USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Technical memorandum for Transportation : an investment in Florida's future


Material Information

Technical memorandum for Transportation : an investment in Florida's future
Physical Description:
1 online resource (ii, 13 p.) : ;
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Florida Transportation Commission
Floridians for Better Transportation
Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Transportation -- Mathematical models -- Florida   ( lcsh )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
technical report   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references (p. 12-13.).
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared by University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research.
General Note:
"June 1996."
General Note:
"Prepared for Florida Transportation Commission and Floridians for Better Transportation."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 029120407
oclc - 753577466
usfldc doi - C01-00296
usfldc handle - c1.296
System ID:

Related Items

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text


Techriical MemorariiiU:m . . . . . ror T.RANSPORTATlON: : An Investmenfin Flori d a's Futrire ' . . . . for i!Io, rida Tr)lnspq.rtatlon Com mission . . . ' .. FI oridiiins :for._Bette r Transportation by (eri(er r.Or Urban Transportation . Univeisityof.Soilth F.ioxida . :'1202 ENB 118 . :. Ta.JiP.a, FL 336ZM350 : Phone .974-5.16?' (J6ry 13rosch. . June . .


Contents 1. 0. In tr oduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 2 .0. Investments i n Transportation and Economic Development . .......... . . . . .... I 3.0. Methodolo gies ............... . . . . ....... .... . .... . .............. 2 3 .I. Input-Output Analysis .... . ....... ....... . ......... ... ........ .. 3 3.2. Product ion Function Analysis ... . ... ........ . ... ... .... . . ....... 3 3 3 Benefit-Cost Analysis . ..... . . ........................ ... ... . 4 4 0 Application of Methodologies ...... . . ....... .. ... . . ...... .. ... .... .... 5 4.1. Production Function Analysis . . . .......... ... ............. ...... 5 4 1 1 Production Function Data Assumptions and Sources .... . ....... 8 4.2. Benefit-Cost Analysis .... . ....... . ... .. .. ...... . ..... .......... 9 4.2.1. Benefit -Cost Assumptions ... ... ...... .......... . ......... 10 5.0 Principal Research Team Members ................... .. .................... 11 6.0. Bibliograp hy ....... ........ . ............. . . .... ...... . .......... 12 11


Technical Memorandum f o r TRANSPORTATION : An Inv est m ent in Florid a's Future 1.0. Introduction This memor a n dum d escri bes the methodologies used i n "TRANSPORTATION: An Investment in Florida's Futu r e." Tha t report describe s r esearch into the economic value of transportation i nfrastructure cond u c t ed by the C e n te r for Urban Transportation Research for th e Florida Transportation Commission and Floridians f or Better Transportation The next sect i on of this memorandu m dis cusses genera l issues regarding tran s portation in vestments. The thir d section describes the various methodologies that were considered for the study and th e ones that were selected. The final section describes th e appli cation of the methodologies. 2 .0. Investments in Transportation and Econ o m ic Develop ment Investments io. transportation infrastructure, whether h ighways, r ail, seap orts or airports, promote economic development by lowering tr ansportation costs. There are two initial gcoups of beneficiaries of these red uced costs: (I) i ndividual u sers who enjoy trave l t im e savings, and (2) business fmns whose go ods are more efficiently transported. But a wor d of caution is r e q uired. The c han ge s i n real income and the changes in asset values (i.e., increased property va lues that result from reductions in transportation costs) are overlapping manifestations of the same basic benefits. In some cases, inc reases in real i ncome m ay b e capitalized into a sset values. For example, the a sset valu e of r ea l property may be increase d as a result of i mproved highway access. Therefore, it is important to avoi d the trap of "double counting" by inc luding in the evaluation both the cost saving be nefits and the increases in real income and asset val ues th a t are created from the cost savings. Current rese ar ch supports the assertion that transpo rtation is a ne c essary but not sufficient condi t ion for economic development. For our ev al uation, economic development refers to the process by which the real income that individ uals derive from econorn.ic activity incre ases In tbis framework i ncreases in real income are bene fits while d ecreases a re costs Infrastruc ture i mprovements generate quantifiable b enefits only to the extent that the y lower transportati o n costs. The cost savings come in many forms including decreased travel time and operat ing costs an d reduced a ir pollutioo. an d traffic accidents. Consequently, a transportation inves tment is efficien t only if it lowers transportation costs such that the net benefits are po sitive The distribution of investment benefits may accrue to more than just tbe indi vi d uals and I


businesses who use the new infrastructure, Depending on market structure, lower transportation costs can translate into lower prices for consumer goods, higher real wages for workers, or increased profits for business firms, all of which increase real income Therefore, persons other than those wJJo use the improved infrastructure may benefit from the investment. This may be used as an argument in favor of such investments 3.0. Methodologies The economic value of public capital investments, of which transportation infrastructure is a subset is not easily or precisely measured. Current methods and models tend to measure either the benefits of only part of an investment or the benefits flo wing to only part of the benefic iaries For example, the Highway Economics Requiremen t System (HERS) model described later measures the benefits only of highway investments. The production function analysis described later measures the benefits of all transportation infrastructure investment but it measures only the benefits flowing to firms. It does not measure the benefits flowing directly t o individual users of transportation facilities One common benefit of highway i nvestments is reduced travel time The HERS model calculates the va lue of this saved time to individua l commuters and the value to businesses of reduced trucking costs, for i nstance The production function analysis calculates the increase in productiv it y tllat results from decreases in business costs, such as tmcking, and increases in productivity that result from new techniques made possible by the infrastructure investment, such as just-in-time product ion technologies Therefore, the production function analysis is a more comprehensive measure of the productivity benefits rea lized by the business community than the simple calculation of the direct user benefits using the HERS model. On the other hand, the HERS model gives a more complete picture of the total benefits real .ized by both business and non-business users of transportation facilities. It also is important to note that there is some overlap in what is measured by all of the methodologies described below. In the cases of the production function and HERS methods for example, both measure user benefits realized by businesses, while in addition each measures other benefits Consequently, tlle results achieved with one metl1odology cannot be added t o the results achieved from another methodology; otherwise, there would be some double counting. No one meth odology gives a complete picture of the value of investments in transportation infrastructure; each one looks at the question from a different perspective and gives a partial answer. One of the dangers of looking at a question from several different perspectives is that several partial answers may tend to confuse rather than enlighten the audience. Since we know that a precise measurement of the value of transportation i nvestment is not possible, our goal here is to present the magn itude of the impact of such investment while being conservative in our quantification of the benefits. Our selection of methodologies, therefore, was designed to present the most comprehensive picture of the impacts albeit incomplete and, therefore, conservative. 2


3.1. Input-O u tput Analysis Inp ut-output models often are used to mea sure the construction-pe riod impacts o f infrastructure expenditures. These b enefits include i ncreased employme n t and earnings, as construction workers are hired to build the infr astruct ure and output, a s demand for construc tion mat erials increases. An i m portant characteristic o f input-output models is the ir a b ility to measu re the i n direct as we ll as the direc t impacts of infrasuu ctu re expend i tures. F o r example, an i ncrease in the demand for steel will result in increases in demand for all the inputs to the steel industry, suc h as coal, and all th e indu str ies supplying the steel industry will experience increases i n ou tput, employm ent, and earnings that can b e measured by inpu t-outpu t mode ls. The increased earnings will b e spent on a variety of goods and services t hat have no dire c t re l ationship to tr a n sporta tion and these effects to o can be measured. A common inp u t-ou tput model used for transporta t ion impact is the Regional Inpu t Output Modeling System (RIMS ll) developed by the U S Departmen t o f Commerce. 3.2. Productio n F un ction Analysis A production function is a description of the r elations hip i n an orga n ization between its production (or output ) and its inputs (typ icall y labo r, ca pital an d land). Production f u nction analys i s as use d in this study examines how --fro m a s tatewide standpoi n t-the transportation infrastructure component of"ca p ital" has changed over t i me an d how that change has affected output, which in this c ase is total st a te output of goods and services. An imp ortan t p oint to note is that generally, when one of a firm s inputs is increased, outp ut increases. For instance, i f transportation capital is increased whi.le labor is held cons tant, o u tput will i ncr ease and lab or t h e ref o re, has b e come more produ c tive. In recent t imes, the most importan t measure o f produc tivity has been. labor productiv ity, measured as outpu t per hou r of work time. Discussio n s of labor productivity have become so frequent in our current cu l ture that "productivity" u s u ally refers to "la bo r productivity." Generall y the productivit y of a n y i nput is measured as the ra tio of u n its of output divided by the amount of the i nput used Productivity is imp ortan t because it i s the benchmark upon which the c ompensation pai d to inputs is based. Generally, w hen product i v ity goes up, thi s compen s ation tends to rise. Thus, the wages paid to labor, the profits earned b y capital, and the r ents pa i d toward land depend i n l a r ge part on prod uctivity. As capital i s increased or i mproved, the resu lting increase in labor prod ucti vity tends to exert upward press ure o n wages, profits and rents--three of the key components o f income. As income increases, so does spending, l eading to more production and more income. Increases in productivity also have a b eneficial effect on price inflation through a reduction in 3


unit l abor cost s As long as productivity rises faster iban wages, the pressure on costs and, thus, infla tion, will be downward David Aschauer [ 1 989 ] used the economic theory of productio n discussed above as his start i ng point to examine the effects o f reduced levels of appropr ia tions for publ i c works in the 1970s and 1980s. A simplified version of hi s hypothesis considers the conce ptua l and statistical influence that public sec t or capi tal mi ght have on private p r oductivity Many private industries are heav il y dependen t upon public inf rastructure as an input to their overall production process. For example, trucking firms are dependent upon the public l y funded road and stree t system along with d r ivers and trucks. If the concepts disc ussed above apply to the labor p rivate capital, and pu blic infrastru c tur e u s ed by truckers, then an increase in the q u ality and quantity of public roads and streets would tend to raise trucking pro d uctiv ity Conversely a decrease in the q ual ity and quantity of public roads and streets woul d tend to lower p r oductivity. A more efficie n t trucking industry would have some combinati on of higher profits lower costs and, in some cases, potent i ally lower freight rates. The product ivity gains of trucking would rapid l y sp re ad throughou t the economy, accruing to shareholders an d customers fJ.rst, and later t o the customers of customers and so on until the effects sp read throughout the nationa l economy. 3.3. Benefit-Cost Analysis A traditional method used to measure the economi c contri b ution of transportatio n investments is the use o f benefit-cost analysis. This approach is ty pically used to compare the discounted economic benefits to the discounted economic costs of proposed transportati on investments. If the comparison s hows b enefits in excess of costs, then the project is deemed desirable The user benefits of a proposed transportation investment typically consist of time savings, vehic l e operating cost savings, and accident cost savings. Stylized modeling techniques are applied to determine the travel time, operating cos ts, and accident costs of a no-build or base case relati ve to the state o f affairs tbat would prevail if the project was actually built. Benefit -cost analysis may be use d to measure the economic impacts of transportation inve stments in a number of ways. Ord inarily, prospective project assessment methods !bat gauge the desirability of projects may be applied directly to a predefine d set of proposed projects. Al t ernativ ely retrospective analysis may be conducted by evaluatin g the effects of excluding exist ing infrastructure impro vements that have already been mad e to the netw ork. Benefit-cost analysis is widely accepted and well understood Although i t is heavily depende n t upon the assumptions regarding the va l ue of time, the value of th. e discou nt rate, and the presumed va lue of a human life such analysis can provide compelling ev idence of tbe impact of the transportat ion system on citizen's lives In the a bsence of local area data suffic iently ric h to d emonstrate the linkage between transportation investments and e conomic well being, benefit cost analysis can be interpreted as an estimate of the value-in use of the transportation system. As such, it is an intermedia t e step between transportatio n expenditure s and ulti mate macroeconom i c impact. The most serious limitati o n on the use of benefit-cost analysis to gauge the effects of 4


transportation investments upon the Florida economy is the lack of data and concise analytical techniques for assessing non-highway modes, such as aviation, intercity rail, and seaports. Consequently, the user benefits calculated in this study are for highway investments only 4 .0. Application of Methodologies Because of the danger discussed earlier of u sing too many methods to describe a particula r phenomenon, such as the economic return o n a transportation i nvestment, it was decided to limit the quantitative part of the study to the analysis of productivity benefit s and user benefits. Benefit cost analysis using the HERS model to ca l culate user benefits gives perhaps the most comprehensive picture of the long-term benefits of investments in transportation infrastructure. The productivity benefits calcul ated using production function analysis duplicate to some extent user benefits but they help expl ain tlte impact of transportation investments on the business community. Other benefits coul d be presented, such as construction-period benefits ca l cu lated using the RIMS II input-output model, but it was felt that additional numbers would be more confusing than enlightening. In addition to the quantitative analyses conducted, case studies were developed to provide a q u alita t ive fee l for the im pacts o f transportation investments. Relevant details of the production function and benefit-cost analyses are presented b elow. 4.1. Production Function Analysis Several methods were used to estimate the relationship between public capital stock and the productivity of private capital in Florida using the following equation model: GSP,IKP, = a.+ a,L, I KP, +a, KG, /KP, +a,CU,+e, where GSP,IKP, is the logarithm of the ratio of gross state product in year t and private capital stock in year t; L,IKP, is the logarithm of the ratio of private sector labor in year t and private capital stock in year t ; KG,IKP, is the logarithm of the ratio of public and private capital stocks in year t; and CU, is the logarith m of the capacity utilization rate in y e ar t. The dependent variable GSP ,IKP, can be interpreted as the amount of private sec t or goods and services that can be obtained from the current stock of private plant and equipment. This is a proxy for private sector productivity. Economic theory that the productivity of private capital should be positively related to the following variabl es: the amou n t of labor serv ice s per unit of private capital supplied by households; the amount of public capital per unit of private capital made available to the firm; the capacity utilization rate during times of economic prosperity (the relationship should be negative during economic downturns ) 5


The highest and lowest estimated impacts using the above equation are shown in the tables below : "High" Regression Results for Output per Unit of Private tal in Florida Overall F 3622.91 R' = 0.998 Ordinary Least Squares Explanatory Variabl e Coefficient Standard Error TStatistic Con stan t 9.06542 0 867550 10.4495 Labor I Private Capital 0.871515 0 080!82 10.8692 Capacity Utilization Ra te "Low" Regression for Output per Unit of Private Capital in Flor ida Overall F = 238.241 R2= 0 982 Cochrane-Orcutt Technique Explanatory Variable Coefficient Standard Err or T Statistic Rho (autoregressive parameter) 0 .806110 0.158156 5.09694 Constant 10. 2997 0.670390 15.3637 Labor I Private Cap ital 0 998862 0 068404 14.6023 Capacity Utili zation Rate 0.005305 0 034024 0.155930 The shaded ro'W'S in each of the tables measure the direct relationship between public capital stock and the productivity of private capital. The "High" table shows a strong statis t ically s ignificant relationship between infrastructure and the productivity of private plant and equipment; tb.e "Low" table s h ows a weak, insignificant ( not diffe rent from zero) relationship. Other methods produced coefficients with values and s i g n ificance leve l s scatt ered between the two ex tremes given above The estimated effect reported in the Hi gh" table suggests that a one percent increas e i n publ ic capital may increase private capital productivity and gross state product by as much as 0 27 percent, holding all other independent variables in the model constant At the opposite the "Low" table suggests that the impact on private capital productivity and output may be as low as 0 .09 percent -essentially zero. The midpoint between 0.27 and zero (a bit more extreme 6


than the "Low" table value) is about 0 1 35 Inter estingly, this value is consistent with the averag e value reported in p revious state l evel studies, about 0.1 4 a s shown bel ow. Researcher(s): Coefficient M oomaw and Williams (I 991) 0 .25 Co sta Elison, and Martin [1987 ) 0.20 Munnell [ 1990b ) 0.15 Munnell [ !990b] 0.06 Garcia-M il a and McGuire [1 993] 0.04 The results r e ported above deal with percentage changes onl y (i.e elas ti cities). A fmal measure of the "bottom line" is th e do llar-fo r -d ollar impact of public infrastructur e on gross state product--the totality of econ omi c a ctivity carr ied on within the state of F lori da. That is the actual r e turn on investments in infrastructure is dep e ndent on the total d o ll ars invested a n d the state's total outp ut, as shoWJl in tbe calculatio ns bel ow. These calc ul ations apply th e elasticity of 0.14 to Florida s total in vestment in pu blic c a pital and total outpu t to determine bow much that output will in crease for each additional dolla r invested in infrastruc ture. A t the m i d poin t value of0.14, the fo llowing rel ationship is true w h e.n all other variables are held constant: P ercentage C hange in Output 0.14 Percentage Change in Pu bli c Capital This may be rewritten a s : (Change in Output )/Output = 0 1 4 ( Ch ange in Public Capital)IPublic Cap i tal and as: Chang e in Output = O u tp u t x 0 .1 4 x Change in Public Capital Public Capital Statistically derived resul ts are usually conv e rted at the average values of observable variables Su bstitu tion of the 1 969-89 s ample averages for gross state pro d uct and public cap ital yields: 7


Change in Ou t p ut= ( $101,482 millio n I $44,686 million) x 0 1 4 >

deprec i ation A similar procedur e was used to construct the public stock series Data on the annual value of public and private investment were obtained from Dodge data adjusted by the Execut ive Office of the Governor Revenue and Economic Analysis Unit. Capacity Utilization Data Capacity utilization data were obtained from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Federal Reserve Bulletin FR -1. 3 4.2. Benefit-Cost Analysis The latest model available for the calculat i on of highway user benefits is th e Highway Economic Requirements System (HERS) developed for the Federal Highway Administration. HERS i s an analytical software system that performs highway needs analyses. Measurement of needs is based upon current highway system condition and estimated costs and benefits of candidate impr o vement projects. The system may be used t o determine costs, benefits, and some of the economic impacts of competing highway improvement policies. HERS may be run at the national or state level to develop dollar estimates of pavement, capacity, and alignment impro vement needs as a part of a long-range planning process. HERS can estimate either th e benefits derived from a given level of highway funding or the funding required to achieve specific highw a y system performance targets. The system includes three types of user benefit s (trave l time, operating costs, and accident costs) and two ty pes of agency benefits (maintenance costs and the salvage value of improv e ments). HERS allows users to incorporate constraints on the allowable highway system conditions and to specify an objective for each analytic scenario. HERS uses the Highway Perfonnance Monitoring System (HPMS) database as the starting poin t for all analyses. HERS and HPMS use "sample sections," which represent a large num ber of actual highway sections. HERS estimates of costs and benefits are obtained by analyzing individual sru.nple sections and multiplying the results by the appr op riate expans ion facto r (i.e., 1.0/Sampliog Rate). HERS starts with the base-year highway system conditions in the HPMS data, forecasts changes to the system, and analyzes potential improvements for each of the funding periods that comprise the planning horizon HERS calculates changes in traffic volume and pavement condition, ide ntifies and evaluates potential improvements to be made, selects those improvements that best meet the u ser-s p ec ifi e d objectives, and simulates the implementation of these improvements. If funds are available, appropriate improvements are made to eliminate unacceptab l e conditions. Additional improvements to correct l ess-pressing deficiencies are then selected on the basis of benefit cost analysis until available funds are consumed or highway system perfonnance targets have been met. HERS produces an extensive variety of statistical reports for each run. These statistics describe changes in highway system performance, improvements selected by the system, and the oosts and benefits of these improvements 9


. The calculation of user benefits using the HERS model is a straight-forward matter of entering va l ues for the variables in the model and then running the model. Based on an investment level that would maintain the current highway conditions for the next 20 years, tbe model indicates that each dollar inves ted would result in an increase in user benefits o f $2 86 Th i s includes travel time savings of $1.49, vehicle operating cost savings of $.83 and accident cost savings of $ 54. The assumpt i ons and values used in the model are outl i ne d below. 4 2 .1. Benefit-Cost Assumptions The average hourly va l ues of time by vehicle type used in the HERS model are the USD O T rather than FDOT defau l t val ues because they provide a more complete list of valu es for the HERS model. They differ somewhat f rom FDOT' s values b u t are genera ll y comparable: HERS FOOT Vehicle Typ e $9.59 $NA. Small Autos 9 59 N A Medium A uto s N.A. 1 1.12 All Autos 10.87 N.A. 4-Tire Tmcks 2 0.42 N A 2-Axle, 6-Tire Trucks N.A 13.53 Pick-up Trucks 23.34 16 .13 3+-Axle Single-Unit T mcks 25.94 20.13 3-and 4-Axle 26. 09 22.35 5 + -Axle Combinati ons The va lue of time was updat e d to 1992 dollars with the U S Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index The 1988 to 1992 update factor u sed was 1.193. The cost values for fuel vehicle depreciation, and vehicle maintenance used in the HERS calculations are bas ed on 1988 pric e s Operating cost chara c teris tics are based on statistical mode l s developed by FHW A b ased on the 1982 vehicle fleet. Vehicle opera ting cost figures were updated to 1992 dollars through the use of U.S. Departmen t of Commerce price indices for Consumer Expenditures on Motor Vehicles and Parts, Fuel, and Transportation Services The 1988 dollar values of acc idents (the p r eferred term is crashes") by type were obtained from FHW A: $2, 723,000 for fatal crashes $229,000 for incapacita t ing injury cras hes $48,000 for non-incapacitating injury crashes $4,500 for property damage only crashes The dollar values of crashes were updated to 1992 dollars with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index. 10


. The discount rate used in the analysi s was s even percent pe r year FDOT currently uses the seven percent rate for its analysis activities. The rate is slightly inconsistent with FHW A 's acci den t costs, which were calculated with a four percent rate Nationwide construction costs, adjusted for state differentials, were used to measure i mprovemen t costs rather than FOOT-specific costs due to a lack of uniformity between improvements tracked by the HER S model and those tabulate d by FDOT. In addition, FDOT has no embedded estimate of right-of-way cost in its analytical estimates, but HERS does 5.0. Principal Research Team Members CUTR assembled a team of experienced transportation economists t o undertake this srudy. The team included CUTR' s experts in economic impact srudies and nationally prominent eco nomists from other research organizations. The team members from the research firms of Hickling Lewis B roa d Inc and Apogee Rese ar ch, Inc., are especially versed in the relationship between transportation investments and business productivity They have published numero us articles on the subjec t and have performed studies for such clients as the American Association of State Highway and Tra nspo rtation Officials, Army Corp of Engineers, Federal Highway Administration, F ederaJ Transit Administration, and Transportation Research Board Center for lliban Transportation F. Ron J one s, Ph D., Urban Planning and Econom.ics RichardT. Stas.iak, Ph.D., Economics Diane Shannon, MS, Economics Laura LaChance, .MS, Economics Hickling Lewis Broad Inc, David Lewis, Ph.D. Economics Apoiee Research. Inc, Richard R Mudge, Ph.D., Economics Porter K. Wheeler, Ph.D., Economics 11


6.0. Bibliography Aschauer, David Alan, Elmer W. Campbell Professor of Economics, Bates College, Eco nomic Impact oflllinois Tollway lmproveinents on the Regional Economy, Illinois State Toll H ighwa y Autboricy, November 1990. Aschauer David Alan, Public Investment and Privat e Sector Growth: The Economic Benefits of Reducing America's "Third Deficit," Economic Policy Institute, 1990. Ascbauer, David A lan, Transportation Spending and Economic Growth: The Effects of Transit and Highway Expenditures, American. Public Transit Associat i on September 1991. Costa, Jose de Silva ; Elison, Richard W ; and Martin, Randolph C.; Public Capital, Regional Output, and Development: Some Empirical Eviden c e Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 27, No.3, 1987. Exp!CJring the Application of Benefit/Cost Methodologies to Transportation Infrastructure Decisionmaking, Department of Transportation Transportation Research Board, American Soc iety o f Civil Engineers, Tampa, FL, May 14, 1995. Hornbeck, John F., Economic Analyst, CRS Report for Congress: Transportation ln.frastntchtre and Economic Development, Economics Division, Congressional Research Service, L i brary of Congress, February 10, !989. Garcia-Mila, Teresa, and McGuire, Therese, The Contribution of Publicly-Provided lnpuLY to States' Economics, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 1993. Going and Growing: An Overview of the Relationship Between Transportation an d Growth in America, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, December 1990. Gramlich Edward M., The University of Michigan, Infrastructure Investment: A Review Essay, Journa l of Economic Li t erature Vol. XXXIT, Sept ember 1994. Hickling Lewis Brod Inc Federal Highway Administration, Office of Policy, Recent Research and Economic Growth, Prepared for the Searching for Solutions" Policy Discussion Series, January II, 1995. Keeler, Theodore E University of California, Berkeley, CA; and Ying, JohnS., University of Delaware, Newark, DE; Measuring the Benefits of a Large Public Investment Journal of Public Economics 36 (1988) pp. 69-85. North Holland Lewis, David, Hickling Corporation, Silver Spring, MD, Primer on Transportation Productivity and Economic Development, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 342, Transportation Research Board, September 199t. 1 2


Louis Berger International, Inc., T ransportation Investment and Economic Expansion: Case Studies, Volume I, National Cooper a t ive Highway Research Pro gram, Transportat ion Research Board, Natio n a l Research Council, Washington, D.C., May 1994. Mooman, R and W ill iams, M., Total Factor P roducti vity in Manufacturing: Further Evidence from the States, Jou na l of Regional Science, 3 1:17 -34, 1991. Mudge Richard, Ph.D., and Aschauer David Allan, Ph.D. ; A pogee Research, Inc., Enhanc ing U.S. Competitiveness Through Highway Investment: A Strategy For Economic Growth, The American Road and Transp o rt a tion Builders Association, June 1990 Mudg e, Richard R., Apog ee Research Inc., Statement of Principles a n d Guidelines: Improving the Quality of Infrastructure Invest ments, for Advi sory Commission on I n tergovernmental Relations Munnell, Alicia H., Why Has Productivity Growth Declined? Prochtctivity and Pu/Jlic Investment, New Eng land Economic Review, January/Fe b ruary 1990a Munnell, Alicia H. How Does Public Infrastructure Investment Affect Regional Economic PeTformance?, New England Economic R eview November 1 990b. Nad iri M. Ishaq, and Mamuneas, Theofanis P.; Highway Capital and Productivity Analysis at Disaggregated Inchtsfly Level, Preliminary Results, Deparrment o f Economics, New Yor k Uni versity, January 1994. Perera Max H., Framework for Classifying and Evaluating Economic Imp acts Caused by a Transportation Improvement, Tr a nsportatio n Researc h Board Record 1274. Searching for Solutions A Poli c y Discussion Series, Number 4, Assessing the Relationship Between Transportation I nfr astructure and Productivity, Summa1y of Current R esearch: Part of a Highways and Economic Productivity Agenda, Sponsored by the Office of Policy Development, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D .C., A ugust 1992. Stephanedes, Yorgos J., Transportation and Economic Development, Final Repo rt, Vo l ume II, Deparrment o f Civil and Miner a l En gineer ing, U niversit y of Minnesota May 1989. U.S. Deparrment o f Commerce Barbara Hackman Franklin Secretary; E co nomics and S t atistics Administration, Mark K. Plant, Under Secretary for E conomic Affairs a n d Administrator, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Carol S Carson, Director, Allan H Young Acting Deputy Director Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional Input-Output Modeling S ystems (RIMS II), Second Edition, U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1992. 13

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200373Ka 4500
controlfield tag 001 029120407
005 20110919181205.0
006 m o d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110919s1996 flu gobt 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00296
0 245
Technical memorandum for Transportation : an investment in Florida's future
h [electronic resource] /
prepared by University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Tampa, Fla. :
b Center for Urban Transportation Research,
1 online resource (ii, 13 p.)
"June 1996."
"Prepared for Florida Transportation Commission and Floridians for Better Transportation."
Includes bibliographical references (p. 12-13.).
"This memorandum describes the methodologies used in Transportation : an investment in Florida's future"--P. 1.
Description based on print version record.
z Florida
x Mathematical models.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Florida Transportation Commission.
Floridians for Better Transportation.
1 776
i Print version:
t Technical memorandum for Transportation : an investment in Florida's future.
d Tampa, Fla. : Center for Urban Transportation Research, 1996
w (OCoLC)41226497
Transportation : an investment in Florida's future
Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856