THE RECENT SLOWDOWN

IN

AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF

TRANSPORTATION

INFRASTRUCTURE

INVESTMENT

 

The Council of Economic Advisers

July 2014
1

This report was prepared by the National Economic Council and the 

President’s Council of Economic Advisers
2

Executive Summary

A high quality transportation network is vital to a top performing economy. Investments by 

previous generations of Americans – from the Erie Canal in 1807, to the Transcontinental Railroad 

in 1869, to the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s and 1960s – were instrumental in putting 

the country on a path for sustained economic growth, productivity increases, an unrivalled 

national market for good and services, and international competitiveness. But today, current 

estimates indicate that America’s transportation infrastructure is not keeping pace with demands 

or the needs of our growing economy, for today or for future generations. 

A well-performing transportation network keeps jobs in America, allows businesses to expand, 

and lowers prices on household goods to American families. It allows businesses to manage their 

inventories and transport goods more cheaply and efficiently as well as access a variety of 

suppliers and markets for their products, making it more cost-effective for manufacturers to keep 

production in or move production to the United States. American families benefit too: as 

consumers, from lower priced goods; and as workers, by gaining better access to jobs.

The economic benefits of smart infrastructure investment are long-term competitiveness, 

productivity, innovation, lower prices, and higher incomes, while infrastructure investment also 

creates many thousands of American jobs in the near-term. 

 Today there are more than 4 million miles of road, 600,000 bridges, and 3,000 transit 

providers in the U.S. And yet, over the past 20 years, total federal, state, and local 

investment in transportation has fallen as a share of GDP – while population, congestion, 

and maintenance backlogs have increased. 

 The U.S. lags behind many of its overseas competitors in transportation infrastructure 

investment. In the most recent World Economic Forum rankings, the U.S. had in less than 

a decade fallen from 7th to 18th overall in the quality of our roads. 

 65 percent of America’s major roads are rated in less than good condition, one in four 

bridges require significant repair or cannot handle today’s traffic, and forty five percent 

of Americans lack access to transit. 

The costs of inadequate infrastructure investment are exhibited all around us. Americans spend 

5.5 billion hours in traffic each year, costing families more than $120 billion in extra fuel and lost 

time. American businesses pay $27 billion a year in extra freight transportation costs, increasing 

shipping delays and raising prices on everyday products. Underinvestment impacts safety too. 

There were more than 33,000 traffic fatalities last year alone and roadway conditions are a 

significant factor in approximately one-third of traffic fatalities. Such fatalities occur 

disproportionately in rural America, in part because of inadequate road conditions. 
3

That’s why the President introduced the GROW AMERICA Act, a four-year, $302 billion proposal

to fund our nation’s transportation system and invest in the nation’s future growth. The 

President’s plan addresses the nation’s significant infrastructure investment gap through 

targeted investments now and lays the groundwork for increased efficiency in the future. The 

President has been pressing Congress to act to avoid a lapse in funding of the Highway Trust Fund 

which will go insolvent as early as August, putting numerous active projects at risk.
4

I. Long Term Economic Benefits from Infrastructure Investment

A modern transportation network is vital to our economy, and is a prerequisite for future growth. 

President Eisenhower’s vision is even more relevant today than it was in 1955, when he said in 

his State of the Union Address, "A modern, efficient highway system is essential to meet the 

needs of our growing population, our expanding economy, and our national security." 

Today, that vision includes making not only our nation’s highways, but its entire infrastructure 

system, more efficient and effective. A well-performing transportation network allows 

businesses to manage inventories and transport goods more cheaply, access a variety ofsuppliers 

and markets for their products, and get employees reliably to work. American families benefit 

too: as consumers, from lower priced goods, and as workers, by gaining better access to jobs. An 

efficient transportation network also enables firms and people to locate near one another, so 

that they can benefit from shared access to inputs of production, an insight first recognized in 

the 1890s.1 This is all the more vital as regional economies with interdependent urban, suburban 

and rural areas relying on each other for innovation, employment, and growth become more 

important in manufacturing, energy, tourism, technology, and other US industries. 

Evaluating how transportation and other infrastructure benefit the overall economy has been 

the subject of extensive economic literature. David Aschauer’s research found very large 

economic gains from public capital generally (including but not limited to transportation), 

suggesting $1 in output gains for $1 in increased investment. 2 Subsequent research has detected 

more modest effects that can be sensitive to the types of public capital, sectors of the economy, 

geography level, and time periods considered as well as methods employed to study the data.

3

 

More recent research has highlighted the importance of selecting investments wisely in key areas 

of the country on the basis of their economic contributions. This research has also emphasized 

the importance of maintaining existing assets in a good state of repair.

4

 Beyond contributions 

to economic growth and productivity, quality transportation infrastructure can also benefit 

businesses and consumers alike through shorter and more reliable travel times, resulting in direct 

and indirect benefits that ripple throughout the economy. 

 

1 Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics, London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd: 1890.

2 David Alan Aschauer, “Is Public Expenditure Productive?” Journal of Monetary Economics,23(2) (March 1989): 

177–200.

3 E.g., John G. Fernald, Roads to prosperity? Assessing the link between public capital and productivity, American 

Economic Review 89 (1998): 619–638; Alicia H.Munnell, “Policy Watch: Infrastructure Investment and Economic 

Growth,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 6(4) (Autumn 1992):189–198.

4 E.g., Matthew Kahn and David Levinson, “Fix It First, Expand It Second, Reward It Third: A New Strategy for 

America’s Highways” Hamilton Project, 2011; Edward M. Gramlich, “Infrastructure Investment: A Review Essay,” 

Journal of Economic Literature, 32(3) (September 1994): 1176–1196. 
5

Less road congestion 

A well-connected transportation network means faster, more reliable travel times for both 

people and goods. Providing transportation choices enables businesses to choose the most 

efficient way to ship their goods. It is also important, because time spent stuck in traffic not only 

wastes fuel, resulting in higher out of pocket costs for businesses and households, but also wastes 

time that could be spent engaged in more productive activities. 

For example, the Texas Transportation Institute estimates that American commuters in urban 

areas collectively lost 5.5 billion hours stuck in traffic in 2011, meaning the average commuter 

lost nearly a week to traffic. TTI’s calculations further suggest that traffic congestion caused 

American commuters to purchase an extra 2.9 billion gallons of fuel, costing them more than 

$120 billion in added fuel costs and wasted time.5 Further, well-maintained roads, coupled with 

access to public transportation and other driving alternatives, can lower traffic congestion and 

accident rates which not only save Americans time and money but also save lives.

More reliable shipments and travel times

More congestion also means that both businesses and families must account for the unreliability 

of travel times when making their plans. For the trucking industry alone, the Federal Highway 

Administration calculates that highway bottlenecks cause more than 243 million hours of delay 

each year, at a cost of $7.8 billion annually.6 Moreover, when shipping takes longer, businesses 

must re-orient their supply chains, hold more inventories, or rely on more distribution centers, 

resulting in added costs. To cite just a few examples, in a 2005 survey of Portland, Oregon 

business leaders, the Economic Development Research Group and found that: 

 Intel moved their last shipment departure time up two hours for out-bound shipments to 

avoid peak-period congestion. 

 Sysco Foods opened a new regional distribution center in Spokane to better serve their 

market area (because it was taking too long to serve its market from the Portland area). 

Providence Health Systems planned to relocate its warehousing and support operations 

because medical deliveries were requiring more than four hours in some cases. 

 OrePac increased inventories by seven to eight percent because of congestion delays, 

siphoning of resources that could have been used for other investment.

 PGE estimated that it spent approximately $500,000 a year for additional travel time for 

its maintenance crews.7

 

5 David Schrank, Bill Eisele, and Tim Lomax, TTI’s 2012 Urban Mobility Report, December 2012.

6 Karen White and Lance R. Grenzeback, “Understanding Freight Bottlenecks,” Public Roads 70(5) (March/April 

2007). Available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/07mar/05.cfm

7 Economic Development Research Group, The Cost of Congestion to the Economy of the Portland Region, 2005, 

http://www.portofportland.com/PDFPOP/Trade_Trans_Studies_CoCReport1128Final.pdf. 
6

Similarly, other researchers have found:

 Nike must spend an additional $4 million per week to carry an extra 7-to-14 days of 

inventory to compensate for shipping delays.

8

 

 One day of delay requires American President Line's eastbound trans- Pacific services to 

increase its use of containers and chassis by 1,300, which adds $4 million in costs per 

year.9

 A week-long disruption to container movements through the Ports of Los Angeles and 

Long Beach could cost the national economy between $65 and $150 million per day 

Higher land values and local economic development

Transportation investments affect not only the level of economic output but geographic 

distribution of economic activity. Declining transportation costs in the past facilitated the growth 

of cities across the United States. Chicago, for example, grew in size and importance because it 

served as a central hub between the fruitful plains of the mid-west and the markets of the 

northeast and Europe. 

Infrastructure investment can also raise property values, particularly if these investments bring 

about improvements in local living standards (including shorter commute times and greater 

proximity to desirable amenities).10 For example, research suggests that proximity to public 

transit raises the value of residential and commercial real estate. Bernard Weinstein studied the 

effect of the Dallas light rail system on property values, and found that a jump in total valuations 

around light rail stations was about 25 percent greater than in similar neighborhoods not served 

by the system.11 This is consistent with studies conducted in St. Louis,12 Chicago,13 Sacramento,14

and San Diego,15 all of which find that property values experience a premium effect when located 

near public transit systems. 

 

8

Isbell, John, “Maritime and Infrastructure Impact on Nike’s Inbound Delivery Supply Chain,” TRB Freight 

Roundtable, 2006, http://www.trb.org/conferences/FDM/Isbell.pdf.

9 Bowe, John. 2006. "The High Cost of Congestion" Presentation to the TRB Freight Roundtable, October 24, 

www.trb.org/conferences/FDM/Bowe.pdf.

10 Andrew F. Haughwout, “Public infrastructure investments, productivity and welfare in fixed geographic areas " 

Journal of Public Economics (March 2002) 83(3): 405-428.

11 Weinstein, B. et al. “The Initial Economic Impacts of the DART LRT System.” Center for Economic Development 

and Research, University of North Texas, 1999.

12 Garrett, T. “Light Rail Transit in America: Policy Issues and Prospects for Economic Development,” Federal 

Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2004. 

13 Gruen, A.“The Effect of CTA and METRA Stations on Residential Property Values.” Regional Transportation 

Authority, 1997

14 Landis, J. et al. “Rail Transit Investments, Real Estate Values, and Land Use Change: A Comparative Analysis of 

Five California Rail Systems.” Institute of Urban and Regional Development, UC Berkeley, 1995. 

15 Cervero, R. et al. “Land Value Impacts of Rail Transit Services in San Diego County,” Urban Land Institute, 2002. 
7

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AND INNOVATION ACT (TIFIA)

The TIFIA Program offers low-cost, long-term, flexible financing that can make large, complex transportation 

projects more attractive to both the public and private sector. The TIFIA program allows the Department of 

Transportation to lend at the 30-year Treasury rate (currently around 3.3 percent) for up to 35 years following 

substantial completion of an eligible transportation project. It also allows the Department to enter into a 

subordinate lien position and postpone repayment for up to 5 years after substantial project completion. This 

flexibility provides significant cost savings to borrowers and, in some cases, is the catalyst that ensures that 

project will be undertaken. 

Under Departmental policy, a TIFIA loan can finance a maximum of 33 percent of total project costs (though 

MAP-21 increased the statutory maximum to 49 percent of total project cost). Only projects with more than 

$50 million in total project costs ($25 million in rural areas) are eligible for TIFIA loans. Since its launch, the 

TIFIA program has helped 46 projects in 18 states turn over $17 billion in TIFIA assistance into nearly $64 billion 

in infrastructure investment across America. The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) 

transformed TIFIA into one of the largest transportation infrastructure loan programs in history, making up to 

$17 billion available in credit assistance for critical infrastructure projects. The GROW AMERICA Act would 

make an estimated $40 billion in additional loan volume from a $4 billion investment over four years. 
8

II. Immediate Job Creation in Key Industries 

While the most important economic impact of smart infrastructure investment comes from longterm competitiveness, productivity, innovation, lower prices, and higher incomes, infrastructure 

investment also creates many thousands of jobs in the near-term that are directly linked to the 

American economy and difficult to ship overseas. These jobs span across a wide variety of 

different industries. For example, road building not only requires construction workers, but also 

grading and paving equipment, gasoline or diesel to run the machines, smaller hand tools of all 

sorts, raw inputs of cement, gravel, and asphalt, surveyors to map the site, engineers and site 

managers, and even accountants to keep track of costs. 

Analysis of data from the BEA 2012 annual input-output table and related data from the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics (BLS) suggests that 68 percent of the jobs created by investing in infrastructure 

are in the construction sector, 10 percent in the manufacturing sector, and 6 percent in retail 

trade. 

Construction and manufacturing sectors were disproportionately affected by the economic crisis

– so infrastructure investments help support hard-hit American workers. Although the 

construction sector has added 186,000 jobs over the last 12 months, the unemployment rate for 

construction workers remains elevated at 9.9 percent (based on a twelve-month moving average 

of not seasonally adjusted data). At the same time, the number of construction jobs has fallen by 
9

nearly 20 percent since December 2007. Accelerated infrastructure investment would provide 

an opportunity for construction workers to productively apply their skills and experience.

Investing in infrastructure now would not only help those workers for whom unemployment 

remains unacceptably high, but would also allow state and localities to address their critical 

needs at a time when costs for building and financing projects are very low. Specifically, the costs 

of borrowing through the issuance of municipal bonds are at historic lows. Bond revenues are 

the primary source of infrastructure finance at the state and local level—and are also used to 

match federal funds. 
10

Construction costs for highways have declined more than 20 percent since before the 2007 

recession and have been relatively flat since 2011. Moreover, 20-year bond yields remain below 

pre-recessionary levels, but as the economy continues to recover and prices begin to rise, higher 

construction costs and bond-yields will likely follow. 

Investing in infrastructure provides short term benefits to states and localities to address their 

critical needs at a time when borrowing costs are low but future revenues are uncertain. State 

and local governments are significant partners in funding public infrastructure. During recessions, 
11

it is common for state and local governments to cut back on capital projects – such as building 

schools, roads, and parks – in order to meet balanced budget requirements. Although state 

revenues have now regained pre-recession levels, growth has been moderate.

16 Past research

has also found that expenditures on capital projects are more than four times as sensitive to yearto-year fluctuations in state income as is state spending in general.17

 Providing additional federal 

support for transportation infrastructure investment would be prudent given the ongoing 

budgetary pressures facing state and local governments.

 

16 Lucy Dadayan and Donald J. Boyd, “April ‘Surprises’ More Surprising Than Expected: Depressed Income Tax 

Collections Adding to Budget Pressures,” Rockefeller Institute of Government Special Report, June 2014.

17 James R. Hines, Hilary Hoynes, and Alan Krueger, "Another Look at Whether a Rising Tide Lifts All Boats," in The 

Roaring `90s: Can Full Employment Be Sustained?, edited by Alan B. Krueger and Robert Solow, Russell Sage and 

Century Fund, 2001
12

BUILDING ON THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009

Research suggests that public infrastructure investments have some of the highest multipliers, or effects on short 

run GDP of any fiscal interventions. The table below shows Congressional Budget Office and Council of Economic 

Advisers estimates of the effects of $1 of various types of spending and tax cuts on output or GDP. Since the 

Recovery Act, some researchers have detected even higher multipliers for transportation infrastructure, 

suggesting that each dollar of Recovery Act highway spending generated as much as $3 in output gains.

Because of high estimated multipliers and the country’s infrastructure gap, the Recovery Act dedicated 

considerable resources to public investments including transportation. In particular, the Recovery Act allocated 

$48 billion to programs administered by the Department of Transportation. The Recovery Act also initiated the 

Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program, which allowed the 

Department of Transportation to invest in critical projects that were difficult to fund through traditional means. 

The program made extensive use of benefit-cost analysis to evaluate project applications. In total the program 

has funded over 230 capital projects and 33 planning projects, leveraging local, state and private funding to build 

multimodal projects across the country. The latest competition for $600 million garnered $9.5 billion in state 

and local applications, demonstrating the stark need for more Federal investment in transportation. 

As detailed in the CEA’s (2013) report, with Recovery Act funds, shovels went in on more than 15,000 

transportation projects across the Nation. The Department of Transportation estimates that these projects will 

improve nearly 42,000 miles of road, mend or replace over 2,700 bridges, and provide funds for over 12,220 

transit vehicles. The Recovery Act also made the largest-ever investments in American high-speed rail, 

constructing or improving approximately 6,000 miles of high-performance passenger rail corridors and 

procurement of 120 next-generation rail cars or locomotives. All told, the Recovery Act raised the level of GDP 

by 2 to 2.5 percent between the fourth quarter of 2009 and the second quarter of 2011. It increased employment 

by more than 2.3 million in 2010 alone, and continued to have substantial effects into 2012 as shown in CEA 

(2013).

Source: Leduc, Sylvain, and Daniel J. Wilson. Forthcoming. “Roads to Prosperity or Bridges to Nowhere? Theory 

and Evidence on the Impact of Public Infrastructure Investment.” NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2012.
13

III. Infrastructure Impacts on American Families

Investing in transportation and providing more high-quality transportation choices provides 

American families with options to save time and money, so that they can retain more of their 

income for other purposes and spend more time doing what they want, rather than spending 

time getting there. 

Lower household costs

For the average American family, transportation expenditures rank second only to housing 

expenditures. Given how much Americans spend on transportation, public investments which 

lower the cost of transportation could have a meaningful impact on families’ budgets. Reducing 

fuel consumption, decreasing the need for car maintenance due to poor road conditions, and 

increasing the availability of affordable and accessible public transportation systems would allow 

Americans to spend less money on transportation.

Transportation expenditures can be particularly burdensome for middle class families. For the 90 

percent of Americans below the top decile in the income distribution, transportation costs absorb 

one out of every seven dollars of income. Transportation expenses relative to income are almost 

twice as great for the bottom 90 percent as they are for the top 10 percent.
14

Vehicle operating and maintenance costs

Moreover, improving our nation’s transportation system can save American families money by 

reducing the costs associated with congestion and the additional wear and tear caused by poor 

road conditions. TRIP, an industry group, notes that deteriorated roads accelerate the 

depreciation of vehicles and the need for repairs because the stress on the vehicle increases in 

proportion to the level of roughness of the pavement surface. Similarly, tire wear and fuel 

consumption increase as roads deteriorate since there is less efficient transfer of power to the 

drive train and additional friction between the road and the tires. They estimate the average 

motorist in the U.S. pays $377 each year in additional vehicle operating costs as a result of driving 

on roads in need of repair, which varies by major urbanized area.

Average Additional Cost of Vehicle Maintenance to Motorists 

Due to Sub-par Road Conditions by Metropolitan Area

16.1%

17.2%

18.8% 18.7%

16.7%

Lowest 20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% Highest 20%

Percent of Expenditure Spent on Transportation by 

Household Income, July 2012 - June 2013

26%

Source: July 2012 through June 2013 Consumer Expenditure Survey, 

Bureau of Labor Statistics.
15

Rank Urban Area

Annual 

Vehicle 

Operating 

Cost

1

Los Angeles--Long Beach--Santa Ana, 

California $832

2 Tulsa, Oklahoma $784

3 San Francisco--Oakland, California $782

4 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma $782

5 San Diego, California $758

6 San Jose, California $737

7 Tucson, Arizona $723

8 Milwaukee, Wisconsin $700

9 New Orleans, Louisiana $687

10

New York City--Newark, New 

York/New Jersey $673

11 Bridgeport--Stamford, Connecticut $669

12 Sacramento, California $658

13 Riverside--San Bernardino, California $638

14 Seattle, Washington $625

15 Concord, California $623

16 Denver--Aurora, Colorado $615

17 Dallas--Fort Worth--Arlington, Texas $615

18 Birmingham, Alabama $601

19 Honolulu, Hawaii $598

20 Colorado Springs, Colorado $589

Source: TRIP (2013). Bumpy Roads Ahead: America's Roughest Rides and Strategies 

to Make our Roads Smoother.

Health and safety

More road congestion also means more stop-and-go traffic which leads to harmful emissions. 

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, transportation accounts for one-third of all 

carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion, and these emissions are particularly 

harmful to children’s health.18

But the impact of the transportation system on our health also extends beyond traffic crashes 

and air quality to American families’ fundamental quality of life. In 2010, the Gallup-Healthways 

Well-Being Index found that 40 percent of employees who spend more than 90 minutes getting 

home from work "experienced worry for much of the previous day." That number falls to 28 

 

18 Currie, Janet, and Reed Walker. 2011. “Traffic Congestion and Infant Health: Evidence from E-ZPass.” American 

Economic Journal: Applied Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(1): 65-90.
16

percent for those with "negligible" commutes of 10 minutes or less. The survey also found that 

one in three workers with a 90-minute daily commute has recurrent neck or back problems. This 

only confirms what 900 Texan women expressed in 2006, when Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman 

and Princeton economist Alan Krueger asked them how much they enjoyed a number of frequent 

activities. Commuting came in dead last. 

IV. Current Budgetary Climate 
17

Since the 1950s, the Highway Trust Fund has been the primary federal source of funding for state 

and local surface transportation projects. Every five to ten years, Congress authorized 

predictable levels of funding to states and later local transit agencies for road, bridge, and transit 

projects. And over the last quarter-century, Congress has customarily taken stock on the nation’s 

needs for transportation investment and has authorized multi-year funding increases of roughly 

40 percent over the prior authorization to better meet the needs of our communities and our 

economy. 

But over the past few years, revenues that go into the Fund haven't kept pace with the federal 

funding levels promised to states by Congress. As a result, the Department of Transportation 

projects the Highway Trust Fund to be insolvent by the end of this summer. Soon afterwards, 

Congressional authorities for the federal government to reimburse states and localities for 

spending on surface transportation – including roads, highways, and transit– will expire. 

The President has called on Congress to ensure the continuity of the Highway Trust Fund in the 

near-term, and to reauthorize transportation legislation on a long-term basis with substantially 

increased funding levels to give States, communities and businesses the certainty to invest, as 

many Congresses have done before. 

In light of the considerable funding uncertainty, states and localities are already pulling back from 

surface transportation projects. Meanwhile, credit rating agencies are downgrading bonds 
18

supported by anticipated federal payments. 19 While complete data is not yet available, a 

Goldman Sachs analysis found that in previous years when Congress has balked at reauthorizing 

transportation funding, “uncertainty regarding federal funding has been associated with a 

temporary slowdown in construction activity, and the slowdown would probably be more severe 

if payments were actually delayed or reduced.”20 This means that Congress’s stalling may have 

already cost American jobs and slowed down projects. 

Appendix 1 provides a table of state specific data on the transportation system and suggests how 

federal funding delays might impact different states. As suggested above, federal spending on 

transportation is an important part of our national infrastructure investment, because it 

traditionally provided a steady and multi-year funding source for major capital projects –

especially major road projects that link major economic centers, both regionally and nationally. 

44 percent of all surface transportation capital investment comes from federal funds and states 

with smaller populations tend to rely much more on federal funds. 

In 2011, the latest year for which comprehensive data are available for federal, state, and local 

governments, the U.S. spent more than $215 billion on surface transportation. Taken together, 

total spending as a share of GDP has been falling, from about 3 percent of GDP in 1962 to only 

1.4 percent today. That’s more than a 50 percent decline. And although total spending has 

generally been increasing in real dollar terms since the 1980s, it declined in 2010 and 2011. 

 

19 Jim Watts, “Moody’s Lowers GARVEES as HTF Evaporates,” Bond Buyer, June 18, 2014

20 Goldman Sachs Global Macro Research, “US Daily: Congress Finally Begins to Make Progress on Infrastructure 

Spending” July 9, 2014.
19

As investments have declined, it has become widely recognized by government agencies, state 

agencies, think tanks, stakeholders, and business groups that our infrastructure is not keeping 

pace with the demands of a growing economy. 

Estimates of the needs for investment vary significantly, as would be expected in any studies of 

such a large system. In a widely cited report, the American Society of Civil Engineers finds $125 

billion per year is needed to maintain and repair our existing surface transportation system, while 

the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission estimates $139 billion 

per year (in 2012 dollars). Both estimates are higher than actual capital spending in 2012, which 

was $103 billion at federal, state, and local government levels.

The Department of Transportation publishes an objective appraisal of the physical conditions, 

operational performance, and financing mechanisms of highways, bridges, and transit systems 

based on both their current state and under future investment scenarios. In the most recent 

Conditions and Performance (C&P) Report, DOT estimates we need $85 to $177 billion. 

A strong and efficient infrastructure network is critical to maintaining US competitiveness in a 

global marketplace. However, in recent years, the United States has fallen considerably behind 

other advanced countries when it comes to total transportation investment. These investment 

flows show up in business leader evaluations of the United States as a place to do business. For 

example, in the World Economic Forum’s latest Global Competitive Index, the US ranked 10th for 
20

transportation, 18th for roads, and 19th for quality of overall infrastructure—well below other 

advanced economies. We are well behind countries including Poland, Estonia, Hungary, Spain 

and Greece. 

Business leaders recognize the threats posed to our competitiveness by underinvestment in our 

infrastructure – a finding backed up by frequent surveys of businesses and employers: 

 In 2014, the US Travel Association issued a report finding that 65 percent of travel 

executives surveyed believe infrastructure is critical to increasing global competitiveness. 

Moreover, 87 percent believed American Infrastructure was in “fair” or “poor shape”, 74 

percent said the quality and reliability of the system was important to the success of their 

business, 76 percent believed the US was not prepared to respond to the competitive 

demands of increased travel over the next 10 to 15 years, and 96 percent said that that 

greater investments in maintained and upgrades are needed and that all options should 

be on the table.

 In 2013, the National Association of Manufacturers surveyed 401 members and found 

that 70 percent believe American infrastructure is in fair or poor shape and 65 percent do 

not believe that infrastructure, especially in their region, will be able to respond to the 

competitive demands of a growing economy over the next 10 to 15 years. It is important 

to note that the manufacturing sector moves roughly $1.8 trillion (12 percent GDP) of 

goods and services each year across air, sea, roads, and rail.

 In 2013, The Economist Intelligence Unit took a narrower look by surveying executives 

from manufacturing companies in the oil and gas, utilities, chemicals and natural resource 

industries. The EIU found that 87 percent of executives said that aging infrastructure had 

an impact on their operations in recent years, with 10 percent mentioning that it had 

caused severe problems in their operations that they were continuing to address. 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Investment in Inland Transportation Infrastructure

Percent of GDP (2011 unless noted)

Source: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development; Office of Management and Budget
21

THE NATIONAL FREIGHT NETWORK

The nation’s freight network transports more than 54 million tons of goods worth nearly $48 billion each day. 

The Department of Transportation projects freight tonnage to increase by 62 percent by 2040. In 2006, the total 

logistics cost rose to 9.9 percent of GDP, after declining through the 1980s and 1990s, reflecting increases in fuel 

prices and increases in congestion in U.S. highways, rail lines, and ports. The DOT estimates the cost of congestion 

approaching is $200 billion per year for all modes of transport. 

The GROW AMERICA Act provides $10 billion over four years for targeted investments to improve the nation’s 

freight network. The proposal will create incentives to support regional coordination and local decision-making, 

encouraging neighboring states to improve multistate freight corridors and giving freight stakeholders a 

meaningful seat at the table when it comes to project selection. The remainder of the funds will support winning 

projects of multimodal discretionary competitions focused on improving critical elements of the freight network.

The Alameda Corridor project in California is an example of how regional and multi-stakeholder collaboration 

and investment improved intermodal freight mobility for two of the busiest ports dealing with international 

trade. The rail project consolidated 90 miles of rail and 200 roadway crossings into a 20-mile high capacity 

transport corridor between the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, California, expanding capacity to 12.7 

million containers per year from 3.5 million. By removing about 200 highway-rail crossings in the process, these 

improvements also reduced highway congestion by eliminating 15,000 hours of delay per day for motor vehicles 

that used to wait for trains to pass. 

Improving America’s freight transportation supports economic growth and international competitiveness. 

Transportation improvements lower logistics costs, making it more cost-effective for manufacturers to keep 

production in or move production to the United States and increase the range of possible locations for 

manufacturing plants and distribution facilities. It keeps jobs in America, allows businesses to expand, and 

lowers prices to American families. 
22

V. Conclusion 

The data and research presented in this report underscores what the American people already 

know: investing in infrastructure is essential to the economic health of the nation. That’s why poll 

after poll shows that Americans favor infrastructure investment. 

Earlier this year, the President called on Congress to ensure the continuity in surface 

transportation programs and laid out his vision for a four-year investment plan that would 

support millions of jobs at home and lay the foundation for American businesses to better 

compete globally. 

Introduced as the GROW AMERICA Act, the proposal would:

 Provide certainty. The multi-year proposal offers states the long term certainty they need 

to invest in larger, economically transformative projects.

 Increase funding. The President’s proposal would provide $302 billion over four years–an 

increase of 37 percent over current spending levels and creating millions of jobs–to better 

meet the needs of a growing population and to support a growing economy and growing 

workforce.

 Make needed reforms. The Administration proposal will create more bang for the buck 

by streamlining project approval processes, encouraging efficiency and innovation 

throughout our surface transportation system. 

The President has proposed to pay for this critical investment through pro-growth business tax 

reform. The Administration is eager to work with Congress on tax reform or on other strategies 

for funding our transportation system. What we can’t do is let gridlock in Congress create gridlock 

across America. It’s time to make sure that this important issue gets the attention at home and 

in Washington that it deserves. This country needs a long-term transportation solution in order 

to grow the economy, create jobs, and support everyday Americans. 

The economic case for investment in our long-term infrastructure is clear-- we know it will grow 

the economy, create good jobs, and position us for long-term growth—and the time for action is 

now.
Appendix

System Conditions Federal Authorization Household Impact

Miles of 

Public 

Road

Percent 

of Roads 

in Poor 

Condition

Highway 

Traffic 

Fatalities

Bridges Deficient or 

Obsolete 

Bridges (% of 

total)

Federal 

Funds as 

a Percent 

of Capital 

Outlays

Est. 

Annual 

Jobs at 

Risk

Active 

Highway 

Projects

Active 

Transit 

Grants

Fuel 

Consumption 

(gallons/per 

capita)

Vehicle Repair 

and Operating 

Costs PerDriver

U.S. 4,076,236 14% 32,340 607,751 147,870(25%) 44% 779,469 112,514 5,642 612.48 $ 444.47

AL 101,688 19% 894 16,078 3,608 (22%) 78% 11,890 3,481 54 695.60 $ 366.35

AK 16,674 6% 72 1,196 290 (24%) 95% 7,867 962 83 700.19 $ 321.42

AR 100,082 14% 549 12,748 2,894 (23%) 80% 7,846 1,452 41 690.36 $ 496.89

AZ 65,091 7% 825 7,862 954 (12%) 36% 12,562 1,273 105 527.15 $ 247.10

CA 172,201 34% 2,791 24,955 6,953 (28%) 19% 73,572 5,692 704 461.27 $ 702.88

CO 88,414 17% 447 8,612 1,483 (17%) 69% 9,666 1,078 72 522.32 $ 534.56

CT 21,414 41% 220 4,218 1,472 (35%) 53% 9,612 1,630 89 486.96 $ 661.26

DE 6,357 16% 99 864 177 (20%) 49% 2,791 602 21 546.66 $ 380.78

FL 121,759 4% 2,398 12,070 2,044 (17%) 29% 33,760 2,791 367 497.76 $ 181.43

GA 123,546 5% 1,223 14,769 2,600 (18%) 62% 22,119 3,341 126 602.66 $ 260.02

HI 4,405 27% 100 1,125 494 (44%) 58% 3,115 572 43 377.86 $ 527.86

IA 114,387 12% 360 24,398 6,271 (26%) 50% 7,928 1,556 62 774.37 $ 421.76

ID 48,553 11% 167 4,232 859 (20%) 73% 4,546 1,185 68 590.57 $ 370.08

IL 139,498 15% 918 26,621 4,246 (16%) 37% 29,669 3,945 223 482.41 $ 448.61

IN 97,065 16% 750 18,953 4,168 (22%) 59% 15,321 6,093 115 656.13 $ 391.41

KS 140,513 8% 386 25,171 4,465 (18%) 55% 6,157 837 42 615.10 $ 435.49

KY 79,220 7% 721 14,116 4,436 (31%) 38% 10,726 1,898 62 673.12 $ 315.11

LA 61,635 19% 675 13,050 3,790 (29%) 45% 10,926 2,089 153 669.29 $ 463.61

MA 36,302 19% 337 5,136 2,694 (52%) 32% 14,754 926 193 484.85 $ 478.01

MD 32,321 20% 485 5,291 1,418 (27%) 28% 12,013 1,881 64 542.63 $ 459.56
1

ME 22,873 7% 136 2,402 791 (33%) 57% 3,125 1,515 38 651.23 $ 450.86

MI 122,085 22% 889 11,022 3,018 (27%) 37% 17,824 6,123 143 538.07 $ 538.96

MN 138,702 11% 368 13,137 1,513 (12%) 37% 11,094 1,911 98 588.55 $ 369.25

MO 131,667 10% 784 24,350 6,633 (27%) 60% 15,319 2,471 94 682.63 $ 380.12

MS 75,119 8% 630 17,044 3,636 (21%) 66% 7,486 1,095 43 722.26 $ 463.79

MT 74,880 5% 209 5,126 882 (17%) 88% 6,294 1,432 27 750.83 $ 292.13

NC 105,869 11% 1,227 18,168 5,534 (30%) 37% 17,333 3,878 146 556.87 $ 340.32

ND 86,851 4% 148 4,439 966 (22%) 75% 3,836 1,061 26 1068.40 $ 260.87

NE 93,599 6% 181 15,370 3,765 (24%) 36% 4,688 921 34 683.56 $ 349.42

NH 16,076 17% 90 2,438 790 (32%) 62% 2,675 623 49 605.89 $ 404.43

NJ 39,213 35% 627 6,566 2,334 (36%) 21% 23,663 1,311 66 564.94 $ 604.88

NM 68,384 10% 353 3,935 654 (17%) 74% 5,979 710 84 705.14 $ 398.85

NV 36,839 2% 246 1,853 253 (14%) 44% 6,208 381 52 508.21 $ 241.76

NY 114,592 23% 1,169 17,442 6,775 (39%) 44% 48,389 6,402 211 352.58 $ 504.90

OH 123,247 15% 1,016 27,015 6,647 (25%) 39% 22,308 3,789 217 559.02 $ 413.37

OK 112,808 18% 696 22,912 5,828 (25%) 67% 10,114 2,059 81 691.01 $ 626.31

OR 59,148 6% 331 7,656 1,754 (23%) 58% 8,824 1,219 80 519.29 $ 236.40

PA 119,771 15% 1,286 22,660 9,561 (42%) 38% 30,672 4,634 198 512.52 $ 424.14

RI 6,484 41% 66 766 433 (57%) 74% 3,595 783 19 415.53 $ 661.94

SC 65,997 5% 828 9,275 1,920 (21%) 52% 10,715 1,508 88 711.71 $ 306.36

SD 82,459 6% 111 5,875 1,459 (25%) 64% 4,259 1,228 23 797.40 $ 339.48

TN 95,492 6% 946 20,058 3,802 (19%) 63% 13,361 3,032 121 638.93 $ 225.34

TX 312,911 8% 3,016 52,561 9,998 (19%) 35% 57,917 3,772 344 640.48 $ 372.61

UT 45,634 4% 240 2,974 437 (15%) 43% 6,125 525 34 556.74 $ 294.79

VA 74,461 6% 764 13,765 3,588 (26%) 67% 17,228 6,595 121 588.57 $ 334.35

VT 14,290 14% 55 2,731 903 (33%) 78% 3,091 1,353 31 606.78 $ 378.86

WA 83,743 22% 457 7,902 2,066 (26%) 33% 13,561 1,630 202 482.44 $ 537.47

WI 115,018 21% 582 14,088 1,970 (14%) 46% 12,480 4,057 68 561.86 $ 502.10

WV 38,646 12% 337 7,125 2,514 (35%) 67% 6,766 1,526 45 594.31 $ 469.29

WY 28,253 2% 135 3,099 723 (23%) 68% 3818.4 854 18 1171.22 $ 301.99
2

Sources

Data Point Year Source

Miles of Public Road 2011 http://gis.rita.dot.gov/StateFacts/

Percent of Roads in Poor 

Condition 2013

American Society of Civil Engineers 

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/roads/ 

Highway Traffic Fatalities 2011 http://gis.rita.dot.gov/StateFacts/

Bridges 2013 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/deficient.cfm

Deficient or Obsolete 

Bridges (% of total) 2013 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/deficient.cfm

Estimated Annual Jobs at 

Risk 2014

DOT Calculations using CEA multiplier and FHWA and FTA 

apportionments with 20% State match

Active Highway Projects 2014 DOT Calculations

Active Transit Grants 2014 DOT Calculations

Federal Funds as a Percent 

of Capital Outlays 2010 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2011/index.cfm 

Fuel Consumption 

(gallons/per capita) 2011 http://gis.rita.dot.gov/StateFacts/

Per-Driver Vehicle 

Operating Costs 2013

American Society of Civil Engineers 

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/roads/