This update of the highway cost allocation study is the ninth in a recent series that began in the early 1980′s by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinetand the Kentucky Transportation Center. The primary objectives are to determine the level of revenue contribution and cost responsibility for each class ofhighway user. The base year of this study is FY 1999; the most recent time period for which revenue and cost data are available. Highway user or travelactivity for calendar year1998 is the most recent available. A basic premise of the study is that only state maintained highways are of interest in recouping thecosts expended to construct and maintain the system. In 1998, this system comprised 27,415 miles of the 73,360 miles of roads and streets in Kentucky, whileaccommodating 84 percent of all travel in the state.

There are 17 highway user classes with which revenue contribution and cost responsibility are associated. Primary sources of revenue include fueltaxes, registration fees, usage taxes, tolls, and other motor carrier and federal taxes and fees. Primary expenditure categories include construction (subdividedinto 6 categories), maintenance and traffic, administration, and enforcement. Construction was subdivided into planning and design; right of way; utilityrelocation; grade, drain, and surfacing; resurfacing; bridges; and miscellaneous.

Results from the analysis indicate that cost responsibility is borne most heavily by cars and motorcycles with 44.06 percent; followed by heavy truckswith gross weights of 60,000 pounds or more at 27.06 percent. Pickups and other vehicles registered in the 6,000 pound category are responsible for 21.63percent of the cost. The ratio of percentage revenue attributed to percentage cost allocated was also determined in the study. A ratio of one indicates that therevenue and cost percentages are in balance for a particular vehicle type. Cars (0.98), buses (0.86), and heavy trucks (0.90) contribute less revenue than theircost responsibility dictates.

Report Date


Report Number


Digital Object Identifier



The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the University of Kentucky or the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The inclusion of manufacturer names and trade names is for identification purposes and is not to be considered an endorsement.