1 / 17

VLT $0.67B

Upgrades $5.75B. Growth $1.26B. VLT $0.67B. Cheap seal @ year 7, 14 Overlay @ year 20 20-year cost: $180,000. Rehabilitation cost: $320,000. Reconstruction cost: $660,000. COMPARISON BETWEEN AACE STUDIES. EXPENDITURES. ● Maintenance and Operations. Roads Bridges. ● Safety.

jaimin
Download Presentation

VLT $0.67B

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Upgrades $5.75B Growth $1.26B VLT $0.67B

  2. Cheap seal @ year 7, 14 Overlay @ year 20 20-year cost: $180,000

  3. Rehabilitation cost: $320,000

  4. Reconstruction cost: $660,000

  5. COMPARISON BETWEEN AACE STUDIES

  6. EXPENDITURES ● Maintenance and Operations • Roads • Bridges ● Safety ● Growth • Roads • Bridges ● Upgrades

  7. 2009-2018 NEEDED EXPANDITURES BY COUNTY (Amounts Shown in Thousands)

  8. HURF AND VLT REVENUE HISTORY ($Millions) HURF: restricted to roads and bridges VLT: limited to transportation purposes

  9. HURF REVENUE PROJECTIONS ($Millions) VLT REVENUE PROJECTIONS ($Millions) The forecasted county VLT revenue for 2009 is 8 percent less than the official forecast. The decline in VLT in FY 2008 and the last few months of calendar year 2008 was greater than the decline in HURF. While VLT growth is forecasted to resume in 2010 and 2011, it is at lower growth rates than had been predicted in 2008. Finally, the growth rates predicted in the September 2008 forecasts are predicted to resume in 2012. 1 From AZDOT Arizona Highway User Revenue Fund Forecasting Process & Results FY 2009-2018, September 2008. 2 Ibid, page 6 where Net HURF is the difference between forecasted HURF and allocation for DPS/Economic Strength Program 3 19% of Net HURF 4 Calculated based on Net HURF: where 2009 is reduced by 6%compared to Net HURF; 2010 resumes growth, but at 1/2 of Official Forecast year to year growth rate; 2010 is at 3/4 of Official Forecast year to year growth rate; later years follow Official Forecast growth rate

  10. ARIZONA ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION ASPHALT PRODUCTS PRICING 2001-2009

  11. CHANGE IN VEHICLE-MILES TRAVELED ON RURAL HIGHWAYS, UNITED STATES, 2006-DECEMBER, 2008

  12. VEHICLE-MILES TRAVELED ON ALL ROADS, UNITED STATES, 1998-2008 (MOVING 12-MONTH TOTAL)

  13. Transfers from Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) and State Highway Fund (SHF) (millions of dollars) Impact of HURF/SHF Transfers FY 2009 HURF TRANSFER: $84.9B FY 2010 HURF TRANSFER: ???

  14. THE BOTTOM LINE ● Not a request for additional monies ● Recognize competing priorities for limited resources ● Demonstrated shortfall for needed maintenance ● PLEA TO MINIMIZE HURF TRANSFERS

More Related