Like your blood pressure and heart rate on a medical report, transportation provides one of the "vital signs" for a region's economy. It's no coincidence that the steady growth of vehicle-miles traveled in New York over the last decade perfectly mirrors the growth of the state's gross domestic product. Recently a 12-member panel of experts gave the state's transportation system a complete physical exam, and the prognosis for economic health isn't good.

The title of the panel's report summed up the message succinctly: Transportation --Trouble Ahead.

The state's roads and bridges are now slipping back into the shoddy condition into which they fell more than 20 years ago, said the report. Currently, New York finds itself in a fiscal fiasco that makes repairs and upgrades difficult, if not impossible. And the future looks bleak because heavier congestion, rising costs and changing needs of motorists and other users will strain the system even further.

A quality transportation system "requires major new investment to expand certain services, improve efficiency and reliability, replace aging infrastructure and provide critical links between travel facilities," said the panel. Although the final report refrained from putting a price tag on the investment needed, one panel member confided that an additional $10 billion to $20 billion over current spending may be needed over the next two decades. You read that right: billions.

In addition, a solution to this deepening crisis requires more than a massive new infusion of money. "It also requires a new mindset, where government does more than fund construction," continued the report. "Government must operate the transportation system in an effective and efficient manner." The panel's No. 1 finding? "The transportation system is under stress and conditions will worsen, unless New York dramatically changes the planning, investing, managing and institutional relationships that drive the system."

How did we get into this mess? More important, how will we ever get out? The answers affect not only motorists but also every citizen of the state. New York's economy and our quality of life depend on finding solutions.

The Real Price of Neglect
Selected by Department of Transportation Commissioner Joseph H. Boardman in June of last year, the panel was formally called the New York State Advisory Panel on Transportation Policy for 2025. It comprised representatives from a wide range of stakeholders, including corporate, environmental, finance and user groups. James J. McGowan, president of AAA New York State, served as a member. Last summer, the panel held a series of nine public hearings from Buffalo to Long Island, gathering information and listening to concerns.

If you drive regularly anywhere in the state, you won't be surprised at what they found: Traffic choking major roads everywhere. Miles of pavement cracked and pocked with potholes. Bridges rusted and crumbling. Plenty of empirical evidence reinforces what you probably know already from your own experience. Consider this litany of statistical lowlights from the report:

• Bad pavement. Pavement on more than one-third of the state's lane-miles (34.1 percent) rates only "fair" or worse. On 77 percent of the highways, pavement conditions will deteriorate to "fair" or "poor" within the next five years, barring repair.
• Bad bridges. Statewide, more than one out of three bridges is structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.
• Bad traffic. According to The Road Information Program (TRIP), a Washington, D.C.-based research group, vehicle travel increased 21 percent from 1990 to 2002, while population increased only 6 percent. As a result, about one-third of the state's roads are considered congested.

Those deplorable conditions represent more than a mere annoyance; they make driving in New York more expensive.

Every year, an extra $218 comes out of your pocket to repair damage to your vehicle caused by bad roads. You pay an additional $342 per year in medical costs, lost productivity and property damage due to collisions caused by design-related road defects, according to TRIP.

And although you might make up the lost money, you'll never make up lost time. Compared with 10 years ago, today the typical New York commuter loses an additional 26 hours per year sitting in traffic--the equivalent of more than three full working days. Congestion steals precious time that you could otherwise devote to your family, hobbies, leisure and other pursuits.

Why We Keep on Truckin'
Experts attribute this mess to a variety of complicated reasons. The continued rise in truck traffic illustrates just a few of the complexities that transportation planners have to deal with. For example, the advent of "just-in-time" supply chains within the past decade has eliminated huge inventories for manufacturers and other businesses. Instead, commercial enterprises rely on information technology to track their needs and rapid delivery to fill them. As a result, trucks have become rolling warehouses for manufacturing parts and consumer goods. Nearly everything you buy, from celery to cars, is transported somewhere along the supply chain by truck.

Nationally, truck traffic has increased at twice the rate of automobile traffic, notes the advisory panel's report. And forecasts call for it to double in New York State within the next two decades. This proliferation of big trucks contributes not only to congestion but also to roadway wear and tear and air pollution. You don't have to be a physicist or an engineer to understand that an 80,000-pound truck causes far more pavement damage than a 4,000-pound passenger vehicle.

"Well, what about railroads?" you might ask. "Why can't they carry some of the loads now carried by trucks?"

Although rail presents a much more environmentally friendly alternative, they're not so attractive economically. "The panel heard a lot of testimony about how the transportation system discriminates against railroads," says AAA's McGowan. "Unlike trucks, which rely on public roadways, railroads have to build their own infrastructure. Not only that, but they're also taxed heavily as property owners in all the jurisdictions they go through." Add in the fact that freight trains often have to share the same tracks as passenger lines, and trucks begin to look more practical and cost-efficient for businesses.

Follow the Money
Of course, the economic forces such as those responsible for the continued rise of truck traffic tell only part of the story. Fiscal policy plays a role as well. "In the early '90s, the state created a Dedicated Highway Fund, largely from revenues from gas taxes and vehicle registrations fees," explains John Corlett, the Club's director of legislative affairs. "It was supposed to work exactly like the federal highway trust fund, where the money is earmarked exclusively to build and maintain roads and bridges." But almost immediately, says Corlett, the state began to divert funds for other purposes. And instead of relying on the Dedicated Highway Fund, New York issued bonds to pay for road repair and construction.

Now, more than 10 years later, that pattern of borrowing has begun to bleed the budget dry. Debt service siphons off more and more of the revenues earned by gas taxes and registration fees. In 1995, for example, debt service accounted for $73.7 million. By 2004, it sucked out nearly 14 times that amount--$1 billion. As less money finds its way to the pavement, the state's roads and bridges have fallen into greater disrepair.

Local governments haven't fared much better. Under the Consolidated Highway Improvement Program (CHIPs), the state supposedly helps local governments put up matching funds to acquire federal grants for road repair. However, notes McGowan, "With rising costs for health care and education, local governments have been strapped for meeting the difference and coming up with matching funds. CHIPs hasn't kept pace with the need because the funding levels have been inadequate."

Meanwhile, New York has become increasingly dependent on federal aid from Washington to fund its transportation infrastructure upkeep. In fact, the state funding has remained relatively unchanged over the past decade. But given the shift in population and political clout to the South and West, Corlett expects that the state cannot count on that trend to continue.

Old-Fashioned Inefficiency
When rooting out the causes of the looming highway crisis, you must also add plain, old-fashioned inefficiency to the list that includes new economic forces, fiscal irresponsibility and shifting political power. According to an independent annual report on the performance of state highway systems, New York ranks 47th out of the 50 states in overall cost-effectiveness of its highway spending.

"The reason New York is in such trouble is that it's not getting enough bang for its highway buck," says David Hartgen, professor of transportation studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, which compiles the report. "The state's costs for maintenance and repair are two to three times the national average and 60 to 70 percent higher than those in comparable states."

"New York in particular would be better served by seeking more out-of-state bids and getting maintenance done by a competitive bidding process rather than relying so much on state workers," concludes Hartgen.

For its part, the transportation advisory board acknowledged the need to streamline operations, but also warned against relying on greater efficiency as a silver-bullet solution. "Savings from administrative and operational efficiencies should be sought," wrote the panel. "However, there should be no illusion that savings alone will produce sufficient revenue to finance the transportation system."

Uncertain Answers
Ultimately, the advisory board recommended a holistic approach. "New York must create, maintain and operate the various components of its extensive and diverse transportation system as a seamless enterprise," they wrote. "We need a system that uses investments to achieve desired results--mobility and reliability, safety, security [from terrorist threats], and the ability to sustain our state's economic competitiveness while enhancing the natural environment." That means better co-ordination among transportation authorities, better land-use planning and more incentives for car- and van-pooling. Above all, said the panel, it means "new funding … that is substantial, sustainable, predictable and flexible."

"Right now, the system relies on a patchwork of financing," notes McGowan. "It's been jerrybuilt over the years by legislatures just trying to deal with today's problems, while postponing action on tomorrow's."

Although the panel deferred to elected officials to map out a long-term funding plan, it left no doubt that it will involve higher fees, tolls and taxes for motorists and other users. Testimony before the panel included several new possibilities:

Congestion pricing. Movie theaters and hotels charge more for services during peak periods, say proponents. Why not highways? Instituting new tolls or charging higher tolls for rush hours would not only raise revenue, but also "manage demand"--that is, encourage discretionary travelers to drive during off-peak hours. E-ZPass technology would make this and other toll hikes relatively easy to implement.

McGowan has his doubts about congestion pricing as a tool to manage demand. "The Port Authority already uses a higher fee during certain hours, and it doesn't seem to move the traffic to off-peak hours," he notes. "But the idea seems to have a lot of pizzazz among think-tankers."

HOT lanes. A variation on the diamond carpool lanes, HOT (High Occupancy Toll) lanes would build additional capacity by allowing drivers of single-occupant vehicles to buy their way into the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. The toll revenue would be used to pay off the cost of constructing the lanes. California and Texas have already employed it in demonstration projects with some success.

Mileage taxes. With fuel-efficient hybrids becoming more popular and automakers promising fuel cells just over the horizon, the state may see gas tax revenues shrink over the next 20 years, even as vehicle-miles increase. As an alternative to gas taxes, global positioning systems installed on vehicles might track actual mileage, which would in turn become the new basis for user taxes.

Whether the state adopts these or other collection methods, you will certainly dig deeper into your pocket to pay for driving and other modes of transportation within the next few years. As unpleasant as that prospect seems, the alternative is far worse: the continued deterioration not only of the transportation system but also of the economy that depends on it.