V. Highway Cost Responsibility 

Cost Occasioned Approach 

Basis and Philosophy 

In HCASs over the past half century, FHWA and its predecessor agencies have used a cost-occasioned 

approach to allocate highway cost responsibility among different vehicle classes. 

During this time specific cost allocation methods have evolved, but the basic cost occasioned approach

has remained the basis for cost allocation at both the Federal and State levels. The approach was so 

widely accepted that Congress, in mandating the 1982 Federal HCAS, stipulated that a cost-occasioned 

approach be used in the study. Specifically, Section 506 of the STAA directed the Secretary of 

Transportation to undertake a study of "the costs occasioned in design, construction, rehabilitation, and 

maintenance of Federal-aid highways by the use of vehicles of different dimensions, weights, and other

specifications, and by the frequency of such vehicles in the traffic stream." 

The underlying philosophy of the cost-occasioned approach is that each user should pay the highway 

costs that it creates or "occasions." A key question in cost allocation studies is what costs to consider. 

Previous Federal and State cost allocation studies have focused on highway agency costs paid from 

highway user charges. The focus on costs paid from user charges relates to an important objective of 

most cost allocation studies -- to assess the equity of the highway user charge structure. While there may 

be many definitions of equity, in cost allocation studies equity has been defined as each vehicle class 

paying user charges proportionate to its share of highway agency costs. 

Some critics of the traditional cost-occasioned approach argue that economic efficiency is more 

important than equity and that highway user charges should reflect the true cost of each vehicle's use of 

the highway, not the share of highway agency expenditures allocated to different vehicle classes. Those 

who advocate focusing cost allocation on efficiency rather than equity generally favor a marginal cost

approach to cost allocation whereby vehicles would be charged in proportion to their marginal cost of 

highway use. Equity and economic efficiency are not mutually exclusive or even conflicting objectives.

In many cases user fee changes that would improve equity would also improve economic efficiency and 

vice versa. 

In essence both the cost-occasioned and the marginal cost approaches assign cost responsibility based on 

principles of cost occasioning. The traditional cost occasioning approach limits the scope of "costs" 

considered to highway agency obligations or expenditures. The marginal cost approach, on the other 

hand, does not consider highway agency expenditures, but rather estimates the economic cost of 

additional increments of highway use by each vehicle class, including both infrastructure costs that 

ultimately result in highway agency expenditures as well as environmental and other social costs 

occasioned by operations of each vehicle class that are not reflected in highway agency budgets. The 

two approaches differ not so much in the determination of which vehicle classes are responsible for the 

costs, but rather on which costs are allocated. 

Economic efficiency may be served by setting user fees in accordance with cost responsibilities 

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 1 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014
estimated using the traditional cost-occasioned approach. This is especially true for pavement costs 

where there is a direct connection between marginal pavement costs and highway agency investment 

requirements for pavement preservation. The closer that each vehicle comes to paying its share of 

highway agency costs for pavement improvements, the closer it comes to paying its marginal pavement 

costs, and thus the more efficient the allocation of resources. While other agency costs do not vary as 

directly with use as do pavement costs, it could be expected that economic efficiency would improve if

each vehicle came closer to paying its responsibility for highway agency costs. 

As noted above, previous cost allocation studies have focused on highway agency costs incurred in the 

provision and preservation of the highway infrastructure. Each vehicle, because of its highway use and

its weight, length, width, and other physical characteristics, contributes to the need for and cost of

improvements to provide additional capacity or preserve existing highway facilities. Each user's travel 

also occasions costs that go beyond the costs of providing and preserving the highway infrastructure, 

including congestion, environmental, and safety-related costs imposed on others. The 1982 Federal 

HCAS considered such costs, but only in a supplemental analysis that examined marginal costs of 

highway use by different vehicles in order to estimate economically efficient levels of prices that those 

vehicles would have to pay under different conditions. 

There are other non-agency costs that previous HCASs have not considered, such as the impacts of 

constructing highways in sensitive physical and cultural environments. It is difficult to address many

of these costs in cost allocation because there are no clear engineering or economic "cause and effect" 

relationships between the costs and characteristics of the vehicles to which costs must be allocated. 

Many community costs of highways are less related to the use of the highway by different vehicle 

classes than to disruption of the physical or cultural environment by the mere presence of the highway. 

Traditionally, cost allocation studies at both the Federal and State levels have examined highway agency 

costs because their primary objective has been to determine the cost responsibility of different vehicles 

for infrastructure and related costs borne by the highway agency. This cost recovery objective in turn is 

related to the user fee principle that different vehicle classes should pay for the highway infrastructure 

in proportion to their share of the costs to provide and preserve that infrastructure. Costs attributable 

to each vehicle class are estimated using a process that considers how physical and operational 

characteristics of each vehicle class affect the design of various components of the highway system or

the rate at which pavements, bridges, and other elements of the highway infrastructure wear out and 

must be repaired or replaced.The cost responsibility of different vehicles for pavement, bridge, and 

certain other types of agency costs varies according to relative amount of travel on different highway

functional classes. Since Interstate and other principal arterial highways generally are designed to 

accommodate higher volumes of heavy trucks, costs per mile of travel by heavy trucks on those 

highways are lower than on highways that are not designed to handle as many heavy loads. As shown in 

Chapter II, the distribution of VMT by highway functional class varies considerably among different 

vehicle classes. Combination trucks used in Interstate commerce travel the majority of their mileage on 

higher-order systems in rural areas, while single unit trucks used for local trucking travel a significant 

amount of their annual mileage on lower-order systems that do not have the same high-type design as 

Interstate highways. 

While neither the Federal nor State user fee structures can charge vehicles directly according to the 

specific highways upon which they operate, average cost responsibilities for different vehicle classes can 

be estimated based upon their travel and operating weight distributions on different highway functional 

classes in each State and characteristics of pavements and bridges on each highway class in each State. 

Details of the estimation of cost responsibilities for pavement, bridge, and other costs are included in 

appendices to this report.

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 2 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014
A consideration in defining the costs to be analyzed in a HCAS is the time frame over which costs are 

to be estimated. This decision, too, depends on specific objectives of the cost allocation study. Most

traditional cost allocation studies have analyzed costs representing the current distribution of agency 

costs or the anticipated distribution of costs several years into the future. This time frame is appropriate 

for assessing the equity of the current user fee structure and of potential user fee changes that could 

improve short run equity. If the objective of the study is to analyze the relative cost responsibility

of different vehicle classes over a longer period of time, the time frame over which costs would be 

evaluated could be extended. While the ideal might be to regularly adjust highway user fees as relative 

cost responsibilities change, this often is difficult and consideration of both long run and short run cost 

responsibilities might be appropriate in evaluating potential user fee changes. This is particularly true if 

significant changes in the composition of the highway program or in such factors as TS&W limits are 

expected. 

While it is appropriate to examine cost responsibilities for agency costs over periods of 1 or more years, 

some external costs such as congestion costs should be analyzed over hours rather than years if the 

objective is to estimate true marginal costs for purposes of setting efficient congestion charges. The

temporal variation of congestion and some pollution costs makes it difficult to reflect those costs in

Federal user fees or in traditional State or local user fees. As will be discussed in other sections of this 

report, congestion pricing is receiving increasing attention at the local level as a tool to reduce peak 

period congestion. 

Congestion costs vary not only by hour of the day but by geographical area, and many environmental 

costs also vary geographically. If the cost responsibility of different vehicle classes is to be accurately 

estimated, it is important to capture geographical variations in those costs. This is especially true if user 

fees are to be imposed based upon those costs with the expectation that those fees will improve 

economic efficiency. 

As noted above, some HCASs, including the 1982 Federal HCAS, have examined costs other than 

agency costs in subsidiary analyses to address policy questions other than the equity of the highway user 

charge structure. In addition to examining marginal costs associated with the operation of different 

vehicle classes for purposes of estimating how an economically efficient user fee would compare to user 

fees based on each vehicle's share of highway agency costs, a follow-on to the 1982 Federal HCAS also 

examined how the responsibility of different vehicle classes for highway costs incurred by all levels of 

government compared to the responsibility of those vehicle classes for Federal highway costs. This 

analysis provides a more comprehensive assessment of the extent to which each vehicle class covers its

overall highway cost responsibility, but results are not directly applicable to analyses of user fee equity 

for a particular level of government. Many State cost allocation studies analyze State and Federal costs 

as well as State-only costs to understand differences in user fee equity when all levels of government are 

considered. 

Applying a cost-occasioned approach for certain types of costs can be difficult and there is no universal 

agreement on how all costs should be allocated. The greatest certainty is in allocating costs directly

related to specific characteristics of different vehicle classes. Pavement and bridge construction costs are 

among the costs most closely associated with characteristics of different vehicles, although there still is 

discussion about specific methods for allocating those two categories of costs. For costs that are not as 

directly related to specific physical characteristics of each vehicle, the uncertainty about how to allocate 

costs among vehicle classes is more pronounced. 

Certain groups of vehicles clearly occasion some specific costs. For example, since truck weigh stations 

are needed only for trucks, there is general agreement that trucks should be assigned responsibility 

for weigh station costs, even though all users benefit from weight enforcement programs that help to 

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 3 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014
preserve the infrastructure. The allocation of truck climbing lane costs is not as straightforward. Some 

might assign the cost responsibility for climbing lanes on long steep grades to larger trucks whose high 

weight-to-horsepower ratios result in very low speeds that affect safety and delay other users. If there 

were no trucks, there would be no need for passing lanes. It is the unique characteristics of heavy trucks 

that necessitate the construction of climbing lanes. Others maintain, however, that climbing lanes are

constructed to maintain the capacity and safety of the facility, and that all vehicles should share in the 

costs in proportion to their PCEs on the steep grade. Using PCEs would assign a significant share of the 

cost responsibility to heavy trucks, but autos, pickups, and vans would be responsible for most climbing 

lane costs. 

The next section of this chapter discusses the cost occasioning approach used in this study. The chapter 

describes the composition of the basic cost groups, and then describes the basis for allocating the 

components of these cost groups to different vehicle classes. 

Federal Agency Cost Allocation 

As noted earlier, agency costs allocated in this study are obligations from the HTF. Obligations are 

grouped into 17 categories, 13 of which are identical to improvement types discussed in Chapter III. The 

other four are subsets of "other" costs in Chapter III that are separated for cost allocation. Table V-1 

shows these 17 cost categories along with base period (1993-1995) and Year 2000 obligations for each. 

Most highway costs are estimated from detailed FMIS data on obligations by improvement type. The 

first 11 cost categories in Table V-1 represent specific FMIS improvement types, but FMIS data are 

refined considerably for cost allocation purposes. The cost categories ridesharing/high occupancy 

vehicle (HOV) projects, Mass Transit -- Highway Account, and truck related projects are FMIS work 

types, which are subsets of FMIS improvement types. Those costs are separated for cost allocation 

purposes because they are uniquely occasioned by different vehicle classes and are allocated differently 

than other costs. Obligations for Federal lands projects and FHWA administration are not included in 

FMIS but come from other FHWA accounting records. Obligations from the MTA come from FTA 

records. 

The FMIS subdivides improvement type 

obligations into several work classes 

including construction, preliminary 

engineering, right-of-way, transit and 

training, planning, and research. The 

construction category is typically the 

largest work class within each 

improvement. Most other work classes are 

incidental to construction. Costs for other 

work classes often are not allocated in the 

same manner as construction costs within 

each improvement type, so they are 

broken out and allocated separately. As 

noted above costs for certain work classes 

such as transit and truck-related costs are 

removed completely from the 

improvement type under which they are 

reported and are allocated as separate cost 

categories. 

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 4 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014
Pavement Cost Allocation Methods

New Pavement, Added Lanes 

 Table V-2 shows costs for the two major improvement types that are allocated as new pavement costs. 

Costs are broken down into nine separate categories, each of 

which is allocated separately, although some may use the 

same allocators. The approach used in allocating costs of 

new pavements and added lanes is similar to the approach 

developed in the 1982 Federal HCAS. Costs of providing 

additional lanes of capacity are allocated using a design 

based two step methodology. The allocation process 

separates costs into those related to a base facility that 

provides additional capacity and traffic services and those 

related to providing the durability to carry projected traffic 

loadings over the pavement's design life. 

The base facility is a hypothetical pavement that would 

serve a purpose common to all vehicle classes. It is not the 

minimum facility that a highway agency could build, nor is 

it the facility that would be required to carry just 

automobiles. The base facility would provide skid 

resistance, all-weather capability, and would serve as a 

"platform" for providing the base and surface thickness required to accommodate projected traffic 

loadings. The base facility portion of pavement construction costs is related to providing additional 

capacity to safely accommodate projected future traffic volumes, and the remaining portion of pavement

construction costs provides the base and pavement thickness necessary to accommodate projected 

vehicle loadings. 

The construction of new traffic lanes, whether they be new highways on new locations or additions 

to existing facilities, reflects the need for added highway capacity to relieve congestion and provide

higher levels of service for current and future traffic. Some vehicles, because of their size and operating 

characteristics, have a greater effect than others on traffic flow and highway level of service. For 

example, trucks consume more physical space on the roadway than automobiles and have a greater 

effect on traffic flow because they do not accelerate or maneuver as well as automobiles. Traffic 

engineers have developed a concept called "PCEs" that measures the relative effects of different vehicles 

on highway level of service. The PCEs for a particular vehicle will vary according to such factors as 

grades, lane width, and type of highway, and thus the relative contribution of different vehicles classes 

to congestion and to the need for additional capacity can be measured across a variety of conditions. 

In the 1982 Federal HCAS, base facility costs 

were allocated to all vehicles on the basis of 

their relative VMT, although consideration was 

given to allocating those costs in proportion to 

VMT weighted by the PCEs for each vehicle 

class. The PCE-weighted VMT was not used 

as the final allocator because further research 

into equivalency factors for different vehicles 

was believed to be needed. For the 1997 

Federal HCAS, new research was conducted to 

estimate PCEs as a function of such key factors 

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 5 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014
as vehicle operating characteristics, highway 

functional class, time-of-day, and terrain. This research used traffic simulation models that are more

accurate and sophisticated than those available 15 years ago. Base facility costs as well as related 

engineering, right-of-way, and other costs associated with adding new highway lanes are allocated using 

PCE-weighted VMT. 

Table V-3 presents the shares of new flexible and rigid pavement costs by highway functional class that 

comprise the base facility and are allocated using PCE-weighted VMT. Base facility shares are smaller 

for higher-order functional classes than for lower-order functional classes. On all highway classes the 

base facility represents a larger share of total costs for rigid pavements than for flexible pavements. 

The load-related portion of new pavement construction costs is allocated based on the relative ESALs of 

each vehicle class. The ESAL is a measure of the relative contribution to pavement wear associated with 

different single and tandem axle loads, using an 18,000 pound single axle as the benchmark. Pavement 

design equations developed by the AASHTO use ESALs as the principal vehicle specific factor in 

pavement design. Separate allocations are made for rigid and flexible pavement types because the 

pavement material is highly related to vehicle ESALs. 

Pavement cost responsibilities are estimated using three pavement sections/designs for each highway 

functional class for each State. Pavement design parameters for each State, such as soil strength, 

terminal PSI value and the other characteristics are considered in this analysis. Design methods reflect 

the latest State specific and AASHTO design manuals and guidelines. Cost responsibilities for each of 

the over 300 vehicle class/weight groups are first produced by State and then combined into a national

average. 

 Table V-4 shows the cost responsibility per mile for new pavement costs for several illustrative vehicle 

classes along with their share of total new pavement costs. 

Automobiles account for the largest share of new pavement costs 

followed by 5-axle tractor-semitrailers. The responsibility of 

autos for new pavement costs is about 0.05 cents per mile, less 

than 10 percent of the cost responsibility of 5-axle tractorsemitrailers. Eight-axle and 5-axle twin trailer combinations have 

the highest average new pavement cost responsibility per mile 

among the illustrative vehicle classes. 

Figure V-1 summarizes shares of new pavement cost 

responsibility by broad vehicle classes. Passenger vehicles are 

responsible for over half of all new pavement costs, semitrailer 

combinations 32 percent, single unit trucks 12 percent, and 

multi-trailer combinations 3 percent. 

 Grading and drainage costs are not separated in FMIS, but a 

special analysis of 

grading and drainage costs was conducted for the 1982 

Federal HCAS. A survey of several States conducted for this 

study indicated that grading and drainage factors developed 

for the 1982 Federal HCAS are still applicable. 

Grading and drainage costs associated with new pavement 

projects are broken into three components, those related to 

vehicle weight, those related to vehicle width, and those that 

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 6 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014
are not related to any specific vehicle characteristics. In mountainous and rolling terrain, additional 

grading and drainage expenses are incurred to reduce highway grades so that heavy trucks with high 

weight-to-horsepower ratios will not slow more than can be avoided. For operational and safety reasons, 

the maximum speed reduction allowed for vehicles climbing a grade is 15 miles per hour. Thus a critical 

grade is defined as any combination of length and degree of grade that produces a 15 miles per hour 

speed reduction. The allocation of additional grading and drainage costs related to vehicle weight is 

based on established relationships between highway grade features (critical length and degree of grade) 

and vehicle performance attributes (weight-to-horsepower ratio). The relative cost responsibility of each 

vehicle class is estimated from the earthwork savings that would result when comparing each vehicle 

class to the worst performing vehicle. The incremental earthwork savings are computed as a function of

the highway cross section and critical grades for given weight-to-horsepower intervals. The enhanced 

model developed for this study uses updated information on vehicle horsepower derived from vehicle 

performance models that reflect present day vehicle characteristics and highway design characteristics

from the HPMS database. 

In the 1982 Federal HCAS, width related costs were allocated 

using an incremental approach that estimated incremental 

construction cost savings when designing for vehicles of different 

widths. Ten different vehicle width categories were defined in the 

1982 Federal HCAS going all the way to a hypothetical zero width 

vehicle, but all except the lightest trucks, automobiles, and 

motorcycles were in the widest group. The analysis has been 

simplified somewhat for this study by eliminating the narrowest 

width groups and allocating a smaller share of total pavement 

costs on the basis of vehicle width. This is consistent with trends 

toward designing wider pavements for safety reasons regardless of 

the relative number of trucks using the roadway. These changes 

have been applied to both the allocation of additional construction 

costs related to vehicle width and to additional grading and 

drainage costs associated with vehicle width. 

The portion of grading and drainage costs for new highway lanes 

that is related to neither vehicle weight nor width is allocated 

among different vehicle classes on the basis by PCE-VMT. These 

costs are essential parts of the overall construction costs that are 

necessitated by needs to provide additional highway capacity, and 

are allocated on the basis of each vehicle class' contribution to the 

need for additional capacity. 

Table V-5 summarizes the cost responsibility per mile of travel for 

new pavement costs by broad vehicle groups at various operating 

weight ranges. Cost responsibility for passenger vehicles averages about 5/100 of a cent per mile. Costs 

for buses are higher than for autos, pickups, and vans, but bus travel is a small fraction of total passenger 

vehicle travel and has little influence on the overall average. The average cost responsibility for new 

pavements for single unit trucks is 0.31 cents per mile compared to 0.66 cents per mile for combination 

trucks. Within those two truck categories average costs vary from about 0.20 cents per mile for light 

single units to almost 3 cents per mile for the heaviest combinations. 

Table V-6 shows the cost responsibility for new 

pavement costs for selected vehicles at different 

operating weights. This table clearly illustrates the 

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 7 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014
relationship between weight and pavement costs 

for any given vehicle class and also illustrates the important fact that the more axles under a vehicle at 

any given weight, the lower the pavement costs. 

In comparing cost responsibilities for 5-axle tractor-semitrailers and 5-axle twin trailer combinations, 

the difference in the pavement damage associated with single and tandem axles is evident. The 5-axle 

tractor-semitrailers has 2 tandem axle pairs while the 5-axle twin trailer combinations has 5 single axles. 

At every weight the cost responsibility of the 5-axle twin trailer combinations is greater than that of the 

5-axle tractor-semitrailers. Similarly, when cost responsibilities of 5-axle tractor-semitrailers and 6-axle 

tractor-semitrailers are compared, the benefits of the 6-axle tractor-semitrailers tridem axles are 

apparent. At all but the lowest weights, the 6-axle tractor-semitrailers cost responsibility for is less than 

5-axle tractor-semitrailers costs. 

Figure V-2 summarizes the overall assignment of new 

pavement costs to passenger vehicles and single unit 

and combination trucks. Despite the differences in 

cost responsibility per mile of travel, passenger 

vehicles are assigned over half the responsibility for 

new pavement costs, combination trucks 35 percent, 

and single units 12 percent. 

Pavement Preservation Costs 

Pavement 3R costs constitute the largest single 

category of obligations from the HTF. Table V-7 

shows the breakdown of costs for several cost 

categories that are grouped as pavement preservation 

costs. Substantial resources were devoted in the 1982 

Federal HCAS to developing new techniques for 

allocating pavement 3R costs based upon the 

contribution of each vehicle class to various pavement distresses that necessitate pavement 

improvements. The basic framework for allocating pavement 3R costs in the 1982 Federal HCAS is 

used in this study, but significant refinements have been made in several areas. 

An important contribution of the 1982 Federal HCAS was the use of "mechanistic" pavement distress 

models that directly relate axle loads and repetitions to the stresses, strains, and other pavement 

responses leading to pavement deterioration. Several mechanistic models used in the 1982 Federal 

HCAS are retained, but most have been improved based upon new theoretical work and the availability 

of pavement performance data from the Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Study. Eleven 

different pavement distress models are incorporated in the new nationwide pavement cost model 

(NAPCOM) used for HCA. Together these models represent the state-of-the-art in predicting pavement 

responses to different axle loads and repetitions. 

The 1982 Federal HCAS analyzed pavement 

distresses on a relatively small number of 

hypothetical pavement sections. The hypothetical 

pavements have been abandoned for this study and 

replaced by actual pavement sections from the HPMS 

database. The HPMS database is a statistically valid 

sample of over 100,000 pavement sections 

representing all non-local pavements nationwide. It is 

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 8 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014
used in evaluating highway investment/performance 

relationships for the Department's biennial C&P Report as well as other policy analyses. 

While the HPMS database contains section properties, traffic volumes, percent trucks and other 

data related to pavement performance, considerable supplemental data needed for the pavement 

performance models are added for each pavement section. Using the augmented HPMS database in 

conjunction with the detailed traffic and operating weight data described in Chapter II provides a much 

more representative analysis of pavement costs associated with travel by different vehicle classes on 

different highway systems. Estimates of the relative cost responsibility of different vehicle classes 

for pavement 3R costs on the different highway functional classes are used to allocate load-related 

components of 3R obligations to the different vehicles. The models also estimate the shares of total costs 

that are related to factors such as pavement age and climate rather than axle loads. These nonloadrelated 3R costs are allocated in proportion to VMT for each vehicle class. 

Table V-8 shows the percent of flexible and 

rigid pavement 3R costs estimated to be 

attributable to non-load factors on each highway 

functional class. In general the share of costs 

attributable to non-load factors is about the 

same for flexible and rigid pavements although 

there are minor differences across highway 

functional classes. Non-load costs are a higher 

proportion of total costs on lower-order systems 

than on higher-order systems, ranging from less 

than 10 percent on rural Interstates to more than 

20 percent on urban collectors and local roads. 

Preliminary engineering, right-of-way, grading 

and drainage, and other costs related to 3R 

improvements are allocated separately. With the 

exception of grading and drainage, those other 

costs are allocated in proportion to the VMT of 

each vehicle class. Grading and drainage costs, 

which represent a smaller share of total 3R costs 

than new construction costs, are allocated using 

the same factors as grading and drainage for 

new construction. 

Reconstruction with added lanes combines elements of both new construction and reconstruction. The 

FMIS has data on total amounts spent for this improvement type, but amounts for the added lanes cannot

be distinguished from amounts for reconstruction of existing lanes from the FMIS data. Each of the 

work classes under reconstruction with added lanes is allocated using the same allocators as are used for 

reconstruction projects. If data were available to separate amounts for lane additions from amounts for 

reconstruction, the portion for new lanes could be allocated in the same way as costs for added lanes, but 

in the absence of such data all costs are allocated as reconstruction costs. Minor widening is a unique 

system preservation cost. Minor widening improvements do not add structural capacity and they add 

only marginally to traffic-carrying capacity. The primary purpose of minor widening projects is to 

enhance safety through adequate design standards such as: better curve alignments, provision of 

separation (median) between opposing directional travel, adding or widening shoulders, and similar 

projects. Since they do not add or restore structural capacity, costs for minor widening cannot be 

allocated using the same allocators as are used to allocate pavement 3R costs. Nor can they be allocated 

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 9 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014
by PCE-weighted VMT since the improvements typically are not made to increase capacity or reduce 

congestion. If roadways were widened primarily because of conflicts caused by wide vehicles, there 

would be some rationale for allocating minor widening costs to the wider vehicles, but that is not 

believed to be the primary basis for widening decisions. There is no better allocator for minor widening 

costs than VMT, so VMT is used to allocate all costs related to minor widening. 

Table V-9 shows the cost responsibility for pavement 3R costs 

by broad vehicle class and operating weight range. The cost 

responsibility per mile of travel is higher than for new 

pavement improvements, especially for the truck classes. Single 

unit and combination trucks operating in the heaviest weight 

ranges have average cost responsibilities greater than 10 cents 

per mile but that varies widely for specific vehicle classes 

within those two truck types. 

Table V-10 shows variations in the cost responsibility for 3R 

pavement costs by vehicle classes and operating weight. The 

same general relationships seen in Table V-5 between weight, 

the number and types of axles, and cost responsibility are seen 

in this table. Cost responsibility increases at an increasing rate 

as the weight of each vehicle class increases. Single axles 

contribute more to 3R pavement costs than tandem axles and 

tridem axles contribute less than tandem axles for vehicles with 

comparable weights. 

Figure V-3 shows the overall distribution of pavement 3R cost responsibility among passenger vehicles,

single unit trucks, and combination trucks. Whereas Figure V-2 showed passenger vehicles responsible 

for over half of new pavement costs, those vehicles are responsible for less than one-quarter of 

pavement 3R costs. The share of cost responsibility for combination trucks, on the other hand, increased 

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 10 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014
from 35 percent for new pavements to 58 percent for pavement 3R improvements.

The Appendix describes methods for allocating pavement rehabilitation costs in more detail. These 

methods represent major improvements over methods used in the 1982 Federal HCAS, but further 

refinements will be needed as more data from the LTPP program become available and as our 

understanding of factors affecting various types of pavement distress improve. In particular, additional 

data from LTPP sites across the country will enable various distress models to be more thoroughly 

validated. 

Bridge Cost Allocation Methods 

Table V-11 shows a breakdown of costs for 

the four bridge cost allocation categories: 

new bridge, bridge replacement, major 

bridge rehabilitation, and other bridge. Costs 

under each bridge category are broken out 

into four work classes: preliminary 

engineering, right-of-way, construction, and 

other. Almost half of all bridge costs are for 

bridge replacement and another quarter of 

the costs are for major bridge rehabilitation. 

New Bridges 

The cost allocation procedure for new 

bridges substantially improves upon the 

1982 Federal HCAS approach. The basic principles, however, are similar to the 1982 Federal HCAS. 

Bridge design procedures are used to develop the relationships between vehicle size and weight and the

cost associated with providing the bridges necessary to safely accommodate the vehicle fleet. The 

improved approach addresses some of the major shortcomings of the 1982 Federal HCAS, particularly, 

the simplifying assumptions underlying the approach. The major differences are summarized in Table 

V-12. The notable improvements are as follows: 

 Simple and continuously-supported spans are considered separately. 

 Live load moments are calculated for each vehicle class/weight group, for each functional 

highway class (based on the mean length of the primary span), and for each bridge support type 

(simple and continuous). In the 1982 Federal HCAS, the vehicles were aggregated into large 

groups, all bridges were assumed to be simply supported, all single unit trucks were assumed to be 

a simple point load, and all combination trucks were assumed to produce a moment that was a 

simple multiple of single unit trucks. 

 The FHWA accounting system now identifies four cost categories versus three in the 1982 Federal 

HCAS, namely: new bridges, bridge replacement, major rehabilitation, and minor rehabilitation. 

 The number of design/cost increments was increased from 8 to 10. The 1982 Federal HCAS 

aggregated all vehicles producing moments similar to the HS-15 to HS-20 design vehicles into 

one group. This was too large an aggregation to permit discriminating among the large number of 

heavy trucks requiring the last increments of bridge design. The effect was that many medium 

weight vehicles were assigned responsibility for the highest design increment along with the 

heaviest trucks. Accordingly, an additional increment was created by dividing the HS-15 to HS-20 

increment into an HS-15 to HS-17.5 and HS-17.5 to HS-20 increment. The 10 design increments 

are shown in Table V-13. 

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 11 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014
The bridge allocation procedure generally follows the way in which bridges are designed. In simple 

terms, bridges are designed so that the bridge can withstand the application of the dead load (the weight 

of the bridge itself) and the live load of the heaviest truck, plus a safety factor. Except for a fatigue 

criterion, which rarely governs the final design, the number of applications of the vehicle is irrelevant. 

The premise of this design procedure is that the heaviest vehicle (actually, the vehicle that produces the 

greatest stress on any key structural member) governs the size/strength of the bridge. Furthermore, any 

incremental increase in the size of the heaviest vehicle will require an incremental increase in the 

size/strength of the bridge. 

The procedure relates additional costs necessary to make the bridge 

incrementally stronger to the set of vehicles that occasion these 

increased costs. Bridges are grouped by functional highway class. 

The allocation process works by comparing the live load moment 

of each vehicle class/weight group on the representative bridge (the 

representative bridge is described by the mean primary span length) 

of a specific functional class, with the moment produced by the 

design vehicles. This comparison allows each vehicle class/weight 

group to be placed in a specific design increment, based upon 

whether its live load moment is less than or equal to the moment of 

the design vehicle associated with specific design increments for 

each functional class. For example, given identical vehicles on 

bridges of equal spans, the only distinguishing bridge characteristic 

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 12 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014
data in the NBI that can affect the moment produced by the 

vehicles is support type. Two support types, simple and continuously-supported, are considered. The 

representative vehicle's axle loads and axle spacings are required to determine live load moments 

accurately; GVWs acting as point loads do not provide a realistic picture of the moments generated 

under trucks with different axle arrangements and weights. 

Secondly, all vehicles in any specific design increment are allocated the costs associated with that 

increment based on their relative VMT compared to the other vehicles in the design increment. The 

VMT is considered the most equitable factor upon which to allocate incremental bridge design costs 

among vehicles in each increment. 

Bridge Replacement 

The allocation of bridge replacement costs uses the incremental methodology described above. The 

percentage of replacement costs assigned to the design increments is estimated using the BNIP, the same 

model that is used in estimating bridge investment requirements for the Department's C&P Report. The 

program determines, using several bridge sufficiency ratings in the NBI, how many bridges on each 

functional highway class must be replaced because they are structurally inadequate, functionally 

deficient, or functionally adequate but with so many deficiencies that the bridge must be replaced 

anyway. The percentage of bridges inadequate for each of these reasons is applied to total construction 

costs for bridge replacements and these amounts are further sub-divided into load related and non-load

related costs. The rationale to assign some construction costs to the base increment is that all vehicles 

occasion costs to remedy non-load related bridge inadequacies. In other words, when the bridge is 

replaced, walkways, smoother deck surfaces, new and better signing, the value of the useful life 

remaining in the old bridge, etc. are all part of the new bridge. Load-related costs are allocated to the 

vehicles that occasion the bridge replacement. In the case of the structurally deficient bridges, the largest 

cost category, load-related costs are allocated to all vehicles producing live load moments greater than 

that for the H-15 design vehicle. All vehicles share in the cost responsibility of other costs, with 

appropriate portions being load related and the remainder non-load related. 

Major Bridge Rehabilitation 

The process for allocating major rehabilitation costs is similar to replacement costs but more complex

because 13 types of rehabilitation are considered. These are rehabilitation of bridge deck, superstructure, 

or substructure, or some combination of the three. As for bridge replacement, a certain percent of the

costs is assigned to various categories and others are calculated on the basis of the number of bridges the 

BNIP identified as having deficiencies. As for the new bridge costs, all other cost sub-groups are 

allocated by VMT. 

Other Bridge Improvements 

Minor bridge rehabilitation and repairs generally are not related to vehicle characteristics. All costs are 

assigned to the base increment using VMT as the allocator. 

Table V-14 summarizes bridge cost allocations to major vehicle categories by improvement type. Twothirds of all bridge costs are allocated to passenger vehicles, 12 percent to single unit trucks, and 

20 percent to combination trucks. These percentages vary by type of improvement. Combination trucks 

are allocated almost 30 percent of bridge replacement costs and single units 20 percent of replacement

costs, whereas those vehicle account for only 5 percent and 3 percent respectively of minor bridge 

rehabilitation costs.

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 13 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014
Table V-15 shows the overall bridge cost 

responsibility of illustrative vehicles at 

different weights. Costs are shown on a 

cents per mile basis since most other 

costs in this study are summarized in 

cents per mile, but as noted above, bridge 

costs, except for fatigue, do not vary 

directly with VMT. The incremental 

nature of the cost assignment process is 

one reason why costs per mile are so high 

for certain very heavy vehicles in each 

class. Cost of providing the last 

increments of bridge strength are 

assigned only to vehicles that produce the 

greatest moments, and those vehicles 

typically account for a relatively small 

amount of total travel and thus their cost 

responsibility per mile is high. 

System Enhancements 

Table V-16 shows the distribution of 

costs for safety/TSM, environmental, and 

other improvements classified as system 

enhancements in this study. Uniquely 

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 14 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014
occasioned costs including ridesharing/HOV projects, transit projects funded from Federal-aid highway 

funds, and truck-related projects have been removed and are allocated separately as discussed below. 

Approximately two-thirds of obligations in the safety/TSM improvement type are primarily for traffic 

operations and other TSM improvements, and one-third are primarily for safety. The distinction between 

these two general types of improvements is blurred, however, since traffic operations improvements 

often improve safety and safety improvements may enhance traffic operations. Traffic operations/TSM 

projects are undertaken primarily to improve highway level of service, reduce congestion, and otherwise 

improve highway system efficiency. Therefore, construction costs are allocated on the basis of PCEweighted VMT to reflect the contribution of different vehicle classes to congestion and diminished level 

of service. 

Construction costs for safety improvements also are allocated using PCE-weighted VMT. While the 

relationship between PCEs, level of service, and safety improvements is not as clear as for TSM 

improvements, large trucks contribute more to the need for certain safety improvements than do 

automobiles and light trucks, and some additional safety improvement costs may be incurred to 

accommodate the operational characteristics of heavy trucks. Other costs within this general category 

are allocated on the basis of VMT since for the most part they are not related to characteristics of the 

different vehicle classes. Table V-17 shows the allocation of safety/TSM costs among broad vehicle 

classes and weight groups in both absolute amounts and cents per mile. 

Environmental enhancement costs are allocated on 

the basis of VMT except for noise-related costs 

which are allocated among different vehicle 

classes on the basis of each vehicle classes' 

contribution to overall noise levels by highway 

functional class. Methods for estimating each 

vehicle's contribution to noise levels are described 

in Appendix E. 

Other enhancement costs represent a variety of 

improvement types that generally are unrelated to 

characteristics of the different vehicles using the highway and thus are allocated using VMT. These 

costs include highway beautification; preservation of historic buildings, transportation facilities, and 

other important features; archeological preservation and salvage; scenic highway programs; wetland 

mitigation and enhancement; protection of endangered species; hazardous waste remediation; 

environmental education; tourist information; and vehicle emission inspection and maintenance. 

Uniquely Occasioned Costs 

Three separate types of uniquely occasioned costs are 

defined based on data available from FMIS-- 

ridesharing and HOV costs; transit costs paid from 

Federal-aid highway funds; and truck-related costs.

Ridesharing programs, HOV lanes, and transit 

improvements focus on reducing congestion, 

environmental, and other costs occasioned primarily

by operations of single-occupant vehicle (SOV) 

commuters in dense metropolitan areas. For this 

reason, the costs of these improvements have been 

allocated to automobiles, pickups, and vans in 

proportion to their travel on higher-order urban 

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 15 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014
highways. Certainly all vehicles benefit to some 

degree from congestion relief in corridors where HOV and transit services are improved, whether or not

they can directly use the facilities themselves. However, the cost occasioned approach is not based on

benefits derived from improvements that are made, but on the contribution of each vehicle class to the

need for the improvements. Since the primary purpose of HOV, ridesharing, and congestion-related 

transit improvements is to improve transportation capacity through alternatives to SOVs, and to reduce

their adverse impacts of excessive travel by SOVs, costs for those improvements should be allocated to

SOVs. 

An alternative to allocating costs for HOV, ridesharing, and transit improvements just to automobiles,

pickups, and vans would be to allocate costs to all vehicle classes in proportion to their PCE-weighted 

VMT. As noted above, that allocator is used for capacity enhancements related both to adding new lanes

and to TSM projects. The difference between those types of improvements and HOV, ridesharing, and 

transit improvements is as follows: while new lanes and TSM meet general needs for new capacity and 

consider travel demand by all vehicle classes, HOV, ridesharing, and capacity-related transit provide 

relief for the effects of congestion caused primarily by SOV commuters in dense corridors. While all 

traffic in these corridors can be said to derive some benefit from the corridor-level efficiencies created 

by transit improvements, it is the SOV commuters who give rise to the need for additional capacity. 

Therefore, these users are responsible for the costs occasioned in providing this capacity--in this case, in 

the form of transit and HOV improvements. 

Uniquely occasioned truck-related costs include costs of the commercial vehicle information systems 

project; motor carrier safety assistance program development and enforcement; commercial drivers 

license development and enforcement; truck scales; and truck loading, terminal, and transfer facilities. 

Obligations in each of these areas are focused uniquely on projects to make trucking operations safer,

more efficient, and more friendly to the highway infrastructure. Costs are allocated to the various truck 

classes in proportion to their VMT. 

Other Highway Trust Fund Obligations 

Obligations discussed above are incurred as part of the Federal-aid highway program with funds being 

expended in the first instance by State or local highway agencies. There are some obligations of HTF 

monies that do not go through the Federal-aid highway program including highway improvements on 

Federal lands, contributions to the NHTSA Section 402 Program, and FHWA administrative expenses. 

These costs are not included in FMIS and must be estimated from other FHWA accounting information. 

Federal lands projects are primarily on lower-order rural highways and are allocated among vehicle 

classes in the same proportions as all other Federal obligations on lower-order rural highways. The 

FHWA administrative expenses are an overhead expense and are allocated among vehicle classes in the 

same proportion as all other Federal obligations. 

Mass Transit Account 

Obligations of funds from the MTA of the HTF are allocated in the same way that obligations for 

ridesharing, HOV lanes, and transit expenses from the HTF other than the MTA. Like these other cost 

categories, obligations from the MTA are focused on facilities and services for passengers, especially

along high-density corridors handling large volumes of commuter traffic. The transit projects are 

focused on reducing congestion and other costs associated with the large volumes of SOV traffic. Heavy

trucks may benefit from these improvements but, when possible, they try to avoid commuter routes 

during peak periods and are not the principal contributors to the need for the transit improvements. Thus, 

costs are allocated to automobiles, pickups, and vans in proportion to their travel on higher-order urban 

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 16 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014
highways. 

Summary of Federal Agency Cost Allocation 

Table V-18 and Figure V-4 summarize the allocation of Federal program costs among different broad 

vehicle classes. Passenger vehicles are responsible for all costs from the MTA, 90 percent of system 

enhancement costs, 50 percent of new capacity costs, 40 percent of system preservation costs, and 70 

percent of other costs. The overall Federal cost responsibility of automobiles, pickups, and vans is 

approximately two-thirds cent per mile of travel while the average overall cost responsibility of buses is 

about 2.5 cents per mile. 

 Single unit trucks are responsible for about 11 percent of total highway costs, ranging from about 

16 percent of system preservation costs to no 

responsibility for costs from the MTA. Their 

overall cost responsibility is 3.7 cents per mile. 

Combination trucks are responsible for 30 percent 

of total Federal highway cost responsibility. They 

are responsible for more than 40 percent of system 

preservation costs and almost 40 percent of new 

capacity costs. Single trailer combinations, on 

average, have slightly higher cost responsibilities

per mile than multi-trailer combinations. On 

average, per mile costs of both single and multitrailer combinations are almost double those of 

single unit trucks and about 10 times the costs per

mile for passenger vehicles. 

Buses 

account 

for a very small share of overall highway cost 

responsibility because of their low annual travel. 

Average per mile costs of bus travel are approximately 

2.7 cents per mile. Within these broad vehicle classes, 

there are large differences in the relative cost 

responsibility of different vehicle configurations.

Figures V-5 to V-7 show cost responsibilities per mile 

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 17 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014
for different vehicle configurations at different 

operating weights. Within single unit, single trailer, and multi-trailer truck categories, vehicles with 

more axles generally have lower costs per mile than vehicles with fewer axles. At light weights, 

differences in costs per mile are relatively small, but at weights where axle loads for particular 

configurations exceed Federal limits (20,000 pounds on single axles and 34,000 pounds on tandem 

axles), cost responsibilities per mile increase rapidly. 

Registered Weight Federal Cost Responsibilities 

Cost responsibilities discussed above reflect costs occasioned by different vehicle classes at various

operating weights. Analyzing cost responsibilities over a range of operating weights provides a clear 

picture of relationships between axle loads, GVW, and highway cost responsibility. Evaluating cost 

responsibility on an operating weight basis is inappropriate, however, for analyzing user fee equity 

because vehicles do not always travel at the same weight. Over the course of a year, part of a vehicle's 

travel typically is empty and, even when loaded, most vehicles do not always operate at the same 

weight. Cost responsibilities for travel at all weights must be used when comparing costs to user fees

paid during the year. 

Each vehicle class has a unique average operating weight distribution, and in fact separate operating 

weight distributions are estimated for different functional highway classes -- rural Interstates, all other 

rural highways, urban Interstates, and all all other urban highways -- and for different registered weights 

for each vehicle. Cost responsibilities for vehicles registered at different weights are used in the equity 

analysis and the primary basis for evaluating the rate structure of the HVUT which is based on 

registered weights. 

Table V-19 compares overall Federal 

highway cost responsibility for selected 

vehicles on an operating weight and a 

registered weight basis. Cost 

responsibilities in the heavier weight 

categories for any vehicle class are 

lower when estimated on a registered 

weight basis because a large portion of 

travel for vehicles registered at high 

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 18 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014
weights typically is at weights below 

the registered weight. This reduces the average cost responsibility per mile compared to costs per mile 

calculated just for operations at the higher weight. 

Table V-20 shows the overall Federal cost responsibility of selected vehicles classes on a registered 

weight basis. The cost responsibilities per mile are not as high as cost responsibilities on an operating 

weight basis because, as noted above, much of the travel of vehicles registered at the upper weight 

intervals for each vehicle class are at lower weights where costs are not as high. 

All Levels of Government Cost Allocation 

All levels of government cost responsibility by vehicle class is 

illustrated in Table V-21. States are allocated about half of the 

total costs of $125 billion in 2000. Federal and local 

governments have an equal share of about 25 percent of the 

total costs. By vehicle class, automobiles have been allocated 

about half of total costs ($64 billion out of $125 billion) in 

2000. As for the freight trucks, combination trucks, registered 

weighting between 75 to 80,000 pounds have been allocated 

about 15 percent of total costs ($18 billion out of $125 billion) 

in 2000. 

Allocation of External and Other Social Costs of 

Highway Use 

In Chapter III methods for estimating highway-related costs of 

air pollution, noise, congestion, crashes, and greenhouse gases 

were discussed. In this section those costs are allocated among 

different vehicle classes on the basis of characteristics of each 

vehicle class that contribute to the costs. References in this 

section can be found in Appendix E. 

Noise 

Table V-22 shows estimates of high, middle, 

and low estimates of noise costs developed for 

this study, in cents per vehile mile. Noise 

emissions and noise levels at specified 

distances from the roadway were developed 

using FHWA noise models. Cost are estimated 

as the loss in residential property value 

associated with exposure to various noise 

levels. Costs in rural areas are much lower than 

in urban areas for all vehicle classes because 

many fewer properties are exposed to 

sufficiently high noise levels to affect their 

values. It is important to note that these 

adverse effects of noise on property values 

often are more than offset by increases in 

property values associated with improved 

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 19 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014
accessibility afforded by highway 

improvements and that noise impacts on property values will vary from location to location depending 

on a number of factors unrelated to highway noise. 

Table V-22 shows the contribution of different vehicle classes to noise costs, expressed in cents per 

VMT. Combination vehicles have the highest noise costs per mile of travel followed closely by single 

units trucks and buses. Automobiles, pickups, and vans have low noise-related costs per mile, but 

because they account for the majority of travel by all vehicle classes, their contribution to total noise 

costs is substantial. 

Figure V-8 shows estimated 2000 noise costs by vehicle 

class -- combination trucks account for 37 percent of total 

noise costs; while autos, pickups, and vans, 37 percent; and 

single unit trucks account for most of the remaining noise 

costs. It is important to note that these cost estimates are 

high because they do not account for the many miles of 

noise barriers that have been constructed to protect 

properties. It should also be noted that while costs are 

expressed on a cents per mile basis, the impact on property 

values is not a cumulative cost as are other environmental 

costs. The greatest impacts would be on property owners at 

the time a new highway was constructed or a new lane was 

added that significantly increased traffic volumes and noise 

levels. Once the property has been sold, the noise impact 

will largely have been internalized in either a lower selling 

price for the property or a longer time before the property 

could be sold to persons who because of their lifestyle or other factors are not as sensitive to highway 

noise as most persons. 

Congestion 

In analyzing congestion costs, added delays to highway users associated with changes in traffic levels

are estimated. The analysis includes both recurring congestion and the added delays due to incidents 

such as crashes and disabled vehicles. Effects of incidents are estimated using data on the frequency of 

incidents, their duration, and their impacts on highway capacity for different types of facilities.

Table V-22. 2000 Marginal External Costs for Noise (cents per mile)

Rural Highways Urban Highways All Highways

High Middle Low High Middle Low High Middle Low

Automobiles 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.30 0.11 0.03 0.20 0.06 0.02

Pickups and Vans 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.27 0.10 0.03 0.17 0.06 0.02

Buses 0.35 0.13 0.04 4.55 1.72 0.48 2.79 1.06 0.30

Single Unit Trucks 0.27 0.10 0.03 3.14 1.19 0.33 1.85 0.70 0.20

Combination Trucks 0.68 0.26 0.07 9.86 3.73 1.05 4.24 1.61 0.45

All Vehicles 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.64 0.24 0.07 0.42 0.16 0.05

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 20 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014
The distinction between marginal and average costs is extremely important in considering congestion 

costs on a per vehicle mile (or per PCE mile) basis. Average congestion costs on a section of highway 

are calculated as the total congestion costs experienced by all vehicles divided by total vehicle miles. 

Marginal congestion costs are calculated as the increase in congestion costs resulting from a unit 

increase in vehicle miles. Because of the nature of the relationship between traffic levels and speed -- at 

low traffic levels, an additional vehicle mile has little or no effect on the speeds of other vehicles --

marginal congestion cost are higher than average congestion costs. 

Table V-23 shows high, middle, and low estimates of marginal external congestion costs in cents per 

vehicle mile. These costs represent added delays to other motorists associated with an additional trip. 

The costs are external to the trip maker since they are over and above the trip-maker's travel time costs, 

but they are not external to highway users as a group. Costs are estimated over a range of traffic volumes 

and vehicle mixes, and include both peak period and non-peak period conditions. The results presented 

are weighted averages, based on estimated percentages of peak and off-peak travel for different vehicle 

classes. 

Overall congestion costs per mile for trucks are approximately twice as high as costs for automobiles.

On average, congestion costs per mile are about five times greater in urban areas than in rural areas, but 

this can vary considerably depending on traffic volumes on particular highways. In urban areas truck 

costs are approximately 2.7 times those of automobiles while in rural areas their costs per mile are about 

2.9 times those of automobiles reflecting the generally higher PCEs in rural areas. Overall, single unit 

trucks have a slightly higher congestion cost per mile than combinations even though combinations have

higher per mile costs in both rural and urban areas. The reason is that a greater share of single unit truck 

travel is in urban areas where costs per mile are higher. 

Figure V-9 shows estimated 2000 congestion costs by

vehicle class. Automobiles, pickups, and vans account for 

about 85 percent of congestion costs. The effect of trucks 

on traffic flow is partially offset by their relatively low 

volumes of travel during peak periods when congestion is 

greatest. 

Crash Costs 

Table V-23. 2000 Marginal External Costs for Congestion (cents per mile)

Rural Highways Urban Highways All Highways

High Middle Low High Middle Low High Middle Low

Automobiles 3.76 1.28 0.34 18.27 6.21 1.64 13.17 4.48 1.19

Pickups and Vans 3.80 1.29 0.34 17.78 6.04 1.60 11.75 4.00 1.06

Buses 6.96 2.37 0.63 37.59 12.78 3.38 24.79 8.43 2.23

Single Unit Trucks 7.43 2.53 0.67 42.65 14.50 3.84 26.81 9.11 2.41

Combination Trucks 10.87 3.70 0.98 49.34 16.78 4.44 25.81 8.78 2.32

All Vehicles 4.40 1.50 0.40 19.72 6.71 1.78 13.81 4.70 1.24

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 21 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014
The marginal cost for highway crashes is the increase in 

crash costs resulting from a unit increase in highway travel, commonly expressed in cents per added 

vehicle mile. Marginal costs for highway crashes include costs paid by those undertaking the additional 

travel as well as costs they cause to other drivers and non-drivers. In studies of highway user taxation, 

the focus is on costs to other drivers and non-drivers, since drivers deciding whether or not to increase 

(or decrease) the amount of travel they undertake are presumed to take the added crash costs to 

themselves into account. Crash costs to other drivers and non-drivers of a unit increase in highway travel 

are referred to as marginal external crash costs. 

Marginal external crash costs were estimated as the sum of two components: 

 Crash costs that are not paid by drivers, individually or collectively, e.g., uncompensated costs to 

pedestrians struck by motor vehicles, costs of emergency medical response to highway crashes not 

covered by those injured, etc. 

 Costs (or cost savings) associated with possible variations in crash rates with traffic levels. Higher

traffic volumes might increase crash rates by increasing the number of multi-vehicle crashes. 

However, it is also possible that higher traffic volumes might reduce rates for some types of 

crashes by lowering average speeds and increasing driver awareness. 

Table V-24 shows high, middle, and low estimates of external crash costs for different vehicle classes in 

cents per vehicle mile. Appendix E contains a detailed explanation of how these crash costs were 

estimated. 

It should be noted that marginal external costs for crashes are much lower than average costs for crashes, 

since the latter includes costs to both highway users and non-users. For all highways and vehicles, the 

middle estimates of average crash costs are 18 cents per vehicle mile on rural highways, 9 cents per 

vehicle mile on urban highways, and 13 cents per vehicle mile on all highways, as compared to the 

external cost (as shown in Table V-24) of 3.09 cents per vehicle mile on rural highways, 1.26 cents/mile 

on urban highways, and 1.97 cents/mile on all highways. 

Of the five vehicle classes shown, buses have the highest crash costs per vehicle mile. However, buses

have much higher occupancy rates than other classes such that they would be lower than the other 

classes on a per passenger mile basis.

Table V-24. 2000 Marginal External Costs for Crashes (cents per mile)

Rural Highways Urban Highways All Highways

High Middle Low High Middle Low High Middle Low

Automobiles 9.68 3.15 1.76 4.03 1.28 0.78 6.02 1.94 1.13

Pickups and Vans 10.21 3.31 1.75 4.05 1.27 0.74 6.70 2.15 1.17

Buses 14.15 4.40 2.36 6.25 1.89 1.08 9.55 2.94 1.62

Single Unit Trucks 5.97 2.00 0.97 2.21 0.71 0.40 3.90 1.29 0.65

Combination Trucks 6.90 2.20 1.02 3.67 1.16 0.56 5.65 1.79 0.84

All Vehicles 9.52 3.09 1.68 3.98 1.26 0.76 6.12 1.97 1.11

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 22 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014
Responsibility for Social Costs

Table V-25 summarizes total 2000 costs of noise, congestion, and crashes allocated to major vehicle 

groups. These costs include congestion and crash costs borne by highway users and costs that users do 

not bear but impose on others. Total costs in 1994 dollars are approximately $406 billion of which 

69 percent is crash costs borne by highway users and another 14 percent is congestion costs borne by 

users. Only 12 percent of these social costs are costs that highway users impose on society and do not

bear themselves. Air pollution and global warming costs which are borne by non-users are not included 

in this total. Air pollution costs along with revised total costs will be estimated in an addendum to this 

report. Regardless of who bears the costs, their magnitude suggests that further steps to mitigate safety, 

congestion, environmental, and other adverse impacts of highway use should be explored. 

In allocating total congestion costs among vehicle classes, the product of marginal congestion costs 

and VMT was used to distribute costs. Congestion, however, is a highly non-linear phenomenon, and 

marginal congestion costs for each vehicle class shown in Table V-25 are substantially greater than 

average cost responsibility per vehicle mile which would be calculated by dividing congestion costs in

Table V-25 by VMT for each vehicle class. 

Table V-26 shows marginal costs of pavement deterioration, congestion, crashes, and noise associated 

with operations of several illustrative vehicles on typical rural and urban Interstate highways. Marginal 

pavement costs are included in this table because in estimating efficient user fee levels at which vehicles 

cover marginal costs of their travel, pavement deterioration costs must also be considered. Most other

infrastructure costs paid by highway agencies do not vary directly with the amount of travel and thus are 

not truly marginal costs of highway travel. This table illustrates the range over which marginal costs of 

highway use can vary depending on the type of vehicle and where it travels. Marginal costs for autos 

operating on rural Interstate highways are about 1.8 cents per mile (excluding air pollution and global 

warming costs) compared to about 9 cents per mile for operations in urban areas where their 

contribution to each of the various elements of marginal cost is greater on a per mile basis. Of the 

illustrative vehicles shown in Table V-26, the 80,000 pound 5-axle tractor-semitrailer operating on 

urban Interstate highways has the highest marginal cost per mile -- 65 cents per mile excluding air 

pollution and global warming costs -- over half of which is related to pavement costs. Even though 

pavements typically may be designed to higher standards in urban areas, the additional cost of 

resurfacing and rehabilitation in urban areas accounts for the higher pavement costs in urban than in 

rural areas. It must be emphasized that these costs vary from location to location and are subject to 

considerable uncertainty as was discussed above.

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 23 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014
Table V-27 illustrates the degree to which just one element of marginal cost -- congestion costs -- can 

vary on the same highway class. This table shows congestion costs on low volume (24,000 vehicles per 

day) and high volume (88,000 vehicles per day) 4-lane Interstate highways during peak and off-peak 

periods. Even on low-volume highways costs per mile during peak periods are over three times greater 

than during off-peak periods. On high volume highways marginal congestion costs are over six times 

greater during peak than off-peak times. 

References 

C.B. Breed, C. Older and W.S. Downs, A Study of 

Highway Costs and Motor Vehicle Payments in the 

United States, Association of American Railroads, 

Washington, D.C., 1993. 

FHWA, The Final Report of the Federal Highway 

Cost Allocation Study, FHWA, Washington, D.C., 

1982. 

Back to the Table of Contents

Highway Cost Responsibility Page 24 of 24

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/final/five.htm 3/28/2014