Measuring the Distribution and Costs of Congestion. Tim Lomax Texas Transportation Institute

Similar documents
Performance Measure Summary - San Jose CA. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Regional Transportation Needs Within Southeastern Wisconsin

Performance Measure Summary - Chicago IL-IN. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Performance Measure Summary - Denver-Aurora CO. Performance Measures and Definition of Terms

Congestion Evaluation Best Practices

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard. Scott Weber, Transportation Planner & Analyst James Winters, Regional Planner & Policy Analyst

STATION #3 INITIAL ALTERNATIVES

ROADSOADS CONGESTION HAMPTON SYSTEMYSTEM MANAGEMENT. Part II Roadway Congestion Analysis Mitigation Strategies and Evaluation

Purpose and Need. Chapter Introduction. 2.2 Project Purpose and Need Project Purpose Project Need

Tulsa Metropolitan Area LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Measuring and Communicating Mobility:

Improving Mobility Without Building More Lanes

2009 URBAN MOBILITY REPORT: Six Congestion Reduction Strategies and Their. Effects on Mobility

North Coast Corridor:

Performance Criteria for 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan

MOBILITY RESULTS AREA. Budgeting For Outcomes Council Presentation January 12, 2007

92% COMMUTING IN THE METRO. Congested Roadways Mode Share. Roadway Congestion & Mode Share

THE 2007 URBAN MOBILITY REPORT

Bus Rapid Transit ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS. Open House

LOOP 360 IMPROVEMENT STUDY

Cities Connect. Cities Connect! How Urbanity Supports Social Inclusion

Welcome and Introductions Overview of the Study to Date Community Involvement Intersection Improvement Concepts Bike-Ped Recommendations ITS

Transportation Corridor Studies: Summary of Recommendations

Maryland State Highway Mobility Report. Morteza Tadayon

Traffic Congestion in Houston. Presented by Bill King

Preview. Tables in your paper Mass Transit as alternative to auto California s problems in urban transportation

Bellevue Transportation: Challenges, Opportunities and Priorities Bellevue Downtown Association September 20, 2018

VISION Long Range Plan Update Board Workshop. February 10, 2016

Transportation, Parking & Roads

Presentation of Staff Draft March 18, 2013 COUNTYWIDE TRANSIT CORRIDORS FUNCTIONAL MASTER PLAN

DULLES AREA TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION (DATA) February 18, Susan Shaw, P.E., VDOT, Megaprojects Director

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS of The Draft 2015 CLRP

The Region s Most Expensive Commutes:

Dear City Council Members,

Roadways. Roadways III.

Today s Agenda. Welcome & Introductions. I-526 Lowcountry Corridor Update. Table Discussions. Next Steps / Conclusion

MCTC 2018 RTP SCS and Madera County RIFP Multi-Modal Project Eval Criteria GV13.xlsx

DEVELOPING A POLICY TO PLAN AND OPERATE MANAGED LANES IN NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS: LBJ IN DALLAS COUNTY AND AIRPORT FREEWAY IN TARRANT COUNTY

South King County High-Capacity Transit Corridor Study

Vision Public Workshop: Findings

Bluffdale South (SR140) Bicycle/Shoulder Lanes Project Type Bicycle

Appendix T-2: Transportation Facilities Inventory

Economics of Highway Spending and Traffic Congestion. Todd Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute Presented Strong Towns Webinar 3 February 2016

How To Encourage More Efficient Transportation in Brazilian Cities

CHAPTER 8 APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONGESTION MEASURES

Preview. Second midterm Tables in your paper Mass Transit as alternative to auto California s problems in urban transportation

KEARNY MESA COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE

Chapter 5 Future Transportation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... vii 1 STUDY OVERVIEW Study Scope Study Area Study Objectives

Typical Rush Hour Commute. PennyforTransportation.com

Highway Transitway Corridor Study

I-25 PEL: CO Springs Denver South Connection. Presentation to Castle Rock Town Council

Win-Win Transportation Solutions

Dulles Area Transportation Association. October 11, Susan Shaw, P.E., Megaprojects Director Virginia Department of Transportation

Presentation Starts at 5:30 PM

City of Fairfax, Virginia City Council Work Session

Governor s Transportation Vision Panel

Capital Beltway HOT Lanes - Frequently Asked Questions

Transportation in Washoe County. Lee Gibson, Executive Director February 15, 2011

Better Market Street Project Update. Urban Forestry Council September 17, 2014

I-290 Phase 1 Study Alternatives Tool Box.

6/14/2013. Welcome. to the US 75 Corridor Study. Public Meeting. US 75 Corridor Study Area

Public Consultation Centre

Metropolitan Council Transportation Committee

BUILDING THE CASE FOR TRAVEL OPTIONS IN WASHING TON COUNTY. Image: Steve Morgan. Image: Steve Morgan

RTA 2013 Leadership Briefing and Tour Report

2045 Long Range Transportation Plan. Summary of Draft

Mobility and Congestion

DECEMBER 2012 URBANMOBILITY REPORT POWERED BY REGION UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION CENTER

Fresno Council of Governments Community Workshop. Tuesday, April 25, 2017 Hoover High School Fresno, California

Providing an Efficient and Multi-modal Transportation System

CONGESTED LOS ANGELES

Bus Rapid Transit on Silicon Valley s El Camino Real: Working Together to Create a Grand Boulevard Steven Fisher

San Jose Transportation Policy

95 th Street Corridor Transportation Plan. Steering Committee Meeting #2

Measuring Transportation: Traffic, Mobility and Accessibility

ISSUE 1. Geography challenge. Geography funnels traffic from several key corridors onto I-5.

Transportation Engineering- Challenges and Opportunities

SoundCast Design Intro

Community Task Force July 25, 2017

Appendix F: Detailed Modeling Results

Defining Purpose and Need

US 19 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE SAFE ACCESS

100 Most Congested Roadways in Texas

Project Description Form 6V

3 TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL TIMING AND SYNCHRONIZATION

5. RUNNINGWAY GUIDELINES

ADOT Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Summary of Phase IV Activities APPENDIX B PEDESTRIAN DEMAND INDEX

Idea-66: Westbound I-66 Inside the Beltway

Managed Lanes. Steve Schilke, P.E. Major Projects Unit Head District 1. Illinois Traffic Engineering and Safety Conference October 2016

MULTIMODAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT

HCM Sixth Edition. Plus More. Rahim (Ray) Benekohal University of Illinois at Urban Champaign,

Public Information and Participation Comments

Employment 8,881 17,975 9,094. Households 18,990 31,936 12,946

Appendix A-1: Purpose and Need Statement

BRT for Berkeley A Proposal for Consideration

Interstate 66 Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement. Cooperating and Participating Agencies Meeting March 19, 2012

MOVEABLE BARRIER. Congestion Management Solutions

C C C

HOUSTON S TRAVEL RATE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Transcription:

Measuring the Distribution and Costs of Congestion Tim Lomax Texas Transportation Institute http://mobility.tamu.edu

The Congestion Measurement Story Travel time, variations, compare to goals WHAT? WHY? WHERE? Is it a problem? Causes? Areawide, Sub-Region, Corridor, Facility, Service WHEN? HOW? Day, Week, Season, Events Fix it? Define Success?

Performance Measure Needs Start with Goals and Vision Congestion and Reliability Location, Time & Costs Effect of Solutions and Trends Connect to Expectations Connect to Individual Actions Travelers Businesses Agencies

What? Urban Mobility Measures Delay/Person Hours per year Travel Time Index Buffer Time Index Peak Period Travel Time Free Flow Travel Time 95th % Travel Time Average Travel Time Average Travel Time

Travel Time Index Travel Time Index 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.10 1.00 1982 2000 Small Medium Large Population Group Very Large

Annual Delay per Person Hours 100 80 60 40 20 0 1982 2000 Small Medium Large Population Group Very Large

Growth of Congested Travel 1982 to 2000 1982 2000 Severe 8% Extreme 5% Extreme 19% Uncongested 34% Heavy 8% Uncongested 69% Moderate 10% Severe 20% Heavy 14% Moderate 13%

Where? Congestion and Population Travel Time Index 2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 Congestion levels in each of the 75 urban areas studied. Small Medium Large Very Large Population

12:00 A M 2:00 A M 4:00 A M 6:00 AM 8 :00 AM 1 0:00 A M 12:00 PM 2:00 P M 4 :00 PM 6:00 P M 8:00 P M 10:00 PM 12 :00 A M When? Average and Trip Planning Time Index Value 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 Average Travel Time Trip Planning Time (19 of 20 trips) 1.00 Mid 6A Noon 6P Mid

When? Peak Period Congestion Levels Percent of Days in 2001 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% Average Travel Time Index Median Time Penalty = 27% 10% of Days 0% 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 Travel Time Index

When? Peak Period Frustration Levels Percent of Days in 2001 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Average 19 of 20 Trips TTI Median = 27% Penalty Median = 60% Penalty 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 Travel Time Index

Congestion and Reliability Are Related 50% Buffer Time Index 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 Travel Time Index

Congestion Costs Delay and fuel - $68 Billion (2000 $) Extra travel time - 3.6 Billion Hrs Extra fuel consumed 5.7 Billion Glns Business productivity Air quality Worker, market & supplier accessibility

Congestion Successes How are They Measured? Lower travel time More options Cheaper travel Predictable travel times Shorter trips Less congested time and space

Toolbox: No Lack of Solutions Alternate Hours of Travel Variable Pricing Strategies Flow Signals Traffic Signal Improvements Incident Management Event Management Local Bus Service Neighborhood Circulator Bus Activity Center Circulator Bus Express and Park & Ride Service Demand-Response & Hybrid Bus Service Vanpools Telecommuting Urban Development Patterns Parking Strategies Bicycle and Pedestrian Light Rail Bus Rapid Transit Commuter / Light Rail Managed Lanes/Truck Lanes Electronic Toll Collection Systems Intersection Improvements One-Way Streets Changeable Lane Assignments Arterial Access Management Technology-Based Transit Improvements Ridesharing Telecommuting Assessing the Transportation Impacts Parking Strategies Bicycle and Pedestrian Elements Fare Strategies Street Continuity New Lanes New Toll Roads Grade Separation Geometric Design HOV Lanes Multimodal Corridors Freight Rail Improvements Why not more Success?

Many Reactions to Congestion Acceptance Frustration Plan more time Vote to fix the problem or to blame Move job, business or home Is this flexibility cost free?

Variety of Solution Types 100% % Varies for Each City Diversify Development Patterns Manage the Construction Process Manage the Demand Increase System Efficiency Build More Capacity 0%

Strategy Mix Will Be Different Outer Loop Capacity Efficiency Demand Capacity Efficiency Demand Capacity Efficiency Demand Inner Loop Add Capacity Greater Efficiency Demand Management

Adding Roads Helps Congestion Increase (%) 250 200 150 100 50 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 29 Areas Demand 10% to 30% faster 40 Areas Demand 30% faster 6 Areas Demand = Roads 0 1.0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Year

... But, Difficult to Add Enough Roadway. Lane Miles 150 120 90 60 30 0 Lane-Miles Needed Lane-Miles Added Small Medium Large Very Population Group Large

Transit Is Not The Only Solution, Either 1,050 Yearly New Needed (000) 250 200 150 100 50 Current Riders Trips Needed 0 Small Medium Large Population Group Very Large

Solutions? In the past we managed: Construction Projects Supply & Capacity Operations Demand

Solutions? Need for Expanded Management In the past we managed: Construction Projects Supply & Capacity Operations Demand Should we add? Pricing? Expectations? Consensus and Effort = Success

Summary Congestion is growing Solutions are multimodal policies, programs and projects More aggressive operation and deployment Achievable goals Stop the growth of congestion Improve reliability Provide more travel options

what I found in practice was that the tool that made the most difference in my community was transportation. Nothing else had as great an impact on our economic development, on the pattern of growth, or on the quality of life." -Norman Y. Mineta, former Mayor San Jose, CA Current Secretary of Transportation