A Regional Analysis of Proposed INDOT Highway Expansion Projects

by
Aaron M. Renn
arenn@urbanophile.com

Copyright (c) 1997
Aaron M. Renn
All Rights Reserved

Version 1.1
February 1997

I. ABSTRACT

This study analyzes proposed Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) highway expansion projects by examining the amount of expenditures proposed for each region of the state in relation to:

• population
• population growth
• urban vs. rural regions
• geographic location

By comparing total planned expenditures in different regions, INDOT's spending priorities can be identified. This study found that substantial differences exist between regions. However, there is no systematic relationship between highway expansion spending and either population or population growth. Additionally, there is no urban vs. rural disparity in spending. However, this study does show that there is a geographic bias in spending in favor of Southern Indiana.

The source document used for all project information is the 1996 Directory of Proposed Highway Projects ("the Directory"). This publication is published by INDOT's Transportation Programming Section on an annual basis. The regions used are specific to this study and form logical groupings of the state's urban and rural areas. Population values are from the Indiana Business Research Center (IBRC) 1995 county population estimates and the 1990 US Census.

II. METHODOLOGY

A consistent methodology was followed throughout the study to ensure that no biases were introduced into the results. First, all INDOT proposed projects were classified based on the classification system described below. The goal of this classification system was to identify planned major capacity expansion projects (those costing in excess of $100,000). The projects identified were then assigned to various regions of the state based on the county or counties in which each project would take place. The amounts planned for each region were then totaled and compared to the population and population growth of the region to determine the per capita spending level per region. These per capita values were then summarized and analyzed and a geographic analysis performed.

Details on the study methodology are provided below.

A. Project Classification

Any project listed in the Directory costing less than $100,000 was excluded from analysis. This was to reduce the amount of projects to a manageable number. Most of the excluded projects were traffic signal and sign related. While there were many of these, they were not deemed significant for the purposes of this study. Additionally, these project categories are typically considered preservation projects and so would have been excluded from the study anyway (see below).

Only projects funded using traditional funding mechanisms were included for analysis. INDOT is allocated various funds on an annual basis from both federal and state sources. Most projects are funded out of these normally appropriated funds. However, there are additional projects which are proposed for implementation. These so called "demonstration projects" are those which are proposed for construction using specially allocated funding from Congress. An example of this type of project is the proposed I-69 extension in southwest Indiana. Only in the event of special Congressional and Presidential action (or a special appropriation from some other source, such as the Indiana General Assembly) will this project be constructed. Due to the uncertainties surrounding these projects, they were excluded from analysis. Any project which either did not have a Ready for Letting (RFL) date listed in the Directory, and/or was listed as "On Hold" was considered a demonstration project. All other projects were assumed to be proposed for construction with traditionally budgeted funds.

For each project listed in the Directory, a county and region was assigned. Each included project had a county or counties already listed in the Directory. The region was obtained from the region definition table which is shown below. For projects spanning multiple counties, the cost was divided between the counties using one of two methods. First, any project for which lengths for each county were included apportioned cost by pro-rating the total amount by the relative mileage in each county. Second, for projects which did not provide lengths, the total amount was divided evenly between all counties. If the resulting sub-costs were less than $100,000, the amounts were still included (if the total cost for the entire project was greater than $100,000 prior to the cost being apportioned per county).

Each project was also identified as either a preservation project or an expansion project. Preservation projects are those that are designed to restore or rehabilitate an existing facility. Examples are resurfacing and bridge reconstruction. These projects, though they might include some elements which improve traffic flow, are primarily designed to repair an existing road, not to make traffic flow better. Expansion projects are those which are intended primarily to improve traffic flow and/or increase capacity. Examples are adding travel lanes and new interchanges.

Since only a brief description of each project was included in the directory, it was not possible to make an ad hoc determination of whether or not a project should be considered a preservation or an expansion project. Therefore, a rigid classification system was developed using the project category included with each project listing. (Note that this is not the project type, which is also given for each listing).

The following project categories were considered preservation type projects:

• Access Control
• Bridge Rehabilitation
• Bridge Replacement
• Drainage Problem Correction
• Enhancements
• Erosion and Landslide Control
• Guardrail Improvements
• Interstate Resurfacing
• Landscaping
• Lighting, New or Modernized
• Non-Interstate Resurfacing
• Pavement Markers and Markings
• Railroad Grade Crossings
• Rest Area Modernization
• Rest Areas, New
• Road Reconstruction
• Road Replacement
• Sight Distance Correction
• Signals, New or Modernized
• Signs, New or Modernized
• Small Structure Replacements
• Weigh Station Modernization
• Weigh Stations, New

The following project categories were considered expansion type projects:

• Added Travel Lanes
• Interchange Modification
• Interchanges, New
• Intersection Improvements
• Road Construction

This division of projects into preservation and expansion categories is largely consistent with INDOT's own classification system (see "Transportation in Indiana", 5-2). The lone exception is Intersection Improvements, which INDOT classifies as a preservation activity and this study classifies as an expansion activity. As the name states, this type of project is an improvement, though typically of much smaller scope than the other expansion categories. Because these projects do improve traffic flow, this category was included under the expansion classification in this study.

As the title states, this study is primarily concerned with expansion projects. Preservation projects, though important, are not the focus of this study. In theory, all road in the state equally need to be maintained, and preservation expenditures should be driven by the stage of the life cycle of a road a region's highways are in. It is the capacity expansion projects that represent discretionary spending on the part of INDOT and indicate where that agency believes the most urgent transportation needs are.

There was one project excluded from formal analysis in this study for ad hoc reasons. That is a $300 million road construction project in Floyd County in 2006 in the I-265 extension study area. This was excluded for the following reasons:

• The major I-265 expansion project proposed for the Louisville area is a new bridge spanning the Ohio River. All proposed sites for this bridge are in Clark County, however, not Floyd. That project is already listed as several demonstration projects in the Directory. The author was unable to verify any proposed Floyd County I-265 improvements on this scale. It was believed that this listing might have been an inadvertent duplicate of the proposed Ohio River bridge listing.
• At $300 million dollars, the cost would have distorted statewide averages, negatively affecting the usefulness of comparing regions versus the statewide average.
• Excluding the project did not affect the rankings of the Louisville region. Even without the bridge project, the Louisville region far and away still ranked as the number one region for INDOT expansion spending.

B. Region Definitions

The regions used for analysis are defined in the table below.

Table 1: Region Definitions

The general approach was to divide the state into its principal urban and rural areas. The urban regions are identified by their principal city (even when that city is out of state). Rural areas are identified geographically (i.e., Rural North or Rural South). For small urban areas, the region consists of the county containing the region's main city only. For large urban areas, the region consists of the county containing the region's main city, plus all geographically contiguous counties. The exception to this rule is the Chicago region, which consists of Lake, Porter and LaPorte counties.

An important consideration in dividing the counties between regions was consistency with the division of the state into metropolitan planning areas. The metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for each planning area is an important player (perhaps the most important player) in transportation planning for that area. This goal was the main factor in the unusual definition of the Chicago region, where the area MPO covers Lake, LaPorte and Porter counties.

It should be noted that not all urban regions in this study are served by an MPO. In particular, Columbus, Marion and Richmond are not. Additionally, the regions used in this study are not the same as Census Bureau metropolitan statistical areas (MSA's). However, these regions do provide a good representation of Indiana's principal urban areas.

For rural areas, the division was into north and south. The method here was less rigid, but roughly, those counties south of Indianapolis were considered Rural South, while others were considered Rural North.

C. Population

The population values for the counties (and thus the regions) of the state are from the 1990 Census and 1995 Census estimates as reported by the Indiana Business Research Center at the Indiana University School of Business. All population commentary is either derived from the data itself or originated at the IBRC.

D. Limitations of the Source Documents

Since the results of this study are almost entirely dependent on two sources, the Directory and the IBRC population figures, any problems or deficiencies in those documents directly affect the results of this study. There are several potential limitations in the source documents that are described below. These limitations should be kept in mind while reviewing the study results.

1). Past projects are not taken into account. It may appear in the study that certain regions are being under funded when in fact those regions had several recently completed projects that, had they been included in the study, would have made the results appear much different. One example of this is the Fort Wayne region, where the state recently completed construction on the new I-469 bypass. No attempt was made to account for previously constructed expansion projects in this study.

2). Projects listed in the Directory are only proposed projects. Any number of changes might occur to a given project prior to implementation. This might include project cancellation. From one year to the next, entries in the Directory can change substantially. Two examples serve to illustrate this.

• In the 1995 edition of the Directory, one Added Travel Lanes project shows widening on US 421 from the Marion/Hamilton county line to 0.56 miles north of SR 334 occurring in 1997 at a cost of $6.97 million. The 1996 edition shows this same improvement occurring in 1999 at a cost of $13.7 million.
• The 1995 edition of the Directory lists an Interchange Modification on I-465 from 0.1 miles south of Shadeland Ave. (NB bridge) to the Fall Creek bridge occurring in 2000 at a cost of $10 million. This same improvement in the 1996 edition has a cost listed at $15 million.

Because of changes in the Directory that occur from year to year, this study represents a point in time analysis.

3). While the Directory lists projects that are proposed for implementation through the year 2006, it does not fully program each year. The Directory (and this study) should not be considered an exhaustive list of all projects that will be implemented through 2006. It only fully programs transportation improvements through about 1999.

4). The Directory does not include projects on the Indiana Toll Road. This will tend to understate the amount of expenditures proposed for the counties and regions through which that route travels.

5). The Directory may contain mistakes or misprints. This possibility is impossible to avoid in any document that is used as the basis for study.

6). INDOT most likely did not intend the Directory to be used for this type of analysis. However, it was the best document available for study.

7). The IBRC population estimates for 1995 are just that - estimates. Unlike the 1990 Census results, these are not based on actual counts. These are, however, believed to be the best population estimates available for use.

III. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

A. Data Summary

The following tables summarize the data collected during the study. For details on proposed INDOT capacity expansion projects, please refer to Appendix B, which contains a complete list of projects.

1. Population Rankings

The following table shows the 1995 population and rankings for the regions of the state.

Table 2: 1995 Region Population Totals
Source: Indiana Business Research Center 1995 County Population Estimates

2. Population Growth Rankings

The following table shows the population growth for all regions of the state between 1990 and 1995. The rankings are in order of percentage increase, though rankings for absolute increase are also given.

Table 3: Regional Population Change 1990-1995
Source: Indiana Business Research Center 1995 County Population Estimates
Note: The total of the percentages of state growth does not equal 100 due to rounding

Note that virtually all regions experienced population growth between 1990 and 1995. (The two exceptions where the small urban industrial regions of Marion and Muncie). This represented a statewide population growth average of 4.69 percent. Six regions were above this average while eleven were below it. The top six regions rank significantly higher than those below. There is a gap of 1.83 percent growth between the number six South Bend/Elkhart region and the number seven Fort Wayne region.

3. Proposed Highway Spending Rankings

The following table summarizes proposed INDOT capacity expansion spending for the various regions of the state.

Table 4: Proposed Regional Per Capita Expenditures on Highway Expansion Projects (Based on 1995 Estimated Population)
Source: INDOT 1996 Directory of Proposed Highway Projects

The range of values is quite high, ranging from a high of over $1,300 per person in the Louisville area to a low of less than $3 for the Kokomo area. Only six of the seventeen regions defined are above the statewide average. Thirteen are below. This is due to exceptionally high values for the top six regions. For example, the Louisville region total is five times the statewide average.

The following sections analyze the relationship between spending and population, population growth, urban vs. rural spending, and geographic location.

B. Expansion Spending vs. Region Population Size

The data shows no relationship between the size of a region and per capita spending. INDOT's proposed spending does not exhibit bias towards either large or small regions. Those regions above the statewide average include the large Chicago and Rural South regions, but also the small Bloomington and Terre Haute regions. Those regions below the statewide average include the large Indianapolis and Fort Wayne regions as well as the small Kokomo and Marion regions.

The following graph shows the relationship between region size and per capita spending:

(graph not available online)

C. Expansion Spending vs. Region Population Growth

The data shows no relationship between percentage population growth in a region and per capita spending. Population growth would normally be expected to be positively correlated with increased traffic and thus the need for highway expansion.[1] However, there does not appear to be a positive correlation between population growth and proposed INDOT highway expansion expenditures.

Those regions above the statewide per capita spending average include the fast growing Louisville and Rural South regions as well as the slow growing Chicago and Terre Haute regions. Those regions below the statewide average include such fast growing regions as Indianapolis and Rural North as well as such slow growing regions as Richmond and Anderson.

The following graph shows the relationship between region population growth and per capita spending:

(graph not available online)

D. Urban vs. Rural Disparity

The data shows very little disparity between proposed expenditures in urban areas vs. rural areas. One of the principally rural regions is substantially above the statewide average for proposed spending and the other is significantly below it. Various urban regions are both above and below the statewide average.

Table 5: Urban vs. Rural Spending Disparity
Note: Per capita expenditures for urban and statewide are equal because of rounding

It should be noted that there are several counties that are primarily rural which were included in urban regions because they are contiguous to the home county of one of the state's major cities. For example, rural Harrison County is considered part of the Louisville region. The urban vs. rural analysis above did not attempt to compensate for this by redesignating those counties as rural. The rural counties in this subsection include only those counties that were assigned to either the Rural North region or the Rural South region.

E. Expansion Spending vs. Geography

The data in table four shows a clear geographic bias in proposed expansion spending. The preponderance of proposed INDOT expansion spending is planned for Southern Indiana. The top five regions in per capita spending (Louisville, Bloomington, Evansville, Rural South and Terre Haute[2]) are all in Southern Indiana. The represents all of the Southern Indiana regions save one (Columbus). This record is all the more remarkable considering that an additional $300 million project was excluded from the Louisville area and the proposed I-69 extension from Evansville to Bloomington was not included because it is a demonstration project.

If Southern Indiana comprises the bulk of the regions with above average proposed spending, then Northern Indiana comprises most of those regions below average. Only the Chicago region ranked above average in proposed expansion spending. One Northern Indiana region, South Bend/Elkhart was above average in population growth, yet ranked 12th in proposed capacity expansion expenditures. The Rural North region has far less in proposed expansion expenditures than the Rural South region.

Central Indiana also fares poorly. Despite the fact that Indianapolis is the state's largest and fastest growing region (in both an absolute and percentage basis), it ranked substantially below the statewide average in per capita highway expansion expenditures. Proposed expenditures in Indianapolis total only about 57% of the statewide average.

IV. CONCLUSION

In summary, of the all examined areas, the only one that was strongly correlated with per capita spending was geographic location. There is a positive relationship between being located in Southern Indiana and proposed per capita expansion spending (implying a negative relationship between being in Northern or Central Indiana and spending). There is no relationship between the population size or population growth of a region and proposed expansion spending. There is no urban vs. rural disparity in spending.

APPENDIX A: REFERENCES

Indiana Department of Transportation (Division of Intermodal Transportation, Transportation Programming Section). 1996 Directory of Proposed Highway Projects. Indiana Department of Transportation, 1996.

Indiana Department of Transportation. Transportation in Indiana: Multimodal Plan Development for the 1990's and Beyond. Indiana Department of Transportation, 1995.

Indiana Business Research Center (Indiana University School of Business). 1995 Indiana 1995 County Population Estimates. http://www.iupui.edu/it/ibrc/Population/county95.html

APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

For additional information about this study, or for an electronic copy of the study and raw data used to prepare it, please contact the author via electronic mail at arenn@urbanophile.com. Comments and feedback are also welcome.

For copies of the original reference data sources, contact the INDOT Public Information Office or the Indiana Business Research Center at the Indiana University School of Business. As mentioned in Appendix A, the population data used in this study can be found on the Internet on the IBRC's World Wide Web page at http://www.iupui.edu/it/ibrc

APPENDIX C: PROPOSED INDOT EXPANSION PROJECTS

The following table contains a complete list of INDOT proposed highway expansion projects as listed in the 1996 Directory of Proposed Highway Projects. They are generally sorted by route number, then county. (project listing not yet available online)

ENDNOTES

[1] This statement was not intended to denigrate the role of transit solving transportation problems. However, in Indiana, transit solutions have generally been rejected in favor of highway expansion.

[2] The argument can be made that Terre Haute is not a Southern Indiana city. However, for the purposes of this study, it was considered Southern Indiana because it is south of Indianapolis.