MEMBERS OF THEJOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT AND REVIEW CO~l\i[ISSION

ChairmanDelegate Richard M. Bagley

Vice ChairmanSenator Hunter B. Andrews

Delegate Robert B. Ball, Sr.Senator Herbert H. BatemanSenator John C. BuchananDelegate Vincent F. Callahan, Jr.Delegate L. Cleaves ManningDelegate Theodore V. Morrison, Jr.Delegate Lacey E. PutneyDelegate Ford C. QuillenSenator Edward E. WilleyMr. Charles K. Trible, Auditor of Public Accounts

DirectorRay D. Pethtel

MEMBERS OF THESJR 50 SUBCOMMITTEE

From the Joint LegislativeAudit and Review Commission

Delegate Theodore V. Morrison, Jr. (Chairman)Delegate Vincent F. Callahan, ,Jr.Senator Edward E. Willey

From the SenateCommittee on Finance

Senator Peter K. BabalasSenator J. Harry Michael, Jr.Senator William A. Truban

From the SenateCommittee on Transportation

Senator Daniel W. Bird, Jr.Senator Richard 1. SaslawSenator Lawrence Douglas Wilder

From the HouseCommittee on Finance

Delegate Archibald A. CampbellDelegate C. Richard CranwellDelegate Norman Sisisky

From the House Committee onRoads and Internal Navigation

Delegate Orby 1. CantrellDelegate Earl E. BellDelegate V. Earl Dickinson

MEMBERS OF THECOST ALLOCATION PLANNING TEAM

William E. Landsidle, JLARC (Chairman)Gary T. Henry, JLARCE. S. Coleman, Jr. VDHTC. O. Leigh, VDHTGary R. Allen, Virginia

Highway and 'l'ranl3pC)rt,ltH)DResearch Council

RICf'ARD M BAGLEY tHUNTER B ANDREWSVice CtHlrman

COMMISSION MEMBERS

HUI\lTE,g B ANDREWSSenator

~ICHARD M BAGLEY:>:?:egal~

ROBERT B BALL. SRc.:'eiegate

yE"BEgT H BATEMANSenator

C BUCHANANSenator

'vINCeNT F CALLAHAN, JR::eiegate

C~EAVES MANNINGDeii&gate

"HEODORE V MORRISON JRJeq:~gate

cACEY E PUTNEYDelegate

'<JRC C GUILLENDeiegat€

ED\V;"RD E. INILLEYSe0ator

.IHAR~ES K TRIBLE;"ud:tc' of Public Accounts

Suite 1 StreetRichmond. 23219

786-1258

Hono N. ton,The Honorable Members of tState CapitolRichmond, Virginia 23219

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are pleased to tL~H~!ll~

Interim Report which contains amethodology which will be used tocost responsibil study. The metuu'~~j~IU~

by the Joint Legislativewith the cooperat of aSenate Joint Resolut

RMB: :ji

1

\ttnOutl.on .

GLOSSARy .

ABBREVIATIONS .

MEMBERS .

An advisory of interest groups was inviteddevelopment a study m€~tnoC101(lgy

policy information and reaction thegroups also testified a November 24,

1980 meeting and at a legislative hearing on December 17,1980.cmnrnlents are included as an to this report.

Association of Anler'lC8m(RepresentingAssociation) .

AnlerlC8m Automobile Association .

5

51033

40

41

52

57

65

I t ti

i n­taxes

1i cense

ntenance of Vi nia's hinn\'.1~\1

are charges fees. IlUsers"divi ls use pay that usedirectly related to as gasoline taxes,

on fees, automobiles andnci on is 1oca1 tax revenue

ci es to or expenditures for road constructionma i ntenance. Overall, however, 99 percent of State hi ghway revenuecomes from taxes and fees placed di rect lyon the users of the hi ghwaysystem.

A basic principle user tax equity is that the proportion ofrevenues deri from user shoul d be equal the propo on ofcosts the public bears in providing serviceable highways for that user.A balanced tax structure waul d produce revenues from each user suffi­cient to cover all costs incurred on behalf of that user. While such abalance is difficult to achieve, knowing the relationship between taxesand highway use and service cost is a first step in designing an equit­able tax structure.

The analytic process used to examine the balance betweenrevenues paid by user taxes and the cost associated with providing thehighway system is generally referred to as a cost responsibility study.

An underlying consideration of a cost responsibility study isthat the highway system is built to accommodate a variety of vehicles.Different vehicles have a wide range of requirements for pavement width,strength, amount of roadway. In cases where construction and mainance expenditures are due to the needs of particular vehicles,those costs s uld be borne by the vehicle classes that require them.Examp 1es are expenditures such as sing overpasses for truckclearance, or maintaini ferries which only haul automobiles.

In other cases, expenditures are made which cannot berelated to special vehiclefrom traffic signs in equalspecific vehicle classes

ires care 1 analyses

rectlyneeds. For example, all vehicles benefitmeasure. Separating costs associated with

those which are common to all vehiclesa complex methodology.

Ai i estions.

lossary hasterms

inc at the~N'~~C'Cses some additi

of is rtical consi

S ,personne1staff of

i assiTransportation,Commission,Police, and the

The desi effort was three r\"oV'''''ding nciples.

1. The design process was to be as as possible withinvolvement of transportation i representativesand other intere es an early stage.

2.

3.

maximum flexibili inive ass ons

advi sory commicommi were

rglnla Hi,,,,,,,,,,,,,the Automobi a.team. JLARC sand thecost ies.

A FRA~lEWjJRK

tics.

5 dn n costs

5

6

analysis.most recentis ni zed.

i nformat i on onenvironment.mighttions.change

• Traffi c are changi ngtruck leage (Figure 2). Risihighway construction andthicker pavement greater capacity.

increase intruck use increases

iring

Figure 1

AGE OF VIRGINIA INTERSTATES

A 20

INTEf'STATe oeSleNLJI'IE EXPECTANCV:20 yeARS

6-10 11·15 16-20

YEARS IN SERVICE

0-6

1S00...--33.7%

~29.4%

~

19.4%

408

-:;0.:;;:-

~7.8%

o

200

400

800

1,200

1.000

LANE. MILES1,400

Source: Department of Highways and Transportation as shown in R.J.Hansen Associates, Inc., Virginia Highway and Transporta­tion Management.

Figure 2

HEAVY TRUCK MILEAGE IN THE 1970s

1600

(f)UJ 1400::!~

u..0(f) 1200ZQ...J::!~ 1000

600""1:- -----'

70 71 72 73 74 75 76

YEARS

77 78 79

Department of Highways andHansen sod ates, Inc.,

7

on

1 serve asmost sensitive to

time frame ions bestcost respons bil ity fi ndi ngs. Exami nat i on of

will provide reliable baseline estimates.trends will give estimates which may be moretax policy. Finally, analysis of the two data

a cross-check and highlight the cost items that areing conditions.

me f~ame is best suited for analyzing currentAn assessment of data avail abil ity and the

study indicates that FY 1983 to FY 1986 wouldmates future costs for several reasons.

1.

2.

Data from the present cost responsibility study will notbe available until prior to the 1982 Session of theGeneral Assembly, long after appropriations or tax policy

isions have been made for the 1980-82 biennium.

Project scheduling data from DHT are based on a six-yearadvert i sement schedul e whi ch is updated annually. Thecu schedule provides estimates of the contractbi ng sequence through 1986.

The peri od July 1982 to June 1986 corresponds wi th the1982-1984 and 1984-1986 biennia.

Recommendation 2. The present study should analyze cost andrevenue data for the peri ods FY 1980 and FY 1983 through FY1986. analyses should be conducted separately. Afollow-up cost responsibility study should be completed in1985 for use in the 1986-1988 and 1988-1990 biennia.

icle Clas

SJR called for a study of cost apportioning among vehiclesous sizes and weights. To accomplish this, vehicles which use

nia highways must be aggregated into a manageable number of clas-classification system used must meet two general requirements.

First, re should be a relationship between classification and thecost-occasioning size and weight relationships discussed in the nextsection. Second, as a practical matter, the classes must correspond tothe in ich vehicles are defined in law and in which the existingrevenue, registration, and traffic volume data are maintained.

of an analysis of key vehicle data available inle 1. Estimated numbers of vehicles and aver­1 are shown for the interstate, arterial, and

the great majority of truck traffic.

e 1

Percent ofEquivalent

Single 3Axle Loads

TypicalMaximum

GrossOperati~g

Weight

AverageLoadedWeight

Percent ofAverage

Dai lyVehiqe

EstimatedPercentof all

Passenger Car

2-Axle 4-Tire Trucks

2-Axle 5-Tire Trucks

3-Axle Single UnitTrucks

3 and 4-AxleCombination Tractorand Tra i 1el'

5-Axle CombinationTractor and Trailer

68%

15

3

1

2

10

72% NA NA

16 5,772 10,000

3 15,525 24,000

1 38,426 50.000

2 37,827 48,000

6 50.537 75.000

NA

1%

8

4

lInterstate. al'terial. and pl'imary systems.

lup uf categlwy wtlich inclucjes 90th pef'centile.

SAL 18. flexible pavement.

Source: DepartmentStudy and

ion, 1979 Truck Weight1ume Report.

c

Class

I

er

iv

3.

4.

ad. Identifi on~~;:;--- ysis is fairly

i to provi dec ass.

necesof multi-year projects.

~a.-ar,+ y completed which include construction expendituresan adequate sample. ing unit cost and bid i

ect records, accurate cost es mates indexed to cur-deve loped. Actual onother are also avail adleqljat~e

The study s 1dconstruction

on cost estimate leoFY 1980 by work activity for

other cost estimates.

use recent1ects for

actualestimates of

complFY

expendituremaintenance

projects and work activitieslex. Past ence has

1 for roughtime. In ition, a ,,,,',,-,,,,,'1"

us i ng DHT data forecast a dec1i ne inon. If accurate, the forecast suggests

a could lose approximatel $23 llion in federali ng funds. Between and ra 1 d

coul d be si gni cant cosa re<:!u(:ed budget woul d most 1i result in

ects. nce a substantially diresults, unusual uctuation, sa lack matching State funds, could~o<:nr\ncibility study done under

anal revenues were sUb~;eQuel

".",,~~,~ and the budget

studymix of

le 2

Recommendation 5. The present study should use a projectionof construction-projects for both roadway and structures to beinitiated in FY 1983 ugh FY 1986 based on the best esti­mates of a realistic schedule as deri by the Department ofHighways and Transportation programming and scheduling direc­torate.

Projecting maintenance work for FY 1983 through 1986 is alsocomplicated by the changing requirements resulting from the system ageand use trends described earlier. A straight line projection fromcurrent trends would probably underestimate expenditures for pavementand shoulder maintenance and possibly other work activities as well.Reasonable estimates of future work patterns can be obtained by modify­ing a straight-line projection based on an examination of recent trendsand the judgments of DHT engineering and maintenance personnel.

Recommendat ion 6. The present study shaul d adopt a modifi edprojection of maintenance work ivities for FY 1983 throughFY 1986 based on exami nat i on of recent trends ~ exi st i ng de-sign-life records~ and the judgmental input of staff.

Project i on of other cost items is best accompli shed on acase-by-case basis. General administration costs~ for example, canusually be projected on a straight-line basis. Capital outlay costs andthe cost of operating weighing stations can be derived from existingcapi ay plans the number of weighing stations projected to bein operation.

study s 1d adoptcase revi ew1

step in the cost 1ocat i on process is groupi ngactivities. The grouping should accurately reflect

Virginia highway system while keeping study workloadlevels. Projects and work activities in each of the

cost categories of roadway construction, structures, mainte­costs can be reduced to representative groupi ngs asfollowing sections. The approach will be essentially

1980 and FY 1983-1986 time frames.

Roadway Construction. Most other states which have done costre:5P(Hl~ibility studies have categorized projects based on system desig-

on, e.g., IIrural interstate ll or IImajor primary collector. II Wiscon­Oregon, for example, have their highway systems broken down into

designations. Virginia's system designation uses only four cate­es which would group substantially dissimilar types of roads. More

mportantly, roadway designs and, therefore, costs are based onexpected actua1 traffi c volumes and the mi x of heavy to 1i ghtervehicles rather than system designation. For this reason the presentstudy design is based on a cluster approach to categorizing projects forcost ysis.

design of a roadway project is based on three principal

1. Expected traffi c volume, inc1udi ng both total number ofvehicles and the split between trucks and cars.

2. Expected gross weights and axle weights.

3. Soil, topography, and drai nage characteri sti cs of theconstruction site.

traffic volumes and weights are estimated for each projectc studi es and trend ana lyses. Soil, topography, andons are assessed through a field examination.

A stical analysis of traffic volume and weight estimatesclusters of projects which tend to share similar estimates

~h'~~"Tn,~n, can anticipate similar roadway designs. Figure 3 illus-.,.", ... .,.,,,. clustering procedure which reduces the original number of

a limited number of cluster design types with each having anc weight and volume average.

addition, the actual cost for constructing all projectseach cluster produces a cost estimate for each cluster.

ects the relative amounts of earthwork, grading,lopment, and pavement construction costs associated

example, if of onvo1ume, heavy k 5 moun-

cost of nting

sensi a 5

arei n-

cant crossing dis­a crossingcarry one roadway

would i eachons, stream crossing

11y no grade crossibridge designs are

(Figure 4).

Fi 4

CONFIBRIDGE LENGTH AND SPAN LENGTHS

INTERSTATE SYSTEM

WATER CROSSINGGRADE SEPARATION

PRIMARY SYSTEM

fi ve cate­average total

systems, theand two cross-

activities is fairlyoad expe i ture data

aCl=me'n maintenance. Many ofexample, are

vity of i a eon-a i nt rep acement,

wi th epoxy or

on shown in

1e exi ngion leave, holiday

ital outl

7

Table 4

PROPOSED CATEGORIES OF MAINTENANCE WORK ACTIVITY

ORDINARY MAINTENANCE: Activities related to preserving each type of roadway, structure,and facility as near as possible in its condition as constructed.

1. Surface Repair - Hardsurface Roads. Sealing, patching, joint replacement, and otherspot reconditioning of bituminous and concrete surfaces.

2. Surface Repair - NonHardsurface Roads. Filling holes, grading, and dust reductionapplications to dirt or gravel roads.

3. Shoulder Maintenance.

4. Ditch and Drainage Maintenance.

5. Structure Maintenance. Repair and maintenance of bridges, tunnels, pipes, and cul­verts.

6. Roadside Maintenance. Maintenance of rest areas and litter removal from roadsides.

7. Sign, Signal, and Safety Device Maintenance.

8. Vegetation Control. Mowing, brush cutting, spraying, and tree trimming and removal.

9. Snow and Ice Contro 1.

10. Traffic Services. Service patrols.

11. Maintenance and Operation of Ferries and Drawbridges.

12. Maintenance and Operation of Weigh Stations.

13. General Expenses. Engineering and general supervision costs for ordinary maintenanceactivities.

REPLACEMENT MAINTENANCE: Activities related to restoring each type of roadway, structure,and facility as near as possible to its condition as constructed. This category primarilyincludes work on continuous portions of roadways of 1,000 feet or more, replacing signs,signals, lighting fixtures, guardrails, and fences, and major repairs to structures andfacilities.

1. Surface Replacement - Hardsurface Roads. Overlays, replacement, and reconditioning ofbituminous and concrete surfaces.

2. Surface Replacement - Nonhardsurface Roads. Reconditioning of sections of 1,000 feetor more.

3. Shoulder Replacement.

4. Ditch and Drainage Reconstruction.

5. Roadside Reconditioning. Removing major slides and reconditioning of slopes, replace­ment of sidewalks, gutters, and fences, and major repairs to waysides and rest areas.

6. Sign, Signal, and Safety Device Replacement.

7. Structure Repair.

8. Drawbridge and Ferry Repair.

9. Weigh Station Repair.

10. Flood Damage Repai r. Extraordi nary repai rs of roadways, structures, and facil it i esdue to floods, storms, and landslides.

11. General Expenses. Engineering and general supervision costs of replacementmaintenance activities.

8

u d

costs isvehicle classes. By

le to theC s ito

exami

of is, commonon bas is re 1 i ve

by each vehicle class.common cos 1 also be

into six COITIp(mE!nti on cos can be 5 ivided

1imi nary 5"""""''''testi

3. on,

i 5

6. improvements such asscenic overlooks.

i ci es and proceduresengi neeri ng are not

size characteristics ofivities represents the

rOi~a~/av construction.

and construction engi­common to all vehicles

Recommendation 12.

are determi ned by atraffic volume. A DHT

following minimum

hi commissioner or deputy

uenced during the designuse passenger car equi-

re1 ve amount of roadwaytractor-trailer may be

seven compared to a one forencies, extra turn lanes may be

It may, therefore, becomeich would be the dispro-

measures such as passengerdec is i on as to whether

onship between the cost ofclearcut. Specifically,

i the maximum widthous benefits of a

noise buffer-es iding

i­to

y compl etedas a common

nis-

consdiscustortotween ght-of-way acquisit needsAppropri ate adjustments to thi s studyshould be considered as additional infoble.

shaul d belocated by

nue moni-on

relationship be-and c volume.

or subsequent studi esion becomes availa-

Site ts. Site preparation costs, on the other, a re to vehicle volume in several ways. Lane and1 dth and the mensions of excavated "cut-and-fill " earthworkconsidered to vary wi expected traffic mix. As a result, site

\/'0,""\:,.':>1" on for a roadway designed for mixed truck and light vehicleic is relatively more expensive than for a roadway designed only

r cars 1i ght trucks.

In to estimate the proportion of occasioned cost in siteion, DHT location and desi division will examine cross

ional designs for the rojects contained in the various clustersi ous ly desc i gns wi 11 ect the difference in costs

nO"r"l<>on xed traffic and the basic facility. Theses as p ons and app 1i ed against the cost

cluster as ale, 11 provide the cost responsibil-mixed traffic and basic vehicles. A generally represen-

1e of separat i on of occas i oned from common costs is5.

some site pr~paration costs are re ated to weight andsign standards there does not appear to be a

successively heavier trucks and the occasionedThe rel ve size of trucks and

is determi ni ng r in costoccas i cost s 1d S"''''''O';

,....,·.,.'"'r~"v"es A measure such ask would a reasona-

21

I.I..

10

Figure S

EXAMPLE OF STATE PREPARATION GEOMETRY DESIGN(0220-011-101, C-S12)

STANDARD GEOMETRY DESIGN(With large and heavy vehicles)

13.5

6

:IREDUCED GEOMETRY DESIGN

(Without large and heavy vehicles)

I~I .. I

.. I

~ _ ........,__...._f;t:Cli.;:a:::.i.~-~ /~ ~.li .. 16.~ ; _ 11 11- ~

I. I. e6

:\ I: 3 81

EXAMPLE OF SITE PREPARATION COSTS(0220~011-101, C-S12)

ReducedStandard Design Cost

Items Design (No Trucks) Difference

1. Mobilization $ 159,517 $ 119,941 $ 39,5762. Excavation 1,122,405 832,059 290,3463. Borrow 0 0 04. Drainage 117,674 108,812 8,8625. Catch Basin 9,210 9,210 06. Box Culvert 50,914 47,631 3,2837. Incidental Items 460,353 454,251 6,102

Total $1,920,073 $1,571,904 $348,169

SITE PREPARATION COST ALLOCATION

Total Site Site PreparationTruck VPD Occasioned Total VPD Common Preparation Share

(Percentage) Share (Percentage) Share Share (Percentage)

Passenger Car& 2A-4%(s) --% 81% $1,273,242 $1,273,242 66%

2A-6T(s) 17% $ 59,189 3% 47,157 106,346 6%3A(s) 10% 34,817 2% 31,438 66,255 3%3A &4A(c) 15% 52,225 3% 47,157 99,382 5%5A(c) 58% 201,938 11% 172,910 374,848 20%

Total 100% $348,169 100% $1,571,904 $1,920,073 100%

Recommendation A review project designs for 1 pro-jects grouped through the cluster analysis should be usedidentify site preparation costs related to the lane and s 1­der dth and cut-and-fill earthwork costs attributable solelyto trucks and buses. These costs should be allocated amongthe four classes of trucks on the basis of the proportion ofmiles of travel thin each vehicle category to the total

les of travel for all vehicles in the four truck classes.Remaining site preparation costs should be considered commonto all vehi es and allocated by methods di scussed in Recom­mendation 12.

Pavement Costs. Pavement construction costs are generallyconsidered weight and volume related and, therefore, occasioned costs.Based on DHT standards and the judgment of design personnel, passengercars and light trucks would require only II-foot wide lanes rather thanthe 12-foot standard design. This would result in assigning to trucksapproximately eight percent (1/12) of all pavement costs for roads withstandard 12-foot lanes.

Pavement thickness is also clearly related because it isdesigned based on the anticipated number of repetitions of axle loadsover the expected life span of the highway. Pavement thickness will beincreased during design in direct relationship to an increased number ofanticipated axle loads. In other words, an expectation that the highwaywill be used by heavier trucks, or by more trucks, will require thickerpavements.

The simplest and most defensible means of identifying andallocating pavement thickness costs occasioned by various vehicle clas­ses is to separate the tota1 pavement into components based on thethickness-to-weight relationship incorporated in the design standards.Thi s approach, generally referred to as an incremental approach, hasbeen used in a number of cost responsibility studies at the state andfederal level. Although there are several reasonable variations of thisapproach, an incremental allocation of new pavement construction remainsthe most generally accepted method.

The feature most common to the incremental approach is thedesign of pavement increments for each vehicle class. As illustrated inFigure 6, the design is done after a IItheoretical minimum ll pavement isdetermined. The cross-section shows for one project the amount ofpavement required as each class of vehicles is added to the trafficstream. Although the increments in this case are designed for only oneproject, similar cross-sections can be developed for each of the con­struction project clusters.

The design shows a total pavement depth of 12.8 units on thethickness index (T.l.). This is a measure used by DHT in their design

thickness index is used to account the variety ofxes i to ieve desired pave-

e, six inches stone a bitumi nous

23

RequiredIncrement

1 - ............ ...,. 3.6

2 L s & s) 3.6 (1. 0%) 2.2

3 II. 2A-6T(s) .a (7.7) 2.9

4 III. 3A(s) .5 0.6

5 IV. c) .2 (8.0) 0.8

6 V. 5A(c) (78.9) 2.7

( .0%) (100.0%) 12.8

IncrementRequiredIncrement

6

54

3

2

1

2.7

0.80.6

2.9

2.2

3.6

c6.

weatheri

providevehicle

Once ickness duecan be

totalthe

ueof

allo­used

be

Figure 7

EXAMPLE OF ECONOMIES OF SCALEINHERENT IN PAVEMENT DESIGN

REQUIREDPAVEMENTTHICKNESS (TI)

15

12

9

6

3

PAVEMENT DESIGN REQUIREMENT CURVE

INCREMENT 6

o 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350

ESAL-18

• POINTS ON LINE REPRESENT THE EXAMPLE USED THROUGHOUT THE TEXT

as the number of standard weight measurement units - ESALs - increases.For example, adding Class II to the expected traffic mix increasespavement thickness by 50 percent (2.9 divided by 5.8) through the addi­tion of 27 ESALs. In contrast, the increase in axle weight equivalen­cies between increment 5 and increment 6 - when heavy trucks are added ­is 278.3 ESALs, but the additional axle weight requires only a 25 per­cent increase in pavement thickness (2.7 divided by 10.1).

The important point to be drawn from Figure 7 is that, al­though the economies of scale exist, there is no technical reason whichclearly requires awarding the benefits to the primarybeneficiaries--Class V vehicles. Three alternative methods which can beused to distribute the cost of the increments are shown in Table 4. Allthree rely on the same increments and are within technically recognizedbounds for Vi rgi ni a I s pavement des i gn practices. The difference is inthe way the economy of scale is dealt with.

In all three methods the costs in each increment are shared bythe vehicle classes which require the increment. The first methoddistributes the cost of each increment to vehicle classes on the basisof their proportion of the vehicles per day. For increments one and

le 4

OPTIONS FOR ALLOCATING COST

OPTION 1: BY VPD

Increment Class I II III V Total-1 $48,954 $ 1,950 $1,166 $ 1,709 $ 6,621 $ 60,4002 29,917 1,193 712 1,045 4,044 36,9113 ,707 6, 9,363 36,314 62,7954 1,283 1,873 7,268 10,4245 2,852 11,069 13,9216 50,463 50,463--

Totals $78,871 $13,850 $9,572 $16,842 $115,779 $234,914

Percentages 33.6% 5.9% 4.1% 7.2% 49.3% 100.0%

OPTION 2: ALLOCATION BY ESAL-18 ABOVE THEORETICAL MINIMUM

Increment Class I II III IV V Total- --I $48,954 $ 1,950 $1,166 $ 1,709 $ 6,621 $ 60,4002 351 2,861 1,624 2,960 29,115 36,9113 4,845 2,784 5,096 5,070 62,7954 500 918 9,006 10,4245 1,301 12,620 13,9216 50,463 50,463

Totals $49,305 $ 9,656 $6,074 $11,984 $157,895 $234,914

Percentages 21. 0% 4.1% 2.6% 5.1% 67.2% 100.0%

OPTION 3: ALLOCATION BY ESAL-18 ABOVE BASIC ROAD

Increment Class I II III IV V Total-

1 $48,954 $ 1,950 $1,166 $ 1,709 $ 6,621 $ 60,4002 29,917 1,193 712 1,045 4,044 36,9113 4,845 2,784 5,096 50,070 62,7954 500 918 9,006 10,4245 1,301 12,620 13,9216 50,463 50,463

Totals $78,871 $ 7,988 $5,162 $10,069 $132,824 $234,914

Percentages 33.6% 3.4% 2.2% 4.3% 56.5% 100.0%

27

basisis

i . e. ,whi ch are needed tofor heavy trucks, are

on

a "basic road, II

four ncrements,requirements

i ons who receivesIn first method, the last-receive the greatest benefit.

the economy scale is neutralizedis the allocation mechanism. In the

a port i on of the economy of scaleon a onate travel basis for the

reethe economy of

cl ass to be added--the heaviIn the second method, the benefitbecause ESAL-18 contri onfinal method, trucks tbecause all classes are chargedfirst two increments.

it the economy ofinstance, all classes ofin 1 methods

cars and two-axle,method but lower in

costs in the two

who recei veson

are 1cost a1same in

trucks are

The di TT£'i!'Qnro

scale affects the ditrucks except Cl ass Vthan in the fi rst.four-tire trucks isthe second. Fi ve-ax eESAL-18 methods.

cons i dered to 1i e on a continuum.is considered the most that

i 1 acceptable bounds.ca nimum stands on the

east that Class I should18 above the bas i c

fi rst method isve- e vehicles; the

therefore 1a1 ve betweensel the int on

The threeAll ocat i on by VPOs standsClass I vehicles should rh'~lf'rlorl

The all ocat i on by 18 aboveother end of continuum i!'OI,if"'C

be charged. iroad--represents amore tradit i ana lysecond neutralizesless to Classes I­

fi rst two.nuum

somecon

Structure on

ncre­a structure

ci

Figure 8

PROPOSED BRIDGE COST ALLOCATION

SUPER SUBCOST RATIO

STRUCTURE STRUCTURE BRIDGE DESIGN GEOMETRIC

COST COST COST FACTOR FACTOR C.R .=D .FxG.F.

)- Waterway Closs I 41,449 41,436 82,885 0.820 0.933 0.765o::~ .-..: Crossing II 53,478 41,436 94,914 0.939 I o 9~)9"1:w lL01- --zif) '<t III 58,292 41,436 99,728 0.987 I 0.9870)- l.D

IV 57,756 41,436 99,192 0.981 0.981~U1

1if) V 59,627 41,436 101,063 1 1 I

Closs I 113,259 109,688 222,947 0.792 0.950 0.752

~.-: II 144,377 111,997 256,374 0.910 I 0.910lL Waterwayw III 162,422 114,306 276,728 0.983 1 -ן0.963 m

if) l{) Crossing IV 162,261 113,152 275,413 0.978 I 0978)-if) V 166,152 115,461 281,613 I I 1)- Class I 264,196 105,389 369,585 0.821 0.877 07200::<t ..-: II 299,525 110,073 409,598 0.909 1 0.901.... lL Grode.~ III- N 319,054 114,757 433,811 0.963 1 0.9630:: ,..... Separationa.. N IV 316,777 112,415 429,192 0.953 1 0.953

V 333,281 117,099 450,300 1 1 I

~Closs I 210,567 165,617 376,184 0.820 0955 0.783

w ..-: II 232,794 169,104 401,890 0.81'6 1 0876lL WaterwayI-III 272,532 172,590 445,122 0.970 I 0.970if) l.D

>- - CrossingIVif) N 272,343 170,847 443,190 0.966 I 0966

V 284,439 174,334 458,773 1 1 I

Class I 299,961 157,623 457,584 0.784 0.806 0!i95..-: Ii 356,664 164,629 521,293 0.893 1 089:)if) lL Grade0:: III 389,516 171,634 561,150 0.961 1 0.9GIw N Separationl- N IV 386,144 168,131 554,275 0.949 I 0.949r0

Z- V 408,654 175,137 583,791 I 1 I

Cost Ratio (C. R.) = Cost to build br~e for olhc, cl~s_s__ I/~'iclcsCo~.1 to build brirlnc for CIO'i'; V v;;llicl;:,;

SOURCE: VDHT BRIDGE DIVISION

s areissize

increme

me framesconstruct i on cost woul d generally be

usi facili is cost could

Recommendation 19. Bridge construction, reconstruction, andreplacement projects should be classified into one of the fivetypical design categories. Incremental size and weight-re­lated costs should be allocated among all vehicle classes on

basis of proportionate miles of travel.

Maintenance Cost Allocation

Allocating maintenance costs to vehicle classes is among themore diffi cul t aspects of a cost respons i bil ity study. Whereas therelationship between vehicle size and weight and the construction costsfor roadways and structures is generally based on empirical designrelationships, the relationship between maintenance costs and vehiclesize and weight is often judgmental in nature.

In simplest terms, maintenance costs are linked to gradualdeterioration of the roadway, structures, and facilities that make upthe highway system. Deterioration is due to use, age, weathering, andthe actual versus predicted performance of designs, materials, andconstruction techniques. There is a general consensus among many high­way maintenance engineers that the rate of deterioration, particularlyin pavement condition, varies with use of the roadway by heavy trucks.However, there is little empirical information on what the differentialrate of deterioration is and, therefore, on what basis costs should beallocated.

To simplify and focus the discussion, the categories of main­tenance work activities described in Table 4 can be further aggregatedinto four groupings of particular importance to allocation of costs:pavement repair, shoulder maintenance, special-purpose facilities, andall other maintenance activities.

Pavement Repair and Replacement. The most controversial issuein cost responsibility studies is the allocation of pavement repair andrep1acement costs. Pavement mai ntenance presently accounts forone-third of total maintenance costs, and this percentage can beexpected to increase as the age and increased use of highways result inmore rapid deterioration.

Since pavement design is directly related to heavy truck use,it follows logically that pavement deterioration is also directly re­lated to heavy truck use. However, a way to measure this relationshiphas not been empi cally established. In other words, although

neeri ng data can demonstrate the need for thi cker pavements towei ks, these same cannot be used to

I1Crnnrlctrate an adequate y designed pavement is di sproporti onate lydamaged the heavy weights for which it was constructed.

31

,tal andments.

costs ial purposeon a case-by-case basis.

All other maintenance costs do nothave a demonstrable to vehicle size or weight and are,therefore, common to es. This category incl maintenanceof bridge structures, di and drainage systems, roadsides, trafficsafety improvements, vegetation control, and snow and ice removal.

1 maintenance costs should be1 vehi c es a11 ocated by methodson

ons as administra-and regul on of outdoor

related to the construction and mainte­these costs by some measure of rela-

commons consi

scus

revenue comes nci ly from vetax, (2) federal fuel tax, (3)

State motor vehicl e sal es and useEach revenue source is discussed in

Vi rgi ni a I s hi ghwaysources: (1) State 1vehicle registration fees,tax, and (5) federal excise taxes.the following sections.

There are also several sources of revenue to the highway trustfund which are not generally considered appropriate for inclusion in acost responsibility analysis. These include fees for record-keeping andregulatory set'vices, and certain permits. In each case the revenuesreceived are designed to recover the cost of providing the service andare not available for highway on maintenance purposes.Revenue sources included are:

1. Operator permit fees designed to recover the cost ofregulating operator testing and licensing.

2. Vehicle title registration fees charged to recover thecost of protect i ng personal property and enforci ng pro­perty-related court orders such as liens.

3. Dea1er 1i cense fees des i gned to recover the cost ofdealership licensing.

4. Public recording fees charged by DMV for certifying,copying and recording public records.

5. Motor carri er permit fees charged by see to recover thecost of certifying carriers in accordance with State law.

6. Highway permit fees charged by DHT for access toright-of-way.

These revenues amount to approximately four and one-half percent oftotal highway trust fund collections.

State Fuel and Road Tax

Virginia imposes a fixed cents-per-gallon tax on all fuelpurchased in the State. In addition, most trucks with more than twoaxl es whi ch are used to carry property are assessed an addit i ana1 II roadtax ll of two cents per gallon on fuel used in Vi rgi ni a regardl ess ofwhere the fuel is actually purchased. Together the fuel and road taxescontri bute about 55 percent of State- imposed hi ghway tax revenues.

To identify the proportion of total fuel and road taxes paidby each vehicle class, a series of assumptions and calculations isrequired. The best method is to use an estimate of fuel efficiency byvehicle class to estimate fuel tax payments. Road tax payments can bedistributed on the same basis. Table 5 illustrates how the propor-t i onate credit for 1 road tax payments can be estimated us i ngdata avail le for 1979.

le 5

FOR STATE FUEL AND ROAD TAX(FY 1979 Data)

Vehicle ClassI II III IV V

1 Efficiency Estimates (mpg) 14.1 9.1 5.0 4.7 4. 7

2. llions Mil es of Trave 1 inrginia 35,373 1,089 327 473 1216

3. Millions of Gallons of Fuel Used(Step 2/Step 1) 2,516 120 65 101 259

4. llions of Dollars Paid inFuel Tax (Step 3 x $.09) $226.4 $10.8 $5.9 $9.1 $23.3

5. Percent of Fuel Used Subjectto Road Tax (from Step 3,columns III, IV and V) -- 15.4% 23.7% 60.9%

6. Road Tax Collections to beCredited by Vehicle Class $6,300,000

7. Millions of Dollars Paid inRoad Taxes (Step 5 x Step 6) -- $1. 0 $1. 5 $3.8

8. Millions of Dollars Paid in Fueland Road Taxes Combined(Step 4 + Step 7) $226.4 $10.8 $6.9 $10.6 $27.1

9. Percentage of Fuel and RoadTaxes Paid 80.5% 3.8% 2.5% 3.8% 9.6%

The estimation procedure in Table 5 produces an estimate of$281.4 llion in total fuel and road taxes paid. Actual collectionswere $282.2 million for an overall estimation error of three-tenths ofone percent. Additional refinements will be possible as updated databecome available during the course of the study.

Recommendation 25. For the purposes of this study, adopt thefuel and road tax attribution procedure illustrated in Table5.

e 6

I L

Iicle Class

II III IV

82.3% 4.0% 2.

$226.4 $10.8 $5.9 .1 $23.3

.4

8 5%

.0

3.

.6.5 $ 4.8

ral

din

Fuel

1. I ions of Do larsVi nia Fuel Tax( Fi gure II- )

2. lions of Dol ars in1 Tax d

(Step 1 x3. ra

of

e fromsuch as

anby

e

($1382( 23 .87(((

$1,207

1 082

Under 00010,000- ,49913,500-19,

ons

i on

7

Virginia received $7.1 llion in registration fees under IRPin FY 1980. These revenues can be broken down by weight category usingexisting DMV data in same manner as the revenues shown in Table 7.Therefore, the same apportionment approach illustrated in Table 7 can beused for IRP revenues. Since most interstate carriers are five-axlecombination tractor-trailers, over 90 percent of all IRP collections areexpected to be received from Class V vehicles.

Recommendation 27. The registration fee attribution procedurefor trucks illustrated in Table 7 should be used in the study.Actual collection data should be used for passenger cars andbuses.

Virginia Sales and Use Tax

Approximately 15 percent of total highway trust fund collec­tions come from the sales tax imposed on the sale of motor vehicles ormobile homes and the rental of motor vehicles. Section 58-685.12 of theCode of Virginia establishes the tax rates.

At the present time, data are not available on the breakdownof sales and use tax revenues among the vehicle classes used in thisstudy. Although several estimating procedures are available, the mostaccurate and efficient means to attribute the tax revenues appears to beby requesting DMV to collect the necessary information from tax forms asthey are received by the department. DMV staff have agreed to the fea­sibility of this approach. Data could be collected for a three- tofive-month period in early 1981 and be available for use in the currentcost responsibility study.

Recommendat ion 28. DMV shoul d be requested to begi n co 11 ec­tion of data on~he vehicle class source of sales and use taxrevenues over a reasonable sample time frame.

Federal Excise Taxes

There are six federal exci se taxes that provi de revenue forfederal-aid highway programs.

1. A$.06 per gallon tax on lubricating oil.

2. A 10 percent sales tax on the wholesale price of trucksand buses over 10,000 pounds.

3. An 8 percent tax on the wholesale value of certain partsand accessories for vehicles over 10,000 pounds.

4. A$.10 per pound tax on tires.

5. A$.10 per pound tax on tubes.

6. A$3.00 per 1,OOO-pound vehicle use tax on vehicles over

exc se taxes isrecent are.7 llion.

s cs

the icle class source of taxnecessary.

oil, assumptions about oilby researchers at the Virginia High­est i mates and the number of mi 1es

the fall stribution is consideredinst the most recent data on federal

C1as s ICl ass IIClass IIIClassCl ass V

.35 of total collectionsof total collectionsof total collections

collectionscollections

Collections from this source in 1978 were$20 llion. A tudy will probably be necessary to determine

relative frequency of tire changes for each vehicle class.

1 trucmiles of travel.

pai d pri ncipa lly byon relative vehicle

Class IIIClass IVClass V

.15 of total collections

.21 of total collections

.64 of total collections

can

es Tax. federal sales tax is applied only to largerand resul in collection of $19.6 million in 1978. Since

inia federal taxes are applied on a percentage basis,ial proposed earlier can be used to ap-

se revenues. r examp e, if DMV fi nds that fi ve-axl e com-bination tractor- lers (Class V) paid 60 percent of Virginia's sales

use tax revenue received from all large trucks, the same 60 percentas an estimate of sales tax payments.

1 use tax added over $5 mi 11 i on to thetax is collected on vehi c1es with gross

at a rate of $3. 00 per 1,000 pounds.on a weight basis similar to Virginia's

would be used with only vehicles

Tax.in

of 26,000taxes are col ected

on similarier than inc

study, use esti­and acces­

study shoul d beon excise tax reve-

es 5 1d beV on the basis

in

ternas s

COSTon of

the proportion 0

COST. (inc ng the costscost to sod etytures of thenoi se po 11

1ieratedaxl e 1

o cosshares of

",::>·ncr,,., rtat ion

vehi es defined by similar character;es and unit. One vehi cl e cl ass

is of cost occasioning character; cs, such as

Ie As asfrom another onsize and ght.

ABBREVIATIONS

- Average daily traffic

of Highways and Transportation (Virginia)

DMV - Division of Motor Vehicles (Virginia)

ESAL - Equivalent single axle load

GRW - Gross regi stered wei ght

GVW - Gross vehicle weight

IRP - International Registration Plan

TI - Thickness index

VPD - Vehi cl es per day

18-Kp - 18,000 pounds single axle equivalent

AMERICAN RAILROADS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036

INTERMODAL POLICY STUDIES GROUPOffice of the President

December 16, 1980

Mr. Ray D. PethtelDirector of Joint Legislative

Audit and Review Commission910 Capital StreetSuite 1100Richmond, Virginia 23219

Dear Mr. Pethtel:

I enjoyed the opportunity to attend your November 17 "exposure"briefing on JLARC's highway financing study. Since that time I havehad the opportunity to talk this issue over with Gary Henry and (viatelephone) Bill Lansidle and Gary Allen. In this letter I review mycontinuing concerns with your present approval and suggest alterna­tives. I would appreciate your comments.

I first classify highway costs, then critique your approach tothe arrangement of incremental pavement costs, and finally commenton your interpretation of the results of the AASHO study of roaddeterioration.

I. TYPES OF HIGHWAY COSTS:

A. Costs vs. Expenditures:

As was noted in your presentations, not all economic costsare represented by government expenditures, nor are all governmentexpenditures costs in an economic sense. You stated your intent toneglect--at this time--all costs not represented by state expenditures.As an expediency, this is defensible in the short run; however, use­induced variations may be extremely important, and should be incorpo­rated into future analyses. In the remainder of my remarks, however,I restrict myself to "costs" which occur in the form of Virginia high­way-related expenditures.

B. Direct vs. Common Costs:

Highway expenditures can be divided into "direct" and "common"Direct costs are those for which a casual linkage can be estab­

some measure of road use ("direct variable cost") or withthat some speci vehi class use a highway

Two

S .J..Hl.J...J..Ct.l..

moreroleproperpoli

toscussedcommon costs. The

s of al i,..C.J...uu

~- not

C. Avoidable Costs:

wouldor decrease.ing vehic sAnother, andpavementnance,on

To seVirginia's roads by sign,

estimate the amountbe

five

you classlevel,

e~:pE~nditures younext say

D Costs:

rect costs are costs of design stan-attributable to a speci c class of vehicles for

new or capi improvement projects. For example, the costsstructures, pavements, and geometrics would be less were there

no heavy truck Here I discuss only pavement direct fixedcosts s your initial report repeated the traditional error of

those pavement costs which are direct fixed costs and thoseare common.

1. Distinction of Fixed and Variable Costs: Direct fixedcosts can only be avoided in the design stage. Once the facilityis constructed, reductions in use cannot affect the initial cons­tr expenses. Thus, the expenditure categories which shouldbe examined to determine direct fixed costs are constructionex:pE~n;~ltures on new highway projects or capital improvements to

sting highway facili es. As noted above, rehab expenses shouldbe treated separate

2. Estimating Direct Fixed Costs - The Traditional Approach:Let me turn now to the question of how direct fixed pavement costsshould be estimated. Your current approach, basically the traditionalapproach, is confusing. You first ask what type of pavement would bedesigned were only light vehicles expected to use the road.* Second,one asks what road would be bui were light vehicles to travel(their mileage and Class II vehicles -- the next heaviestgroup of vehicles) their augmented (via the same process discussedabove) leage. This process continues until the last vehic classis introduced.

The cost assignment process then works in reverse.heaviest class is assiqned the costs associated with the last

design increment of paveme~t ( a correct procedure as discussedbelow) i then the costs associated with the second pavement incre­ment are assigned to both the heaviest and the next heaviest class inproportion to their respective leages (actually axle mileage). Since,however total mileage per vehicle class increases as vehicles become

(and more numerous), a large share of all pavement increments

Mr D.Four

'*to st are ass

Your approach creates aeach class of highway user its ifuser. A far more logical approach usprocess would be to signbasis. There fF st, the actualbase point -- not any hypotheticalSecond, the engineer or otherdesign questions for eachwould have been constructedno buses, no heavier vehiclesThe resulting savings fromwould result from excludingvehic class-­this approach,signed one group

is queue.

s not of course, assign all pavementcosts. But, as be apparent, the case for assigning allcapi improvement projects costs is very weak -- a fraction ofnew pavement costs are the shared responsibility of all users andthus of common costs. The traditional approach assigns allpavement costs by lumping common and direct costs a highly con-fus s is an error -- not a virtue.

E. Summary Treatment of Direct Costs:

In any event, your analysis should, regardless of the methodyou select to allocate 3-R costs, distinguish between those expendi­ture categories that are in principle avoidable and those costs thatare fixed once one determines the vehicle mix to use the road. Isuggest you summarize your results in a tabular format such as thatshown below

VEHICLE CLASSES

COST RESPONSIBILITY CATEGORY Passenger Vehicle ... 5-axkeTruc s

Direct Avoidable

rect Fixed

Total Direct Cost Resp.I

II. COMMON COSTS:

A. Calculation of Common Costs:

Common costs are readily calculable -- they are simply thedifference between total highway expenditures and total direct costs.Total direct costs are the sum of all costs in the last row of theabove However, is important that your report explicitlyestimate common cost figure since common costs are the portionof the budget that cannot be assigned on technical, analyticgrounds ( a "cost occasioned" fashion) but are rather that portionthat must be assigned conformi with principles of political

Past es -- and the approach you have so far adopteds locating common costs via spurious casual

Mr D.S

-- at

Speciassigning costs aschanged. You should explici

overhead costs is political, andto analyze the impact of alternative

iminates your ability to improve pols issue. Indeed since passenger travel

more of all VMT and since common costs arecent of total costs, a VMT rule assignshighway costs to passenger travel be anyDoes this seem reasonable, equitable, defens

rcent orto be 60 to 8 per-

54 to 72 of allana is

?

B. Treatment of Common Cost Issue

To assist iticalexamine how common costs are nowprinciples (mark-up over costsfits received) to develop a rangeand finally analyze the impact of each scheme.these points:

bene­schemes

Let me elaborate

1. Estimate the Current Common Costtax payments by each user group, deduct theirbil ies calculated in step I.E. and ~~,~r'~~

of user charge ts. The zes

VEHICLE CLASSES

Minus

rect Cost

earlier thanstic s the

ures us the

woESAL-st

nC,"j-\,,7oon - f aov·.,..",::>nrl it ures .

road and tIn both cases, thethe mean-t

theUS O --TT1 <",,-r

level of

S e we are th a series of roads n fferentstates of their Ii the overall effec of ess ESALs isto e or decrease the amount f oneper It is s on of the total 3-R expenses that isavoidable and that should be allocated on ESAL basis. Esthe fraction can be avo res, of course, aand here we are ch may be of usestaff.*

###

I appreciate the ito maintain c contact

to comment on your woth work as it resses.

and

S cere

Lee th, Jr.Research Economist

* The enclosed article by N.W.pondence may be of use also.

sterr and my subsequent corres-

c.c: Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.

e EllisLands eGary Allen

COUN~UTIAN~ INC.

*FIGURE 1.

x 4 .. 5G>

"0r::::

4~0....>..........

3 .. 5-:B~ 0)

ttlG> 3 .. 0 xB()

"E 2.5 '\G>I:f.l Q).....

r:::: 2.0 \CDene 1..5

Coo

5 10 15 20Years Since Construction

Figure 3 illustrates the possible performance of three pavementdesigns constructed to handle predicted axle loadings over a 20 year period.Curve 1 represents an underdesign: the pavement will actually reachfailure Un AASHO Road Test terms) in 15 years. Curve 3 represents anoverdesign: the pavement will not fail until af~er 20 years, perhaps longafter.. Curve 2 represents the design that will perform in the expectedmanner. These curves are generally intended to represent flexible pavement.For rigid pavement, the flat slope on top might be expected to last longerfor curves 2 and 3 with a steeper final slope to failure.

* Excerpt from IITechnical Inadequacies and Biases of the HighwayCost location Study Plan" - Counseltrans Inc. Rockvi , MD. 20852.

5

Staterrentfor

SJR 50 Subcorrmittee on Cost AllocationDecember 17, 1980

This afternoon we have heard detailed

on the SJR 50 cost allocation

technical

Representatives

from the tr:ucJdrlg and the railroad industry are concerned

about the effect this in particular the rrethadology for

costs the subsequent tax str:ucture to recover those

costs, upon the camoetitiV'e I-'v",-,- ,--,-v... of their industries. Their

concern is Your decisions on cost allocation will

affect the cOIrp:~ti those .L.LC;;;-'-~!1'- carriers.

However t SJR 50 and its cost allocation study have not been

to or harm either the trucking or the railroad

Therefore, is unfortunate that the discussion on

this issue so often l:ecanes one of "tr:ucks vs. trains." However

that discussion may be, and my friends

Reith and YJr. Ellis have never failed to make it interesting,

it causes and spectators to lose of the

issue.

here about rroney. lack

revenues costs" is a refrain

's to all of us. But it that .LC;;;.'-.L<.L..l..U

us here Cost is a COHlI=IJ.:l.Cd.l:.eu

are here to do rrore than

page 2

or detail. We

must strive to

we are here

our attention on the issue. Sinply

about how to our investrrent our

investrrent -- in k~~k~~~.~'S highways.

It seerrs that highways will continue to be

built and rraintained taxes and fees paid by Virginia

nlgnway users. It is your subcarmittee, the cost allocation

, that will decide how much revenue each class of

those users will have to contribute. Virginians I and

nlqnway users pay less of their income for the

construction and rraintenance of now than they did 20

years ago. I think rrany would object to paying

rrore to maintain this i.. fi they can be

assured

rroney is not

their -6hevr.e. no more and that their

Hlqhway programs aDd in Virginia and the rest of

the

and

are

tCMard an

away from an on new construction

on rraintenance reconstruction.

~Dst of the interstate and arterial svsrpm carq::>leted and in place.

causes

care of what we have. This brings

look at the reasons for highway

for rraintenance and

hardabout the need

We must now concentrate on

as the

staterrents and

awareness a

A for the

and

Subcarmittee in

Officials,

,stated "For

and other for

axle and a 32, talldem

showed an increase from 18,000

can result

25 aDd 40

an average loss of

"

The California

That concluded that 58% of

to

be buses aId 89% of

to trucks.

page 4

the states Florida, Tennessee

and others as statements state highway officials

thJrotlgh the years acceptance of the idea that heavy

are a share of highway

These sarre state that the trucking industry is not

CUJcTE;nt~ly """:::1'.7; "",,r< its share of revenues in pr-OpOrtion

to the arrount causes to be rrade on the highway

Since rounts the country indicate that

the number of trucks in to the of cars on the

is this underpayrrent the trucking industry

w:Ul

this

Mr. Reith's staterrent that

I

1, 2

it hard to agree with

3 developed by the

2,

shawn in

to 5 axle

the question

are all ,. incorrect·, and

trucks. These options, especially

of 'who >C>H'-JU .......... pay for Virginia'S

has erred in

The

the JLARC

the trllcJdrtg ; ,,,r''''C+'Y"\7

, in pr,epirrj-ng this

any it is the

statement that there no of the wear and tear

trllcks appears in se'ITer:aL places and in several

concerns m::;. In a

to aCCllrate.

was

the

aroth'1d

undertaken

of cars

the

111 GATEHOUSE ROAD FALLS CHURCH VIRGINIA 22047 !III 703 AAA6000 l1li CABLE AMERAUTO

December 23 1980

1100

PethtelAudit

CommissionStreet - Suite

inia 23219

Mr.Jointand Review910Richmond

Dear Mr. Pethtel:

This is a follow up to my letter ofs which you are mak

5 the costin accordance with SJR 50

I have had an oppor to review some of the material which has beendeveloped thus far and in the main I believe that you are proceeding in anorderly and technically sound manner consistent with the methodology used inother states where such studies have been conducted (California,Florida, Georgia, Oregon, and Tennessee).

In the most recent material coming to my attention I note that themethodology calls for Right of Way to be assigned on a common cost basis. Onpage 12 of the document under "Construction Cost Allocation Recommendations"it notes that ROW will be assigned on a common cost basis with qualificationfor 1985. I don't know what the "qualification" is but extra ROWneeded where lanes are required should be attributed to trucks. Alsoin areas where truck traffic is so extensive as to reduce capacitysome part of the cost of additional travel lanes should be attributed toheavy vehicles

On page 14 it appears as only six feet of shoulder iseven where vehicles are expected. Since most of the large

feet wide shouldn't the paved shoulder be at least that widesuch rigs to completely off the travelled way when

Shouldn't this extra two feet of shoulder be attributed tovehicles?

rigs areso as todisabled?the

maintenance costthe of a

the different classesfor 80 to 95% of

it seempay a similar

use

facilisuch

costs occasioned

are presented fora third and that isthe accumulation of ESALsaxle are

the life of aowners and

On page 33 twoallocation o There is

based uponof vehicles Ifaccumulated

fair

Mr. Roy D. PethtelDecember 23, 1980

2

passenger cars and truck loadings. Take particular note of Table 1 on page 16.This shows that large trucks (those over 6000 Ibs o gross account for89% of pavement damage although they represent only nine percent of vehicleregistration. This is consistent with findings in Oregon, Tennessee andother states. As a result of these findings California found some 58% of totalpavement construction cost assignable to vehicles gross loads in excessof 6,000 Ibs. (pg. 3). Also the Arroyo Seco Freeway which carries passengercar traffic served some 35 years without structural pavement overlay whereasRoute 99, built to essentially the same standards but serving mixed traffic,required several overlays in the same time period (pg. 11).

Sincerely,

c~~~D1rector y I'Highway Department

CNB:lbhEnclosure

Plan

sod on

cost analysis is not anofan incremental approach, isi study in any respect.

understand this issue, let's talk first about theincreme 1 method of pavement cost analysis which was derived and usedby the Federal Highway Administration and in most state cost allocationstudies. The incremental pavement cost analysis begins withdetermination, through careful engineering analysis, of thecharacteristics and costs 3ssociated with a basic road adequate tohandle passenger cars and light pickup trucks at reasonable highwayspeeds. is basic road becomes the standard -the first increment -which would be used in the absence of heavier axle loadings and istherefore the equal responsibility of all vehicle classes. Next in thestandard incremental analysis, a careful engineering determination ismade of the additional pavement, base thickness and othercharacteristics which would be required to handle axle loadings slightlyhigher than those of passenger cars and pickup trucks. The secondincrement generally is designed for axle loadings of up to 8,000 to10,000 pounds. Successive increments of 3,000 or 4,000 pound additionsto the axle weight are then developed by careful engineering appraisalof the added costs and pavement thicknesses brought about by thisincreased axle weight. Thus, through successive additions of pavementthickness and cost the various increments which are required to reachthe thickness and cost of a highway built to Interstate standards orstate Primary System standards are devised.

I would call your attention to two factors about thistraditional incremental method of pavement allocation. First of all,note that a large vehicle would be involved in several increments. Thatis, the front axle of the combination truck which might weigh 10,000pounds would be allocated cost responsibility in relation to the 10,000pound increment. The succeeding axles which might weigh 16,000 to18,000 or 20,000 pounds per axle would be allocated highway costs inrelation to the higher axle loading increments. Secondly, note thatsince the costs are developed incrementally and added together, eachaxle is responsible for the costs associated with the increment in whichit is located and a proportionate share of all the costs of the lowerincrements.

In practice the proposed study plan is not based on doing anyof this. The JLARC Study would begin with a so-called minimum roadwhich is a theoretical design which supposedly would be built whetherthere were any motor vehicles or not. This theoretical design is thenallocated among all vehicle groups. Secondly, the proposed study planwould develop increments for a few vehicle classes based on the pavementthickness and characteristics associated with the AASHO Design Guide.Based on the so-called equivalent axle load concept derived from the

Road Test, the pavement thickness required for each vehicle classis determined and the cost for the assigned thickness is thendistributed simply by dividing the total costs by the proportion of

ickness assigned each class. This method greatlythe engineering analysis required and at the same time

whole incremental concept.

s

e

no

basise

If, inmeasure ofrestricted portionlasted at least

ltimore-Washi n Parkwayexcept for an occasionalstandards practicallyhighways. Acco tothose passenge andcount,hidesign

dn1tthose youtwenty-two

re a soproposed distr on hinn,.,~"

II-7A, the example indicatespercent of icle les.represent 6a11 hi 1'11"'11,,/::1\/

axlepas

biggest si which has been let by the FederalHi Administration its present Highway CostAl ocation is a the proportionate share ofpavement cost ich s assigned to axle weight as compared to theshare ich should be to weather, chemicals and otherenvironmental Study is to be presented to the FederalHighway Administration late next Summer or y in the Fall. I am surethat it will not result in a definitive analysis of precisely whatproportion of hi s ld be charged to weight as compared toother rs. inl give us some means of

a 1 is c all pavement costsis wei

Increment

123

5

!.

ass

(1. 0%)7.7)

.4)(8.0)

~~~(

RequiredIncrement

1.!.

3.62.22.90.60.8

.7

Figure II-7B

PAVEMENT COST ALLOCATION EXAMPLEOPTION 1: ALLOCATION BY VPD

Increment Pass. & 2A-4T 2A-6T 3A 3A & 4A 5A Totals

1 $48,954 $ 1,950 $1,166 $ 1,709 $ 6,621 $ 60,4002 29,917 1,193 712 1,045 4,044 36,9113 10,707 6,411 9,363 36,314 62,7954 1,283 1,873 7,268 10,4245 2,852 11,069 13,9216 50,463 50,463._-

Totals $78,871 $13 ,850 $9,572 $16,842 $115,779 $234,914

Percentages 33.5% 5.9% 4.1% 7.2% 49. 3~b 100.0%

PAVEMENT COST ALLOCATION EXAMPLEOPTION 2: ALLOCATION BY ESAL-18

ABOVE THEORETICAL MINIMUM

Increment Pass. & 2A-4T 2A-6T 3A 3A & 4A 5A Totals--

I $48,954 $ 1,950 $1,166 $ 1,709 $ 6,621 $ 60,4002 351 2,861 1,624 2,960 29,115 36,9113 4,845 2,784 5,096 5,070 62,7954 500 918 9,006 10,4245 1,301 12,620 13,9216 50,463 50,463--

Totals $49,305 $ 9,656 $6,074 $11,984 $157,895 $234,914

Percentages 21. 0% 4.1% 2.6% 5.1% 67.2% 100.0%

PAVEMENT COST ALLOCATION EXAMPLEOPTION 3: ALLOCATION BY ESAL-18

ABOVE BASIC ROAD

Increment Pass. &2A-4T 2A-6T 3A 3A &4A 5A Totals

1 $48,954 $ 1,950 $1,166 $ 1,709 $ 6,621 $ 60,4002 29,917 1,193 712 1,045 4,044 36,9113 4,845 2,784 5,096 50,070 62,7954 500 918 9,006 10,4245 1,301 12,620 13,9216 50,463 50,463

s $ 78,871 $ 7,988 $5,162 $10,069 $132,824 $234,914

33.6% 3.4% 2.2% 4.3% 56.5% 100.0%

Ag House of

by the Senate

of

for

neteen hundredi s eva1uat i ng

subfuncti onssues in the

and Revi ewfor review; now,

to § 30-64 etbe reviewed and

to the fo 11 owions of the

lJHEREAS andthe Code ofa c evas the Genera I

, § 30-66of the Genera Ifunctional areas of State

WHEREAS, § 30-67 ofto speci to the extentbe revi by the Joilished; and

lJHEREAS, n accordance with Senate Jointseventy-nine General , the Joint Legis ativeduri fisca year 1979-80 agencies and activities inincl the Homes for Adults, tie XX, and General Reiorgani on and administration of social services in

lJHEREAS, Senate Joint Resol on No. 133 directsCommission to schedule the functional area of Resourcetherefore, be it

RESOLVED by the Hou se of De I the Sena teseq. of the Code of rgi, anal areas ofevaluated the Joint Legislative Audit and Revschedule, order of which may be reviewed andAssembly:

on theof

trilns Dortil t ionthose

the roadsand such

on ofcoordinate its

the Chairman ofthe Cha i rman of

Cha i rman of the HouseSenate Finance Committee;

The Commiss shall make anfunctional areaHi and

andfa i

and bri of theother Clatters as the Commissthe General Assembly.review effort withthe House Roads and nternal Navigation Commithe Sen ate Transportat i on Committee,Finance Committee, and three membersand, be it

RESOLVED FURTHER, revi and evaluatiEconomic Development" shal be initiated at suchavailable and, such review shalland agencies concerned with30-77 of the COele of Vi nia,coordinate its rev ew concerniCommi ttee on General andlegislative committees be

RESOLV EDis Audi

transmi

Mt:'.rl.r.,P Science, July 1976Mcma:f2elnelU in Virginia, September 1976

Vocational Rehabilitation Virginia, November 1976Management of State-Owned Land in Virginia, 1977Marine 7Sunset, Zero-Base Budgeting, Evaluation, (::jeptE~ml)er

Use of State-Owned Aircraft, October 1977The Sunset Phenomenon, December 1977Zero-Base Budgeting?, December 1977Long Term Care Virginia, March 1978Medical Assistance Programs in Virginia: An Overview, June 1978Virginia System, ~ 978The Capital Outlay Process Virginia, October 1978Camp Pendleton, November 1978Inpatient Care Virginia, January 1979Outpatient Care Virginia, March 1979.1\1anagement Use State-Owned Vehicles, 1Certificate-of-Need in Virginia, August 1979Report to the General Assembly, September 1979Virginia Polytechnic Institute State University Extension Division,

September 1979Co,mnzunCl(v Services, 1

Special Study: fI'£N1or,..,! Ik ,,,ru'H' December 1979Homes for lJecernbl~r 1979,ll,1anagement and Use Consultants by State Agencies, May 1980The General Virginia, 1980Federal Funds VetolJer 1980

JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT AND REVIEW COMMISSION

Professional Staff

F. Daniel Ahern, Jr.John M. BennettL. Douglas Bush, Jr.Lucretia S. FaragoMark S. FlemingGary T. HenryKirk JonasR. Jay LandisWilliam E. LandsidlePhilip A. LeoneJoseph H. MaroonBarbara A. NewlinRay D. PethtelWalter L. SmileyPatricia G. SmythRonald L. TillettGlen S. TittermarySusan L. UrofskyKaren F. WashabauMark D. WillisWilliam E. Wilson

Administrative Staff

Debbie ArmstrongSandy C. DavidsonPhyllis M. DyerSharon L. HarrisonJoanM.

M. JacksonKim Rexrode