* * * HE 196..F78 199; C.2

Transcription

1 * * * * * * o e*' * * HE 196..F78 199; C.2

2

3 AN ANALYSIS OF THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION COSTS OF A RURAL AGRICULTURAL AREA Our topic tody is n nlysis of the public nd privte trnsporttion costs of rurl griculturl re. This reserch ws sponsored by the Center for Trnsporttion Studies, the Agriculturl Extension Service, nd Agriculturl Experiment Sttion ll t the University of Minnesot. It ws one of the projects originlly funded by the Exxon Overchrge Fund. The objective of this study ws to develop computer simultion model to determine the types nd mounts of trnsporttion costs in rurl griculturl re under the conditions existing in Then different ssumptions bout the rod infrstructure could be mde nd corresponding chnges mde to the model. The simultion model would be rerun for ech set of ssumptions nd the results nlyzed to determine how the different costs chnge with different infrstructures. This unique pproch considers both the public costs such s the mintennce nd construction costs pid by tx pyers nd user fees nd the privte costs, which re the costs incurred by individuls nd firms operting vehicles over the rod systems s they trvel or move goods. We were lso trying to develop tool for use by trnsporttion plnners nd prctitioners who re wrestling with these problems of the rurl rod infrstructure. We used the TRANPLAN softwre tht ws furnished to us by the Urbn Anlysis Group of Dnville, Cliforni. This softwre is normlly used in trnsit routing nd freewy plnning but is flexible enough to be used for purposes like ours.

4 2 Wht do we men when we tlk bout different types of rurl rod infrstructures? We men chnges in the rod system tht would be of interest to prctitioners like county engineers, county bords nd township supervisors. The most populr chnge is incresing the miles of hrd surfce rods. We lso considered bndoning or reducing mintennce on the low volume rods in rurl res. We looked t bridges nd considered improving some of them or bndoning some of them. We lso looked t combintions of improvements nd bndonments tht would potentilly improve the cost effectiveness of the system. The re tht we modelled nd simulted is rurl re in NW Polk County Minnesot in the Red River Vlley. It ws selected with the ssistnce of the Minnesot Assocition of County Engineers. Mike Rerdon, the Polk County Engineer, volunteered to ssist us nd put lot of time nd effort into the project. We were ssisted, s well, by numerous people from the re. The exct re under study ws the NW 1/3 of Polk County (which is lmost s lrge s smll county). It contins bout 58 sq. mi. It is definitely rurl re. The lrgest town is Est Grnd Forks with popultion of 8,5. It hs nerly complete one squre mile grid network of rods tht re primrily township or county rods with few stte nd federl rods. The western third of the re is the flood plin of the Red River Vlley. Frmers there rise sugr beets nd pottoes nd engge in very highly intensive griculture. There re two to three frms or residences per squre mile on

5 3 verge. The center third of the re hs less intensive griculture, but still rises some sugr beets nd pottoes but proportiontely more whet nd smll grins. There re one to two households per sq. mi. On the est side, there is lot of CRP or Conservtion Reserve Progrm lnd. It is more suited for smll grins then intensive griculture. There is less thn one fmily dwelling unit per sq. mi. There re two mjor federl rods, U.S. 2 going into E. Grnd Forks in the southwest corner of the re, nd then Highwy 75 which bisects the re in north-south direction. There is lso north-south stte highwy ner the Red River. Wht types of trnsporttion re importnt to rurl re like this? Ag mrketing trffic is importnt. To estimte the g mrketing trffic for ech crop, we went to the ASCS office, got the crege plnted to ech crop in ech township, got the township verge yield for ech crop, nd computed the mount of ech crop grown in the township. We divided the township production by the number of sections per township nd figured out how mny truck lods (by type of vehicle) would be required for ech section to move tht crop to mrket. For modeling purposes, we ssumed tht ll trucklods of g commodities in section would enter the rod system t the southwest corner of the section. To determine the number of utomobile trips by residents of the re, we used secondry dt from n Iow Stte University study done in the mid 8's. Tht study interviewed over 2 households in 3 rurl loctions in Iow. They found tht the verge number of trips per household for ll purposes, ws 2.13

6 4 round trips per dy. This includes business trips, commuting trips, grocery trips, childcre trips, etc. We interviewed people in the NW Polk County to determine trffic ptterns nd ssigned 2.13 trips per frm or dwelling to 3 or 4 destintion loctions depending on trffic ptterns determined from interviews. The third type of trffic ws overhed trffic. Overhed trffic is trffic tht is going through but not to or from ny plce in tht 58 sq. mi. re. We bsed overhed trffic trips on the Minnesot Deprtment of Trnsporttion verge dily trffic (ADT) count, MNDOT periodiclly tkes trffic count on ll county nd stte rods. We subtrcted the locl nd griculturl trffic we computed from the ADT on ech rod. We ssumed the reminder ws overhed nd proceeded to run our model with tht number of overhed trips for ech set of ssumptions. Wht does the rod network look like in terms of surfce type nd politicl jurisdiction? Tble 1 shows the bseline (1989) number of miles for ech ctegory. Type of surfce is cross the top, nd politicl jurisdiction on the side. Notice tht there re 1135 totl miles. Tht mtrix structure of Tble 1 ws lso used to keep trck of costs nd to mke comprisons between ssumed infrstructures. Similr tbles were mde for vehicle opertion costs, miles trvelled, fuel used, etc. This pie chrt gives quick look t the network. 65% of the network is grvel, 7.5% bituminous, 7.1% concrete, nd 2.3% dirt bsed. 73.5% under township or county jurisdiction, 21% re County Stte Aid Highwys (CSAH), 2.4% re stte, nd 3.1% re U.S. highwys.

7 5 Our first computer runs were to compute bseline vehicle trvel costs for the rod network s it existed in 1989 by trip purpose. Wht did it cost people trvelling loclly in tht re in 1989 mking 2.13 trips per dy to vrious destintions. This includes vehicle operting costs--fuel, oil, mintennce nd other types of vrible costs ssocited with operting vehicles on different surfces. We did not include deprecition, insurnce or license fees. There re no driver costs included in the bseline costs for locl pssenger trffic or overhed trffic. Agriculturl trvel hd driver costs included t $8.4 for frm lbor or $12.6/hr for commercil trffic. But for locl pssenger trvel there were no driver costs, either wges or opportunity costs included in the bseline. Notice tht the totl costs were $1.438 million. This would be the vehicle operting costs (VOC) of people living in tht re nd mking n verge 2.13 pssenger round trips per household per dy in Notice tht lthough only 7.1% of the rods re concrete, 47.5% of the cost occurred on concrete. 65% of the rods re grvel, but only 32.8% of the cost occurred on grvel. The CSAH system is 21% of the rod network, but 36.5% of the cost occurred there. 73% of the rods re township rods, but only 21% of the cost occurred there. Locl pssenger trips VOC mounted to totl of $1,438,1. Here is picture of g mrketing costs. This includes the VOC for ll mjor crops from the frms to locl elevtors or processors. Remember, for the locl pssenger trffic the totl cost ws bout $1.4 million. The g mrketing VOC in

8 sugr beet nd potto re ws $762,4 or only bout hlf of the pssenger 6 vehicle operting costs. Much of the cost occurred on concrete nd bituminous rods. The CSAH ccounted for 51% of the g mrketing VOC but includes only 21% of the rods. Township rods ccounted for 22% of the vehicle costs but hd 73% of the totl milege. Overhed trffic VOC in tht re without ny driver costs--mounted to over $5.5 million. Of course the mount of overhed trffic will vry depending on loction nd trffic pttern. Much of the overhed trffic ws not on the stte nd federl system. Much of it ws on CSAH rods going est nd west through the region. Our simultion indicted tht totl vehicle operting costs in the 58 sq. mi. re in 1989 were $7.7 million. Hlf of the VOC occurred on concrete highwys, nerly 3% on bituminous highwys, 2% on grvel, nd very little on dirt rods. The CSAH which included 21% of the rod network hd 35% of the trffic. The township nd county rods were 73% of the milge but hd only 11% of the VOC. Breking it down by type of trffic. Ag mrketing trffic ccounted for 1% of the vehicle operting costs, locl trffic ccounted for 19%, overhed ccounted for 71%. This is n intensive g re where lot of sugr beet nd pottoes re rised. The verge yield of sugr beets there is 19.5 tons/c nd the verge yield of pottoes is 9 tons/cre. For whet yield of 1-2 tons/c is norml. Wht

9 7 if the re did not rise sugr beets, wht if it ws just whet re? Wht would hppen to the g trffic VOC? With sugr beet nd pottoes the g trffic ws $762,4. If we mke the ssumption tht the only crop grown ws whet nd it ws grown on ll crop crege nd hd n verge yield, the Ag VOC would be only $178,. So g trffic is much less importnt in the scheme of things s you go from n intensively cropped re to smll grin re. If only whet is grown, the VOC mix is 3% g trffic, 2% locl nd 77% overhed. Wht if improvements re mde? The bseline VOC re bsed on the 1989 rod network. In 199 Polk county pved 16.3 mi. of grvel rods on their CSAH system with bituminous. These rods re shown on the mp. One heds towrds Thief River Flls. Tbles 6-9 show vehicle operting costs with the 199 rod improvements. The old bseline, without the improvement is $7,712,. The new totl VOC is $7,768,6. There ws reduction in vehicle operting costs of $53,4 resulting from pving tht milege. The svings in locl pssenger VOC is $13,9 g mrketing $8,2 nd overhed VOC $31,3. There is lso reduction in mintennce costs s you go from grvel to sphlt bout $15/mi. or svings of $17,1 for 16.3 miles. Wht hppens to VOC if we put vlue on the time of the people driving vehicles? Using the minimum wge for one person per vehicle for locl trvel nd the overhed trffic, the reduction in totl VOC increses to $81, miles of 1991 improvements re in red on the next mp. Much of svings ws overhed VOC for the 199 improvements becuse the ffected

10 trffic ws heding est nd west cross the county. The 1991 trffic ffected 8 ws more north nd south. Note significnt chnge in the pttern of sving. Locl pssenger VOC is reduced $35,5 but there is virtully no chnge in overhed VOC. Why? Becuse the rods in 1991 re running prllel to US highwy. We lso looked t the 1992 improvements when 12.8 miles were pved. Tht is shown on the next mp. The totl miles pved over 3 yers is Svings without driver costs were $184,7 svings, with driver costs, $242,5 in svings. In generl, there were more VOC svings from overhed trffic thn from locl pssenger trffic, lthough tht will depend on trffic ptterns. This chrt shows who benefitted from those improvements. With or without including the driver cost of 4.2 per hour, 4% of the benefits went to overhed trffic. The reduction in mintennce costs in the 17-22% rnge. It costs pproximtely $1, mile to pve county rod so the investment would not py bck if you just look t these prticulr cost svings. However, there re probbly sufficient intngible benefits such s comfort nd sfety s well s the vlue of driver (nd pssenger) time so tht these improvements probbly hd resonble overll return. When you think of sfety fctors, nd things like tht, it's probbly brek-even sitution. Some of the rods provided very good return, some of the rods, not so good. Bridges. We looked t improving bridges. There re 6 dots on the mp showing bridges tht were in the 1991 bridge progrm. They were ll replced in

11 They re ll on township rods. The increse in vehicle operting costs, if the 6 bridges hd been bndoned rther thn replced, would hve mounted to bout $7,7. We think tht 2 of those 6 bridges ccounted for prcticlly ll of tht increse in trvel costs. Tht is 4 of them could hve been bndoned with hrdly ny incresed VOC. Wht if we bndoned some of the township rods? We simulted the bndonment of ll the rods tht the optimiztion models indicted hving less thn n verge of one round trip per dy. Tht criteri sid tht we would bndon 366 of the 1138 miles. Most of the bndonments would be township rods. About hlf of the bndonments would be dirt surfce. In fct, tht criteri would bndon bout 3/4 of the dirt surfce rods in the re. In round numbers the bndonments would hve been bout 33% of the totl rods in the re nd over 4% of the township rods. Wht hppened to the vehicle operting costs? Locl pssenger trvel VOC would then hve cost of $1,442,; tht is, vehicle operting costs would increse $42 if you bndoned those rods. Remember if we bndoned 6 bridges we hd $52 increse for locl pssenger VOC. We were unble to come up with wht we felt ws vlid number for the increse in VOC for the g trffic becuse the crops hve to be moved out of the fields. Moving the g production the lst couple of miles must occur whether huled over rod or field lne. Consequently, it is hrd to determine dollr nd cents impct on g trffic. There will be some increse in VOC but probbly proportionlly no more thn we sw for locl pssenger trffic. Of course, since

12 1 the bndonments were ll township nd little used county rods, there ws no overhed trffic. So bsiclly, you could do some drstic bndonment with little impct on re trvel costs. We do not dvocte drstic bndonment t these extreme levels becuse there re other things to consider including the politics of the sitution. However, the fct is tht we could trim the rod system substntilly nd/or go to reduced mintennce without much increse in costs to the frmers nd residents. Conclusions We strted out looking t g mrketing trnsporttion costs nd the importnce of the rod system to g mrketing. We set up our model to look t ll sorts of crop vehicle types nd ll sorts of crops. After we got done with the first severl simultions, we found out tht is not relly where most of the vehicle operting costs in rurl res occurs. Twice s much VOC ws due to locl pssenger trffic nd severl times more VOC ws due to overhed. So when improvements re mde, who benefits? Substntilly more benefits ccrue to the locl pssenger trffic nd overhed trffic thn to g mrketing. We lso found tht cropping ptterns impct the mount of g trnsporttion VOC tremendously. The re hd sugr beets with yields of 19.5 tons/c, nd pottoes re lso very hevy. Compred to primrily whet re, the g VOC ws much higher. Sugr beets re very sesonl nd time sensitive. Whet is lso sesonl, but mjor movements tend to be t time when rods re t their strongest nd present less of rod mintennce problem. On the other

13 hnd, if we were to model diry re, the milk trffic would hve to go yer 11 round. A lot of ssumptions in the model might hve to be chnged becuse of the sesonl weight restriction impcts on milk truck routing. We found there is hevy use of some of the locl rods. Those were generlly the CSAH system. There re very importnt not only to locl trffic but lso to overhed trffic especilly on the est-west CSAH rods. We looked t bridges, nd found most rurl bridges on township rods individully hve little impct on VOC. We should be looking t the overll system of township rods to see which should be mintined on yer round bsis. Also which rods should hve reltively low mintennce nd which rods should probbly be bndoned. Mny of the rods bndoned in our model were minimum mintennce rods, so we re not spending lot of money on them t the present time. Consequently, we cnnot use n verge number for rod mintennce costs nd come up with relible mintennce cost.svings becuse these re the rods tht we don't spend much money on. On the other hnd, some of the rods in griculturl res would hve vlue s frmlnd if bndoned nd returned to frming. Audience Questions Where is the overhed trffic? A significnt portion is on US75 going north nd south, nd on Highwy 2. There is lso lot going north nd south long the stte nd city rods long the river nd lso est nd west cross the re from the towns like Thief River Flls. It is trffic tht we did not ttribute to either

14 12 household or g trffic. I don't know how typicl the overhed is but it is rurl re. It does hve some mjor highwys, some other rurl res my hve less overhed, some my even hve more. We were surprised t the proportion of overhed trffic we found on those CSAH rods. Are these ll county rods? No. The jurisdictions for the "rurl" rods includes CSAH rods, county rods, nd township rods. There re very few county rods in tht re. They didn't hve very much trffic. The CSAH rods crried 35% of the totl trffic in the re. The bndonment nd reduced mintennce of township rods is not the county engineer's responsibility. It is the township bord's responsibility. They re much closer to the locl clientele. In n griculturl re like the study re, the users nd the tx pyers on township rods re generlly the sme people. The lndowners re pying for their rods with their property txes. So tht it is locl decision. One thing tht we dvocte is not to give townships formul money bsed on how mny rods tht they hve. They should be mking rod decisions bsed on their needs becuse the rods re serving locl people nd locl g trffic. The CSAH system on the other hnd hs lot of overhed trffic. A lot of people outside the immedite re use them. There is very definitely rtionle for formul funding or other sources of outside funding. Another thing to note is tht the bridge progrm is bsiclly set up so tht bridges re replced whether they re needed to or not. When bridge is bd enough, nd been on replcement list long enough, it is replced. Frequently we don't sk the question, is there need for tht bridge?

15 13 Rther it is stted it's time to replce tht bridge. Now some bridges don't cost tht much to replce. Some bridge replcements cost $3, or less, nd in the overll scheme of things their replcement is not mjor decision. But bridge tht costs $2, or $3, ought to hve rel hrd nlysis. Bridge replcement is stte nd county policy mtter tht should be periodiclly reviewed.

16 OBJECTIVE Develop computer simultion model to compre trnsporttion costs in rurl re under different ssumptions bout the rod infrstructure.

17 POSSIBLE SCENARIOS FOR ANALYSIS * Increse miles of hrd surfce rods. * Abndon or reduce mintennce on low volume rods. * Improve bridges (weight limits) (width) * Don't replce old bridges. * Combintions of improvements nd bndonments.

18 * *

19 it«isrf 4 z!z Ir Z o 2!o on CO3R L : t 1! II i I i'

20 Method to Estimte Frm Trffic Type nd Volume 1. ASCS dt cres plnned by crop in ech township. 2. ASCS township verge yield. 3. Compute mount of ech crop per section. 4. Type of vehicle from elevtor or processor. 5. Compute number of trucklods by vehicle type per section.

21 Personl Trvel Bsed on secondry dt (1986 Iow Stte Study) 1. Two trips per household per dy times number of households in re supporting node. 2. Divide mong. nerest town or plce b. next nerest town c. externl business center

22 OVERHEAD TRAFFIC ADT vilble for county nd stte rods. 2. Subtrct the locl trffic previously estimted. 3. Reminder is overhed ADT. 4. Little or no overhed on township rods (in NW Polk Co.). 5. Model ws run using only overhed trffic.

23 TABLE 1 POLK COUNTY MINNESOTA STUDY AREA BASELINE NETWORK ROAD MILES Concrete Bituminous Grvel Dirt Totl Township/County CSAH Stte U.S Totl I _

24 CnW.L ij c r ) :=>~~ < OF, z z (9~ z c Q(2w OU Cz zl 2- : 9U v (9 c E" co 4 z onj (9 r- r Cl). SI 4 6 I

25 TABLE 2 POLK COUNTY MINNESOTA STUDY AREA BASELINE PASSENGER CAR TRAVEL COSTS IN s Concrete Bituminous Grvel Dirt Totl Township/County CSAH Stte U.S Totl

26 E-, o, U\f hj Xe >1 U Imo- e,., «* 1 ILIA o L)c- _ M_ r1 w EdLr smo -I w dw U cn 5 4I 4 -. mm - p m

27 TABLE 3 POLK COUNTY MINNESOTA STUDY AREA BASELINE AG TRAFFIC COSTS IN s Concrete Bituminous Grvel Dirt Totl Township/County CSAH Stte U.S Totl

28 C O z r ui - =)94 ==~=:=f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z P U Cf 2 2< 2 j J C) Cl) IV <^ 8 o "s fi F9 21& CL); 44 u C2 Si fun E5

29 TABLE 4 POLK COUNTY MINNESOTA STUDY AREA BASELINE OVERHEAD TRAFFIC COSTS IN Os Concrete Bituminous Grvel Dirt Totl Township/County CSAH Stte U.S Totl

30 E--, O Sc <4n i I, CI 93 o Z d 8.8 4!.s co A n~ d O 2. E. 1I I- Pr d U, WI I5 p. w Ui z ur s U' U I' rne I-, iml mp Cr I I 1 4 UD pi

31 TABLE 5 POLK COUNTY MINNESOTA STUDY AREA TOTAL BASELINE VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS PASSENGER, AG AND OVERHEAD IN Os Concrete Bituminous Grvel Dirt Totl Township/County , CSAH Stte U.S Totl

32 U) U 1< o E- IL4 z Lu, l d U M P4 1w I u. ob Uo- 4 E-, m 3' I.. ic, 6' q. x d n Do IX u ri *9 UE Is MeY "p cq' U.Sr m I S Sr U r

33 CI -43 g-l o *«C..3. U #4 tb --A Im -r --! o c.< O I IF" *O o I8 i 1 4

34 TABLE 3.1 BASELINE AG TRAFFIC COSTS ALL CROPLAND IN WHEAT (NO SUGAR BEETS OR POTATOES) IN s Concrete Bituminous Grvel Dirt Totl I -- II -Y s I L--sL -. I - sl Township/County CSAH Stte Federl Totl Existing cropping pttern g trffic costs re 762.4!!!

35 c- U *-,-.c. S,1 U ). C ci) U8 o - - U- I O o 4 Q, 9I

36 nii '. i: ;Iii r;?c ~ I 3t C3 ~ -, ~1 ~~ PO eu O

37 TABLE 6 POLK COUNTY MINNESOTA STUDY AREA 199 IMPROVEMENTS TO BASELINE 16.3 MILES PAVED PASSENGER CAR TRAVEL COSTS IN s Concrete Bituminous Grvel Dirt Totl Township/County CSAH Stte U.S Totl Bseline Totl I

38 TABLE 7 POLK COUNTY MINNESOTA STUDY AREA 199 IMPROVEMENTS TO BASELINE 16.3 MILES PAVED AG TRAFFIC COSTS IN s Concrete Bituminous Grvel Dirt Totl Township/County CSAH Stte U.S Totl Bseline Totl

39 TABLE 8 POLK COUNTY MINNESOTA STUDY AREA 199 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TO BASELINE 16.3 MILES PAVED OVERHEAD TRAFFIC COSTS IN s Concrete Bituminous Grvel Dirt Totl I Township/County CSAH Stte U.S Totl Bseline Totl _

40 TABLE 9 POLK COUNTY MINNESOTA STUDY AREA 199 IMPROVEMENTS -- ALL TRAFFIC PASSENGER, AG, OVERHEAD IN s COSTS Concrete Bituminous Grvel Dirt Totl - I - - _I L I s I - I I s I Township/County CSAH Stte U.S Totl Totl Bseline ,,,, II e

41 TABLE 9 POLK COUNTY MINNESOTA STUDY AREA 199 IMPROVEMENTS -- ALL TRAFFIC PASSENGER, AG, OVERHEAD IN s COSTS _ Concrete Bituminous Grvel Dirt Totl Township/County CSAH Stte U.S Totl Totl Bseline Reduction in VOC 53.4

42 SAVINGS FROM 199 IMPROVEMENTS 16.3 MILES PAVED (NO DRIVER OPPORTUNITY COST) Locl crs 13,9 Ag products 8,25 Overhed 31,25 Reduced Mintennce 17,1 (15 per mile) TOTAL 7,5 1 PERSON PER CAR AT 4.2 PER HR Locl crs 18,1 Ag products 8,25 Overhed 38,3 Reduced Mintennce 17,1 TOTAL 81,75

43 2 e AL I, IO (, =I If I 1 1 If r L. II d4. s o... w-7 i~i~t~. 3 - IL '!".ASlLj '1). K w ]3 NMI U st n 9me qwi * -' TCP-iB3 f -,-- - F -' - HI.. -4, I. N. * I 4' *za't 3i3 N * 3 I ' $ 3se I,r o r T immtr I- i-,dw.- *...,".- u 4~-,1ir ý- '3 3 3Z -d +....i I. i 1is -- - N I 3 If - I l EL4 - ^ 1 * **v --. -t 4. I I- ^:^4t * o' s - t : - - b- 3ft fi- r Q-.r 3 -' D / + + ft 33* i ** *I * "t - i-4 - i~~~ ^^ y',* tlr^ ' i3 ^^^^^^^^^^^ t 1 ^1 :1., 1.I S.3 - U :. " j * S) 3 3 p " 1 r -^L-^ rel I«_ i,i. _,nr ^Jn. f * I «H <^ " 3, 4 itl \I.\ ",i I 1-- J411 oc or1 4'. t ;.r ICI 3 I [ - ek " "r & -... t3irir..i. 3M -i. 3. d'' x Q t< 4c Y II " ' o JAR".,7 1 "nt t 4-hi..._ --E *C *J 3.,. cr1 fm'. i -i & *ri 7 *'*loa wl r. "i -L > ' II -. J L ; _.1 m or ^ - A-I.. S-NLX'ý tli r / r4--l tr Ir 1--f- f- --I,.,emo-- ^issse J I -Ir -"Ii. j. i 1 " CI*t P _.", * / 1w~ (Ir- S L r i4.l. 2 - <.- i.,-_ ;I - r FF.'- 1 or.' :wl *Fi. fl--r* I * 5.Wmn; - Li - '. '^»- N q w m& -r-.1'fi1 J4Nr I'S I-^ ji 4~~e~I ~ ~- I#oi ft i- - i o\ LUri -- ^ 1 t- I qr 1~r IJC^ i3 "" N -/'?, J! J.. %i Z. I.f r- **«* no% -f. ", s 7~.. A 1o L7- nt I 1-14' II + r-, L b J v Os -"r r^. s b-x > - - /. -i - AM- A r ^ 3 3 I I 51 9 L "T ''~"f;~"5p~?~1 SL.4 "U& 3S W%"^T^JL.-..- i * I l f Ii _2 ;_ ; 2 -W... S I. f Or' Im-2 won o m - - O -I

44 SAVINGS FROM 1991 IMPROVEMENTS 1.5 MILES PAVED No Driver Cost 4.2 NR Driver Cost Locl Ag products Overhed Reduced Mintennce (15 per mile) TOTAL 35,5 2,75 6,15 11, 55,4 65,1 2,75 7,35 11, 86,2

45 * r-. " 3.4 B t *3r t«i «1 3 3f Is o. o "-'(~1; 3. I- m.. Oft"..M69LOLd.L. T~ A-J i r-... =4 I SM -1 -, T 4= i " -F-' i, tj 3* ' +~ J 3 I? i p * IyL. I "='1 _ F",' 3 C Z 3 hr 3t3 "4 J I.»* t. - I I- *.t rt -- U 3Q isage -t- Y (I el : " -i.,l- r 3~ c 3/ MUMM El-I. P '+ 4-3 & I -t \\'Y-7 _w b x * ' 3 i ^ o I -F,I c r II! E r,3 Y r4 I " ~I c c i~ I. 4:i r, I-_ -'I b '3 r fi~t --- ~!--- 3 ri t U s *' ' ' t M >* J 3 i. & 4 Ml S < Q; o p * II I * 1 _ I I» -33 I. ft 39L 7er~C 8. =- 3 - * * 3 3I.- 3 ijo «1l~ ` I I9 ) - -!.- 'rs/ I ~+3 \~ 3 3", r 1 ^i 33 U3', U 34 ṯ l * I'. U 35 S. 33 *il r Cl7 i * - II I) L IM 38 ff ft * "We i' i 31; or 3.1 ti Ot. 'ip Jrt or1 QUA' 3 3 I/ *I & 3 t. ^ 3 1 i^ 2 p~cj, Ix wi + + x 74 4k U IieL 33 +) CI I I >".^ AEAMA ' 4 JAIIL- s f *3 3 ii M Z '%ý.moi (I rii A 3~? / LJ - -. v » -i 3. ' I i 3 r ^r - r -- IrAr- TW--. = T---"-7T"T mrp -=Me r -_ -~ 1l1&5 SI; 'Ii'r ~J ~J cig CD 1.l 3; j 9 *v E '- -

46 SAVINGS FROM 1992 IMPROVEMENTS 12.8 MILES PAVED Locl Ag Products Overhed No Driver Cost 6, 2, 37,4 4.2/hr Driver Cost ~J4~o 7 2, 51,7 Reduced Mintennce Cost ($1,5 per mile) 13,4 13,4 Totl 58,8 74,5

47 SAVINGS FROM 199, 1991 nd 1992 IMPROVEMENTS 39.6 MILES PAVED Locl Ag Products Overhed Reduced Mintennce Cost ($1,5 per mile) No Driver Cost 55,4 13, 74,8 41,5 4.2/hr Driver Cost 9,6 13, 97,35 41,5 Totl 184,7 242,45

48 U) 'el lon,too k u LO =4 cm O o 1 & n 5.e ' c CN COi 8O L.. o* L4 Ii UtL 6 cn As on$». mir C I z Co <7Sm I S

49 ' 6r I 1 o,ȧ 'i,f _ - 2 'I -w-1 * 1ý- ii s. 1 - _1 ~ F - t l- 9-9 I :--- K m "il IT I 'CI 9 F 1o- -! 4-- -i ""' * J4 T I-l -r. -~ 7t i. 1." t C 1-^< L =-- "IF7*1 '-'- X- ~ o -r LltP~Y5 k I---3 )~~~lr)l~nlliit~)l~i;fl I ~ I Y C, LSo-" [ l. 1 E49 QqL ~~s ; F-44 4& I I - I I r qi I I I -- v, - I k 2.. ý- J i* 4 if' o Lx,- 4V," 1 E ý ýl v- -fi r2 r s L o - H 3 I I P5 :6 n o ' '*- ^ ' -» - 41 mr.4 WA I& Q 1 II Die t o I 3 /*. *.,. -1 "~T "bnq t' ' * ~ 1--m- ý T" ' ` d t *.3 w» 67% 2 " 9 v I I. i«x--. o u * ;-. ISq-r S. + \I f- f-- -tof I* -.vi., UT w " +7 so 7-- *j~~~." ^«i.7 - h1. r41r 4, r o< _.-. C' i -AL I of51r i ^ ' ~ ~ ~.) ~ ^7 I - * ^ t *[ " I I r ^_ ^.??O -_*3 * z i -to - _te r " --^» --» M E-- ^ -e~ f-c. z 3 s t rto 1 ; j -\c^ z _. - - si '^^ - ir %A i o S, ^ ^ _r.^~~ < SoI " I 4-4 -~~ C-v I, I *I *" 'I -1 -» 1 ^ 31 winf-^m ^J^ *, y fc T, ^ f" ; ^ * : [. - r s 2 t OAI k I-- i! off \7 i' I*.'.1 r B - r - " I" ^. - *. f 3, Ci' -- t).j j P' ^^ _ I 1 11, 1. * «* ' ;. «.!- *" " '~ S *L( * 3 I*_ c.') 1 4 # -" -*' i... I, p- ', 3 G i *i/ ic Ud ] %.- C" *,. «- * j Is s * - «J. * IT rr 5 -t \- i -r rill-h i i ' A' * --- * - -I --» * i,- I iti 't ~~t~ est- >^ II^A. Ir f ~ -7A #;I- w,* */ Yi K <C O S-- C' ~i~ " " rc 3-,2 "/ '^r -i r 5 "U 1 I,& I '.»'- I -, M - 3;L Fi q t 4WR~t- 7 It4 3 I Jul6 ;11 I d- s i 77 ~ -) 2w * * I n. 14wU o -^.C -» ' ^..T I. ;j Ll&^ L-.. * * OO St3g so ^fc5 Z- I re - C cv I -wo 1 *-, r Cro~J ~i~e1ii~lr ~(I)~ '* x wf I~ li ii it II

50 INCREASE IN TRAVEL COSTS IF 6 BRIDGES HAD BEEN ABANDONED RATHER THAN REPLACED IN 1991 Pssenger Cr Increse Ag Trffic Increse Overhed 5,17 2,51 Totl Increse 7,68

51 TABLE 13 POLK COUNTY MINNESOTA STUDY AREA ROAD NETWORK MILEAGE WITHOUT ROADS WITH LESS THAN ONE TRIP PER DAY EACH WAY Concrete Bituminous Grvel Dirt Totl Township/County chnge (-.6) (-174.) 6.5 (-169.6) (-346.7) CSAH chnge (-3.) (-16.5) (-19.5) Stte chnge U.S. chnge Totl chnge 8.6 _ L (-366.1)

52 TABLE 14 POLK COUNTY MINNESOTA STUDY AREA Concrete REDUCED NETWORK PASSENGER TRAVEL COSTS IN s Bituminous Grvel Dirt Totl I _I I s I Township/County % CSAH % Stte % U.S. Totl Totl % Totl Bse Line Added VOC 4.2

53 TABLE 14 POLK COUNTY MINNESOTA STUDY AREA REDUCED NETWORK PASSENGER TRAVEL COSTS IN s Concrete Bituminous Grvel Dirt Totl Township/County % CSAH % Stte % U.S. %Totl Totl % _ I

54 CONCLUSIONS 1. The rurl rod system serves significntly more thn griculture. 2. Improvements frequently hve significnt benefits to non-griculturl trffic * pssenger crs * overhed 3. Cropping ptterns (sugr beets nd pottoes) impct g use. 4. Some locl rods (frequently the CSAH) hve high use, nd re very importnt to both locl nd through trffic nd should receive nonlocl funding. 5. Some bridges hve little or no impct on re trvel costs. 6. Up to 4% of township rods cn hve reduced mintennce or bndonment with negligible increse in trnsporttion costs. HE F Fruin, Jerry. An nlysis of the public nd privte trnsporttion

55

56 Property of Minnesot Dept. of Trnsporttion Informtion Services Plese return when to longer in ctive iow