Highway Operations Spending as a Catalyst for Job Growth (Page 5 of 5)

Appendix A. Examples of Highway Operations by Type

Administration and Research

Administration: Administration of highway programs by federal, state and local highway agencies such as the Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and their corresponding state and local level agencies. Examples of operations expenditure for these agencies include salaries and benefits of employees; office expenses such as supplies, rent, communication, travel, insurance, utilities and miscellaneous expenses; and contractual services and supplies; etc.

Research and Planning: Highway planning, staff training, research and development, and investigation, including laboratory and field research in road and bridge materials and design, traffic research, and technical and financial studies, etc.

Highway and Traffic Services

Traffic control operations: These include operations of intelligent and other traffic control and surveillance systems that are designed to monitor and control traffic by managing vehicle flow on streets and highways. These systems consist of traffic signal control; freeway, tunnel and bridge surveillance and control; electronic message boards; video monitoring; traffic information radio stations; motorist aid; and toll-free drawbridges, tunnels and ferries; etc.

Snow and ice removal: Removal of snow and ice from roadway, roadside, and shoulders; sanding and chemical applications; erection and removal of snow fences; and opening of inlets clogged with snow and ice, etc.

Other services: Highway beautification; junkyard control and roadside cleaning operations; control of outdoor advertising; litter pickup, mowing, and tree trimming; air quality monitoring; vegetation management; and erosion control programs; etc.

Highway Law Enforcement and Safety

Traffic supervision: This covers highway patrol activities providing traffic supervision: enforcement of traffic laws, supervision and direction of traffic, accident investigation, and incidental service functions, etc.

Highway traffic and driver safety: These include safety programs and similar activities related to the promotion of highway safety and traffic accident prevention, whether conducted by the state or local highway agency, the highway patrol, a traffic safety commission or other state agency. These also include such activities as driver education and driver awareness, motorcycle safety, drunk or impaired driving, accident reduction, and emergency medical services for highway accident victims, etc.

Vehicle inspection: Inspecting vehicles, operating inspection stations, and other activities related to periodic motor vehicle inspections programs; motor vehicle emissions inspection; and motor carrier safety inspection; etc.

Vehicle size and weight enforcement: Operating truck-weighing stations, operating other devices involved in the enforcement of vehicle, and equipment and size and weight limitations on highways, etc.

Appendix B. Comprehensive Regional IO Models

Among the widely used comprehensive regional IO models are the BEA RIMS II multipliers (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1992a), the Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. (MIG) IMPLAN Pro model (Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG) Inc., 1999), the Regional Science Research Corporation (RSRC) PC I-O model (Regional Science Research Corporation, 1996), and the Regional Economic Models, Inc. REMI Policy Insight model (Treyz, Rickman, and Shao, 1992). IO models are often used for both the assessment of an existing highway system (Babcock and Bratsberg, 1997; Keane, 1996a; Politano and Roadifer, 1989; RESI, 1998; Stokes, Pinnoi, and Washington, 1991; and Texas Department of Transportation, 1998) and the analysis of proposed projects (Burgess and Niple Ltd, 1998; Liew and Liew, 1984; Stokes, Pinnoi, and Washington, 1991; Wilbur Smith Associates, 1995; Texas Transportation Institute, 1991; Thompson et al., 1997; and University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 1991, 1999). They are also used by the FHWA in highway investment impact analysis (Keane, 1996b; BUCTS and Battelle, 2001).

Appendix C. Spending Structure of Snow and Ice Removal

The analysis of the spending structure of snow and ice removal is based on the data from the report on anti-icing technology (U.S. Federal Highway Administration, 1998), which provides data on spending on snow and ice removal for five of the 15 participating states in the test and evaluation of anti-icing technology. The five states are California, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, and Wisconsin. Three types of information in the report are useful to our analysis: spending on labor, equipment, materials, and total costs in snow and ice removal; information on prices of some inputs; and information on total amount of materials and volume ratios of chemicals to abrasives in materials.

The data are available for both test and control sections of highways. The major difference between test and control sections is in the materials used during the tests. New materials were used in test sections but conventional ones such as salt and sand or other abrasives were used in control sections. Online research shows that the use of conventional technology is still a normal practice in snow and ice removal. For example, both Virginia and Montgomery County of Maryland are still using a salt/sand mix in snow and ice removal. Therefore, the data on control sections are used in our analysis because they are based on conventional technology in snow and ice removal.

Procedures of the Analysis

First, spending patterns in labor, equipment and materials across five states are calculated based on the data in Tables 59-63 of the 1998 U.S. Federal Highway Administration report. Due to the differences in the number of observations across the five states, state averages for each category are calculated and then summed by category. The average percentages of spending on labor, equipment and materials are then calculated (Table 1).

To be consistent with the data for California, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Nevada, data on materials in New York were adjusted to eliminate the cost for clean up (see discussion below). Nevada has data with and without clean-up cost.

Second, spending on materials is separated into two categories: salt and abrasives (Table 2). Third, a spending structure of snow and ice removal was obtained with four categories: labor, equipment, salt, and abrasives (Table 3).

Table 1. Average Spending Structure of Snow and Ice Removal with Three Categories

	California Average	Nevada Average	New Hampshire Average	New York Average	Wisconsin Average	Total	%
Labor	$127.79	$221.31	$70.52	$2,044.51	$161.65	$2,625.78	56.70%
Equipment	$59.57	$151.90	$59.88	$426.51	$136.60	$834.47	18.02%
Materials	$60.74	$347.08	$96.23	$609.05	$57.41	$1,170.51	25.28%
Total	$248.11	$720.30	$226.63	$3,080.08	$355.66	$4,630.77	100.00%

Table 2. Average Structure of Spending on Materials

	California Average	Nevada Average	New Hampshire Average	New York Average	Wisconsin Average	Total	%
Salt	$27.94	$241.12	$89.86	$572.32	$57.41	$988.66	84.47%
Abrasives	$32.80	$105.96	$6.37	$36.64	$0.00	$181.77	15.53%
Total	$60.74	$347.08	$96.23	$608.96	$57.41	$1,170.43	100.00%

Table 3. Average Spending Structure of Snow and Ice Removal

	Average	Average
Labor	56.70%	56.70%
Equipment	18.02%	18.02%
Materials	25.28%
Salt		21.35%
Abrasives		3.93%
Total	100.00%	100.00%

Spending on Materials

Materials used in snow and ice removal include two major categories: salt (different types) and abrasives (sand or cinders). The amount and price of and spending on each category is provided in Tables 59-63 in the 1998 U.S. Federal Highway Administration report. According to the ratio of salt/sand ratios for each state (Table 2), spending on materials is separated into two sub-categories: salt and abrasives.

Four of the five states have data on spending on materials that do not include clean-up cost. New York's spending on materials, however, does include clean-up cost. The costs for salt and sand is calculated based on the ratio of salt to sand and the price information for salt and sand.[10] Then, the sum of costs for salt and sand is deducted from total spending on materials. The remainder is the cost for cleanup of sand. In order to be comparable across state, the cleanup cost is deducted from the spending for materials and from the total spending for snow and ice removal. The final data for the five states does not include clean-up costs, and they are comparable in terms of the composition of spending.

In the case of Nevada, there is no price information for salt or sand. The price for salt in California ($55.00/t) is used to separate spending on salt from total spending on materials.

previous