

ropo

litan

rai

lway

(m

etro

).” D

eman

d r

esp

on

sive

tran

sit

incl

udes

non

fixed

-rou

te, a

non

fixed

-sch

edul

e ve

hicl

es th

at o

pera

tes

in r

espo

nse

to c

alls

from

pas

seng

ers

or th

eir

agen

ts to

the

tran

sit

oper

ator

or

disp

atch

er.

SO

UR

CE

S: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, F

eder

al T

rans

it A

dmin

istr

atio

n, N

atio

nal T

rans

it Li

brar

y, 2

001

Rep

ortin

g M

anua

l, av

aila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.n

tdpr

ogra

m.c

om/,

as o

f Apr

il 20

03; a

nd A

mer

ican

Pub

lic T

rans

port

atio

n A

ssoc

iatio

n, M

aint

enan

ce d

ata

tabl

es, a

vaila

ble

at

http

://w

ww

.apt

a.co

m/r

esea

rch/

stat

s/m

aint

/inde

x.cf

m, a

s of

Apr

il 20

03.

TAB

LE

58

Sai

nt

Law

ren

ce S

eaw

ay L

ock

Del

ays

by C

ause

: 19

90–2

001

Hour

s

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Wea

ther

rela

ted

112.

018

7.0

125.

710

0.9

88.5

143.

465

.243

.22.

053

.756

.8

All o

ther

56

.042

.019

9.4

62.7

49.3

44.2

66.8

55.4

47.6

30.4

54.0

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, S

aint

Law

renc

e S

eaw

ay D

evel

opm

ent C

orpo

ratio

n, A

nnua

l Rep

orts

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: v

ario

us y

ears

).

Rep

orts

for

year

s 19

93–2

000

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.gre

atla

kes-

seaw

ay.c

om/e

n/ab

outu

s/sl

sdc_

annr

ept.h

tml,

as o

f Apr

il 20

03.


234

TAB

LE

59

U.S

. Do

mes

tic

Flig

ht

Op

erat

ion

s:

Sep

tem

ber

5–1

7, 2

001

Date

Actu

al fl

ight

sCa

ncel

latio

ns

Sept

embe

r 517

,325

324

Sept

embe

r 617

,330

318

Sept

embe

r 717

,078

594

Sept

embe

r 815

,322

375

Sept

embe

r 916

,522

300

Sept

embe

r 10

16,9

0566

1

Sept

embe

r 11

2,54

214

,962

Sept

embe

r 12

017

,535

Sept

embe

r 13

1,44

516

,109

Sept

embe

r 14

7,74

59,

611

Sept

embe

r 15

9,63

45,

573

Sept

embe

r 16

12,2

434,

297

Sept

embe

r 17

13,7

083,

518

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Sta

tistic

s, F

orm

234

Del

ay D

ata

for

Sep

tem

-be

r 20

01, t

abul

ated

Nov

. 5, 2

001,

ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bts

.gov

, as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

.

TAB

LE

60

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n F

atal

ity

Rat

es b

y M

od

e: 2

001

Per 1

00,0

00 U

.S. r

esid

ents

Mod

e

Air

0.32

High

way

14.7

9

Railr

oad

0.34

Tran

sit

0.11

Wat

erbo

rne

0.29

Pipe

line

0.00

2

Tota

l15

.8

NO

TE

S:

Air

fata

litie

s in

clud

e ai

r ca

rrie

r se

rvic

e,

com

mut

er s

ervi

ce, a

ir ta

xi s

evic

e, a

nd g

ener

al

avia

tion.

Hig

hway

fata

litie

s in

clud

e al

l typ

es o

f hi

ghw

ay m

otor

veh

icle

s, b

icyc

les,

and

ped

estr

i-an

s. R

ailro

ad fa

talit

ies

incl

ude

railr

oad

and

high

-w

ay-r

ail g

rade

cro

ssin

g in

cide

nts.

Tra

nsit

fata

litie

s in

clud

e m

otor

bus

, hea

vy r

ail,

light

rai

l, co

mm

uter

rai

l, de

man

d re

spon

sive

, tro

lley

bus,

ae

rial t

ram

way

, aut

omat

ed g

uide

way

tran

sit,

cabl

ecar

, fer

rybo

at, i

nclin

ed p

lane

, mon

orai

l, an

d va

npoo

l. W

ater

born

e fa

talit

ies

incl

ude

fata

litie

s du

e to

ves

sel-r

elat

ed in

cide

nts

or n

onve

ssel

- re

late

d in

cide

nts

on c

omm

erci

al a

nd r

ecre

atio

nal

vess

els.

Pip

elin

e fa

talit

ies

incl

ude

haza

rdou

s liq

-ui

d pi

pelin

es a

nd g

as p

ipel

ines

.

SO

UR

CE

S: E

xcep

t as

no

ted

—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

(US

DO

T),

Bur

eau

of T

rans

por-

tatio

n S

tatis

tics,

Nat

iona

l Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tis-

tics

2002

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, tab

le 2

-1,

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bts

.gov

/, as

of A

pril

2003

. P

op

ula

tio

n—

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce,

U.S

. Cen

sus

Bur

eau,

Cen

sus

2000

, ava

ilabl

e at

ht

tp://

ww

w.c

ensu

s.go

v/m

ain/

ww

w/c

en20

00.h

tml,

as o

f Jun

e 20

03. 2

001

wat

erb

orn

e—U

.S.

Dep

artm

ent o

f Hom

elan

d S

ecur

ity, U

.S. C

oast

G

uard

, Dat

a A

dmin

istr

atio

n D

ivis

ion,

per

sona

l co

mm

unic

atio

n, J

une

6, 2

003.

200

1 tr

ansi

t—

US

DO

T, F

eder

al T

rans

it A

dmin

istr

atio

n, N

atio

nal

Tran

sit D

atab

ase,

Nat

iona

l Tre

nds

and

Sum

ma-

ries

2001

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

.

Appendix B

235

TAB

LE

61

Hig

hw

ay F

atal

itie

s p

er 1

00,0

00 R

esid

ents

for

Sel

ecte

d V

ehic

le T

ypes

: 19

91–2

001

Per 1

00,0

00 U

.S. r

esid

ents

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Pass

enge

r car

occ

upan

ts8.

88.

38.

38.

48.

48.

48.

17.

77.

57.

37.

1

Ligh

t tru

ck o

ccup

ants

3.3

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.0

4.1

4.1

Larg

e tru

ck o

ccup

ants

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.2

Mot

orcy

cle

occu

pant

s1.

10.

90.

90.

90.

80.

80.

80.

80.

91.

01.

1

NO

TE

S:

Larg

e tr

ucks

are

def

ined

as

truc

ks o

ver

10,0

00 p

ound

s gr

oss

vehi

cle

wei

ght r

atin

g, in

clud

ing

sing

le-u

nit t

ruck

s an

d tr

uck

trac

tors

. Lig

ht tr

ucks

are

de

fined

as

truc

ks o

f 10,

000

poun

ds g

ross

veh

icle

wei

ght r

atin

g or

less

, inc

ludi

ng p

ick-

up tr

ucks

, van

s, tr

uck-

base

d st

atio

n w

agon

s, a

nd s

port

util

ity v

ehic

les.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, N

atio

nal T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

2002

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, tab

le2-

1, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ts.g

ov/,

as o

f Apr

il 20

03.

TAB

LE

62

Hig

hw

ay F

atal

itie

s p

er 1

00 M

illio

n V

ehic

le-M

iles

for

Sel

ecte

d V

ehic

le T

ypes

: 19

91–2

001

Per 1

00,0

00 U

.S. r

esid

ents

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Pass

enge

r car

occ

upan

ts1.

61.

61.

61.

61.

61.

51.

51.

41.

31.

31.

3

Ligh

t tru

ck o

ccup

ants

1.3

1.1

1.1

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.3

1.2

1.2

Larg

e tru

ck o

ccup

ants

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.3

Mot

orcy

cle

occu

pant

s30

.625

.124

.722

.722

.721

.821

.022

.323

.527

.733

.4

NO

TE

S:

Larg

e tr

ucks

are

def

ined

as

truc

ks o

ver

10,0

00 p

ound

s gr

oss

vehi

cle

wei

ght r

atin

g, in

clud

ing

sing

le-u

nit t

ruck

s an

d tr

uck

trac

tors

. Lig

ht tr

ucks

are

de

fined

as

truc

ks o

f 10,

000

poun

ds g

ross

veh

icle

wei

ght r

atin

g or

less

, inc

ludi

ng p

ick-

up tr

ucks

, van

s, tr

uck-

base

d st

atio

n w

agon

s, a

nd s

port

util

ity v

ehic

les.

SO

UR

CE

S: E

xcep

t as

no

ted

—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, N

atio

nal T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

2002

(Was

hing

ton,

D

C: 2

002)

, tab

le 2

-1, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ts.g

ov/,

as o

f Apr

il 20

03. P

op

ula

tio

n—

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce, U

.S. C

ensu

s B

urea

u, C

ensu

s 20

00,

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.cen

sus.

gov/

mai

n/w

ww

/cen

2000

.htm

l, as

of J

une

2003

.


236

TAB

LE

63

Dea

ths

and

Yea

rs o

f P

ote

nti

al L

ife

Lo

st D

ue

to T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Acc

iden

ts: 1

991–

2000

Perc

enta

ge o

f tot

al d

eath

s of

peo

ple

unde

r 65

year

s

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Deat

hs6.

25.

85.

85.

85.

96.

16.

26.

25.

86.

0

YPLL

10.4

9.8

9.7

9.8

9.9

10.4

10.5

10.4

10.0

10.2

NO

TE

: Yea

rs o

f pot

entia

l life

lost

(Y

PLL

) is

the

diffe

renc

e be

twee

n th

e ag

e of

dea

th a

nd 6

5 ye

ars

of a

ge. F

atal

ities

of p

eopl

e 65

yea

rs o

ld a

nd o

lder

are

no

t inc

lude

d in

this

cal

cula

tion.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of H

ealth

and

Hum

an S

ervi

ces,

Cen

ters

for

Dis

ease

Con

trol

, Nat

iona

l Cen

ter

for

Inju

ry P

reve

ntio

n an

d C

ontr

ol, W

eb-

base

d In

jury

Sta

tistic

s Q

uery

and

Rep

ortin

g S

yste

m (

WIS

QA

RS

), a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.c

dc.g

ov/n

cipc

/wis

qars

/, as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

.

TAB

LE

64

Yea

rs o

f P

ote

nti

al L

ife

Lo

st D

ue

to M

oto

r V

ehic

le a

nd

Oth

er T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Acc

iden

ts:

1991

–200

0Pe

rcen

tage

of t

otal

dea

ths

of p

eopl

e un

der 6

5 ye

ars

Acci

dent

s19

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

9920

00

Mot

or v

ehic

le10

.09.

39.

39.

39.

59.

910

.110

.09.

79.

9

Othe

r tra

nspo

rtatio

n0.

40.

50.

40.

40.

40.

50.

40.

40.

30.

3

NO

TE

: Yea

rs o

f pot

entia

l life

lost

(Y

PLL

) is

the

diffe

renc

e be

twee

n th

e ag

e of

dea

th a

nd 6

5 ye

ars

of a

ge. F

atal

ities

of p

eopl

e 65

yea

rs o

ld a

nd

olde

r ar

e no

t inc

lude

d in

this

cal

cula

tion.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of H

ealth

and

Hum

an S

ervi

ces,

Cen

ters

for

Dis

ease

Con

trol

, Nat

iona

l Cen

ter

for

Inju

ry P

reve

ntio

n an

d C

ontr

ol,

Web

-bas

ed In

jury

Sta

tistic

s Q

uery

and

Rep

ortin

g S

yste

m (

WIS

QA

RS

), a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.c

dc.g

ov/n

cipc

/wis

qars

/, as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

.

Appendix B

237

TAB

LE

65

In

jury

Rat

es fo

r O

ccu

pan

ts o

fH

igh

way

Veh

icle

s: 2

001

Inju

ries

per 1

00 m

illio

n pa

ssen

ger-

mile

s

Vehi

cle

type

Pass

enge

r car

74.8

Mot

orcy

clis

ts57

4.7

Ligh

t tru

ck57

.7

Larg

e tru

ck14

.0

Bus

10.1

Tota

l 68

.4

SO

UR

CE

S:

200

1—ba

sed

on d

ata

from

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

(US

DO

T),

Fed

eral

Hig

hway

Adm

inis

trat

ion,

Hig

hway

Sta

tistic

s 20

01

(Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

2), t

able

VM

-1; U

SD

OT,

Nat

iona

l Hig

hway

Tra

ffic

Saf

ety

Adm

inis

trat

ion,

Tra

ffic

Saf

ety

Fact

s 20

01—

Ove

rvie

w (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 20

02),

pag

e 2;

EN

O T

rans

port

atio

n F

ound

atio

n, T

rans

port

atio

n in

Am

eric

a, 1

9th

Edi

tion

(Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

2), p

age

45; U

SD

OT,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

-po

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, A

ir C

arrie

r Tr

affic

Sta

tistic

s, D

ecem

ber

2001

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

003)

, dom

estic

dat

a; a

nd U

SD

OT,

Fed

eral

Tra

nsit

Adm

inis

tra-

tion,

Nat

iona

l Tre

nds

and

Sum

mar

ies

2001

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, pag

e 21

.

TAB

LE

66

In

jury

Rat

es fo

r O

ccu

pan

ts o

f S

elec

ted

Hig

hw

ay V

ehic

les

and

Mo

torc

yclis

ts:

1991

–200

1In

jurie

s pe

r 100

mill

ion

pass

enge

r-m

iles

Vehi

cle

type

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Pass

enge

r car

101.

610

1.1

102.

310

5.1

108.

010

5.2

98.0

89.3

85.7

80.6

74.8

Ligh

t tru

ck50

.445

.348

.049

.757

.558

.755

.855

.259

.160

.457

.7

Mot

orcy

cle

690.

154

4.9

487.

846

3.3

533.

450

6.6

474.

143

3.0

429.

450

1.2

574.

7

Larg

e tru

ck18

.722

.020

.117

.717

.017

.916

.114

.616

.215

.014

.0

Bus

17.2

16.4

13.1

11.6

14.1

14.6

11.6

10.5

13.5

11.0

10.1

SO

UR

CE

S:

1991

–200

0—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n (U

SD

OT

), B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, N

atio

nal T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

2002

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, tab

les

1-34

and

2-2

, ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bts

.gov

/, as

of A

pril

2003

. 200

1—ba

sed

on d

ata

from

: US

DO

T, F

eder

al H

ighw

ay

Adm

inis

trat

ion,

Hig

hway

Sta

tistic

s 20

01 (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

2), t

able

VM

-1; U

SD

OT,

Nat

iona

l Hig

hway

Tra

ffic

Saf

ety

Adm

inis

trat

ion,

Tra

ffic

Saf

ety

Fact

s 20

01—

Ove

rvie

w (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

2), p

age

2; E

NO

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Fou

ndat

ion,

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

in A

mer

ica,

19t

h E

ditio

n (W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C:

2002

), p

age

45; U

SD

OT,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

Air

Car

rier

Traf

fic S

tatis

tics,

Dec

embe

r 20

01 (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

3), d

omes

tic d

ata;

an

d U

SD

OT,

Fed

eral

Tra

nsit

Adm

inis

trat

ion,

Nat

iona

l Tre

nds

and

Sum

mar

ies

2001

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, pag

e 21

.


238

TAB

LE

67

Min

or

Mo

tor

Veh

icle

-Rel

ated

Inju

ries

by

Ag

e an

d G

end

er:

2001

Age

Mal

es(n

umbe

r)Fe

mal

es(n

umbe

r)

0–4

55,8

8655

,855

5–9

63,0

6053

,269

10–1

478

,288

70,4

15

15–1

923

0,73

027

5,22

0

20–2

423

7,79

024

9,81

4

25–2

917

1,20

419

1,16

2

30–3

415

4,88

916

5,35

4

35–3

914

7,07

215

8,73

3

40–4

412

5,38

913

8,33

1

45–4

995

,898

113,

938

50–5

469

,647

83,1

55

55–5

948

,655

59,0

08

60–6

432

,454

40,2

28

65–6

924

,925

33,5

20

70–7

420

,533

26,4

74

75–7

917

,098

22,3

15

80–8

410

,058

14,3

96

85–8

94,

418

5,76

2

90–9

41,

320

1,73

3

95–9

934

826

4

100+

011

9

TAB

LE

68

Ser

iou

s M

oto

r V

ehic

le-R

elat

ed In

juri

es b

y A

ge

and

Gen

der

: 20

01

Age

Mal

es(n

umbe

r)Fe

mal

es(n

umbe

r)

0–4

3,54

33,

329

5–9

6,28

74,

037

10–1

46,

834

4,80

9

15–1

925

,279

16,7

01

20–2

426

,360

16,1

58

25–2

915

,410

10,2

23

30–3

414

,214

8,83

1

35–3

914

,382

8,19

9

40–4

414

,384

9,39

4

45–4

910

,836

7,34

0

50–5

410

,988

6,96

6

55–5

96,

985

4,48

6

60–6

45,

154

4,22

6

65–6

93,

637

4,54

5

70–7

43,

423

3,70

2

75–7

94,

331

4,09

2

80–8

43,

383

3,89

4

85–8

91,

222

1,78

6

90–9

435

410

0

95–9

913

532

5

100+

00

NO

TE

for

Tab

les

67 a

nd

68:

A m

inor

inju

ry is

one

in w

hich

the

vict

im w

as tr

eate

d an

d re

leas

ed.

A s

erio

us in

jury

is o

ne in

whi

ch th

e vi

ctim

w

as e

ither

hos

pita

lized

or

trea

ted

and

tran

sfer

red

to a

noth

er fa

cilit

y.

SO

UR

CE

for

Tab

les

67 a

nd

68:

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

cal

cula

tions

bas

ed o

n da

ta fr

om

U.S

. Con

sum

er P

rodu

ct S

afet

y C

omm

issi

on, N

atio

nal E

lect

roni

c In

jury

Sur

veill

ance

(N

EIS

S)

Sys

tem

, ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.cps

c.go

v/N

eiss

/ora

cle.

htm

l, as

of J

une

2003

.

Appendix B

239

TAB

LE

69

Ser

iou

s M

oto

r V

ehic

le-R

elat

ed In

juri

es

by T

ype:

200

1

Type

Tota

l nu

mbe

r of

Inju

ries

Num

ber

of se

rious

in

jurie

sPe

rcen

t se

rious

Vehi

cle

occu

pant

s3,

350,

837

249,

309

7.4

Mot

orcy

cle

occu

pant

s11

0,66

521

,957

19.8

Peda

lcyc

lists

60,3

136,

412

10.6

Pede

stria

ns13

0,81

225

,025

19.1

NO

TE

S:

A p

edal

cycl

ist i

s a

pers

on o

n a

vehi

cle

that

is

pow

ered

sol

ely

by p

edal

s.

A m

inor

inju

ry is

one

in w

hich

the

vict

im w

as tr

eate

d an

d re

leas

ed.

A s

erio

us in

jury

is o

ne in

whi

ch th

e vi

ctim

was

ei

ther

hos

pita

lized

or

trea

ted

and

tran

sfer

red

to a

noth

er

faci

lity.

Dat

a ar

e th

e sh

are

of in

jurie

s th

at w

ere

serio

us

for

one

pers

on ty

pe (

e.g.

, the

sha

re o

f ser

ious

ly in

jure

d pe

dest

rians

of a

ll in

jure

d pe

dest

rians

).

SO

UR

CE

: U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of

Tran

spor

tatio

n S

tatis

tics,

cal

cula

tions

bas

ed o

n da

ta

from

U.S

. Con

sum

er P

rodu

ct S

afet

y C

omm

issi

on,

Nat

iona

l Ele

ctro

nic

Inju

ry S

urve

illan

ce (

NE

ISS

) S

yste

m,

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.cps

c.go

v/N

eiss

/ora

cle.

htm

l, as

of

June

200

3.

TAB

LE

70

Co

mp

on

ents

of

the

Eco

no

mic

Co

sts

of

Mo

tor

Veh

icle

Cra

shes

: 20

00M

illio

ns o

f cur

rent

dol

lars

Type

of c

ost

Cost

Mar

ket p

rodu

ctiv

ity60

,991

Prop

erty

dam

age

59,0

36

Med

ical

cos

ts32

,622

Trav

el d

elay

25,5

60

Hous

ehol

d pr

oduc

tivity

20,1

51

Insu

ranc

e ad

min

istra

tion

15,1

67

Lega

l cos

ts11

,118

Wor

kpla

ce c

osts

4,47

2

Emer

genc

y se

rvic

es1,

453

Tota

l23

0,56

8

SO

UR

CE

: U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

N

atio

nal H

ighw

ay T

raffi

c S

afet

y A

dmin

istr

atio

n, T

he

Eco

nom

ic Im

pact

of M

otor

Veh

icle

Cra

shes

200

0,

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.nht

sa.d

ot.g

ov/p

eopl

e/ec

onom

ic/,

as o

f Dec

embe

r 20

02.


240

TAB

LE

71

Est

imat

ed S

ou

rces

of

Pay

men

t fo

r M

oto

r V

ehic

le C

rash

es:

2000

Mill

ions

of c

urre

nt d

olla

rs

Fede

ral

gove

rnm

ent

Stat

e go

vern

men

tTo

tal

gove

rnm

ent

Insu

rer

Othe

rSe

lf

Emer

genc

y se

rvic

esNA

11

NANA

NA

Mar

ket p

rodu

ctiv

ity10

212

251

23

Med

ical

53

818

25

Hous

ehol

d pr

oduc

tivity

NANA

NA8

NA12

Insu

ranc

e ad

min

istra

tion

NANA

NA15

NANA

Wor

kpla

ce c

osts

NANA

NANA

4NA

Lega

l/cou

rtNA

NANA

11NA

NA

Trav

el d

elay

NANA

NANA

26NA

Prop

erty

dam

age

NANA

NA38

NA21

Tota

l15

621

116

3360

KE

Y: N

A =

not

app

licab

le.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, N

atio

nal H

ighw

ay T

raffi

c S

afet

y A

dmin

istr

atio

n, T

he E

cono

mic

Impa

ct o

f Mot

or V

ehic

le C

rash

es

2000

, ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.nht

sa.d

ot.g

ov/p

eopl

e/ec

onom

ic/,

as o

f Dec

embe

r 20

02.

Appendix B

241

TAB

LE

72

Sh

are

of

Sel

ecte

d A

ir P

ollu

tio

n E

mis

sio

ns

by M

od

e: 2

001

Perc

ent

CONO

xVO

CPM

-10

High

way

gas

olin

e92

.941

.774

.727

.1

High

way

die

sel

1.4

37.5

3.6

37.8

Airc

raft

5.1

0.8

0.3

0.9

Mar

ine

vess

els

0.3

9.7

0.0

13.1

Railr

oad

0.2

9.6

0.6

7.4

Othe

r0.

10.

820

.213

.7

KE

Y:

CO

= c

arbo

n m

onox

ide;

NO

x =

nitr

ogen

oxi

des;

VO

C =

vol

atile

or

gani

c co

mpo

unds

; PM

-10

= p

artic

ulat

e m

atte

r 10

mic

rons

in d

iam

eter

or

smal

ler.

NO

TE

S:

EPA

no

long

er e

stim

ates

lead

em

issi

ons.

Mod

al s

hare

s in

200

0 w

ere:

hig

hway

gas

olin

e ve

hicl

es, 4

.1%

; airc

raft,

95.

9%. H

ighw

ay g

asol

ine

vehi

cles

incl

ude:

ligh

t-du

ty g

as v

ehic

les

and

mot

orcy

cles

, lig

ht-d

uty

gas

truc

ks, a

nd h

eavy

-dut

y ga

s ve

hicl

es. H

ighw

ay d

iese

l inc

lude

s he

avy-

duty

di

esel

veh

icle

s, li

ght-

duty

die

sel t

ruck

s an

d ve

hicl

es. M

arin

e ve

ssel

s in

clud

e: c

oal,

dies

el, r

esid

ual o

il, g

asol

ine

and

othe

r. O

ther

incl

udes

: di

esel

and

gas

olin

e re

crea

tiona

l veh

icle

s, a

irpo

rt s

ervi

ce, r

ailw

ay m

aint

e-na

nce,

and

rec

reat

iona

l mar

ine

serv

ice.

Thi

s ta

ble

does

not

incl

ude

farm

, co

nstr

uctio

n, in

dust

rial,

logg

ing,

ligh

t com

mer

cial

, and

law

n an

d ga

rden

eq

uipm

ent.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. E

nviro

nmen

tal P

rote

ctio

n A

genc

y (E

PA),

Offi

ce o

f Air

Qua

lity

Pla

nnin

g an

d S

tand

ards

, "N

atio

nal E

mis

sion

s In

vent

ory,

Air

Pol

luta

nt E

mis

sion

Tre

nds,

" av

aila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.e

pa.g

ov/tt

n/ch

ief/

tren

ds/in

dex.

htm

l/, a

s of

Dec

embe

r 20

02.


242

TAB

LE

73a

Tr

ansp

ort

atio

n A

ir E

mis

sio

ns

by T

ype

of

Po

lluta

nt:

199

1–20

01In

dex:

199

1 =

1.00

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

CO

1.00

0.95

0.90

0.86

0.81

0.76

0.74

0.71

0.71

0.66

0.73

NOx

1.00

0.99

0.98

0.97

0.96

0.95

0.95

0.94

0.91

0.91

0.90

VOC

1.00

0.95

0.90

0.85

0.80

0.75

0.73

0.72

0.70

0.66

0.62

PM-1

01.

000.

970.

940.

940.

900.

870.

830.

790.

760.

730.

70

PM-2

.5

1.00

0.96

0.93

0.90

0.86

0.83

0.80

0.76

0.73

0.69

0.66

Lead

11.

000.

990.

920.

920.

950.

890.

880.

880.

910.

95U

NH3

1.00

1.08

1.15

1.23

1.31

1.40

1.57

1.52

1.54

1.61

1.64

TAB

LE

73b

Tr

ansp

ort

atio

n A

ir E

mis

sio

ns

by T

ype

of

Po

lluta

nt:

199

1–20

01Th

ousa

nd s

hort

tons

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

CO

109,

113

103,

833

98,6

6793

,440

88,2

1782

,988

80,2

2277

,644

77,1

7872

,493

79,3

36

NO x

11

,558

11,4

4511

,332

11,2

1711

,101

10,9

9011

,021

10,8

1910

,537

10,5

7210

,423

VOC

10,0

499,

549

9,05

08,

553

8,05

67,

554

7,32

67,

212

7,06

76,

681

6,22

6

PM-1

047

846

444

944

743

241

739

537

736

334

833

6

PM-2

.5

407

392

378

366

351

338

325

308

296

279

268

Lead

10.

60.

60.

50.

50.

60.

50.

50.

50.

50.

6U

NH3

173

186

199

213

226

242

271

263

267

278

283

1 D

ata

not a

vaila

ble.

EPA

is n

o lo

nger

est

imat

ing

lead

em

issi

ons.

The

dat

a pr

esen

ted

here

app

eare

d in

prio

r ye

ar E

PA r

epor

ts.

KE

Y F

OR

TA

BL

ES

73a

AN

D 7

3b:

CO

= c

arbo

n m

onox

ide;

NO

x =

nitr

ogen

oxi

des;

VO

C =

vol

atile

org

anic

com

poun

ds; P

M-1

0 =

par

ticul

ate

mat

ter

10 m

icro

ns in

di

amet

er o

r sm

alle

r; U

= d

ata

are

unav

aila

ble.

NO

TE

S F

OR

TA

BL

ES

73a

AN

D 7

3b: R

evis

ions

to p

revi

ous

estim

ates

are

all

rela

ted

to th

e de

velo

pmen

t of t

he 1

999

Nat

iona

l Em

issi

ons

Inve

ntor

y (N

EI)

. T

he 1

999

estim

ates

In th

e ta

ble

are

take

n fr

om V

ersi

on 2

of t

he 1

999

NE

I and

ref

lect

man

y ne

w d

ata

subm

issi

ons

from

sta

te a

nd lo

cal a

ir m

anag

emen

t age

ncie

s. T

he 1

999

emis

sion

s es

timat

es fr

om m

obile

sou

rces

are

in m

ost c

ases

bas

ed o

n th

e ne

w M

OB

ILE

6 an

d th

e dr

aft N

ON

RO

AD

2002

em

issi

ons

mod

els.

Thi

s is

the

first

tim

e th

at

estim

ates

usi

ng th

ese

mod

els

have

app

eare

d in

this

form

at.

Som

e bu

t rel

ativ

ely

few

mob

ile s

ourc

e es

timat

es w

ere

prov

ided

by

stat

e ai

r ag

enci

es. T

he la

rges

t set

of

sta

te-s

ubm

itted

dat

a in

199

9 w

as fr

om C

alifo

rnia

. Est

imat

es fo

r m

obile

sou

rces

for

year

s pr

ior

to 1

999

wer

e m

ade

cons

iste

nt w

ith th

e es

timat

es fo

r 19

99 a

nd

late

r, al

low

ing

for

a ge

nera

lly c

onsi

sten

t tim

e tr

end

exce

pt th

at s

tate

-sub

mitt

ed d

ata

was

inco

rpor

ated

for

1999

onl

y.

SO

UR

CE

FO

R T

AB

LE

S 7

3a A

ND

73b

: U

.S. E

nviro

nmen

tal P

rote

ctio

n A

genc

y (E

PA),

Offi

ce o

f Air

Qua

lity

Pla

nnin

g an

d S

tand

ards

, "N

atio

nal E

mis

sion

s In

vent

ory,

A

ir P

ollu

tant

Em

issi

on T

rend

s,"

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.epa

.gov

/ttn/

chie

f/tre

nds/

inde

x.ht

ml/,

as

of A

ugus

t 200

2.

Appendix B

243

TAB

LE

74a

N

itro

gen

Oxi

de

Em

issi

on

s by

Mo

de:

199

1–20

01In

dex:

199

1 =

1.00

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

High

way

gas

olin

e1.

000.

960.

910.

870.

830.

780.

770.

740.

710.

690.

72

High

way

die

sel

1.00

1.04

1.07

1.11

1.14

1.18

1.21

1.22

1.19

1.24

1.16

Airc

raft

1.00

1.01

1.03

1.04

1.04

1.06

1.19

1.30

1.43

1.26

1.16

Mar

ine

vess

els

1.00

1.01

1.02

1.03

1.04

1.05

1.00

0.95

0.90

1.00

1.00

Railr

oad

1.00

1.02

1.04

1.05

1.07

1.09

1.10

1.12

1.13

1.04

1.04

Othe

r non

road

1.00

0.97

1.03

1.03

1.03

1.10

1.19

1.11

1.37

1.19

1.19

TAB

LE

74b

N

itro

gen

Oxi

de

Em

issi

on

s by

Mo

de:

199

1–20

01Th

ousa

nds

of s

hort

tons

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

High

way

gas

olin

e6,

072

5,81

15,

548

5,28

75,

026

4,76

54,

705

4,50

94,

312

4,20

14,

345

High

way

die

sel

3,37

73,

495

3,61

43,

732

3,85

03,

968

4,08

74,

111

4,03

54,

192

3,90

4

Airc

raft

7071

7273

7374

8391

100

8881

Mar

ine

vess

els

1,01

21,

021

1,03

01,

039

1,04

91,

058

1,00

895

890

81,

008

1,01

1

Railr

oad

962

979

996

1,01

41,

031

1,04

81,

061

1,07

31,

085

1,00

199

9

Othe

r non

road

7068

7272

7277

8378

9683

83

NO

TE

S:

Hig

hway

gas

olin

e ve

hicl

es in

clud

e: li

ght-

duty

gas

veh

icle

s an

d m

otor

cycl

es, l

ight

-dut

y ga

s tr

ucks

, and

hea

vy d

uty

gas

vehi

cles

. H

ighw

ay d

iese

l inc

lude

s he

avy-

duty

die

sel v

ehic

les,

ligh

t-du

ty d

iese

l tru

cks

and

vehi

cles

. M

arin

e ve

ssel

s in

clud

e: c

oal,

dies

el, r

esid

ual o

il, g

asol

ine

and

othe

r. O

ther

incl

udes

: die

sel a

nd

gaso

line

recr

eatio

nal v

ehic

les,

air

port

ser

vice

, rai

lway

mai

nten

ance

, and

rec

reat

iona

l mar

ine

serv

ice.

The

se ta

bles

do

not i

nclu

de fa

rm, c

onst

ruct

ion,

indu

stria

l, lo

g-gi

ng, l

ight

com

mer

cial

, and

law

n an

d ga

rden

equ

ipm

ent.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. E

nviro

nmen

tal P

rote

ctio

n A

genc

y (E

PA),

Offi

ce o

f Air

Qua

lity

Pla

nnin

g an

d S

tand

ards

, "N

atio

nal E

mis

sion

s In

vent

ory,

Air

Pol

luta

nt E

mis

sion

Tr

ends

," a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.e

pa.g

ov/tt

n/ch

ief/t

rend

s/in

dex.

htm

l/, a

s of

Aug

ust

2002

.


244

TAB

LE

75/

76a

Car

bo

n D

ioxi

de

Em

issi

on

s by

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n M

od

e: 1

991–

2001

In

dex:

199

1 =

1.00

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Pass

enge

r car

s1.

001.

001.

031.

041.

041.

061.

051.

081.

101.

111.

13

Ligh

t-dut

y tru

cks

1.00

1.06

1.10

1.13

1.18

1.22

1.26

1.29

1.34

1.35

1.38

All o

ther

truc

ks1.

001.

021.

051.

121.

171.

221.

271.

331.

401.

451.

47

Buse

s1.

001.

011.

071.

131.

131.

171.

191.

231.

371.

331.

23

T

otal

hig

hway

1.00

1.02

1.05

1.08

1.11

1.14

1.16

1.19

1.23

1.25

1.27

Alte

rnat

ive

fuel

veh

icle

s1.

000.

921.

081.

751.

000.

920.

921.

080.

921.

081.

00

Airc

raft1

1.00

0.99

0.99

1.04

1.01

1.06

1.06

1.08

1.10

1.15

1.09

Boat

s an

d ve

ssel

s1.

001.

221.

061.

071.

131.

050.

730.

600.

841.

301.

27

Loco

mot

ives

1.00

1.03

1.06

1.17

1.21

1.25

1.24

1.28

1.34

1.33

1.35

Othe

r21.

001.

011.

021.

071.

081.

111.

141.

061.

041.

071.

15

Tota

l1.

001.

021.

041.

081.

101.

131.

131.

151.

191.

231.

24

Inte

rnat

iona

l bun

ker f

uels

31.

000.

920.

830.

820.

840.

850.

920.

940.

880.

840.

81

1 A

ircra

ft em

issi

ons

are

from

all

jet f

uel (

less

bun

ker

fuel

s) a

nd a

viat

ion

gas

cons

umpt

ion.

2 "O

ther

" ca

rbon

dio

xide

em

issi

ons

are

from

mot

orcy

cles

, con

stru

ctio

n eq

uipm

ent,

agric

ultu

ral m

achi

nery

, pip

elin

es, a

nd lu

bric

ants

.3

Em

issi

ons

from

inte

rnat

iona

l bun

ker

fuel

s in

clud

e em

issi

ons

from

bot

h ci

vilia

n an

d m

ilita

ry a

ctiv

ities

, but

are

not

incl

uded

in to

tals

.

NO

TE

: H

ighw

ay to

tal i

nclu

des

pass

enge

r ca

rs, b

uses

, lig

ht-d

uty

truc

ks, a

nd o

ther

truc

ks.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. E

nviro

nmen

tal P

rote

ctio

n A

genc

y, In

vent

ory

of U

.S. G

reen

hous

e G

as E

mis

sion

s an

d S

inks

: 199

0–20

01 (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: Apr

il 20

03),

tabl

e 1-

14,

also

ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.epa

.gov

, as

of J

une

2003

.

Appendix B

245

TAB

LE

75/

76b

C

arb

on

Dio

xid

e E

mis

sio

ns

by M

od

e: 1

991–

2001

Te

ragr

ams

of C

O 2 e

quiv

alen

t1

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Pass

enge

r car

s56

2.4

564.

857

7.6

584.

358

7.2

594.

359

2.8

607.

961

8.6

621.

763

2.7

Ligh

t-dut

y tru

cks

332.

735

1.7

367.

537

6.7

392.

940

6.5

419.

142

7.6

446.

145

0.2

460.

0

All o

ther

truc

ks20

2.6

206.

221

2.0

227.

123

7.0

246.

525

7.6

269.

328

4.2

294.

729

8.3

Buse

s7.

07.

17.

57.

97.

98.

28.

38.

69.

69.

38.

6

T

otal

hig

hway

1,10

5.9

1,13

0.9

1,16

5.9

1,19

8.1

1,22

6.2

1,25

6.6

1,27

8.9

1,31

4.7

1,35

9.6

1,37

7.2

1,40

0.8

Alte

rnat

ive

fuel

veh

icle

s1.

21.

11.

32.

11.

21.

11.

11.

31.

11.

31.

2

Airc

raft2

169.

316

7.0

168.

017

5.9

171.

418

0.2

179.

018

3.0

186.

819

5.3

183.

9

Boat

s an

d ve

ssel

s45

.956

.248

.548

.951

.748

.133

.627

.438

.659

.758

.3

Loco

mot

ives

25.4

26.2

26.9

29.8

30.8

31.8

31.6

32.4

34.1

33.8

34.3

Othe

r393

.594

.495

.010

0.4

100.

710

3.8

107.

099

.597

.110

0.2

107.

2

Tota

l1,

440.

01,

474.

71,

504.

31,

553.

11,

580.

81,

620.

51,

630.

11,

657.

01,

716.

21,

766.

21,

784.

5

Inte

rnat

iona

l bun

ker f

uels

411

9.9

109.

999

.898

.010

1.0

102.

310

9.9

112.

910

5.3

100.

297

.3

1 Te

ragr

ams

of C

O2

equi

vale

nt—

1 T

gCO

2Eq

= 1

mill

ion

met

ric to

n of

car

bon

equi

vale

nt x

(44

/12)

. A te

ragr

am e

qual

s 1

trill

ion

gram

s.2

Airc

raft

emis

sion

s ar

e fr

om a

ll je

t fue

l (le

ss b

unke

r fu

els)

and

avi

atio

n ga

s co

nsum

ptio

n.3

"Oth

er"

carb

on d

ioxi

de e

mis

sion

s ar

e fr

om m

otor

cycl

es, c

onst

ruct

ion

equi

pmen

t, ag

ricul

tura

l mac

hine

ry, p

ipel

ines

, and

lubr

ican

ts.

4 Em

issi

ons

from

inte

rnat

iona

l bun

ker

fuel

s in

clud

e em

issi

ons

from

bot

h ci

vilia

n an

d m

ilita

ry a

ctiv

ities

, but

are

not

incl

uded

in to

tals

.

NO

TE

: H

ighw

ay to

tal i

nclu

des

pass

enge

r ca

rs, b

uses

, lig

ht-d

uty

truc

ks, a

nd o

ther

truc

ks.

SO

UR

CE

: U.S

. Env

ironm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

Age

ncy,

Inve

ntor

y of

U.S

. Gre

enho

use

Gas

Em

issi

ons

and

Sin

ks: 1

990–

2001

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: A

pril

2003

), ta

ble

1-14

, als

o av

ail-

able

at h

ttp://

ww

w.e

pa.g

ov, a

s of

Jun

e 20

03.


246

TAB

LE

77

Vo

lum

e o

f O

il S

pill

s R

epo

rted

to

th

e U

.S. C

oas

t G

uar

d b

y S

ou

rce:

199

1–20

00Ga

llons

Mod

e or

sou

rce

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Tran

spor

tatio

n-re

late

d11,

624,

043

1,44

0,17

71,

893,

188

2,04

0,85

82,

543,

706

3,03

5,13

876

7,43

983

2,68

999

1,31

31,

373,

538

M

ariti

me

vess

els

and

faci

litie

s1,

565,

492

1,15

9,26

61,

462,

701

1,96

6,78

22,

484,

891

2,05

0,31

753

7,66

877

2,26

194

0,21

21,

342,

630

A

ll ot

her t

rans

porta

tion

58,5

5128

0,91

143

0,48

774

,076

58,8

1598

4,82

122

9,77

160

,428

51,1

0130

,908

Pipe

line

49,

382

200

,396

362

,399

62,

340

11,

894

978

,392

224

,122

47,

863

36,

140

17,

021

Air

760

63,

717

63,

384

3,3

60 1

,716

2,2

21 6

83 9

43 3

55 2

,224

High

way

7,2

03 1

3,57

7 7

48 3

,219

758

690

1,4

32 1

0,11

1 1

3,03

7 7

,148

Rail

1,2

06 1

23 3

,419

2,1

17 4

3,95

5 6

10 3

4 3

05 5

63 7

Othe

r tra

nspo

rtatio

n20

3,0

98 5

37 3

,040

492

2,9

08 3

,500

1,2

06 1

,006

4,5

08

Nont

rans

porta

tion

77,8

7215

2,24

910

2,34

848

,161

27,6

0243

,540

102,

671

20,9

8790

,779

25,8

90

Unkn

own

and

othe

r17

4,03

828

3,24

171

,852

400,

254

66,9

2139

,153

72,4

6431

,627

90,3

5731

,942

Tota

l1,

875,

953

1,87

5,66

72,

067,

388

2,48

9,27

32,

638,

229

3,11

7,83

194

2,57

488

5,30

31,

172,

449

1,43

1,37

0

Tran

spor

tatio

n as

per

cent

of t

otal

86.6

76.8

91.6

82.0

96.4

97.3

81.4

94.1

84.6

96.0

1 O

il sp

illed

from

tran

spor

tatio

n ve

ssel

s, v

ehic

les,

and

equ

ipm

ent,

as w

ell a

s fr

om tr

ansp

orta

tion-

rela

ted

faci

litie

s (e

.g.,

at p

orts

and

fuel

sta

tions

).2

Oth

er tr

ansp

orta

tion

incl

udes

non

vess

el c

omm

on c

arrie

rs.

NO

TE

: D

ata

are

prel

imin

ary.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, c

alcu

latio

ns b

ased

on

U.S

. Coa

st G

uard

, Pol

lutio

n In

cide

nts

in a

nd A

roun

d U

.S.

Wat

ers,

ava

ilabl

e at

: http

://w

ww

.usc

g.m

il/hq

/g-m

/nm

c/re

spon

se/s

tats

/ac.

htm

, as

of S

epte

mbe

r 20

02.

Appendix B

247

TAB

LE

78

Ave

rag

e Vo

lum

e o

f O

il S

pill

s by

So

urc

e: 1

991–

2000

Gallo

ns

Mod

e or

sou

rce

Volu

me

of a

ll oi

l spi

lls

(199

1–20

00)

Perc

ent s

hare

of a

ll sp

ills

(199

1–20

00)

Mar

itim

e 1

4,28

2,22

077

.2

Faci

litie

s 4

,020

,880

21.7

Mar

itim

e no

ntan

k ve

ssel

s an

d ot

her

3,3

53,8

4018

.1

Wat

erbo

rne

tank

ve

ssel

s 6

,907

,500

37.3

Pipe

line

1,9

89,9

4910

.8

Non-

trans

porta

tion

stru

ctur

es a

nd fa

cilit

ies

692

,099

3.7

Unkn

own

and

othe

r 1

,261

,849

6.8

High

way

, airc

raft,

rail,

an

d ot

her

269

,920

1.5

Tota

l 1

8,49

6,03

710

0.0

NO

TE

: D

ata

are

prel

imin

ary.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tis-

tics,

cal

cula

tions

bas

ed o

n U

.S. C

oast

Gua

rd, P

ollu

tion

Inci

dent

s in

and

Aro

und

U.S

. Wat

ers,

ava

ilabl

e at

: http

://w

ww

.usc

g.m

il/hq

/g-m

/nm

c/re

spon

se/s

tats

/ac

.htm

, as

of S

epte

mbe

r 20

02.


248

TAB

LE

79

Haz

ard

ou

s M

ater

ials

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n In

cid

ents

by

Mo

de:

199

1–20

01Nu

mbe

r

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Air

299

414

622

931

817

919

1,02

91,

386

1,58

41,

420

1,08

0

High

way

7,64

47,

843

11,0

9514

,011

12,8

6811

,962

11,8

6413

,110

15,0

0415

,126

15,8

07

Rail

1,15

51,

128

1,11

31,

157

1,15

51,

112

1,10

398

91,

074

1,05

989

6

Wat

er12

88

612

65

148

175

Tota

l9,

110

9,39

312

,838

16,1

0514

,852

13,9

9914

,001

15,4

9917

,670

17,6

2217

,788

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, R

esea

rch

and

Spe

cial

Pro

gram

s A

dmin

istr

atio

n, H

azar

dous

Mat

eria

ls In

form

atio

n S

yste

m

data

base

, ava

ilabl

e at

http

://ha

zmat

.dot

.gov

/file

s/ha

zmat

/10y

ear/

10ye

arfr

m.h

tm, a

s of

Jan

uary

200

3.

Appendix B

249

TAB

LE

80a

H

azar

do

us

Mat

eria

ls T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Inju

ries

by

Mo

de:

199

1–20

01Nu

mbe

r

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Air

3123

5057

3333

2420

125

13

High

way

333

465

511

425

296

216

152

151

217

164

101

Rail

7511

666

9571

926

4522

3582

29

Wat

er0

00

00

00

20

00

Tota

l43

960

462

757

740

01,

175

221

195

264

251

143

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, R

esea

rch

and

Spe

cial

Pro

gram

s A

dmin

istr

atio

n, H

azar

dous

Mat

eria

ls In

form

atio

n S

yste

m

data

base

, ava

ilabl

e at

http

://ha

zmat

.dot

.gov

/file

s/ha

zmat

/10y

ear/

10ye

arfr

m.h

tm, a

s of

Jan

uary

200

3.

TAB

LE

80b

H

azar

do

us

Mat

eria

ls T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Fat

alit

ies

by M

od

e: 1

991–

2001

Num

ber

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Air

00

00

011

00

00

00

High

way

1016

1511

78

1213

1015

7

Rail

00

00

02

00

00

0

Wat

er0

00

00

00

00

00

Tota

l10

1615

117

120

1213

1015

7

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, R

esea

rch

and

Spe

cial

Pro

gram

s A

dmin

istr

atio

n, H

azar

dous

Mat

eria

ls In

form

atio

n S

yste

m

data

base

, ava

ilabl

e at

http

://ha

zmat

.dot

.gov

/file

s/ha

zmat

/10y

ear/

10ye

arfr

m.h

tm, a

s of

Jan

uary

200

3.


250

TAB

LE

81/

82a

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n C

apit

al S

tock

for

Sel

ecte

d M

od

es:

1990

–200

0Bi

llion

s of

cha

ined

199

6 do

llars

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Railr

oad

trans

porta

tion

stoc

k36

335

835

334

934

734

434

334

334

434

334

2

In-h

ouse

tran

spor

tatio

n st

ock

336

350

364

382

408

432

462

486

521

571

609

High

way

s an

d st

reet

s1,

009

1,01

51,

038

1,06

31,

105

1,12

11,

129

1,14

81,

169

1,20

71,

234

Cons

umer

mot

or

vehi

cles

704

680

666

659

665

657

663

676

709

760

811

Loca

l and

inte

rurb

an

trans

it st

ock

2424

2425

2525

2627

2829

31

Truc

king

and

w

areh

ousi

ng s

tock

8380

7982

9199

104

113

115

118

121

Wat

er tr

ansp

orta

tion

stoc

k40

3938

3838

3837

3838

3939

Air t

rans

porta

tion

stoc

k10

110

411

011

311

311

612

112

914

316

518

3

Pipe

lines

sto

ck, e

xcep

t na

tura

l gas

44

4444

4444

4545

4545

4546

Tran

spor

tatio

n se

rvic

es

stoc

k29

2929

3031

3436

3843

4753

NO

TE

S:

Dat

a in

clud

e on

ly p

rivat

ely

owne

d ca

pita

l sto

ck, e

xcep

t for

hig

hway

s an

d st

reet

s. C

onsu

mer

mot

or v

ehic

les

are

cons

umer

dur

able

goo

ds.

In-h

ouse

tran

s-po

rtat

ion

incl

udes

tran

spor

tatio

n se

rvic

e pr

ovid

ed w

ithin

a fi

rm w

hose

mai

n bu

sine

ss is

not

tran

spor

tatio

n. F

or e

xam

ple,

gro

cery

com

pani

es o

ften

use

thei

r ow

n tr

uck

fleet

s to

mov

e go

ods

from

thei

r w

areh

ouse

s to

thei

r re

tail

outle

ts.

Dat

a ha

ve b

een

adju

sted

for

infla

tion

usin

g pr

ice

defla

tors

from

the

follo

win

g so

urce

s: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Bur

eau

of E

cono

mic

Ana

lysi

s, N

atio

nal

Inco

me

and

Pro

duct

Acc

ount

s, Q

uant

ity a

nd P

rice

Inde

xes;

and

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Lab

or, B

urea

u of

Lab

or S

tatis

tics,

Pro

duce

r P

rice

Inde

xes.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Bur

eau

of E

cono

mic

Ana

lysi

s, F

ixed

Ass

ets

and

Con

sum

er D

urab

le G

oods

in th

e U

nite

d S

tate

s, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ea.g

ov, a

s of

Mar

ch 2

003.

Appendix B

251

TAB

LE

81/

82b

Tr

ansp

ort

atio

n C

apit

al S

tock

for

Sel

ecte

d M

od

es:

1990

–200

0Bi

llion

s of

cur

rent

dol

lars

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Railr

oad

trans

porta

tion

stoc

k30

430

330

732

432

933

734

935

234

734

134

1

In-h

ouse

tra

nspo

rtatio

n st

ock

286

309

331

360

396

429

463

481

517

573

618

High

way

s an

d st

reet

s86

988

991

094

11,

004

1,07

51,

129

1,19

31,

238

1,32

21,

420

Cons

umer

mot

or

vehi

cles

574

567

574

599

629

646

663

673

703

748

796

Loca

l and

inte

rurb

an

trans

it st

ock

2121

2223

2425

2728

2830

32

Truc

king

and

w

areh

ousi

ng s

tock

7171

7277

8999

104

113

117

122

127

Wat

er tr

ansp

orta

tion

stoc

k35

3535

3637

3738

3940

4143

Air t

rans

porta

tion

stoc

k85

9199

104

108

115

122

131

145

169

194

Pipe

lines

sto

ck, e

xcep

t na

tura

l gas

38

3940

4244

4445

4747

4950

Tran

spor

tatio

n se

rvic

es s

tock

2627

2728

3034

3637

4145

50

NO

TE

S:

Dat

a in

clud

e on

ly p

rivat

ely

owne

d ca

pita

l sto

ck, e

xcep

t for

hig

hway

s an

d st

reet

s. C

onsu

mer

mot

or v

ehic

les

are

cons

umer

dur

able

goo

ds.

In-h

ouse

tran

s-po

rtat

ion

incl

udes

tran

spor

tatio

n se

rvic

e pr

ovid

ed w

ithin

a fi

rm w

hose

mai

n bu

sine

ss is

not

tran

spor

tatio

n. F

or e

xam

ple,

gro

cery

com

pani

es o

ften

use

thei

r ow

n tr

uck

fleet

s to

mov

e go

ods

from

thei

r w

areh

ouse

s to

thei

r re

tail

outle

ts.

Dat

a ha

ve b

een

adju

sted

for

infla

tion

usin

g pr

ice

defla

tors

from

the

follo

win

g so

urce

s: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Bur

eau

of E

cono

mic

Ana

lysi

s, N

atio

nal

Inco

me

and

Pro

duct

Acc

ount

s, Q

uant

ity a

nd P

rice

Inde

xes;

and

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Lab

or, B

urea

u of

Lab

or S

tatis

tics,

Pro

duce

r P

rice

Inde

xes.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Bur

eau

of E

cono

mic

Ana

lysi

s, F

ixed

Ass

ets

and

Con

sum

er D

urab

le G

oods

in th

e U

nite

d S

tate

s, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ea.g

ov, a

s of

Mar

ch 2

003.


252

TAB

LE

83

Ru

ral R

oad

s in

Po

or

or

Med

iocr

e C

on

dit

ion

by

Fu

nct

ion

al C

lass

: 19

93–2

001

Perc

ent o

f mile

age

in ro

adw

ay c

lass

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Inte

rsta

tes

34.7

33.0

27.0

23.0

22.7

20.6

16.4

14.3

13.6

Othe

r prin

cipa

l arte

rials

12.1

10.6

12.0

7.3

6.5

6.1

4.5

4.0

3.7

Min

or a

rteria

ls13

.014

.012

.710

.59.

07.

96.

97.

06.

9

Colle

ctor

s19

.217

.818

.017

.020

.121

.821

.421

.220

.4

NO

TE

S:

Bec

ause

of t

he tr

ansi

tion

to a

new

indi

cato

r fo

r pa

vem

ent c

ondi

tion

begi

nnin

g w

ith U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, F

eder

al H

ighw

ay

Adm

inis

trat

ion

(FH

WA

) da

ta p

ublis

hed

in 1

993,

com

paris

ons

betw

een

pre-

1993

dat

a an

d 19

93 a

nd la

ter

data

are

diff

icul

t. D

ata

are

for

the

50 s

tate

s an

d th

e D

istr

ict o

f Col

umbi

a.

SO

UR

CE

: Var

ious

sou

rces

, as

cite

d in

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

Nat

iona

l Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s 20

02

(Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

2), t

able

1-2

6, a

lso

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bts

.gov

/, as

of A

pril

2003

.

TAB

LE

84

Urb

an R

oad

s in

Po

or

or

Med

iocr

e C

on

dit

ion

by

Fu

nct

ion

al C

lass

: 19

93–2

001

Perc

ent o

f mile

age

in ro

adw

ay c

lass

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Inte

rsta

tes

41.5

42.9

37.2

36.9

36.0

34.9

30.4

28.2

28.2

Othe

r fre

eway

s an

d ex

pres

sway

13.2

18.0

14.6

12.1

12.0

12.0

10.6

10.9

10.2

Othe

r prin

cipa

l arte

rials

22.5

28.8

27.1

25.9

26.7

31.3

30.6

30.0

29.3

Min

or a

rteria

ls21

.719

.020

.319

.920

.217

.917

.526

.026

.4

Colle

ctor

s27

.426

.026

.526

.326

.620

.922

.032

.131

.9

NO

TE

S:

Bec

ause

of t

he tr

ansi

tion

to a

new

indi

cato

r fo

r pa

vem

ent c

ondi

tion

begi

nnin

g w

ith U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, F

eder

al H

ighw

ay

Adm

inis

trat

ion

(FH

WA

) da

ta p

ublis

hed

in 1

993,

com

paris

ons

betw

een

pre-

1993

dat

a an

d 19

93 a

nd la

ter

data

are

diff

icul

t. D

ata

are

for

the

50 s

tate

s an

d th

e D

istr

ict o

f Col

umbi

a.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, N

atio

nal T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

2002

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, ta

ble

1-26

, als

o av

aila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ts.g

ov/,

as o

f Apr

il 20

03.

Appendix B

253

TAB

LE

85

Str

uct

ura

lly D

efic

ien

t an

d F

un

ctio

nal

ly O

bso

lete

Bri

dg

es:

All

Ro

adw

ays—

1991

–200

1Nu

mbe

r

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Stru

ctur

ally

def

icie

nt13

4,53

411

8,69

811

1,98

010

7,68

310

4,31

710

1,51

898

,475

93,0

7288

,150

83,5

7683

,595

Func

tiona

lly o

bsol

ete

97,5

9380

,393

80,0

0079

,832

80,9

5081

,208

77,4

1079

,500

81,9

0081

,510

81,4

39

NO

TE

S:

Fun

ctio

nally

obs

olet

e re

fers

to b

ridge

s th

at d

o no

t hav

e th

e la

ne w

idth

s, s

houl

der

wid

ths,

or

vert

ical

cle

aran

ces

adeq

uate

to s

erve

traf

fic d

eman

d, o

r th

e br

idge

may

not

be

able

to h

andl

e oc

casi

onal

roa

dway

floo

ding

. Str

uctu

rally

def

icie

nt r

efer

s to

brid

ges

need

ing

sign

ifica

nt m

aint

enan

ce a

ttent

ion,

reh

abili

tatio

n, o

r re

plac

emen

t.

SO

UR

CE

: U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Fed

eral

Hig

hway

Adm

inis

trat

ion,

Offi

ce o

f Eng

inee

ring,

Brid

ge D

ivis

ion,

Nat

iona

l Brid

ge In

vent

ory

data

base

, ava

il-ab

le a

t http

://w

ww

.fhw

a.do

t.gov

/brid

ge/b

ritab

.htm

, as

of D

ecem

ber

2002

.

TAB

LE

86a

R

ura

l Bri

dg

e C

on

dit

ion

by

Fu

nct

ion

al C

lass

: 20

01Pe

rcen

t

Stru

ctur

ally

defic

ient

Func

tiona

llyob

sole

teTo

tal

Prin

cipa

l arte

rial—

Inte

rsta

te4

1216

Othe

r prin

cipa

l arte

rial

610

16

Min

or a

rteria

l9

1220

Maj

or c

olle

ctor

1211

23

Min

or c

olle

ctor

1411

26

Loca

l22

1234

TAB

LE

86b

R

ura

l Bri

dg

e C

on

dit

ion

by

Fu

nct

ion

al C

lass

: 20

01Nu

mbe

r

Stru

ctur

ally

defic

ient

Func

tiona

llyob

sole

teTo

tal

Prin

cipa

l arte

rial—

In

ters

tate

1,10

83,

193

27,5

79

Othe

r prin

cipa

l arte

rial

1,96

43,

565

35,6

52

Min

or a

rteria

l3,

405

4,66

639

,686

Maj

or c

olle

ctor

11,6

3410

,256

95,7

36

Min

or c

olle

ctor

6,84

45,

442

47,7

82

Loca

l45

,935

24,9

3420

9,84

9

NO

TE

S F

OR

TA

BL

ES

86a

AN

D 8

6b:

Fun

ctio

nally

obs

olet

e re

fers

to b

ridge

s th

at d

o no

t hav

e th

e la

ne w

idth

s, s

houl

der

wid

ths,

or

vert

ical

cle

aran

ces

adeq

uate

to

serv

e tr

affic

dem

and,

or

the

brid

ge m

ay n

ot b

e ab

le to

han

dle

occa

sion

al r

oadw

ay fl

oodi

ng. S

truc

tura

lly d

efic

ient

ref

ers

to b

ridge

s ne

edin

g si

gnifi

cant

mai

nten

ance

at

tent

ion,

reh

abili

tatio

n, o

r re

plac

emen

t.

SO

UR

CE

FO

R T

AB

LE

S 8

6a A

ND

86b

: U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Fed

eral

Hig

hway

Adm

inis

trat

ion,

Offi

ce o

f Eng

inee

ring,

Brid

ge D

ivis

ion,

Nat

iona

l Brid

ge

Inve

ntor

y da

taba

se, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.fh

wa.

dot.g

ov/b

ridge

/brit

ab.h

tm, a

s of

Dec

embe

r 20

02.


254

TAB

LE

87a

U

rban

Bri

dg

e C

on

dit

ion

by

Fu

nct

ion

al C

lass

: 20

01Pe

rcen

t

Stru

ctur

ally

de

ficie

ntFu

nctio

nally

ob

sole

teTo

tal

Inte

rsta

te6

2027

Othe

r fre

eway

s or

ex

pres

sway

s6

2127

Othe

r prin

cipa

l arte

rial

1022

32

Min

or a

rteria

l11

2637

Colle

ctor

1225

37

Loca

l12

1931

TAB

LE

87b

U

rban

Bri

dg

e C

on

dit

ion

by

Fu

nct

ion

al C

lass

: 20

01Nu

mbe

r

Stru

ctur

ally

defic

ient

Func

tiona

llyob

sole

teTo

tal

Inte

rsta

te1,

760

5,67

527

,875

Othe

r fre

eway

s or

ex

pres

sway

s98

53,

368

16,1

12

Othe

r prin

cipa

l arte

rial

2,41

55,

514

24,8

04

Min

or a

rteria

l2,

500

6,06

423

,158

Colle

ctor

1,83

13,

836

15,4

07

Loca

l3,

214

4,92

626

,045

NO

TE

S F

OR

TA

BL

ES

87a

AN

D 8

7b:

Fun

ctio

nally

obs

olet

e re

fers

to b

ridge

s th

at d

o no

t hav

e th

e la

ne w

idth

s, s

houl

der

wid

ths,

or

vert

ical

cle

aran

ces

adeq

uate

to

serv

e tr

affic

dem

and,

or

the

brid

ge m

ay n

ot b

e ab

le to

han

dle

occa

sion

al r

oadw

ay fl

oodi

ng. S

truc

tura

lly d

efic

ient

ref

ers

to b

ridge

s ne

edin

g si

gnifi

cant

mai

nten

ance

at

tent

ion,

reh

abili

tatio

n, o

r re

plac

emen

t.

SO

UR

CE

FO

R T

AB

LE

S 8

7a A

ND

87b

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, F

eder

al H

ighw

ay A

dmin

istr

atio

n, O

ffice

of E

ngin

eerin

g, B

ridge

Div

isio

n, N

atio

nal B

ridge

In

vent

ory

data

base

, ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.fhw

a.do

t.gov

/brid

ge/b

ritab

.htm

, as

of D

ecem

ber

2002

.

Appendix B

255

TAB

LE

88

Ru

nw

ay P

avem

ent

Co

nd

itio

n o

f 54

6 C

om

mer

cial

Ser

vice

Air

po

rts:

199

0–20

01Pe

rcen

t

1990

1993

1997

1999

2000

2001

Good

con

ditio

n78

7979

7879

79

Fair

cond

ition

1718

1920

1919

Poor

con

ditio

n5

32

22

2

NO

TE

S:

The

re a

re 5

46 c

omm

erci

al s

ervi

ce a

irpo

rts.

The

re a

re 3

,364

NP

IAS

air

port

s, in

clud

ing

the

com

mer

cial

se

rivic

e ai

rpor

ts. D

ata

only

ava

ilabl

e fo

r ye

ars

show

n. R

aw d

ata

not r

eadi

ly a

vaila

ble.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, N

atio

nal T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

2002

(W

ashi

ngto

n D

C: 2

003)

, als

o av

aila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ts.g

ov/,

as o

f Jan

uary

200

3. B

ased

on

data

obt

aine

d fr

om th

e U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, F

eder

al A

viat

ion

Adm

inis

trat

ion,

Offi

ce o

f Air

port

Pla

nnin

g an

d P

rogr

am-

min

g, N

atio

nal P

lann

ing

Div

isio

n, p

erso

nal c

omm

unic

atio

n, 2

003.

TAB

LE

89

Ru

nw

ay P

avem

ent

Co

nd

itio

n o

f 3,

364

NP

IAS

Air

po

rts:

199

0–20

01Pe

rcen

t

1990

1993

1997

1999

2000

2001

Good

con

ditio

n61

6872

7273

73

Fair

cond

ition

2925

2323

2222

Poor

con

ditio

n10

75

55

5

KE

Y:

NP

IAS

= N

atio

nal P

lan

of In

tegr

ated

Air

port

Sys

tem

s.

NO

TE

S:

The

re a

re 5

46 c

omm

erci

al s

ervi

ce a

irpo

rts.

The

re a

re 3

,364

NP

IAS

air

port

s, in

clud

ing

the

com

mer

cial

se

rivic

e ai

rpor

ts. D

ata

only

ava

ilabl

e fo

r ye

ars

show

n. R

aw d

ata

not r

eadi

ly a

vaila

ble.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, N

atio

nal T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

2002

(W

ashi

ngto

n D

C: 2

003)

, als

o av

aila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ts.g

ov/,

as o

f Jan

uary

200

3. B

ased

on

data

obt

aine

d fr

om th

e U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, F

eder

al A

viat

ion

Adm

inis

trat

ion,

Offi

ce o

f Air

port

Pla

nnin

g an

d P

rogr

am-

min

g, N

atio

nal P

lann

ing

Div

isio

n, p

erso

nal c

omm

unic

atio

n, 2

003.


256

TAB

LE

90

Med

ian

Ag

e o

f C

ars

and

Tru

cks

in t

he

Un

ited

Sta

tes:

199

2–20

02Ye

ars

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Cars

7.0

7.3

7.5

7.7

7.9

8.1

8.3

8.3

8.3

8.1

8.4

Truc

ks7.

27.

57.

57.

67.

77.

87.

67.

26.

96.

86.

8

NO

TE

: "T

ruck

s" r

epre

sent

s al

l typ

es o

f tru

cks,

incl

udin

g lig

ht tr

ucks

(sp

ort u

tility

veh

icle

s, v

ans,

and

pic

k-up

truc

ks).

SO

UR

CE

S:

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

Nat

iona

l Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tis-

tics

2002

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, tab

le 1

-25,

als

o av

aila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ts.g

ov/,

as o

f Apr

il 20

03. R

.L. P

olk

&

Co.

, "M

edia

n A

ge o

f U.S

. Car

s an

d Li

ght T

ruck

s In

crea

ses

Acc

ordi

ng to

R.L

. Pol

k &

Co.

," p

ress

rel

ease

, Feb

ruar

y 11

, 200

3.

TAB

LE

91

Ave

rag

e A

ge

of

Sel

ecte

d U

rban

Tra

nsi

t V

ehic

les:

199

0–20

00Ye

ars

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Heav

y-ra

il pa

ssen

ger c

ars

16.2

16.9

17.7

17.8

15.8

19.3

20.2

21.1

22.0

22.5

22.9

Com

mut

er ra

il pa

ssen

ger c

oach

es17

.617

.319

.318

.620

.121

.424

.121

.619

.417

.516

.9

Ligh

t rai

l veh

icle

s (s

treet

cars

)15

.216

.617

.014

.916

.716

.816

.015

.915

.715

.716

.1

Full-

size

tran

sit b

uses

8.2

8.0

8.3

8.5

9.9

8.7

8.8

8.6

8.5

8.4

8.1

Vans

2.8

3.0

3.1

3.1

3.9

3.1

3.1

3.0

2.9

3.1

3.1

Ferr

yboa

ts21

.719

.622

.724

.723

.523

.425

.325

.425

.825

.125

.6

NO

TE

: F

ull-s

ize

buse

s ha

ve m

ore

than

35

seat

s.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, N

atio

nal T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

2002

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, ta

ble

1-28

.

Appendix B

257

TAB

LE

92

Ave

rag

e A

ge

of

Am

trak

Lo

com

oti

ve a

nd

Car

Fle

ets:

199

0–20

00Ye

ars

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Loco

mot

ives

12.0

13.0

13.0

13.2

13.4

13.9

14.4

12.0

12.6

12.8

11.2

Pass

enge

r and

oth

er tr

ain

cars

20.0

21.0

21.5

22.6

22.4

21.8

20.7

19.8

21.1

22.2

19.4

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, N

atio

nal T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

2002

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, tab

le1-

30, a

lso

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bts

.gov

/, as

of A

pril

2003

.

TAB

LE

93

Ag

e o

f U

.S. F

lag

Ves

sels

by

Typ

e: 2

000 Ag

e ra

nge

(yea

rs)

Ship

type

(num

ber o

f ves

sels

)<

66–

1011

–15

16–2

021

–25

> 25

Dry

carg

o (7

33)

6650

113

136

105

263

Tank

er (1

35)

114

834

3048

Tow

boat

(4,9

90)

325

143

142

929

954

2,49

7

Pass

enge

r (91

5)13

411

817

812

490

271

Supp

ort (

1,42

0)24

610

658

454

332

214

Dry

barg

e (2

9,00

9)6,

721

3,05

11,

565

5,84

65,

365

6,46

1

Liqu

id b

arge

(3,9

87)

582

329

4860

271

21,

714

Tota

l (41

,182

)8,

085

3,80

22,

112

8,12

57,

588

11,4

70

NO

TE

: S

uppo

rt in

clud

es o

ffsho

re s

uppo

rt a

nd c

rew

boat

s. L

iqui

d ba

rge

incl

udes

tank

bar

ges.

SO

UR

CE

S:

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

(US

DO

T),

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

(BT

S),

Nat

iona

l Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s 20

02 (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

2), t

able

1-3

1, a

lso

avai

labl

e at

ht

tp://

ww

w.b

ts.g

ov/,

as o

f Apr

il 20

03.


258

TAB

LE

94

Ave

rag

e A

ge

of

U.S

. Co

mm

erci

al a

nd

Maj

or

Air

lines

Air

craf

t: 1

991–

2000

Year

s, u

nles

s no

ted

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

All c

omm

erci

al a

ircra

ft11

.211

.311

.612

.212

.413

.213

.513

.612

.912

.8

Maj

or a

irlin

es' a

ircra

ft10

.710

.510

.410

.811

.312

.312

.412

.311

.811

.8

Maj

or a

irlin

es s

hare

of

com

mer

cial

airc

raft

(per

cent

)86

.884

.182

.179

.976

.172

.578

.777

.878

.578

.8

NO

TE

S:

Com

mer

cial

airl

ines

are

air

carr

iers

pro

vidi

ng s

ched

uled

or

nons

ched

uled

pas

seng

er o

r fr

eigh

t ser

vice

, inc

ludi

ng c

omm

uter

and

air

taxi

on

-dem

and

serv

ices

. Maj

or a

irlin

es in

clud

es o

nly

com

mer

cial

airl

ines

with

ope

ratin

g re

venu

es g

reat

er th

an $

1 bi

llion

in 2

000:

Am

eric

a W

est

Airl

ines

, Am

eric

an A

irlin

es, A

mer

ican

Eag

le A

irlin

es, A

mer

ica

Tran

s A

ir, A

lask

a A

irlin

es, C

ontin

enta

l Airl

ines

, Del

ta A

irlin

es, F

eder

al E

xpre

ss,

Nor

thw

est A

irlin

es, S

outh

wes

t Airl

ines

, Tra

ns W

orld

Airl

ines

, Uni

ted

Airl

ines

, Uni

ted

Par

cel S

ervi

ce, a

nd U

S A

irway

s. A

vera

ge a

ircra

ft ag

e is

ba

sed

on th

e ye

ar th

at a

n ai

rcra

ft w

as d

eliv

ered

to th

e or

igin

al o

wne

r fr

om th

e m

anuf

actu

rer.

It do

es n

ot r

efle

ct th

e ag

e of

the

engi

nes

or o

ther

pa

rts

that

may

hav

e be

en r

epla

ced

mor

e re

cent

ly.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, c

alcu

latio

ns b

ased

on

For

m 4

1, S

ched

ule

B-4

3, 1

991–

2000

.

Appendix B

259

TAB

LE

95

Rel

ativ

e P

rice

s fo

r Tr

ansp

ort

atio

n G

oo

ds

and

Ser

vice

s fo

r th

e U

nit

ed S

tate

s an

d S

elec

ted

Maj

or

Trad

e P

artn

ers:

199

9Un

ited

Stat

es =

1.0

Coun

try

1999

Mex

ico

0.64

Pola

nd0.

76

Hung

ary

0.86

Turk

ey0.

87

Gree

ce0.

90

Aust

ralia

0.95

Cana

da0.

96

New

Zea

land

0.97

Luxe

mbo

urg

1.00

Unite

d St

ates

1.00

Spai

n1.

04

Italy

1.07

Coun

try

1999

Portu

gal

1.12

Germ

any

1.15

Belg

ium

1.18

Fran

ce1.

21

Aust

ria1.

24

Neth

erla

nds

1.25

Irela

nd1.

26

Swed

en1.

32

Switz

erla

nd1.

41

Unite

d Ki

ngdo

m1.

45

Japa

n1.

55

Denm

ark

1.61

Norw

ay1.

75

NO

TE

S:

1999

is th

e m

ost r

ecen

t yea

r for

whi

ch th

ese

data

are

ava

ilabl

e by

cou

ntry

. For

thes

e co

untr

ies,

the

data

are

una

vaila

ble

for g

oods

and

se

rvic

es s

epar

atel

y. R

elat

ive

pric

es a

re b

ased

on

purc

hasi

ng p

ower

par

ity fo

r tr

ansp

orta

tion-

rela

ted

good

s an

d se

rvic

es. A

ll do

llar

amou

nts

are

in c

urre

nt 1

999

dolla

rs. R

aw d

ata

are

not r

eadi

ly a

vaila

ble.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, c

alcu

latio

n ba

sed

on d

ata

from

Org

anis

atio

n fo

r E

cono

mic

C

o-op

erat

ion

and

Dev

elop

men

t, P

urch

asin

g P

ower

Par

ities

and

Rea

l Exp

endi

ture

s, 1

999

Res

ults

(P

aris

, Fra

nce:

Aug

ust 2

002)

, tab

le 1

1.


260

TAB

LE

96a

U

.S. T

rad

e in

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n-R

elat

ed G

oo

ds:

199

0–20

02M

illio

ns o

f cur

rent

dol

lars

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Impo

rts 8

2,10

1 8

1,10

9 8

5,07

0 9

2,80

410

5,75

411

0,78

111

5,50

412

6,92

7 14

0,05

3 16

6,55

3 18

5,02

7 18

3,00

3 19

0,88

0

Expo

rts 6

4,64

2 7

2,36

4 7

8,77

3 7

6,65

8 8

1,65

8 8

0,09

1 8

9,95

810

3,81

9 11

4,97

1 11

1,46

9 10

5,42

9 10

6,86

0 10

8,74

4

Tota

l14

6,74

415

3,47

316

3,84

316

9,46

218

7,41

219

0,87

220

5,46

223

0,74

5 25

5,02

4 27

8,02

2 29

0,45

6 28

9,86

3 29

9,62

4

NO

TE

S:

Tran

spor

tatio

n-re

late

d go

ods

are

mot

or v

ehic

les

and

part

s, a

ircra

ft an

d sp

acec

raft

and

part

s, r

ailw

ay v

ehic

les

and

part

s, a

nd s

hips

and

boa

ts. T

otal

s m

ay

not e

qual

the

sum

of p

arts

due

to r

ound

ing.

All

dolla

r am

ount

s ar

e in

cur

rent

dol

lars

. The

se d

ata

have

not

bee

n ad

just

ed fo

r in

flatio

n be

caus

e th

ere

is n

o sp

ecifi

c de

flato

r av

aila

ble

for

tran

spor

tatio

n-re

late

d go

ods.

In a

dditi

on, i

t is

diffi

cult

to c

ontr

ol fo

r tr

adin

g pa

rtne

rs' i

nfla

tion

rate

s as

wel

l as

curr

ency

exc

hang

e flu

ctua

tions

whe

n ad

just

ing

the

valu

e of

inte

rnat

iona

lly

trad

ed g

oods

and

ser

vice

s fo

r in

flatio

n.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, c

alcu

latio

ns b

ased

on

data

from

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce, U

.S.

Inte

rnat

iona

l Tra

de C

omm

issi

on, I

nter

activ

e Ta

riff a

nd T

rade

Dat

aWeb

, ava

ilabl

e at

http

://da

taw

eb.u

sitc

.gov

/, as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

.

Appendix B

261

TAB

LE

96b

U

.S. T

rad

e in

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n-R

elat

ed G

oo

ds

by C

om

mo

dit

y: 2

002

Mill

ions

of c

urre

nt d

olla

rs

Over

all (

expo

rtspl

us im

ports

)Ba

lanc

e (e

xpor

tsm

inus

impo

rts)

Vehi

cles

oth

er th

an ra

ilway

233,

027

–108

,005

Airc

raft,

spa

cecr

aft,

and

parts

61,8

9725

,905

Ship

s, b

oats

, and

floa

ting

stru

ctur

es2,

568

–90

Railw

ay lo

com

otiv

es a

nd p

arts

2,13

353

To

tal,

trans

porta

tion-

rela

ted

good

s29

9,62

4–8

2,13

6

To

tal,

all c

omm

odite

s1,

856,

806

–470

,292

NO

TE

S: T

rans

port

atio

n-re

late

d go

ods

are

mot

or v

ehic

les

and

part

s, a

ircra

ft an

d sp

acec

raft

and

part

s, r

ailw

ay v

ehic

les

and

part

s, a

nd s

hips

and

boa

ts. T

otal

s m

ay n

ot e

qual

the

sum

of p

arts

du

e to

rou

ndin

g.

All

dolla

r am

ount

s ar

e in

cur

rent

dol

lars

. The

se d

ata

have

not

bee

n ad

just

ed fo

r in

flatio

n be

caus

e th

ere

is n

o sp

ecifi

c de

flato

r av

aila

ble

for

tran

spor

tatio

n-re

late

d go

ods.

In a

dditi

on, i

t is

diffi

cult

to c

ontr

ol fo

r tr

adin

g pa

rtne

rs' i

nfla

tion

rate

s as

wel

l as

curr

ency

exc

hang

e flu

ctua

tions

w

hen

adju

stin

g th

e va

lue

of in

tern

atio

nally

trad

ed g

oods

and

ser

vice

s fo

r in

flatio

n.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, c

alcu

latio

ns

base

d on

dat

a fr

om U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, U.S

. Int

erna

tiona

l Tra

de C

omm

issi

on,

Inte

ract

ive

Tarif

f and

Tra

de D

ataW

eb, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

data

web

.usi

tc.g

ov/,

as o

f Feb

ruar

y 20

03.


262

TAB

LE

97

U.S

. Tra

de

Bal

ance

in T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

-Rel

ated

Go

od

s: 1

990–

2002

Tran

spor

tatio

n-re

late

d go

ods

expo

rts m

inus

impo

rtsM

illio

ns o

f cur

rent

dol

lars

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Trad

e ba

lanc

e–1

7,45

9–8

,745

–6,2

96–1

6,14

5–2

4,09

6–3

0,68

9–2

5,54

6–2

3,10

8–2

5,08

2–5

5,08

3–7

9,59

8–7

6,14

3–8

2,13

6

NO

TE

S:

Tran

spor

tatio

n-re

late

d go

ods

are

mot

or v

ehic

les

and

part

s, a

ircra

ft an

d sp

acec

raft

and

part

s, r

ailw

ay v

ehic

les

and

part

s, a

nd s

hips

and

boa

ts. T

otal

s m

ay n

ot

equa

l the

sum

of p

arts

due

to r

ound

ing.

All

dolla

r am

ount

s ar

e in

cur

rent

dol

lars

. The

se d

ata

have

not

bee

n ad

just

ed fo

r inf

latio

n be

caus

e th

ere

is n

o sp

ecifi

c de

flato

r ava

ilabl

e fo

r tr

ansp

orta

tion-

rela

ted

good

s.

In a

dditi

on, i

t is

diffi

cult

to c

ontr

ol fo

r tr

adin

g pa

rtne

rs' i

nfla

tion

rate

s as

wel

l as

curr

ency

exc

hang

e flu

ctua

tions

whe

n ad

just

ing

the

valu

e of

inte

rnat

iona

lly tr

aded

goo

ds

and

serv

ices

for

infla

tion.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, c

alcu

latio

ns b

ased

on

data

from

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce, U

.S. I

nter

natio

nal

Trad

e C

omm

issi

on, I

nter

activ

e Ta

riff a

nd T

rade

Dat

aWeb

, ava

ilabl

e at

http

://da

taw

eb.u

sitc

.gov

/, as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

.

Appendix B

263

TAB

LE

98

U.S

. In

tern

atio

nal

Tra

de

in T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

-Rel

ated

Ser

vice

s: 1

990–

2002

Mill

ions

of c

urre

nt d

olla

rs

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Impo

rts35

,497

34,9

8734

,370

35,9

3439

,081

41,6

9743

,212

47,0

9750

,334

55,4

5465

,904

61,2

41 5

9,62

4

Expo

rts37

,339

38,4

8538

,149

38,4

8640

,751

44,9

8946

,496

47,8

7845

,702

46,7

0150

,897

46,3

13 4

5,74

6

Tota

l72

,836

73,4

7272

,519

74,4

2079

,832

86,6

8689

,708

94,9

7596

,036

102,

155

116,

801

107,

554

105

,370

NO

TE

S: D

etai

l ser

vice

type

dat

a ar

e no

t ava

ilabl

e in

infla

tion-

adju

sted

term

s. T

rans

port

atio

n se

rvic

es in

clud

e pa

ssen

ger

fare

s an

d fr

eigh

t and

por

t ser

vice

s. It

exc

lude

s re

ceip

ts a

nd p

aym

ents

for

trav

el s

ervi

ces,

whi

ch in

clud

es p

urch

ases

of g

oods

and

ser

vice

s (e

.g.,

food

, lod

ging

, rec

reat

ion,

gift

s, e

nter

tain

men

t, an

d an

y in

cide

ntal

ex

pens

e on

a fo

reig

n vi

sit)

. The

se d

ata

have

not

bee

n ad

just

ed fo

r in

flatio

n be

caus

e th

ere

is n

o sp

ecifi

c de

flato

r av

aila

ble

for

tran

spor

tatio

n-re

late

d se

rvic

es. I

n ad

ditio

n,

it is

diff

icul

t to

cont

rol f

or tr

adin

g pa

rtne

rs' i

nfla

tion

rate

s as

wel

l as

curr

ency

exc

hang

e flu

ctua

tions

whe

n ad

just

ing

the

valu

e of

inte

rnat

iona

lly tr

aded

goo

ds a

nd s

ervi

ces

for

infla

tion.

SO

UR

CE

: U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

cal

cula

tion

base

d on

dat

a fr

om U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Bur

eau

of E

cono

mic

A

naly

sis,

Inte

rnat

iona

l Tra

nsac

tions

Acc

ount

s da

ta, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ea.d

oc.g

ov/b

ea/d

i1.h

tm, a

s of

Apr

il 20

03.

TAB

LE

99

U.S

. Tra

de

Bal

ance

in T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

-Rel

ated

Ser

vice

s: 1

990–

2002

Tran

spor

tatio

n-re

late

d se

rvic

es e

xpor

ts m

inus

impo

rtsM

illio

ns o

f cur

rent

dol

lars

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Trad

e ba

lanc

e1,

842

3,49

83,

779

2,55

21,

670

3,29

23,

284

781

–4,6

32–8

,753

–15,

007

–14,

928

–13,

878

NO

TE

S: D

etai

l ser

vice

type

dat

a ar

e no

t ava

ilabl

e in

infla

tion-

adju

sted

term

s. T

rans

port

atio

n se

rvic

es in

clud

e pa

ssen

ger

fare

s an

d fr

eigh

t and

por

t ser

vice

s. It

exc

lude

s re

ceip

ts a

nd p

aym

ents

for

trav

el s

ervi

ces,

whi

ch in

clud

es p

urch

ases

of g

oods

and

ser

vice

s (e

.g.,

food

, lod

ging

, rec

reat

ion,

gift

s, e

nter

tain

men

t, an

d an

y in

cide

ntal

ex

pens

e on

a fo

reig

n vi

sit)

. The

se d

ata

have

not

bee

n ad

just

ed fo

r in

flatio

n be

caus

e th

ere

is n

o sp

ecifi

c de

flato

r av

aila

ble

for

tran

spor

tatio

n-re

late

d se

rvic

es. I

n ad

ditio

n,

it is

diff

icul

t to

cont

rol f

or tr

adin

g pa

rtne

rs' i

nfla

tion

rate

s as

wel

l as

curr

ency

exc

hang

e flu

ctua

tions

whe

n ad

just

ing

the

valu

e of

inte

rnat

iona

lly tr

aded

goo

ds a

nd s

ervi

ces

for

infla

tion.

SO

UR

CE

: U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

cal

cula

tion

base

d on

dat

a fr

om U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Bur

eau

of E

cono

mic

A

naly

sis,

Inte

rnat

iona

l Tra

nsac

tions

Acc

ount

s da

ta, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ea.d

oc.g

ov/b

ea/d

i1.h

tm, a

s of

Apr

il 20

03.


264

TAB

LE

100

a V

alu

e o

f Tr

ansp

ort

atio

n-R

elat

ed F

inal

Dem

and

an

d It

s S

har

e in

GD

P:

1990

–200

1Bi

llion

s of

cha

ined

199

6 do

llars 1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Tran

spor

tatio

n-re

late

d fin

al d

eman

d71

9.8

695.

872

3.9

747.

678

1.7

802.

883

7.7

881.

293

4.8

981.

197

7.8

984.

1

Tran

spor

tatio

n sh

are

in G

DP (p

erce

nt)

10.7

10.4

10.5

10.6

10.6

10.6

10.7

10.8

11.0

11.1

10.6

10.7

NO

TE

S:

Tota

l tra

nspo

rtat

ion-

rela

ted

final

dem

and

is th

e su

m o

f all

cons

umer

, priv

ate

busi

ness

, and

gov

ernm

ent p

urch

ases

of t

rans

port

atio

n-re

late

d go

ods

and

serv

ices

, and

net

exp

orts

(i.e

., tr

ansp

orta

tion

impo

rts

subt

ract

ed fr

om tr

ansp

orta

tion

expo

rts)

. Gro

ss p

rivat

e do

mes

tic in

vest

men

t con

stitu

tes

railr

oad

and

petr

oleu

m

pipe

lines

onl

y.

SO

UR

CE

: U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

(BT

S),

cal

cula

tions

bas

ed o

n da

ta fr

om U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Bur

eau

of

Eco

nom

ic A

naly

sis,

"N

atio

nal I

ncom

e an

d P

rodu

ct A

ccou

nts"

ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bea

.doc

.gov

/bea

/dn/

nipa

w, a

s of

Feb

. 24,

200

3.

TAB

LE

100

b

Val

ue

of

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

-Rel

ated

Fin

al D

eman

d a

nd

Its

Sh

are

in G

DP

: 19

90–2

001

Billi

ons

of c

urre

nt d

olla

rs

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Tran

spor

tatio

n-re

late

d fin

al d

eman

d61

7.5

616.

965

6.2

697.

274

7.6

782.

083

7.7

893.

393

2.4

993.

71,

031.

81,

046.

9

Tran

spor

tatio

n sh

are

in G

DP (p

erce

nt)

10.6

10.3

10.4

10.5

10.6

10.6

10.7

10.7

10.6

10.7

10.5

10.4

NO

TE

S: T

otal

tran

spor

tatio

n-re

late

d fin

al d

eman

d is

the

sum

of a

ll co

nsum

er, p

rivat

e bu

sine

ss, a

nd g

over

nmen

t pur

chas

es o

f tra

nspo

rtat

ion-

rela

ted

good

s an

d se

rvic

es, a

nd

net e

xpor

ts (

i.e.,

tran

spor

tatio

n im

port

s su

btra

cted

from

tran

spor

tatio

n ex

port

s). G

ross

priv

ate

dom

estic

inve

stm

ent c

onst

itute

s ra

ilroa

d an

d pe

trol

eum

pip

elin

es o

nly.

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s (B

TS

), c

alcu

latio

ns b

ased

on

data

from

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce, B

urea

u of

E

cono

mic

Ana

lysi

s, "

Nat

iona

l Inc

ome

and

Pro

duct

Acc

ount

s" a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ea.d

oc.g

ov/b

ea/d

n/ni

paw

, as

of F

eb. 2

4, 2

003.

Appendix B

265

TAB

LE

101

S

har

e o

f Tr

ansp

ort

atio

n-R

elat

ed F

inal

Dem

and

by

Typ

e: 1

990–

2001

Perc

ent

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Pers

onal

con

sum

ptio

n74

.069

.870

.471

.571

.871

.671

.070

.370

.471

.874

.476

.4

Gros

s pr

ivat

e do

mes

tic in

vest

men

t12

.713

.213

.414

.416

.016

.517

.217

.718

.720

.319

.617

.1

Net e

xpor

ts (e

xpor

ts m

inus

impo

rts)

–4.3

–2.7

–2.5

–3.9

–5.2

–5.4

–5.1

–4.6

–5.2

–8.2

–10.

6–1

0.5

Gove

rnm

ent p

urch

ases

17.7

19.7

18.7

18.0

17.4

17.2

16.9

16.6

16.1

16.0

16.6

17.0

NO

TE

S:

Tota

l tra

nspo

rtat

ion-

rela

ted

final

dem

and

is th

e su

m o

f all

cons

umer

, priv

ate

busi

ness

, and

gov

ernm

ent p

urch

ases

of t

rans

port

atio

n-re

late

d go

ods

and

serv

ices

, and

net

exp

orts

(i.e

., tr

ansp

orta

tion

impo

rts

subt

ract

ed fr

om tr

ansp

orta

tion

expo

rts)

. Gro

ss p

rivat

e do

mes

tic in

vest

men

t con

stitu

tes

railr

oad

and

petr

oleu

m

pipe

lines

onl

y.

SO

UR

CE

: U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

(BT

S),

cal

cula

tions

bas

ed o

n da

ta fr

om U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Bur

eau

of

Eco

nom

ic A

naly

sis,

"N

atio

nal I

ncom

e an

d P

rodu

ct A

ccou

nts"

ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bea

.doc

.gov

/bea

/dn/

nipa

w, a

s of

Feb

. 24,

200

3.


266

TAB

LE

102

a V

alu

e A

dd

ed b

y F

or-

Hir

e Tr

ansp

ort

atio

n S

ervi

ces

to U

.S. G

DP

an

d It

s S

har

e in

U.S

. To

tal G

DP

: 19

90–2

001

Billi

ons

of c

hain

ed 1

996

dolla

rs 1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

GDP

of fo

r-hi

re tr

ansp

orta

tion

serv

ices

180.

618

5.9

193.

620

1.2

218.

622

5.1

243.

424

8.9

257.

926

8.6

282.

527

0.3

As a

sha

re o

f GDP

(per

cent

)2.

72.

82.

82.

83.

03.

03.

13.

13.

03.

03.

12.

9

KE

Y:

GD

P =

Gro

ss D

omes

tic P

rodu

ct.

NO

TE

S:

For

-hire

tran

spor

tatio

n se

rvic

es in

clud

e ra

ilroa

d tr

ansp

orta

tion,

loca

l and

inte

rurb

an p

asse

nger

tran

sit,

truc

king

and

war

ehou

sing

, wat

er tr

ansp

orta

tion,

tran

spor

-ta

tion

by a

ir, p

ipel

ines

(exc

ept n

atur

al g

as),

and

tran

spor

tatio

n se

rvic

es. T

rans

port

atio

n se

rvic

es c

over

est

ablis

hmen

ts fu

rnis

hing

ser

vice

s in

cide

ntal

to tr

ansp

orta

tion

(e.g

., fo

rwar

ding

and

pac

king

ser

vice

s, a

nd th

e ar

rang

emen

t of p

asse

nger

and

frei

ght t

rans

port

atio

n).

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, c

alcu

latio

ns b

ased

on

data

from

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce, B

urea

u of

Eco

nom

ic

Ana

lysi

s, "

Gro

ss D

omes

tic P

rodu

ct b

y In

dust

ry"

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bea

.gov

/bea

/dn2

/gpo

.htm

, as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

.

TAB

LE

102

b

Val

ue

Ad

ded

by

Fo

r-H

ire

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

Ser

vice

s to

U.S

. GD

P a

nd

Its

Sh

are

in U

.S. T

ota

l GD

P:

1990

–200

1Bi

llion

s of

cur

rent

dol

lars

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

GDP

of fo

r-hi

re tr

ansp

orta

tion

serv

ices

177.

418

6.1

193.

420

622

3.2

233.

424

3.4

261.

828

8.7

301.

931

3.7

306.

1

As a

sha

re o

f GDP

(per

cent

)3.

13.

13.

13.

13.

23.

23.

13.

13.

33.

33.

23.

0

KE

Y:

GD

P =

Gro

ss D

omes

tic P

rodu

ct.

NO

TE

S:

For

-hire

tran

spor

tatio

n se

rvic

es in

clud

e ra

ilroa

d tr

ansp

orta

tion,

loca

l and

inte

rurb

an p

asse

nger

tran

sit,

truc

king

and

war

ehou

sing

, wat

er tr

ansp

orta

tion,

tran

s-po

rtat

ion

by a

ir, p

ipel

ines

(ex

cept

nat

ural

gas

), a

nd tr

ansp

orta

tion

serv

ices

. Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

serv

ices

cov

er e

stab

lishm

ents

furn

ishi

ng s

ervi

ces

inci

dent

al to

tran

spor

tatio

n (e

.g.,

forw

ardi

ng a

nd p

acki

ng s

ervi

ces,

and

the

arra

ngem

ent o

f pas

seng

er a

nd fr

eigh

t tra

nspo

rtat

ion)

.

SO

UR

CE

: U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

cal

cula

tions

bas

ed o

n da

ta fr

om U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Bur

eau

of E

cono

mic

A

naly

sis,

"G

ross

Dom

estic

Pro

duct

by

Indu

stry

" av

aila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ea.g

ov/b

ea/d

n2/g

po.h

tm, a

s of

Feb

ruar

y 20

03.

Appendix B

267

TAB

LE

103

S

har

e o

f F

or-

Hir

e Tr

ansp

ort

atio

n V

alu

e A

dd

ed b

y M

od

e: 1

990–

2001

Perc

ent

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Railr

oad

trans

porta

tion

10.0

11.2

10.7

10.4

10.1

10.1

9.6

9.2

8.8

8.3

8.9

9.2

Loca

l and

inte

rurb

an p

asse

nger

tran

sit

7.1

6.7

6.4

6.3

5.9

5.9

5.5

5.9

6.0

6.3

6.1

6.4

Truc

king

and

war

ehou

sing

37.7

38.5

39.1

39.3

39.0

38.5

37.8

36.4

37.0

37.3

36.6

36.7

Wat

er tr

ansp

orta

tion

5.6

5.6

5.3

5.2

5.2

5.0

5.0

5.3

5.1

4.5

4.7

4.9

Tran

spor

tatio

n by

air

26.0

24.2

25.4

25.8

27.3

27.9

29.1

30.2

29.8

30.0

30.0

29.0

Pipe

lines

, exc

ept n

atur

al g

as3.

23.

33.

03.

02.

52.

22.

32.

52.

52.

52.

32.

2

Tran

spor

tatio

n se

rvic

es10

.810

.710

.110

.110

.110

.410

.610

.610

.811

.111

.511

.5

KE

Y:

GD

P =

Gro

ss D

omes

tic P

rodu

ct.

NO

TE

S:

For

-hire

tran

spor

tatio

n se

rvic

es in

clud

e ra

ilroa

d tr

ansp

orta

tion,

loca

l and

inte

rurb

an p

asse

nger

tran

sit,

truc

king

and

war

ehou

sing

, wat

er tr

ansp

orta

tion,

tran

s-po

rtat

ion

by a

ir, p

ipel

ines

(ex

cept

nat

ural

gas

), a

nd tr

ansp

orta

tion

serv

ices

. Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

serv

ices

cov

er e

stab

lishm

ents

furn

ishi

ng s

ervi

ces

inci

dent

al to

tran

spor

tatio

n (e

.g.,

forw

ardi

ng a

nd p

acki

ng s

ervi

ces,

and

the

arra

ngem

ent o

f pas

seng

er a

nd fr

eigh

t tra

nspo

rtat

ion)

.

SO

UR

CE

: U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

cal

cula

tions

bas

ed o

n da

ta fr

om U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Bur

eau

of E

cono

mic

A

naly

sis,

"G

ross

Dom

estic

Pro

duct

by

Indu

stry

" av

aila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ea.g

ov/b

ea/d

n2/g

po.h

tm, a

s of

Feb

ruar

y 20

03.


268

TAB

LE

104

a F

eder

al, S

tate

, an

d L

oca

l Gov

ern

men

t Tr

ansp

ort

atio

n-R

elat

ed R

even

ues

: 19

90–2

000

Billi

ons

of c

hain

ed 1

996

dolla

rs

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Tota

l82

.2

88.2

89

.8

92.3

92

.4

95.8

96

.4

98.1

10

7.0

118.

9 11

3.6

Fede

ral

26.1

30

.2

29.5

29

.9

28.8

30

.8

30.7

30

.8

37.7

48.9

42.6

Stat

e40

.2

41.3

43

.3

44.7

45

.1

45.9

46

.0

46.5

48

.048

.248

.6

Loca

l15

.9

16.7

17

.0

17.7

18

.5

19.1

19

.7

20.8

21

.421

.822

.4

SO

UR

CE

S:

Exc

ept

as n

ote

d—

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

"G

over

nmen

t Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Fin

an-

cial

Sta

tistic

s S

earc

habl

e D

atab

ase,

" av

aila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ts.g

ov, a

s of

Feb

ruar

y 20

03. S

tate

an

d lo

cal p

ort

ion

for

2000

—U

.S. D

epar

t-m

ent o

f Com

mer

ce, U

.S. C

ensu

s B

urea

u, "

Sta

te a

nd L

ocal

Gov

ernm

ent F

inan

ces,

" av

aila

ble

at ft

p://f

tp2.

cens

us.g

ov/p

ub/o

utgo

ing/

govs

/F

inan

ce/,

as o

f Feb

ruar

y 20

03. C

hai

n-t

ype

pri

ce in

dex

—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Bur

eau

of E

cono

mic

Ana

lysi

s, "

Nat

iona

l Inc

ome

and

Pro

duct

Acc

ount

s Ta

bles

," ta

ble

7.1,

ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bea

.doc

.gov

/bea

/dn/

nipa

web

/, as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

.

TAB

LE

104

b

Fed

eral

, Sta

te, a

nd

Lo

cal G

over

nm

ent

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

-Rel

ated

Rev

enu

es:

1990

–200

0Bi

llion

s of

cur

rent

dol

lars

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Tota

l69

.8

77.4

80

.3

85.2

87

.6

93.7

96

.4

100.

5 11

1.2

126.

9 12

5.8

Fede

ral

21.4

26

.0

25.9

27

.4

27.2

30

.2

30.7

31

.438

.952

.046

.8

Stat

e34

.6

36.6

39

.1

41.4

42

.9

44.8

46

.0

47.7

50.0

51.6

54.1

Loca

l13

.7

14.8

15

.4

16.4

17

.6

18.6

19

.7

21.3

22.3

23.3

24.9

SO

UR

CE

S:

Exc

ept

as n

ote

d—

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

"G

over

nmen

t Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Fin

an-

cial

Sta

tistic

s S

earc

habl

e D

atab

ase,

" av

aila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ts.g

ov, a

s of

Feb

ruar

y 20

03. S

tate

an

d lo

cal p

ort

ion

for

2000

—U

.S. D

epar

t-m

ent o

f Com

mer

ce, U

.S. C

ensu

s B

urea

u, "

Sta

te a

nd L

ocal

Gov

ernm

ent F

inan

ces,

" av

aila

ble

at ft

p://f

tp2.

cens

us.g

ov/p

ub/o

utgo

ing/

govs

/F

inan

ce/,

as o

f Feb

ruar

y 20

03. C

hai

n-t

ype

pri

ce in

dex

—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Bur

eau

of E

cono

mic

Ana

lysi

s, "

Nat

iona

l Inc

ome

and

Pro

duct

Acc

ount

s Ta

bles

," ta

ble

7.1,

ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bea

.doc

.gov

/bea

/dn/

nipa

web

/, as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

.

Appendix B

269

TAB

LE

105

a F

eder

al, S

tate

, an

d L

oca

l Gov

ern

men

t Tr

ansp

ort

atio

n-R

elat

ed R

even

ues

by M

od

e: 2

000

Billi

ons

of c

hain

ed 1

996

dolla

rs

2000

Tota

l11

3,56

9

High

way

79,2

02

Tran

sit

11,4

36

Air

19,5

52

Wat

er3,

320

Pipe

line

36

Gene

ral s

uppo

rt23

TAB

LE

105

b

Fed

eral

, Sta

te, a

nd

Lo

cal G

over

nm

ent

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

-Rel

ated

Rev

enu

es

by M

od

e: 2

000

Billi

ons

of c

urre

nt d

olla

rs

2000

Tota

l12

5,84

7

High

way

87,8

00

Tran

sit

12,6

74

Air

21,6

27

Wat

er3,

682

Pipe

line

40

Gene

ral s

uppo

rt25

TAB

LE

106

a F

eder

al, S

tate

, an

d L

oca

l Gov

ern

men

t Tr

ansp

ort

atio

n-R

elat

ed E

xpen

dit

ure

s F

rom

Ow

n F

un

ds:

FY

199

0–20

00Bi

llion

s of

cha

ined

199

6 do

llars

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Stat

e an

d lo

cal

8185

8886

9192

9394

100

104

105

Fede

ral

3838

4041

4242

4141

4041

44

Tota

l11

912

312

812

613

313

313

313

514

014

514

9

NO

TE

S:

Fed

eral

exp

endi

ture

s fr

om o

wn

fund

s co

nsis

ts o

f out

lays

of t

he fe

dera

l gov

ernm

ent i

nclu

ding

not

onl

y di

rect

spe

ndin

g bu

t als

o gr

ants

to s

tate

and

loca

l go

vern

men

ts. S

tate

and

loca

l exp

endi

ture

s fr

om o

wn

fund

s in

clud

e ou

tlays

of s

tate

and

loca

l gov

ernm

ents

from

all

sour

ces

of fu

nds

excl

udin

g fe

dera

l gra

nts.

Sta

te

and

loca

l dat

a ar

e re

port

ed to

geth

er b

ecau

se d

isag

greg

ated

fede

ral g

rant

s da

ta a

re n

ot a

vaila

ble.

SO

UR

CE

S: E

xcep

t as

no

ted

—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, "

Gov

ernm

ent T

rans

port

atio

n F

inan

cial

Sta

tistic

s S

earc

habl

e D

atab

ase,

" av

aila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ts.g

ov, a

s of

Feb

ruar

y 20

03. S

tate

an

d lo

cal p

ort

ion

for

2000

—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, U.S

. Cen

sus

Bur

eau,

"S

tate

an

d Lo

cal G

over

nmen

t Fin

ance

s,"

avai

labl

e at

ftp:

//ftp

2.ce

nsus

.gov

/pub

/out

goin

g/go

vs/F

inan

ce/,

as o

f Feb

ruar

y 20

03. C

hai

n-t

ype

pri

ce in

dex

—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of

Com

mer

ce, B

urea

u of

Eco

nom

ic A

naly

sis,

"N

atio

nal I

ncom

e an

d P

rodu

ct A

ccou

nts

Tabl

es,"

tabl

e 7.

1, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ea.d

oc.g

ov/b

ea/d

n/ni

paw

eb/,

as o

f F

ebru

ary

2003

.

SO

UR

CE

S:

Exc

ept

as n

ote

d—

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

"G

over

nmen

t Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Fin

anci

al S

tatis

tics

Sea

rcha

ble

Dat

abas

e,"

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bts

.gov

, as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

. Sta

te a

nd

loca

l po

rtio

n fo

r 20

00—

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce, U

.S.

Cen

sus

Bur

eau,

"S

tate

and

Loc

al G

over

nmen

t Fin

ance

s,"

avai

labl

e at

ftp:

//ftp

2.ce

nsus

.gov

/pub

/out

goin

g/go

vs/F

inan

ce/,

as o

f Feb

ruar

y 20

03. C

hai

n-t

ype

pri

ce in

dex

—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Bur

eau

of E

cono

mic

Ana

lysi

s, "

Nat

iona

l Inc

ome

and

Pro

duct

Acc

ount

s Ta

bles

," ta

ble

7.1,

ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bea

.doc

.gov

/bea

/dn/

nipa

web

/, as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

.


270

TAB

LE

106

b

Fed

eral

, Sta

te, a

nd

Lo

cal G

over

nm

ent

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

-Rel

ated

Exp

end

itu

res

Fro

m O

wn

Fu

nd

s: F

Y 1

990–

2000

Billi

ons

of c

urre

nt d

olla

rs

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Stat

e an

d lo

cal

3133

3537

4041

4142

4144

48

Fede

ral

7075

7979

8690

9397

104

111

117

Tota

l10

110

811

511

612

613

113

313

814

615

516

5

NO

TE

S:

Fed

eral

exp

endi

ture

s fr

om o

wn

fund

s co

nsis

ts o

f out

lays

of t

he fe

dera

l gov

ernm

ent i

nclu

ding

not

onl

y di

rect

spe

ndin

g bu

t als

o gr

ants

to s

tate

and

loca

l go

vern

men

ts. S

tate

and

loca

l exp

endi

ture

s fr

om o

wn

fund

s in

clud

e ou

tlays

of s

tate

and

loca

l gov

ernm

ents

from

all

sour

ces

of fu

nds

excl

udin

g fe

dera

l gra

nts.

Sta

te

and

loca

l dat

a ar

e re

port

ed to

geth

er b

ecau

se d

isag

greg

ated

fede

ral g

rant

s da

ta a

re n

ot a

vaila

ble.

SO

UR

CE

S: E

xcep

t as

no

ted

—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n, B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s, "

Gov

ernm

ent T

rans

port

atio

n F

inan

cial

Sta

tistic

s S

earc

habl

e D

atab

ase,

" av

aila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ts.g

ov, a

s of

Feb

ruar

y 20

03. S

tate

an

d lo

cal p

ort

ion

for

2000

—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, U.S

. Cen

sus

Bur

eau,

"S

tate

an

d Lo

cal G

over

nmen

t Fin

ance

s,"

avai

labl

e at

ftp:

//ftp

2.ce

nsus

.gov

/pub

/out

goin

g/go

vs/F

inan

ce/,

as o

f Feb

ruar

y 20

03. C

hai

n-t

ype

pri

ce in

dex

—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of

Com

mer

ce, B

urea

u of

Eco

nom

ic A

naly

sis,

"N

atio

nal I

ncom

e an

d P

rodu

ct A

ccou

nts

Tabl

es,"

tabl

e 7.

1, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ea.d

oc.g

ov/b

ea/d

n/ni

paw

eb/,

as o

f F

ebru

ary

2003

.

Appendix B

271

TAB

LE

107

a S

har

es o

f F

eder

al, S

tate

, an

d L

oca

l Gov

ern

men

t Tr

ansp

ort

atio

n-R

elat

ed E

xpen

dit

ure

s by

Mo

de

Fro

m O

wn

Fu

nd

s: F

Y 2

000

Mill

ions

of c

urre

nt d

olla

rs

2000

High

way

103,

838

Tran

sit

31,3

95

Rail

781

Air

20,8

20

Wat

er7,

942

Pipe

line

27

Gene

ral s

uppo

rt25

9

Tota

l16

5,06

2

TAB

LE

107

b

Sh

ares

of

Fed

eral

, Sta

te, a

nd

Lo

cal G

over

nm

ent

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

-Rel

ated

Exp

end

itu

res

by M

od

e F

rom

Ow

n F

un

ds:

FY

200

0M

illio

ns o

f cha

ined

199

6 do

llars 2000

High

way

93,5

53

Tran

sit

28,2

43

Rail

712

Air

18,8

14

Wat

er7,

193

Pipe

line

25

Gene

ral s

uppo

rt23

6

Tota

l14

8,77

5

NO

TE

S fo

r Ta

ble

s 10

7a a

nd

107

b:

Fed

eral

exp

endi

ture

s fr

om o

wn

fund

s co

nsis

ts o

f out

lays

of t

he fe

dera

l gov

ernm

ent i

nclu

ding

not

onl

y di

rect

spe

nd-

ing

but a

lso

gran

ts to

sta

te a

nd lo

cal g

over

nmen

ts. S

tate

and

loca

l exp

endi

ture

s fr

om o

wn

fund

s in

clud

e ou

tlays

of s

tate

and

loca

l gov

ernm

ents

from

all

sour

ces

of fu

nds

excl

udin

g fe

dera

l gra

nts.

Sta

te a

nd lo

cal d

ata

are

repo

rted

toge

ther

bec

ause

dis

aggr

egat

ed fe

dera

l gra

nts

data

are

not

ava

ilabl

e.

SO

UR

CE

S fo

r Ta

ble

s 10

7a a

nd

107

b:

Exc

ept

as n

ote

d—

US

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

"G

over

nmen

t Tra

ns-

port

atio

n F

inan

cial

Sta

tistic

s S

earc

habl

e D

atab

ase,

" av

aila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ts.g

ov, a

s of

Feb

ruar

y 20

03. S

tate

an

d lo

cal p

ort

ion

for

2000

—U

.S.

Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce, U

.S. C

ensu

s B

urea

u, "

Sta

te a

nd L

ocal

Gov

ernm

ent F

inan

ces,

" av

aila

ble

at ft

p://f

tp2.

cens

us.g

ov/p

ub/o

utgo

ing/

govs

/Fin

ance

/, a

s of

Feb

ruar

y 20

03. C

hai

n-t

ype

pri

ce in

dex

—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Bur

eau

of E

cono

mic

Ana

lysi

s, "

Nat

iona

l Inc

ome

and

Pro

duct

Acc

ount

s Ta

bles

," ta

ble

7.1,

ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bea

.doc

.gov

/bea

/dn/

nipa

web

/, as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

.


272

TAB

LE

108

a G

ross

Gov

ern

men

t In

vest

men

ts in

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n In

fras

tru

ctu

re a

nd

Ro

llin

g S

tock

: 19

90–2

000

Billi

ons

of c

hain

ed 1

996

dolla

rs

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Infra

stru

ctur

e52

.052

.552

.856

.359

.256

.357

.060

.262

.767

.265

.5

Rolli

ng s

tock

7.0

6.8

6.7

7.4

7.6

7.6

7.9

9.3

9.6

9.9

10.5

Tota

l59

.059

.259

.563

.766

.863

.964

.969

.572

.377

.176

.0

NO

TE

S:

Inve

stm

ent i

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

infr

astr

uctu

re c

onst

itute

s th

e pu

rcha

se o

r co

nstr

uctio

n va

lue

of tr

ansp

orta

tion

faci

litie

s an

d st

ruct

ures

for

all m

odes

exc

ept

pipe

line.

Dat

a on

sta

te a

nd lo

cal t

rans

port

atio

n in

vest

men

t are

not

ava

ilabl

e se

para

tely

. Rai

l inf

rast

ruct

ure

data

are

onl

y av

aila

ble

for

stat

e an

d lo

cal i

nfra

stru

ctur

e in

vest

men

t fro

m 1

993

to 2

000.

Inve

stm

ent i

n ro

lling

sto

ck c

onsi

sts

of g

over

nmen

t out

lays

for

mot

or v

ehic

les.

SO

UR

CE

S:

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

"Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Inve

stm

ent-

Con

cept

s, D

ata

and

Ana

lysi

s,"

draf

t, co

mpi

led

base

d on

dat

a fr

om U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Bur

eau

of E

cono

mic

Ana

lysi

s (B

EA

), "

Fix

ed A

sset

s an

d C

onsu

mer

Dur

able

s,"

and

Per

sona

l com

mun

icat

ions

w

ith B

EA

; and

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce, U

.S. C

ensu

s B

urea

u, "

Val

ue o

f Con

stru

ctio

n P

ut in

Pla

ce S

tatis

tics,

" D

etai

led

Con

stru

ctio

n E

xpen

ditu

res

Tabl

es,

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.cen

sus.

gov,

as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

.

TAB

LE

108

b

Gro

ss G

over

nm

ent

Inve

stm

ents

in T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Infr

astr

uct

ure

an

d R

olli

ng

Sto

ck:

1990

–200

0Bi

llion

s of

cur

rent

dol

lars

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Infra

stru

ctur

e44

.846

.146

.550

.654

.654

.657

.462

.967

.074

.576

.4

Rolli

ng s

tock

6.2

5.2

6.6

7.0

7.5

7.9

7.9

8.3

9.0

9.4

9.6

Tota

l51

.051

.353

.157

.662

.162

.565

.371

.276

.084

.086

.1

NO

TE

S:

Inve

stm

ent i

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

infr

astr

uctu

re c

onst

itute

s th

e pu

rcha

se o

r co

nstr

uctio

n va

lue

of tr

ansp

orta

tion

faci

litie

s an

d st

ruct

ures

for

all m

odes

exc

ept

pipe

line.

Dat

a on

sta

te a

nd lo

cal t

rans

port

atio

n in

vest

men

t are

not

ava

ilabl

e se

para

tely

. Rai

l inf

rast

ruct

ure

data

are

onl

y av

aila

ble

for

stat

e an

d lo

cal i

nfra

stru

ctur

e in

vest

men

t fro

m 1

993

to 2

000.

Inve

stm

ent i

n ro

lling

sto

ck c

onsi

sts

of g

over

nmen

t out

lays

for

mot

or v

ehic

les.

SO

UR

CE

S:

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

"Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Inve

stm

ent-

Con

cept

s, D

ata

and

Ana

lysi

s,"

draf

t, co

mpi

led

base

d on

dat

a fr

om U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Bur

eau

of E

cono

mic

Ana

lysi

s (B

EA

), "

Fix

ed A

sset

s an

d C

onsu

mer

Dur

able

s,"

and

Per

sona

l com

mun

icat

ions

w

ith B

EA

; and

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce, U

.S. C

ensu

s B

urea

u, "

Val

ue o

f Con

stru

ctio

n P

ut in

Pla

ce S

tatis

tics,

" D

etai

led

Con

stru

ctio

n E

xpen

ditu

res

Tabl

es,

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.cen

sus.

gov,

as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

.

Appendix B

273

TAB

LE

109

a G

ross

Gov

ern

men

t In

vest

men

t in

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n In

fras

tru

ctu

re b

y L

evel

of

Gov

ern

men

t: 1

990–

2000

Billi

ons

of c

hain

ed 1

996

dolla

rs

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Fede

ral

2.4

2.9

2.7

3.5

4.0

3.8

3.9

3.4

3.7

4.0

3.9

Stat

e an

d lo

cal

49.6

49.5

50.1

53.2

55.7

53.0

53.4

57.2

59.5

64.3

63.0

Tota

l52

.0

52.5

52

.8

56.7

59

.7

56.8

57

.4

60.6

63

.2

68.3

66

.9

NO

TE

S:

Inve

stm

ent i

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

infr

astr

uctu

re c

onst

itute

s th

e pu

rcha

se o

r co

nstr

uctio

n va

lue

of tr

ansp

orta

tion

faci

litie

s an

d st

ruct

ures

for

all m

odes

exc

ept

pipe

line.

Dat

a on

sta

te a

nd lo

cal t

rans

port

atio

n in

vest

men

t are

not

ava

ilabl

e se

para

tely

. Rai

l inf

rast

ruct

ure

data

are

onl

y av

aila

ble

for

stat

e an

d lo

cal i

nfra

stru

ctur

e in

vest

men

t fro

m 1

993

to 2

000.

Inve

stm

ent i

n ro

lling

sto

ck c

onsi

sts

of g

over

nmen

t out

lays

for

mot

or v

ehic

les.

SO

UR

CE

S:

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

"Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Inve

stm

ent-

Con

cept

s, D

ata

and

Ana

lysi

s,"

draf

t, co

mpi

led

base

d on

dat

a fr

om U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Bur

eau

of E

cono

mic

Ana

lysi

s (B

EA

), "

Fix

ed A

sset

s an

d C

onsu

mer

Dur

able

s,"

and

Per

sona

l com

mun

icat

ions

w

ith B

EA

; and

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce, U

.S. C

ensu

s B

urea

u, "

Val

ue o

f Con

stru

ctio

n P

ut in

Pla

ce S

tatis

tics,

" D

etai

led

Con

stru

ctio

n E

xpen

ditu

res

Tabl

es,

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.cen

sus.

gov,

as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

.

TAB

LE

109

b

Gro

ss G

over

nm

ent

Inve

stm

ent

in T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Infr

astr

uct

ure

by

Lev

el o

f G

over

nm

ent:

199

0–20

00Bi

llion

s of

cur

rent

dol

lars

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Fede

ral

2.0

2.6

2.4

3.1

3.7

3.7

3.9

3.5

3.9

4.3

4.4

Stat

e an

d lo

cal

42.8

43.6

44.1

47.4

50.9

50.9

53.4

59.4

63.1

70.3

72.1

Tota

l44

.846

.146

.550

.654

.654

.657

.462

.967

.074

.576

.4

NO

TE

S:

Inve

stm

ent i

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

infr

astr

uctu

re c

onst

itute

s th

e pu

rcha

se o

r co

nstr

uctio

n va

lue

of tr

ansp

orta

tion

faci

litie

s an

d st

ruct

ures

for

all m

odes

exc

ept

pipe

line.

Dat

a on

sta

te a

nd lo

cal t

rans

port

atio

n in

vest

men

t are

not

ava

ilabl

e se

para

tely

. Rai

l inf

rast

ruct

ure

data

are

onl

y av

aila

ble

for

stat

e an

d lo

cal i

nfra

stru

ctur

e in

vest

men

t fro

m 1

993

to 2

000.

Inve

stm

ent i

n ro

lling

sto

ck c

onsi

sts

of g

over

nmen

t out

lays

for

mot

or v

ehic

les.

SO

UR

CE

S:

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

"Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Inve

stm

ent-

Con

cept

s, D

ata

and

Ana

lysi

s,"

draf

t, co

mpi

led

base

d on

dat

a fr

om U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Bur

eau

of E

cono

mic

Ana

lysi

s (B

EA

), "

Fix

ed A

sset

s an

d C

onsu

mer

Dur

able

s,"

and

Per

sona

l com

mun

icat

ions

w

ith B

EA

; and

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce, U

.S. C

ensu

s B

urea

u, "

Val

ue o

f Con

stru

ctio

n P

ut in

Pla

ce S

tatis

tics,

" D

etai

led

Con

stru

ctio

n E

xpen

ditu

res

Tabl

es,

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.cen

sus.

gov,

as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

.


274

TAB

LE

110

a G

ross

Gov

ern

men

t In

vest

men

t in

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n In

fras

tru

ctu

re b

y M

od

e: 1

990–

2000

Billi

ons

of c

hain

ed 1

996

dolla

rs

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

High

way

38.6

38.2

38.3

40.0

42.3

40.4

41.0

43.9

46.0

49.9

48.2

Air

5.5

6.4

6.8

8.0

7.4

6.4

6.4

6.9

7.6

8.1

7.7

Wat

er1.

61.

51.

51.

51.

51.

51.

71.

71.

82.

02.

1

Tran

sit

6.3

6.4

6.2

6.9

7.9

8.0

7.9

7.7

7.2

7.2

7.5

Railr

oad

UU

U0.

40.

50.

50.

40.

40.

51.

01.

4

Tota

l52

.052

.552

.856

.759

.756

.857

.460

.663

.268

.366

.9

KE

Y:

U =

dat

a ar

e un

avai

labl

e.

NO

TE

S:

Inve

stm

ent i

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

infr

astr

uctu

re c

onst

itute

s th

e pu

rcha

se o

r co

nstr

uctio

n va

lue

of tr

ansp

orta

tion

faci

litie

s an

d st

ruct

ures

for

all m

odes

exc

ept

pipe

line.

Dat

a on

sta

te a

nd lo

cal t

rans

port

atio

n in

vest

men

t are

not

ava

ilabl

e se

para

tely

. Rai

l inf

rast

ruct

ure

data

are

onl

y av

aila

ble

for

stat

e an

d lo

cal i

nfra

stru

ctur

e in

vest

men

t fro

m 1

993

to 2

000.

Inve

stm

ent i

n ro

lling

sto

ck c

onsi

sts

of g

over

nmen

t out

lays

for

mot

or v

ehic

les.

SO

UR

CE

S:

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

"Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Inve

stm

ent-

Con

cept

s, D

ata

and

Ana

lysi

s,"

draf

t, co

mpi

led

base

d on

dat

a fr

om U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Bur

eau

of E

cono

mic

Ana

lysi

s (B

EA

), "

Fix

ed A

sset

s an

d C

onsu

mer

Dur

able

s,"

and

Per

sona

l com

mun

icat

ions

w

ith B

EA

; and

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce, U

.S. C

ensu

s B

urea

u, "

Val

ue o

f Con

stru

ctio

n P

ut in

Pla

ce S

tatis

tics,

" D

etai

led

Con

stru

ctio

n E

xpen

ditu

res

Tabl

es,

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.cen

sus.

gov,

as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

.

Appendix B

275

TAB

LE

110

b

Gro

ss G

over

nm

ent

Inve

stm

ent

in T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Infr

astr

uct

ure

by

Mo

de:

199

0–20

00Bi

llion

s of

cur

rent

dol

lars

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

High

way

33.2

33.5

33.6

35.4

38.5

38.7

41.0

45.6

48.8

54.7

55.5

Air

4.7

5.6

6.1

7.2

6.9

6.2

6.4

7.2

8.1

8.8

8.7

Wat

er1.

41.

31.

31.

41.

41.

51.

71.

71.

92.

12.

3

Tran

sit

5.5

5.7

5.6

6.2

7.3

7.7

7.9

8.0

7.7

7.9

8.5

Railr

oad

UU

U0.

30.

50.

50.

40.

40.

61.

01.

4

Tota

l45

4647

50.6

54.6

54.6

57.4

62.9

67.0

74.5

76.4

KE

Y:

U =

dat

a ar

e un

avai

labl

e.

NO

TE

S:

Inve

stm

ent i

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

infr

astr

uctu

re c

onst

itute

s th

e pu

rcha

se o

r co

nstr

uctio

n va

lue

of tr

ansp

orta

tion

faci

litie

s an

d st

ruct

ures

for

all m

odes

exc

ept

pipe

line.

Dat

a on

sta

te a

nd lo

cal t

rans

port

atio

n in

vest

men

t are

not

ava

ilabl

e se

para

tely

. Rai

l inf

rast

ruct

ure

data

are

onl

y av

aila

ble

for

stat

e an

d lo

cal i

nfra

stru

ctur

e in

vest

men

t fro

m 1

993

to 2

000.

Inve

stm

ent i

n ro

lling

sto

ck c

onsi

sts

of g

over

nmen

t out

lays

for

mot

or v

ehic

les.

SO

UR

CE

S:

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

"Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Inve

stm

ent-

Con

cept

s, D

ata

and

Ana

lysi

s,"

draf

t, co

mpi

led

base

d on

dat

a fr

om U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Bur

eau

of E

cono

mic

Ana

lysi

s (B

EA

), "

Fix

ed A

sset

s an

d C

onsu

mer

Dur

able

s,"

and

Per

sona

l com

mun

icat

ions

w

ith B

EA

; and

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce, U

.S. C

ensu

s B

urea

u, "

Val

ue o

f Con

stru

ctio

n P

ut in

Pla

ce S

tatis

tics,

" D

etai

led

Con

stru

ctio

n E

xpen

ditu

res

Tabl

es,

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.cen

sus.

gov,

as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

.

TAB

LE

111

U

.S. E

ner

gy

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n b

y S

ecto

r: 1

990–

2001

Quad

rillio

n Br

itish

ther

mal

uni

ts (B

TU)

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Resi

dent

ial

16.9

17.4

17.3

18.1

18.1

18.5

19.5

18.9

18.7

19.2

19.8

19.3

Com

mer

cial

13.2

13.4

13.3

13.6

13.9

14.4

14.9

15.4

15.6

15.9

16.4

16.4

Indu

stria

l31

.731

.432

.532

.733

.734

.135

.135

.235

.035

.535

.733

.8

Tran

spor

tatio

n22

.522

.122

.522

.923

.524

.024

.524

.825

.426

.226

.926

.9

SO

UR

CE

: U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of E

nerg

y, E

nerg

y In

form

atio

n A

dmin

istr

atio

n, M

onth

ly E

nerg

y R

evie

w (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: Aug

ust 2

002)

, tab

le 2

.1.


276

TAB

LE

112

a T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Sec

tor

En

erg

y U

se a

nd

Gro

ss D

om

esti

c P

rod

uct

: 19

91–2

001

Inde

x: 1

991

= 1.

0

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Tran

spor

tatio

n se

ctor

ene

rgy

use

1.0

0 1

.02

1.0

3 1

.06

1.0

8 1

.11

1.1

2 1

.15

1.1

8 1

.21

1.2

1

Gros

s Do

mes

tic P

rodu

ct (G

DP)

1.0

0 1

.03

1.0

6 1

.10

1.1

3 1

.17

1.2

2 1

.27

1.3

3 1

.38

1.3

8

Tran

spor

tatio

n en

ergy

use

per

GDP

1.0

0 0

.99

0.9

8 0

.97

0.9

6 0

.95

0.9

2 0

.90

0.8

9 0

.88

0.8

8

SO

UR

CE

S:

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

sec

tor

ener

gy

use

—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of E

nerg

y, E

nerg

y In

form

atio

n A

dmin

stra

tion,

Ann

ual E

nerg

y R

evie

w 2

001,

ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.eia

.doe

.gov

/em

eu/a

er/c

onte

nts.

htm

l, as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

. GD

P—

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce, B

urea

u of

Eco

nom

ic A

naly

sis,

"N

atio

nal I

ncom

e an

d P

rodu

ct A

ccou

nt T

able

s,"

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bea

.doc

.gov

/bea

/dn1

.htm

, as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

.

TAB

LE

112

b

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

Sec

tor

En

erg

y U

se a

nd

Gro

ss D

om

esti

c P

rod

uct

: 19

91–2

001

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Tran

spor

tatio

n se

ctor

ene

rgy

use

(Qua

drill

ion

BTU)

22.1

222

.46

22.8

823

.50

23.9

624

.51

24.8

125

.35

26.0

926

.70

26.7

5

Gros

s Do

mes

tic P

rodu

ct (G

DP)

(Bill

ions

of c

hain

ed 1

996

dolla

rs)

6,6

76

6,8

80

7,0

63

7,3

48

7,5

44

7,8

13

8,1

60

8,5

09

8,8

59

9,1

91

9,2

15

Tran

spor

tatio

n en

ergy

use

per

GDP

3,3

14

3,2

64

3,2

40

3,1

99

3,1

76

3,1

37

3,0

40

2,9

79

2,9

45

2,9

05

2,9

03

KE

Y:

BT

U =

Brit

ish

ther

mal

uni

ts. T

he a

vera

ge h

eat c

onte

nt o

f mot

or g

asol

ine

is 1

29,0

24 B

TU

per

gal

lon.

One

qua

drill

ion

BT

U is

equ

ival

ent t

o 7.

75 b

illio

n ga

llons

of

mot

or g

asol

ine.

SO

UR

CE

S:

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

sec

tor

ener

gy

use

—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of E

nerg

y, E

nerg

y In

form

atio

n A

dmin

stra

tion,

Ann

ual E

nerg

y R

evie

w 2

001,

ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.eia

.doe

.gov

/em

eu/a

er/c

onte

nts.

htm

l, as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

. GD

P—

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Com

mer

ce, B

urea

u of

Eco

nom

ic A

naly

sis,

"N

atio

nal I

ncom

e an

d P

rodu

ct A

ccou

nt T

able

s,"

avai

labl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bea

.doc

.gov

/bea

/dn1

.htm

, as

of F

ebru

ary

2003

.

Appendix B

277

TAB

LE

113

U

.S. P

etro

leu

m U

se b

y S

ecto

r: 1

990–

2001

Mill

ion

barr

els

per d

ay

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Tran

spor

tatio

n 1

0.97

1

0.80

1

0.94

1

1.18

1

1.48

1

1.72

1

1.96

1

2.13

1

2.46

1

2.83

1

3.08

1

3.16

Indu

stry

4.3

2 4

.25

4.5

4 4

.43

4.6

6 4

.57

4.7

9 4

.92

4.8

0 4

.98

4.8

9 4

.67

Build

ings

1.1

5 1

.14

1.1

3 1

.14

1.1

1 1

.10

1.2

1 1

.17

1.0

8 1

.18

1.2

2 1

.20

Utili

ties

0.5

6 0

.53

0.4

3 0

.49

0.4

7 0

.33

0.3

6 0

.41

0.5

8 0

.54

0.5

1 0

.57

SO

UR

CE

S:

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

Sec

tor

En

erg

y U

se—

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Ene

rgy,

Ene

rgy

Info

rmat

ion

Adm

inst

ratio

n, A

nnua

l Ene

rgy

Rev

iew

200

1, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.e

ia.d

oe.g

ov/e

meu

/aer

/con

tent

s.ht

ml,

as o

f Feb

ruar

y 20

03. G

DP

—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, Bur

eau

of E

cono

mic

Ana

lysi

s, "

Nat

iona

l Inc

ome

and

Pro

duct

Acc

ount

Tab

les,

" av

aila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ea.d

oc.g

ov/b

ea/d

n1.h

tm, a

s of

Feb

ruar

y 20

03.


278

TAB

LE

114

a T

ran

spo

rtat

ion

Fu

el P

rice

s: 1

991–

2002

Chai

ned

1996

dol

lars

per

gal

lon

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Avia

tion

gaso

line

1.17

1.12

1.05

1.00

1.02

1.12

1.11

0.94

1.01

1.22

1.21

1.19

Jet f

uel,

kero

sene

0.73

0.66

0.62

0.56

0.55

0.65

0.60

0.44

0.52

0.84

0.71

0.65

Mot

or g

asol

ine,

al

l typ

es1.

331.

301.

251.

221.

231.

291.

271.

081.

171.

461.

401.

30

Dies

el n

o. 2

0.72

0.67

0.64

0.58

0.57

0.68

0.63

0.48

0.56

0.87

0.77

0.69

Railr

oad

dies

el0.

750.

690.

670.

620.

610.

680.

670.

550.

530.

820.

780.

66

Crud

e oi

l0.

210.

200.

170.

160.

180.

210.

190.

120.

170.

260.

210.

22

TAB

LE

114

b

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

Fu

el P

rice

s: 1

991–

2002

Curr

ent d

olla

rs p

er g

allo

n

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Avia

tion

gaso

line

1.05

1.03

0.99

0.96

1.01

1.12

1.13

0.98

1.06

1.31

1.32

1.32

Jet f

uel,

kero

sene

0.65

0.61

0.58

0.53

0.54

0.65

0.61

0.45

0.54

0.90

0.78

0.72

Mot

or g

asol

ine,

all t

ypes

1.20

1.19

1.17

1.17

1.21

1.29

1.29

1.12

1.22

1.56

1.53

1.44

Dies

el n

o. 2

0.65

0.62

0.60

0.55

0.56

0.68

0.64

0.49

0.58

0.94

0.84

0.76

Railr

oad

dies

el0.

670.

630.

630.

600.

600.

680.

680.

570.

550.

870.

850.

73

Crud

e oi

l0.

190.

180.

160.

160.

170.

210.

190.

130.

180.

280.

230.

24

NO

TE

FO

R T

AB

LE

S 1

14a

AN

D 1

14b

: A

ll ca

tego

ries

excl

ude

taxe

s, e

xcep

t mot

or g

asol

ine,

whi

ch in

clud

es ta

xes.

SO

UR

CE

S F

OR

TA

BL

ES

114

a A

ND

114

b:

1991

–200

1 fu

el p

rice

s—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n (U

SD

OT

), B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s (B

TS

),

Nat

iona

l Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s 20

02 (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

2), t

able

3-8

. 200

2 fu

el p

rice

s—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of E

nerg

y, E

nerg

y In

form

atio

n A

dmin

istr

atio

n,

Mon

thly

Ene

rgy

Rev

iew

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, tab

les

9.4

and

9.7;

and

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

mer

ican

Rai

lroad

s, R

ailro

ad F

acts

200

3 (W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, p. 6

.

Appendix B

279

TAB

LE

115

a M

oto

r F

uel

Pri

ces

Co

mp

ared

wit

h p

er C

apit

a M

oto

r V

ehic

le-M

iles

Trav

eled

: 19

91–2

001

Chai

ned

1996

dol

lars

per

gal

lon

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Gaso

line

pric

e1.

331.

301.

251.

221.

231.

291.

271.

081.

171.

461.

401.

30

VMT

per c

apita

9,16

49,

350

9,44

49,

602

9,08

99,

218

9,38

79,

531

9,63

59,

729

9,75

9U

KE

Y:

U =

dat

a ar

e un

avai

labl

e.

SO

UR

CE

S:

1991

–200

1 fu

el p

rice

s—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n (U

SD

OT

), B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s (B

TS

), N

atio

nal T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

2002

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, tab

le 3

-8. 2

002

Fu

el P

rice

s—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of E

nerg

y, E

nerg

y In

form

atio

n A

dmin

istr

atio

n, M

onth

ly E

nerg

y R

evie

w (

Was

hing

ton,

D

C: 2

002)

, tab

les

9.4

and

9.7;

and

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

mer

ican

Rai

lroad

s, R

ailro

ad F

acts

200

3 (W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, p. 6

. Per

cap

ita

veh

icle

- an

d a

ircr

aft-

mile

s co

mp

ute

d u

sin

g d

ata

fro

m—

US

DO

T, B

TS

, Nat

iona

l Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s 20

02 (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

2), t

able

1-2

9; a

nd U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, C

ensu

s B

urea

u, In

tern

atio

nal D

atab

ase

(ID

B),

ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.cen

sus.

gov/

ipc/

ww

w/id

bnew

.htm

l, as

of A

pril

2003

. Def

lato

r—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of

Com

mer

ce, B

urea

u of

Eco

nom

ic A

naly

sis,

"N

atio

nal I

ncom

e an

d P

rodu

ct A

ccou

nt T

able

s,"

tabl

e 7.

1, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ea.g

ov, a

s of

Apr

il 20

03.

TAB

LE

115

b

Mo

tor

Fu

el P

rice

s C

om

par

ed w

ith

per

Cap

ita

Mo

tor

Veh

icle

-Mile

s Tr

avel

ed:

1991

–200

1Cu

rren

t dol

lars

per

gal

lon

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Gaso

line

pric

e1.

201.

191.

171.

171.

211.

291.

291.

121.

221.

561.

531.

44

VMT

per c

apita

9,16

49,

350

9,44

49,

602

9,08

99,

218

9,38

79,

531

9,63

59,

729

9,75

9U

KE

Y:

U =

dat

a ar

e un

avai

labl

e.

SO

UR

CE

S:

1991

–200

1 fu

el p

rice

s—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n (U

SD

OT

), B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s (B

TS

), N

atio

nal T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

2002

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, tab

le 3

-8. 2

002

Fu

el P

rice

s—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of E

nerg

y, E

nerg

y In

form

atio

n A

dmin

istr

atio

n, M

onth

ly E

nerg

y R

evie

w (

Was

hing

ton,

D

C: 2

002)

, tab

les

9.4

and

9.7;

and

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

mer

ican

Rai

lroad

s, R

ailro

ad F

acts

200

3 (W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, p. 6

. Per

cap

ita

veh

icle

- an

d a

ircr

aft-

mile

s co

mp

ute

d u

sin

g d

ata

fro

m—

US

DO

T, B

TS

, Nat

iona

l Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s 20

02 (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

2), t

able

1-2

9; a

nd U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, C

ensu

s B

urea

u, In

tern

atio

nal D

atab

ase

(ID

B),

ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.cen

sus.

gov/

ipc/

ww

w/id

bnew

.htm

l, as

of A

pril

2003

.


280

TAB

LE

116

a J

et F

uel

Pri

ces

Co

mp

ared

wit

h p

er C

apit

a A

ircr

aft-

Mile

s Tr

avel

ed:

1991

–200

1Ch

aine

d 19

96 d

olla

rs p

er g

allo

n

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Jet f

uel p

rice

0.65

0.61

0.58

0.53

0.54

0.65

0.61

0.45

0.54

0.90

0.78

0.72

Vehi

cle-

mile

s15

.215

.616

.016

.617

.417

.818

.018

.219

.120

.119

.5U

KE

Y:

U =

dat

a ar

e un

avai

labl

e.

SO

UR

CE

S:

1991

–200

1 fu

el p

rice

s—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n (U

SD

OT

), B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s (B

TS

), N

atio

nal T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

2002

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, tab

le 3

-8. 2

002

Fu

el P

rice

s—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of E

nerg

y, E

nerg

y In

form

atio

n A

dmin

istr

atio

n, M

onth

ly E

nerg

y R

evie

w (

Was

hing

ton,

D

C: 2

002)

, tab

les

9.4

and

9.7;

and

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

mer

ican

Rai

lroad

s, R

ailro

ad F

acts

200

3 (W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, p. 6

. Per

cap

ita

veh

icle

- an

d a

ircr

aft-

mile

s co

mp

ute

d u

sin

g d

ata

fro

m—

US

DO

T, B

TS

, Nat

iona

l Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s 20

02 (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

2), t

able

1-2

9; a

nd U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, C

ensu

s B

urea

u, In

tern

atio

nal D

atab

ase

(ID

B),

ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.cen

sus.

gov/

ipc/

ww

w/id

bnew

.htm

l, as

of A

pril

2003

. Def

lato

r—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of

Com

mer

ce, B

urea

u of

Eco

nom

ic A

naly

sis,

"N

atio

nal I

ncom

e an

d P

rodu

ct A

ccou

nt T

able

s,"

tabl

e 7.

1, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ea.g

ov, a

s of

Apr

il 20

03.

TAB

LE

116

b

Jet

Fu

el P

rice

s C

om

par

ed w

ith

per

Cap

ita

Air

craf

t-M

iles

Trav

eled

: 19

91–2

001

Curr

ent d

olla

rs p

er g

allo

n

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Jet f

uel p

rice

0.73

0.66

0.62

0.56

0.55

0.65

0.60

0.44

0.52

0.84

0.71

0.65

Vehi

cle-

mile

s15

.215

.616

.016

.617

.417

.818

.018

.219

.120

.119

.5U

KE

Y:

U =

dat

a ar

e un

avai

labl

e.

SO

UR

CE

S:

1991

–200

1 fu

el p

rice

s—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n (U

SD

OT

), B

urea

u of

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s (B

TS

), N

atio

nal T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics

2002

(W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, tab

le 3

-8. 2

002

Fu

el P

rice

s—U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of E

nerg

y, E

nerg

y In

form

atio

n A

dmin

istr

atio

n, M

onth

ly E

nerg

y R

evie

w (

Was

hing

ton,

D

C: 2

002)

, tab

les

9.4

and

9.7;

and

Ass

ocia

tion

of A

mer

ican

Rai

lroad

s, R

ailro

ad F

acts

200

3 (W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, p. 6

. Per

cap

ita

veh

icle

- an

d a

ircr

aft-

mile

s co

mp

ute

d u

sin

g d

ata

fro

m—

US

DO

T, B

TS

, Nat

iona

l Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sta

tistic

s 20

02 (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

2), t

able

1-2

9; a

nd U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of C

omm

erce

, C

ensu

s B

urea

u, In

tern

atio

nal D

atab

ase

(ID

B),

ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.cen

sus.

gov/

ipc/

ww

w/id

bnew

.htm

l, as

of A

pril

2003

.

Appendix B

281

TAB

LE

117

a P

asse

ng

er-M

iles,

En

erg

y C

on

sum

pti

on

, an

d E

ner

gy

Eff

icie

ncy

: 19

90–2

000

Inde

x: 1

990

= 1.

00

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Pass

enge

r-m

iles

1.00

1.01

1.04

1.06

1.08

1.09

1.12

1.16

1.19

1.22

1.25

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

1.00

0.97

1.01

1.04

1.06

1.07

1.10

1.12

1.15

1.19

1.19

Ener

gy e

ffici

ency

(PM

/BTU

)1.

001.

041.

031.

021.

021.

021.

021.

031.

031.

021.

05

KE

Y:

BT

U =

Brit

ish

ther

mal

uni

t; P

M =

pas

seng

er-m

iles.

NO

TE

S: G

ener

al a

viat

ion

data

are

exc

lude

d be

caus

e pa

ssen

ger a

nd fr

eigh

t ope

ratio

ns d

ata

cann

ot b

e di

sagg

rega

ted.

Tra

nsit

bus

data

are

exc

lude

d be

caus

e th

ose

oper

atio

ns a

re in

clud

ed in

hig

hway

bus

dat

a. C

omm

erci

al d

omes

tic a

viat

ion

fuel

con

sum

ptio

n da

ta fo

r pa

ssen

ger

and

frei

ght o

pera

tions

wer

e es

timat

ed fr

om th

e to

tal c

omm

erci

al d

omes

tic a

viat

ion

fuel

con

sum

ptio

n.

SO

UR

CE

S:

Pas

sen

ger

-mile

s an

d e

ner

gy

use

(u

nle

ss o

ther

wis

e n

ote

d)—

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

Nat

iona

l Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Sta

tistic

s 20

02 (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

2), t

able

s 1-

34, 4

-6, a

nd 4

-8, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ts.g

ov/,

as o

f May

200

3. T

ran

sit

ener

gy

use

cal

cula

ted

fr

om

—A

mer

ican

Pub

lic T

rans

port

atio

n A

ssoc

iatio

n, T

rans

it S

tatis

tics,

tabl

es 3

0 an

d 33

, ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.apt

a.co

m, a

s of

May

200

3.

TAB

LE

117

b P

asse

ng

er-M

iles,

En

erg

y C

on

sum

pti

on

, an

d E

ner

gy

Eff

icie

ncy

: 19

90–2

000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Pass

enge

r-m

iles

(bill

ions

) 3

,787

3,8

15 3

,925

3,9

96 4

,082

4,1

20 4

,247

4,3

76 4

,497

4,6

20 4

,737

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

(trill

ion

BTU)

14,5

8214

,167

14,

668

15,

123

15,

404

15,

631

16,

033

16,

399

16,

787

17,

416

17,

355

Ener

gy e

ffici

ency

(PM

/BTU

)0.

0003

0.00

030.

0003

0.00

030.

0003

0.00

030.

0003

0.00

030.

0003

0.00

030.

0003

KE

Y:

BT

U =

Brit

ish

ther

mal

uni

t; P

M =

pas

seng

er-m

iles.

NO

TE

S: G

ener

al a

viat

ion

data

are

exc

lude

d be

caus

e pa

ssen

ger a

nd fr

eigh

t ope

ratio

ns d

ata

cann

ot b

e di

sagg

rega

ted.

Tra

nsit

bus

data

are

exc

lude

d be

caus

e th

ose

oper

atio

ns a

re in

clud

ed in

hig

hway

bus

dat

a. C

omm

erci

al d

omes

tic a

viat

ion

fuel

con

sum

ptio

n da

ta fo

r pa

ssen

ger

and

frei

ght o

pera

tions

wer

e es

timat

ed fr

om th

e to

tal c

omm

erci

al d

omes

tic a

viat

ion

fuel

con

sum

ptio

n.

SO

UR

CE

S:

Pas

sen

ger

-mile

s an

d e

ner

gy

use

(u

nle

ss o

ther

wis

e n

ote

d)—

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

Nat

iona

l Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Sta

tistic

s 20

02 (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

2), t

able

s 1-

34, 4

-6, a

nd 4

-8, a

vaila

ble

at h

ttp://

ww

w.b

ts.g

ov/,

as o

f May

200

3. T

ran

sit

ener

gy

use

cal

cula

ted

fr

om

—A

mer

ican

Pub

lic T

rans

port

atio

n A

ssoc

iatio

n, T

rans

it S

tatis

tics,

tabl

es 3

0 an

d 33

, ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.apt

a.co

m, a

s of

May

200

3.


282

TAB

LE

118

a F

reig

ht

Ton

-Mile

s, E

ner

gy

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n, a

nd

En

erg

y E

ffic

ien

cy:

1990

-200

0In

dex:

199

0 =

1.00

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Ton-

mile

s1.

001.

021.

051.

061.

121.

171.

191.

171.

181.

211.

23

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

1.00

1.01

1.03

1.02

1.07

1.13

1.15

1.15

1.22

1.27

1.32

Ener

gy e

ffici

ency

(TM

/BTU

)1.

001.

001.

021.

041.

051.

031.

031.

020.

970.

960.

93

KE

Y:

BT

U =

Brit

ish

ther

mal

uni

t; T

M =

ton-

mile

s.

NO

TE

S: G

ener

al a

viat

ion

data

are

exc

lude

d be

caus

e pa

ssen

ger

and

frei

ght o

pera

tions

dat

a ca

nnot

be

disa

ggre

gate

d. M

arin

e ga

solin

e us

e da

ta a

re e

xclu

ded

from

fr

eigh

t ene

rgy

use

tota

l bec

ause

mar

ine

gaso

line

is u

sed

prim

arily

in r

ecre

atio

nal v

ehic

les.

Pip

elin

e da

ta a

re e

xclu

ded

beca

use

ton-

mile

s da

ta in

clud

e al

l typ

es o

f pe

trol

eum

pro

duct

s, a

nd e

nerg

y co

nsum

ptio

n da

ta a

re a

vaila

ble

for

natu

ral g

as o

nly.

Com

mer

cial

dom

estic

avi

atio

n fu

el c

onsu

mpt

ion

data

for

pass

enge

r an

d fr

eigh

t op

erat

ions

wer

e es

timat

ed fr

om th

e to

tal c

omm

erci

al d

omes

tic a

viat

ion

fuel

con

sum

ptio

n.

SO

UR

CE

S:

Ton

-mile

s an

d e

ner

gy

use

(u

nle

ss o

ther

wis

e n

ote

d)—

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

Nat

iona

l Tra

nspo

rta-

tion

Sta

tistic

s 20

02 (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

2), t

able

s 1-

34, 1

-44,

4-6

, and

4-8

, ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bts

.gov

/, as

of M

ay 2

003.

Tru

ck t

on

-mile

s fo

r 20

00—

The

Eno

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Fou

ndat

ion,

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

in A

mer

ica,

19t

h E

ditio

n (W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, pag

e 45

.

TAB

LE

118

b

Fre

igh

t To

n-M

iles,

En

erg

y C

on

sum

pti

on

, an

d E

ner

gy

Eff

icie

ncy

: 19

90-2

000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Ton-

mile

s (b

illio

ns)

3,1

96 3

,233

3,3

37 3

,364

3,5

27 3

,648

3,7

25 3

,682

3,7

10 3

,780

3,8

18

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

(trill

ion

BTU)

6,1

75 6

,191

6,2

60 6

,249

6,6

05 6

,942

7,0

60 7

,090

7,3

62 7

,624

7,9

31

Ener

gy e

ffici

ency

(TM

/BTU

)0.

0005

0.00

050.

0005

0.00

050.

0005

0.00

050.

0005

0.00

050.

0005

0.00

050.

0005

KE

Y:

BT

U =

Brit

ish

ther

mal

uni

t; T

M =

ton-

mile

s.

NO

TE

S: G

ener

al a

viat

ion

data

are

exc

lude

d be

caus

e pa

ssen

ger

and

frei

ght o

pera

tions

dat

a ca

nnot

be

disa

ggre

gate

d. M

arin

e ga

solin

e us

e da

ta a

re e

xclu

ded

from

fr

eigh

t ene

rgy

use

tota

l bec

ause

mar

ine

gaso

line

is u

sed

prim

arily

in r

ecre

atio

nal v

ehic

les.

Pip

elin

e da

ta a

re e

xclu

ded

beca

use

ton-

mile

s da

ta in

clud

e al

l typ

es o

f pe

trol

eum

pro

duct

s, a

nd e

nerg

y co

nsum

ptio

n da

ta a

re a

vaila

ble

for

natu

ral g

as o

nly.

Com

mer

cial

dom

estic

avi

atio

n fu

el c

onsu

mpt

ion

data

for

pass

enge

r an

d fr

eigh

t op

erat

ions

wer

e es

timat

ed fr

om th

e to

tal c

omm

erci

al d

omes

tic a

viat

ion

fuel

con

sum

ptio

n.

SO

UR

CE

S:

Ton

-mile

s an

d e

ner

gy

use

(u

nle

ss o

ther

wis

e n

ote

d)—

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion,

Bur

eau

of T

rans

port

atio

n S

tatis

tics,

Nat

iona

l Tra

nspo

rta-

tion

Sta

tistic

s 20

02 (

Was

hing

ton,

DC

: 200

2), t

able

s 1-

34, 1

-44,

4-6

, and

4-8

, ava

ilabl

e at

http

://w

ww

.bts

.gov

/, as

of M

ay 2

003.

Tru

ck t

on

-mile

s fo

r 20

00—

The

Eno

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Fou

ndat

ion,

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

in A

mer

ica,

19t

h E

ditio

n (W

ashi

ngto

n, D

C: 2

002)

, pag

e 45

.