traffic congestion in north carolina: status, prospects and ......traffic congestion in north...
TRANSCRIPT
Traffic Congestion in North Carolina:
Status, Prospects and Solutions
by
David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., P.E. Professor of Transportation Studies
University of North Carolina at Charlotte [email protected]
March 7 2007
A Report Prepared for the
John Locke Foundation 200 W. Morgan, Suite 200
Raleigh NC 27601 [email protected]
&
Reason Foundation 3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90034
Abstract Traffic congestion is defined as the delay in urban travel caused by the presence
of other vehicles. This study reviews traffic congestion in each of North Carolina’s 17 metropolitan regions. The study determines the magnitude of present and future traffic congestion; the extent to which present plans will relieve or merely slow the growth of congestion; how traffic congestion affects the state’s economy; and actions for significantly reducing congestion in the future. North Carolina’s counties are grouped into 12 ‘commuting regions’ which are much larger than metropolitan areas. The study first quantifies the extent of congestion in each region then estimates much congestion is likely to grow. The study then reviews over 1300 specific projects planned for implementation in each region’s transportation plan, to determine what effect they will have on congestion relief. It quantifies the impacts of all major projects likely to affect congestion. Results are then summed for each region and for the group as a whole. The study finds that traffic congestion is a pervasive and growing problem. Congestion is caused by urban growth, rising private mobility and longer-distance commuting, along with limited expansion of road capacity and competition for road space. Although the state’s largest regions (Charlotte, Raleigh, and Durham) have the highest current congestion, other cities are likely to show more rapid growth in congestion. Congestion will more than double over the next 25 years, threatening the economic future of the state. Yet many regions have ignored the problem and propose to spend their limited transportation funds on ineffective projects that will not likely affect congestion. In the Charlotte region, 43 percent of the dollars available are proposed for highway projects, and as a result the road improvements would alleviate only about 1/3 of the predicted increase in congestion. In the Raleigh and Durham areas, the plans contain about enough savings in delay to hold congestion at approximately current levels, if focused on congestion relief, but those regions are allocating only 73 and 49 percent, respectively, of their dollars to effective projects. In the remaining urban areas, the plans contain more than enough savings in commuter delay to deal with congestion, if funds are focused on congestion relief. The economic impact of relieving congestion in each region (economic value of the savings in travel time) would be substantial: 0.80 percent of the regional economy in the Charlotte region, 0.59 percent in the Triangle, and lower percentages for other regions.
The report concludes with recommendations for the state and each region. The regions’ plans are graded on adequacy regarding congestion: grades range from D for Charlotte to A- for Asheville, Jacksonville and Goldsboro. The report does not call for new funding. Instead it recommends focusing on the problem and using existing planned funds for congestion relief. In In some cities, ‘balance’ in transportation funding needs to be re-defined, from meaning that ‘transit gets 20-50 percent of funds’ to ‘modes get funds in proportion to their demand’. Other recommendations include changing the highway distribution formulas to account for congestion; raising the weight placed on congestion relief to at least 50 percent, quantifying congestion annually; establishing congestion reduction programs for each region; appointing congestion tsars in each region; applying for federal congestion initiative funds; expanding pricing and private partnerships; using innovative highway and intersection designs; using some rail rights-of-way for HOT lanes; and coordinating with distant communities. Specific recommendations are also provided for each metropolitan region.
Table of Contents
Title Page 1 Abstract 2 Acknowledgements 5 I. Introduction 6
A. Issues 6 B. Method 7
II. Findings 9
A. Overall Findings 9 1. The Congestion Problem 9 2. How is Congestion Measured? 9 3. What are the congestion trends for North Carolina? 11 4. What is causing the predicted increase in congestion? 13 5. What do transportation plans have in them? 15 6. How adequate are current plans in reducing congestion? 16 7. Recommendations 18
B. Findings by Region 28
1. Overview of Commuting in NC 28 2. Charlotte 33 3. Concord 52 4. Gastonia 64 5. Raleigh 76 6. Durham 92 7. Winston-Salem 107 8. Greensboro 118 9. High Point 132 10. Burlington 142 11. Asheville 152 12. Wilmington 162 13. Fayetteville 174 14. Jacksonville 186 15. Greenville 197 16. Goldsboro 206 17. Rocky Mount 215 18. Hickory 222
C. Economic Impacts of Congestion Reduction 231
1. Economic Impacts of Travel Time Savings 231 2. Impact by Region 232
Appendices
1. Methodology Details 235 2. Economic Modeling 240 3. Major Congestion-Reducing Projects by Region 246
Acknowledgements This study was conducted by David T. Hartgen, Professor of Transportation at UNC Charlotte. Prof. Hartgen undertook the analysis, directed the gathering of data, developed recommendations and prepared the final report. However, this study could not have been completed without the participation of numerous organizations and individuals. Funding for the study was provided by the John Locke Foundation, Raleigh NC, and the Reason Foundation, Los Angeles CA. The continuing support of these organizations and their representatives, particularly John Hood and Kory Swanson of the John Locke Foundation and Adrian Moore of the Reason Foundation, are gratefully appreciated. Significant analytical support came from UNC Charlotte students Hemalatha Kanapuram, Ravi Karanam, Alka Roy, Jonathan Poeder, Chaitanya Kaita and Greg Fields. They carefully described over 1300 road projects, gathered and summarized plans and policies, prepared tables and graphics, and assisted in report preparation. Prof. Harrison Campbell, UNC Charlotte, conducted the economic analysis. Comments on sections were provided by Isaac Heard. The assistance of all of these individuals and organizations is gratefully appreciated, but the author of course is alone responsible for the study’s contents and recommendations. About the Author David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., P.E. is Professor of Transportation Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, where he established the Center for Interdisciplinary Transportation Studies and now teaches and conducts research in transportation policy. He is the author of about 330 publications on a wide variety of topics in transportation policy and planning, is US Editor of the international academic journal Transportation, and is active in professional organizations. He is a frequent media interviewee in local and national publications. Before coming to Charlotte in 1989, he directed the statistics and analysis functions of the New York State Department of Transportation and served at the Federal Highway Administration. He holds engineering degrees from Duke University and Northwestern University, has taught at SUNY Albany, Union, and Syracuse, and lectures widely. He has completed road needs assessments for Arkansas, New York and North Carolina, studies of sprawl, road condition and growth, and comparative performance of the 50 state highway systems. In 2006 he reviewed the performance of North Carolina’s largest transit systems (www.johnlocke.org.) His recent nationwide study of congestion for the Reason Foundation, (www.Reason.org/ps346.) has received wide national attention.
Traffic Congestion in North Carolina: Status, Prospects and Solutions
I. Introduction A. Issues ”Traffic congestion is people with the economic means
to act on their social and economic interests getting in the way of other people with the means to act on theirs!” 1
Traffic congestion, the delay in urban travel caused by the presence of other vehicles, is variously thought of as a positive sign of business activity, an unavoidable outgrowth of urban activity, a vexing urban phenomenon or an economic response to under-priced road capacity. Regardless, traffic congestion is increasing steadily in most US cities. The topic is regularly mentioned in national polls, and several large national studies have recently assessed the magnitude and impact of traffic congestion. The Texas Transportation Institute2 regularly issues a comparative review of congestion in the nation’s largest 85 cities. The Federal Highway Administration has prepared an assessment of the overall trends in congestion and suggested various treatments for its mitigation3. The Reason Foundation4 has recently issued a comprehensive nationwide of congestion and strategies for reducing it. USDOT has recently released a comprehensive policy statement on congestion, and a follow-up strategic plan for dealing with it5. Several states and cities (notably Texas6, Georgia7, and Washington State8) have realized that addressing congestion is a key action in maintaining their competitiveness. Texas has taken strong steps to develop congestion reduction plans, and Atlanta has recently revised its project selection process to set a congestion reduction goal and put more weight on projects that reduce congestion.
North Carolina is not generally recognized as one of the most congested states, but it is. Part of this misperception stems from the dispersed urban structure of the state, which has many medium-sized urban regions but no very large city: Charlotte, with a population of about 800,000, contains only 9 percent of the state’s population, the lowest share of any state’s major city. Nevertheless, several recent studies have identified the state’s traffic congestion as a major issue. A recent national assessment of the 50 states
1 Alan Pisarski, Senate Testimony, March 19, 2002. 2 Lomax T and Shrank D., Mobility 2003, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX May 2005. 3 Federal Highway Administration, Congestion, Washington, DC. September 2005. 4 Hartgen, DT and Fields MG, Building Highways to Relieve Traffic Congestion, Report for the Reason Foundation, August 31, 2006. Available at www.reason.org. 5 US DOT Congestion Urban Partnership Program, December 18, 2006. Available at www.fightgridlocknow.gov 6 Lomax T and Shrank D, Mobility Report 2003, Texas Transportation Institute, College Station TX, May 2005. 7 Governor’s Congestion Mitigation Task Force, Final Report and Recommendations, Atlanta, GA, Dec. 6, 2005. 8 WSDOT Transportation Commission, Urban Areas Congestion Relief Analysis, Work Product Report Progress Briefing Paper, Olympia, WA, Feb 2005.
ranked North Carolina 48th nationwide on urban interstate congestion, at 75.6 percent congested9. The NCDOT recently identified traffic congestion as a significant cause of the widening gap between predicted revenues and highway needs10. A recent poll by UNC Charlotte’s Urban Institute cited traffic congestion as the #1 problem in the greater Charlotte region11. And recently, the Charlotte MPO commissioned a $500,000 study of congestion in the region12. In the nationwide Reason study cited above, North Carolina’s 17 urbanized areas (over 50,000 in population) are predicted to have 1537 lane-miles of severe congestion by 2030, costing about $ 12.4 B to remove. The state’s rural congestion is also significant, estimated to require another $ 3.8 B to remove. But even though North Carolina is one of the most congested states and is growing rapidly, very little attention is being paid to traffic congestion reduction. Most of the state’s urban transportation plans do not place a high priority on congestion removal. And the state’s long range transportation plan places primary focus on the shortfall of revenue for highway repairs13. A comprehensive review of congestion across North Carolina’s urbanized areas would be of great value in determining how much congestion there is, its trends, its costs to North Carolinians, and how it might be reduced.
This study’s goal is to assess present and future congestion in the state’s 17 largest urbanized areas, extending the national Reason Foundation study by focusing in on a single state. Specifically, the study is intended to: 1. Determine the magnitude of present and future congestion; 2. Assess how current plans deal with congestion; 3. Identify how congestion affects the state’s economy; 4. Suggest actions for significantly reducing future congestion. The study’s intent is to help to focus NC transportation policy on needed actions and provide a roadmap to address this emerging and important issue.
B. Method
This study uses straightforward analysis methods to estimate the congestion delay that might be saved by the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)14 and Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRP) for each urban area. This amount is then compared with the amount of delay that is likely to be added to the region through traffic growth and increased congestion. The comparison then leads to the development of specific recommendations for each region. A summary of the steps is as follows:
9 Hartgen, DT and Karanam RK, More to Do: Performance of State Highway Systems 1984-2004, 15th Annual Report, Reason Foundation, Los Angeles CA, October 4, 2006, Available at www.reason.org. 10 NCDOT Strategic Transportation Plan, Raleigh NC, 2005. 11 UNC Charlotte, Urban Institute, Mecklenburg Region Poll, Charlotte, NC fall 2006. 12 Mildenberg D, “Traffic finally on agenda? $500,000 to study roads”, Charlotte Business Journal, Nov. 24, 2006. 13 NCDOT, Strategic Transportation Plan, 2005. 14 The TIP is a federally-mandated program of projects that each urbanized area expects to build over the short-term, typically 5-7 years. It is revised every two years. The current NCDOT TIP is for the period 2006-2011; a draft TIP covering the period 2008-2013 has recently been released, but is not yet approved. The LRP is a federally-mandated plan for the region’s transportation needs over the next 25 years, along with a fiscally constrained list of projects, with costs, needed to get there. It is revised periodically, generally about every 3-5 years.
1. Review plans. Information from the short-range plan (TIP) and long-range plan (LRP) for each urbanized area was reviewed to identify all projects likely to have an impact on congestion. This assessment identified 333 major projects on the TIP and 985 major projects on LRPs that are likely to impact congestion.
2. Literature review. The literature and state and local reports on congestion in North Carolina were briefly reviewed to determine the impact and weight now being placed on congestion.
3. Locate projects affecting congestion. Reviewing each region, the locations of major projects affecting congestion were identified.
4. Estimate current and future congestion. Using 1995 and 2003 reported data from each region, future-year (2030) congestion indices and travel (vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15) for each region were estimated, based on region size, traffic density and growth rates. For some regions, estimates of travel (VMT) were available in plans.
5. Regional commuting data (travel by mode) was gathered from the 2000 Census. This data consists of modal splits, travel times, auto ownership and number of commuters for each region. It serves as background to judge the reasonableness of each plan.
6. Estimate current and future delay. Regional traffic commuting delay was estimated by converting the congestion indices into delay equations for each region, then multiplying by regional commuting data. Estimates of the effect of additional projects (those on the TIP and the LRP) on delay reduction were then made.
7. Quantify impacts. The impact of congestion on travel time cost was then assessed. Based on this, an estimate of the impact of congestion on the region’s economy was made.
8. Recommendations. For each region, we then estimated what additional steps, beyond the TIP and LRP, need to be taken to reduce congestion.
A more detailed description of the methods used in the study is found in Appendix 1.
15 A ‘vehicle-mile-of travel’ (VMT) is defined as one vehicle traveling one mile, and is a standard measure of travel demand.
II. Findings
A. Overall Findings 1. The congestion problem.
Figure II.A.1 is a schematic that shows the nature of congestion growth. Most regions, including those in North Carolina, are experiencing increasing congestion, and are expected to continue to do so. In most regions the competition is fierce for transportation improvements and planning requirements encourage expenditures for a variety of projects serving numerous objectives other than congestion relief. Pulled by competing priorities, many cities and states appear to be focusing largely on other objectives and are de-emphasizing the congestion problem. Some regions assert that congestion cannot be eliminated or reduced, or that the extra space provided to do so will just be ‘filled up’ anyway. As a result, most long-range transportation plans predict worse congestion conditions even after the expenditure of millions of dollars. The bottom line is clear: other actions will be needed if congestion is to be prevented from increasing or be reduced below current levels.
Figure II.A.1: An Overview of the Congestion Problem
2. How is congestion measured?
A variety of measures of congestion are used in transportation planning. The major definitions are:
a. Freeways: Traffic volume greater than capacity. Road capacity is limited by design, connectivity, and traffic characteristics. The ‘Bible” of highway capacity is the Highway Capacity Manual16. This document treats the measurement of capacity for a wide variety of highway and transit/pedestrian situations. In
16 Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 2000.
general, “capacity’ can be thought of as analogous to maximum flow, that is, it is the maximum amount of traffic that a given facility can carry, given its geometry and traffic characteristics. For freeways, congestion is typically measured on a scale relating traffic volume (in the peak hour) to the rated one-hour capacity of the facility17. The practical capacity of modern freeways is about 2400 vehicles per lane per hour; for older freeways with tight geometrics, somewhat lower numbers (1800-2200 vehicles per lane per hour) are typical. The so-called volume/capacity ratio, V/C, varies from a low of 0 (freely flowing traffic) to values sometimes greater than 1.0 (severely/heavily congested). Freeways are considered severely congested when the volume exceeds the capacity (V/C ratio is greater than 1.0); for relatively short periods of time, roads can handle more traffic than their rated capacities. The following two photos, from the Highway Capacity Manual, show approaching freeway traffic flowing at capacity (level of service E), and the same freeway severely congested (level of service F). LOS F conditions are characterized by stop-and-go traffic, wide variations in traffic speed and density, and flow rates ranging from near 0 to near 2400 vehicles per lane per hour.
17 The HCM also uses traffic density (vehicles per lane per mile) as a means of estimating Level of Service.
b. Intersections: Delay greater than 80 seconds. For signalized intersections, the Highway Capacity Manual measures congestion in terms of average delay per vehicle, and levels of service are defined based on the average amount of delay. Intersections are considered severely congested when the average delay exceeds 80 seconds per vehicle. Since many signals are timed on a 2 ½ -3 minute cycle, this is equivalent to requiring the ‘average’ vehicle to wait more than 1 cycle before getting through the light. This definition has also changed in recent years as drivers seem more willing to accept a longer delay; in the 1994 manual the LOS F delay was set at 60 seconds.
c. Cities: Travel Time Index (TTI) greater than 1.18. The above two measures are used for analysis of individual facilities, but cannot be readily applied to cities. The Texas Transportation Institute18 has developed a delay-related index intended to measure the quality of congestion for an entire city. The index is referred to as the Travel Time Index, defined as: TTI = Average travel time in peak hour Average travel time in off-peak hours This index conveniently relates congestion to peak travel times which people see every day. For instance, a TTI of 1.25 means that travel times in a given city takes 25 percent longer in the peak than in the off-peak. Although no standard has been yet agreed upon for what constitutes various levels of congestion using the TTI index, by interpolation delay is considered severe when then TTI exceeds 1.18. This is because a TTI of 1.18 corresponds closely to travel at peak flow, the top of LOS E, which is about 18 percent longer travel time than free-flow travel time.
The TTI was originally developed for use in larger cities, but it has recently been extended to smaller cities19, including all of North Carolina’s urbanized areas. Because this index conveniently tracks congestion averages and is not location-specific, it is ideal for comparing cities over time within North Carolina. However, it should be noted that the TTI is an ‘average’ index for a region; and since congestion is not uniform within a region, there will be corridors and routes with both higher and lower congestion levels. Therefore, even cities that have lower average levels of congestion may have some corridors or locations that are severely congested.
3. What are the congestion trends for North Carolina?
Figures II.A.2 and II.A.3 show current and predicted congestion indices for North Carolina urbanized areas, arranged according to urbanized area population. 18 Lomax and Shrank, op. cit. 19 Hartgen and Fields, op. cit.
Figure II.A.2: Congestion Trends, North Carolina Urbanized Areas
Congestion Trends
1.171.14
1.03
1.14
1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.03 1.02
1.31
1.19
1.05
1.19
1.05 1.05 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04
1.62
1.37
1.15
1.37
1.11 1.10 1.10 1.09 1.10 1.09 1.08 1.08 1.09 1.08 1.08 1.07 1.07
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
Cha
rlotte
Raleigh
Fay
etteville
Durha
m
Winston
-Salem
Green
sboro
Wilm
ington
Gas
tonia
Con
cord
Ash
eville
High Point
Jac
kson
ville
Hicko
ry
Burlin
gton
Green
ville
Golds
boro
Rk Mou
nt
Urban ize d Are a
TTI C
ongestion Index
TT I 1995
TT I 2003
TT I 2030
Figure II.A.3: Congestion Trends in Commuting Areas
Congestion has been rising steadily in North Carolina’s urbanized areas, and is
predicted to worsen substantially over the next 25 years. As recently as 1995, congestion in the largest cities was noticeable but not intolerable: that year, Charlotte’s congestion index was 1.17 and Raleigh’s 1.14. However, in the next 8 years congestion almost doubled: by 2003, congestion levels increased to 1.31 for Charlotte and 1.19 for Raleigh. Even the smaller cities saw their congestion increase, albeit at lower levels.
Our forecast of overall congestion for North Carolina’s cities is based on our study for the Reason Foundation20. By 2030 most of the regions will be recording congestion indices that essentially double the current delay. For instance, Charlotte’s index will move from 1.31 to 1.62, a doubling of delay, to Chicago’s current levels. Raleigh’s index will move from 1.19 to 1.37, almost doubling delay. Rocky Mount’s index will increase from 1.04 to 1.07. These forecasts are based on continuation of trends, both in traffic and in urban growth and in road construction. In other words, they assume that the regions’ short range plans (TIPs) and long range plans (LRPs) are implemented as planned. If those plans are delayed, and they often are, then congestion will generally be worse than predicted. But more importantly, the predictions also indicate that the expenditure of TIP and LRP funds, as planned, will not necessarily improve congestion. So, after funds are expended, there is a considerable likelihood that some regions will have worse congestion than today, UNLESS an appropriate portion of those funds are directed at congestion relief.
4. What is causing the predicted increase in congestion?
Congestion is variously attributed to traffic growth, incidents, construction and other events such as weather. The primary factors in most regions are traffic volume vs. capacity (about 50%), incidents and accidents, about 30-40%, and construction (about 5%)21. Increasing congestion is not caused by wastefulness or unnecessary travel, but by the growth of the regions along with limited roadway expansion. Nor is it caused by land uses which concentrate trip ends at specific locations. Integration of land use and transportation capacity can prevent local overloads but does not prevent overall traffic growth. The pejorative comment, “Building roads to relieve traffic is like loosening your belt to avoid gaining weight”, trivializes the problem by focusing it wrongly on individuals rather than on urban growth. Nor is congestion caused by ‘induced travel’22, that elusive additional traffic thought be magically created by more road capacity. Most careful studies of induced travel find it to be a small part of traffic growth.
From 1995 to 2003, the 17 regions of North Carolina all grew substantially in
both population and travel (VMT), as shown in Figure II.A.4. Charlotte had the greatest increase in traffic, 44.9 percent, over this 8-year period, while Wilmington and Concord showed the greatest increases in population. As a group, the 17 regions grew about 23.3 percent in population and 24.4 percent in VMT between 1995 and 2003. Although the VMT has grown faster than the population, that reflects increasing connectivity, trucking, and commercial traffic within regions in addition to household travel.
20 Hartgen and Fields, op. cit. 21 Federal Highway Admin., Traffic congestion, October 2005. 22 So-called ‘induced travel’ is travel thought to be created by adding capacity. It is thought to consist primarily of some traffic diverted to faster routes, some shifted in time, days, or other modes, and some created by additional development. Its existence, while theoretical, has not been confirmed. Most careful studies of individual projects show very small (5-15%) effects at most.
Figure II.A.4: Growth in Population and Traffic, NC Urbanized Areas.
Growth in Traffic and Pop
44
.9
25
.5
14
.8
22
.3
17
.6
14
.2
28
.3
22
.0
35
.0
19
.8
18
.2
7.9
21
.9
22
.2
15
.8
5.7
16
.5
31
.6
38
.2
12
.9
22
.2
20
.9
20
.3
46
.1
14
.4
39
.4
5.7
4.8
4.0
20
.5
12
.2
24
.6
7.1
3.7
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Cha
rlotte
Raleigh
Fay
etteville
Durha
m
Winston
-Salem
Green
sboro
Wilm
ington
Gas
tonia
Con
cord
Ash
eville
High Point
Jac
kson
ville
Hicko
ry
Burlin
gton
Green
ville
Golds
boro
Roc
ky M
ount
Urbanized Area
Perc
en
t C
han
ge, 95-0
3
Pct Ch in Vmt
Pct Ch in Pop
These trends are expected to continue into the future. Figure II.A.5 shows how the populations of the urbanized areas are likely to grow over the next 25 years.
Figure II.A.5: Forecasts of Population Growth
PopulationTrends
725
528
314281 266
243168
135 131 129 110 104 94 92 71 60 56
1185
970
387 406362
333278
221185 178
151111 126 132
10267 64
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Cha
rlotte
Raleigh
Fay
etteville
Durha
m
Winston
-Salem
Green
sboro
Wilm
ington
Gas
tonia
Con
cord
Ash
eville
High Point
Jac
kson
ville
Hicko
ry
Burlington
Green
ville
Goldsbo
ro
Rk Mou
nt
Urban ize d Are a
Popula
tion (000)
UA PopK 2003
UA PopK 2030
The growth rates for most cities are expected to be substantial, in the range of 50 percent for the group as a whole. As these regions grow, the newcomers bring their cars and
driving travel patterns, which are increasingly auto-oriented. About 90 percent of US households now own at least one motor vehicle, and the percentage is a bit higher, 92 percent, in North Carolina. Since the size of the road system, in terms of lane-miles, is relatively stable, the increasing population and the driving (vehicle-miles) that comes with it will increase the traffic load on the system, resulting in greater congestion.
Figure II.A.6: Population Trends for Urbanized Areas
5. What do transportation plans have in them?
To determine this, we undertook a detailed review of all the projects listed in the current TIP and the current (c.2004-2030) long range plans for each urbanized area. Working carefully through each, we identified each project likely to have an impact on road capacity or improved traffic flow. This included all road widening projects, new major roads, major upgrades, intersection improvements, signal optimizations, major bridge work, and a few other specialized projects. We also identified a number of projects likely to reduce capacity, such as traffic calming and road-narrowing (‘road diet’) projects. We then located the project exactly and gathered background data describing each project’s length, cost, number of lanes, and estimated traffic. From this we were able to estimate the changes in speed and travel time for each project and the commuting hours likely to be saved.
Table II.A.1 summarizes some of the basic data from this review. First regarding the TIP, overall these 17 regions have in them 333 major projects estimated to cost $15.8 B. These are not all the TIP projects (there are several thousand projects on the TIP), only those that are likely to affect congestion. Remembering that the TIP is a 5-7 year program of short-range projects, slightly over ½ of the funds ($8.5 B) for congestion-reducing projects are slated for new freeways and arterials, and another $ 6.5 B is slated for road widenings.
The long range plans show a larger number of projects, 985, but a lower overall cost, $13.9 B. Where as new facilities are the major focus of the TIP, widenings are the primary focus of the long-range plans: of the $13.9 B total, about 58 percent ($8.09 B) is slated for widening. Neither the TIP nor the LRP program has enough focus on intersection improvements or signal timing, two important strategies that are widely recognized for their ability to improve traffic flow and operations.
Table II.A.1: Summary of Projects Affecting Congestion, 17 NC Urbanized
Areas TIP LRP Work Type Number Cost (k) Number Cost (k) 01-New Freeway 26 6418206 11 1181460 02-New Arterial 60 2153305 287 2933944 03-New Exit/Ramp 5 71528 18 250049 04-Frwy Widening 19 1793875 26 1811343 05-Urb Arterial Widening 138 3176071 491 5532565 06-Rural Art Widening 29 1552192 60 752663 07-Intersection Improvement 10 112950 24 198489 08-Signal Optimization 11 42659 1 4400 09-HOV/HOT Lanes 0 0 8 566667 10-Bridge Work 32 122856 14 133805 11-Arterial-to-Frwy Conv 3 366400 8 368900 12-Minor Imp, No Widen 3 9772 28 79044 13-Lane Red/Traffic Calming 0 0 9 59977 Total 333 $ 15819814 985 $ 13873306 Grand Total $ 29693121
6. How adequate are current plans in reducing congestion?
To determine this, we first estimated how much each region’s congestion delay would increase over the next 25 years, given projected growth. This allowed us to estimate how much of future commuting time would be ‘free flow’ and how much would be ‘delay’ congestion-related. This provides a basis for determining how much driving time would have to be saved in order to hold congestion to its current (2003) level. Then, we reviewed the impact of the TIP and LRP for each area on congestion reduction. This was accomplished by estimating, for each project in the TIP and LRP, the reduction in travel time that would occur based on average traffic and typical speed improvements23. These potential savings were then summed and compared with the savings needed to hold congestion at its current levels.
23 A more accurate method would be to use traffic assignment methods to determine the savings in daily travel time caused by the TIP and LRP, respectively. This method would be time-consuming and dependent on the cooperation of numerous other agencies, and hence we use the shorthand method described above. We believe that our approach is adequate for sizing the magnitude of the problem. If the analysis is repeated with the upcoming TIP, it should be done using assignments.
The answer is mixed. Figure II.A.7 shows the summary of our assessment for each city, comparing the potential reduction in delay likely to be achieved from the TIP and the LRP with the reduction needed to hold congestion at current (2003) levels. For example, the figure shows that for Charlotte, total regional commuting delay is expected to increase by about 149,742 hours a day between 2003 and 2030. However, the TIP and LRP provide the opportunity to reduce this by just 52565 hours, or about 35 percent of the growth in delay. On the other hand, the situation for Concord is considerably more optimistic. There, the delay is expected to grow by about 3443 hours, but the TIP and LRP have the potential to reduced delay by 23448 hours, more than enough to keep ahead of the growth in traffic24.
Figure II.A.7: Potential Saving in Delay vs. Delay Increases
52565
64675
49083
24207
21945
13268
10103
7666 23449
13246
4634
3292
5425
4741
5795
7276
2672
149742
75439
11036
23537
6659
6426
5468
4022
3443
2587
2226
1641
1895
1950
1336
607
613
050000100000150000200000
Ch
arl
ott
e
R
ale
igh
F
aye
tte
ville
Du
rha
m
W
insto
n-
Sa
lem
Gre
en
sb
oro
W
ilm
ing
ton
Ga
sto
nia
Co
nco
rd
A
sh
eville
Hig
h P
oin
t
Ja
ckso
nville
H
icko
ry
B
url
ing
ton
G
ree
nville
Go
ldsb
oro
Ro
cky M
ou
nt
Total DVHT Saved from TIP
and LRP
Increase in Delay 2003-2030
Looking in detail at the Figure, we find 3 separate situations:
• In the Charlotte region, the present TIP and LRP together are clearly inadequate to deal with rising congestion, since the estimated delay reduced by all the projects in these plans total only 35 percent of what would be needed to hold congestion at its present level.
• In Raleigh and Durham, the TIP and LRP contain, in total, the potential to reduce delay by an amount approximately equal to the predicted growth in delay from increased traffic. Therefore, these regions MIGHT be able to deal with future congestion within the current budget IF the location, impact and timing of these projects is appropriate.
• In the remaining regions, the TIP and LRP together contain several times as much potential reduction in delay as would be needed to hold congestion at its present levels. 24These numbers are probably conservative. They basically assume stable non-interacting regions, and use a shorter travel time than for the region as a whole. So the total delay could be larger, a lot perhaps, in most regions, and the TIP and LRP less adequate.
This means that these cities stand a good change of reducing, or at least containing, congestion IF (and that is a big ‘if’) the projects are built as scheduled and if they are targeted to congestion relief. These requirements are by no means certain.
These conclusions do not include the effects of possible ‘induced travel’ generated by more capacity, or possible cost increases that could slow construction. Both effects could hinder achievement of congestion reduction goals, but they do not reduce the overall importance of the issue.
A central issue in congestion relief is the availability of adequate funding. Table II.A.2 shows how current LRP funds are proposed to be spent in the state’s 17 urbanized areas, versus the share of commuting traffic by mode. The transit shares of funding range from a high of 57 percent for Charlotte to a low of 0.4 percent for Rocky Mount. Generally, the areas with the greatest congestion problems are the same ones allocating high percentages of funds for transit service. And in most cases, the share of funding allocated for transit is many times its share of commuting. The imbalance is most severe for the largest cities. If these cities have any hope of dealing with congestion, this must change.
Table II.A.2: Long-Range Plan Funds by Mode
MPO Region Highway Transit Funds Other Total $ Transit Share % $
Transit Share Commuting, %
Charlotte 4699 6346*** 11045 57.5 2.6 Raleigh 5726 2174 7900 27.5 1.2 Durham 2778 3104 240 6122 50.7 3.0 Greensboro 2955 743 115 3813 19.5 1.3 Winston-Salem 2362 43* 2362 1.8 1.5 Fayetteville 2153 200e 2353 8.4 0.8 Hickory 1680 116 1796 6.5 0.3 Concord 1421 50e 1471 2.9 0.4 Asheville 1298e 42e 70e 1411 3.0 0.8 Wilmington 1193 180 8 1380 13.0 0.9 High Point 1071 9* 1071 0.8 1.3 Gastonia 934 95 1030 9.3 0.3 Goldsboro 900 34 11 945 3.6 0.4 Jacksonville 682 37 8 727 5.1 0.8 Greenville 533 na 533 na 0.8 Burlington 492 na 492 na 0.1 Rocky Mount 322 1 323 0.4 0.4
e estimated * thru 2010
** thru 2014 ***Latest
: $8.4B
The following table summarizes our assessment of the status of the 17
transportation plans regarding their focus on congestion. Generally, the state’s largest
regions (Charlotte, Raleigh, and Durham) are experiencing the greatest congestion problems and need to act deliberately to bring their plans into focus. In the remainder of the state’s regions, plans vary in adequacy with respect to congestion reduction, but in most regions the plans can have a major impact, if implemented in a timely fashion.
Table II.A.3: Adequacy of Transportation Plans’ Congestion Focus
Region Shows present and future Congestion?
Recognizes Congestion Issue?
TIP/LRP Delay Savings Sufficient?
Sufficient Funds Available?
Hy/Transit Fund Ratio?
Overall Grade
Charlotte No Partial No No 43/57 D Raleigh Partial Partial Probably No 73/27 C Durham Partial Partial Probably No 49/51 C- Greensboro Yes Yes Yes Yes 80/20 B+ Winston-Salem Partial Partial Yes Yes 98/2 B Fayetteville Partial Partial Yes Probably 92/8 C+ Hickory No Partial Yes Probably 93/7 B- Concord Yes Partial Yes No 97/3 B- Asheville Yes Partial Yes Yes 97/3 A- Wilmington Partial Partial Yes Possibly 87/13 B+ High Point No Partial Yes Possibly 99/1 B+ Gastonia No Partial Yes Probably 91/9 C Goldsboro Yes Yes Yes Yes 96/4 A- Jacksonville Yes Partial Yes Yes 95/5 A- Greenville Partial Partial Yes Probably NA B+ Burlington Yes Partial Yes No NA B Rocky Mount No Partial Yes Probably 99.6/0.4 B
These ratings are intended as an overall assessment of the adequacy of the present
plans and are not intended as indicative of the dedication of well-meaning staff and elected officials.
7. Recommendations This section summarizes our recommendations for dealing with congestion at the
state level and general recommendations for local governments in improving their abilities to plan for rising congestion. Detailed recommendations for each region, based on an analysis of their individual plans, are covered in the next part, Findings by Region. These findings are based on our assessment of the status of congestion planning for the state as a whole, and an assessment of what is needed now to increase attention to this emerging issue.
State government
• Move aggressively on a ‘congestion initiative’. It is time for North Carolina to take traffic congestion seriously. Not only are the state’s congestion statistics increasing rapidly, but citizens and businesses are feeling the pinch of reduced and unreliable travel times throughout the state. This is not a problem just of the larger areas, although it most severe there, but of all areas. It is the state’s economy that is at risk, since if congestion snarls the growth and vitality of the larger cities it affects the entire economy. Vapid responses such as ‘the roads will just fill up anyhow’ or ‘we can’t do anything about it, so why try?’ are not acceptable. The state should develop a ‘congestion initiative’, along the lines of the recent federal initiative, but of course focused on its unique situation. Elements of the initiative should include:
• Congestion measurement and reporting • Evaluation of regional plans • Standards for determining congestion impacts • Cost-effectiveness assessments of major projects • Planning beyond the MPO and region border • Funding priority for congestion reduction projects • Economic analysis of congestion impacts • How congestion affects household mobility, particularly for minority and
vulnerable populations • Congestion effects on rural development. • Congestion removal and air quality improvement.
• Conduct a statewide assessment of congestion. The state should marshal its
considerable resources to measure, allocate, fund, and then implement actions to reduce congestion.
• Host a statewide conference on congestion and its impacts. The focus of the conference should be on quantified information on congestion in the state, how it affects people and businesses, and practical solutions for reducing it.
• Change the highway distribution formula to give more attention to congestion. State highway formula law should be changed to focus on urban regions, and a ‘congestion/traffic’ component should be added to the major funding formulas. Alternatively, use the state’s prerogative to allocate funds BELOW the super-district level based partially on congestion need, rather than applying the formula to individual counties.
• Review the ‘national congestion initiative’ and determine how North Carolina can participate. The national initiative focuses on ‘congestion corridors’ and an ‘urban partnerships initiative’. The state should review which corridors in the state might be eligible (I-85, I-95 and portions of I-40 are possibilities), and consider participating in the urban partnerships initiative25.
• Re-balance modal funding. So-called ‘balance’ in transportation funding needs to be re-defined, from meaning that ‘transit gets half of funds’ to ‘modes get funds in proportion 25 The deadline for initial applications to the Urban Partnership Program is April 1, 2007.
to demand’. It is highly inequitable to its commuters for a region to spend half of its transportation dollars for 1 percent of commuters. We recommend that funds for all modes be no more than 3 times their modal shares.
• Establish a ‘congestion reduction’ or ‘major highway/freeway’ fund as part of the highway program. Make the criteria for the use of fund monies dependent on standardized criteria for measuring and forecasting congestion by all MPOs. Remove politics from project selection, relying instead on objective criteria for congestion severity and cost-effectiveness of removal strategies.
• Get more creative with public-private partnerships. Other states, particularly Virginia, Texas and Indiana, are leading the nation in exploring creative ways of involving the private sector in providing needed road capacity. Over 60 proposals to sell or ‘concession’ toll roads and toll bridges are being reviewed in 17 states26. Although North Carolina does not have significant toll facilities, and is just now getting into toll road construction, it has yet to investigate the potential for pricing or tolling additional (incremental) lanes on existing roads. Although these approaches may not work everywhere, particularly on arterial systems, they represent a means of financing extra capacity that should not be overlooked.
• Expand the use of state infrastructure banks. Not all congestion occurs on state roads. Indeed, much of it occurs in the ‘transition zones’ between higher-level road classes and locally-owned arterials. Therefore, municipalities are a key player in congestion relief. Infrastructure banks are state-initiated mechanisms for allowing local governments to deal with local roadway problems by borrowing capital funds from the bank, then paying them back with a local revenue stream, usually a dedicated mil tax. South Carolina leads the nation in highway financing using this approach, with over $2 B in loans out of a US total of $5 B. North Carolina’s ‘Moving Ahead’ program is similar but much more limited.
• Quantify the impact of each major project on congestion relief as a condition for funding. This study uses a simplified method of computing these impacts. However, a more accurate method would use equilibrium traffic assignment to assess each project in the long range plan for each city. The criteria should be savings in vehicle-hours of delay versus project cost.
• Require that MPOs give congestion reduction at least 50% weight in project selection for Interstate, US-numbered or NC-numbered highways. Too many projects are now put forward to ensure ‘balance’, ‘modal equity’, ‘choices’ and similar fuzzy criteria. This is wrong. The state, as the guardian of our money in the highway funds, has an obligation to insist that these dollars be spent wisely and in a cost-effective manner. Particularly, the split between transit and highway projects should be reviewed for each region.
26 Orski, K, Beyond the Tipping Point V, Innovation Briefs 18:1, Jan-Feb 2007.
• Increase the role of pricing. North Carolina has begun to take initial steps to permit tolling of some new facilities, but has not seriously investigated ‘priced’ or special use lanes, HOT (high occupancy and toll) lanes, or other innovative operations on existing facilities. The state’s attempts at HOV lanes in Charlotte have failed miserably since the traffic volumes are too low for efficient use, the lanes are too short, and the roads were widened simultaneously. Instead, the state needs to explore the potential for ‘priced lanes’ (HOT lanes) as part of the expansion of existing facilities.
• Review the potential for innovative highway designs that add capacity in constricted locations. Numerous applications of these designs for elevated and trenched freeways and intersections, innovative intersection design, fly-over ramps for ‘priced’ lanes have been developed in other cities and countries27.
• Develop multi-county commuting programs. The current employer-focused urban area commuting programs are too small and too narrow geographically to significantly affect congestion. And the largest carpooling shares are not in metropolitan areas but in distant rural 3rd tier counties and among the Hispanic population28, both over 20 percent of commuting shares. Since these trips are also long-distance, they also account for a disproportionate share of regional travel. The state should organize a larger program, working from the residential end of commuting in 3rd tier counties to assist with carpooling, vanpooling and express bus transit services across county lines into major metro areas.
• Expand the roles of flex-time and work-at-home policies. Work-at-home ‘commuting’ is the single fastest growing segment of commuting nationally and in NC, and now constitutes 3 times as much as the state’s transit commuting. Yet virtually no attention has been paid to its impact to date, or its potential in reducing congestion. Most of the urban plans say little about either and the state apparently has little interest in them. This is shortsighted. The state should organize a serious effort to expand both the use of flexible work hours and work-at-home activity, not just for state workers (a trivial market in most regions) but in major businesses.
• Review the opportunities for using rail right-of-way for highway commuting routes. In most cities, the presence of railroads in the city center or in major radial corridors is historically based, there being no present ‘business’ reason for the rail line to go through the central city29. Working with right-of-way owners and local governments, the state should review how such right-of-ways might be converted to HOT lane or express-bus corridor lanes, thus providing extra capacity and access to city centers. Re-locating a rail route around a city and then re-using the right-of-way for a HOT lane might be cheaper than adding capacity to a current radial Interstate. In some cases, other similar rights-of-way or corridors such as utility rights-of-way and water drainage systems might also be considered.
27 Peter Samuel, Innovative Highway Design, Reason Foundation, September 2006. 28 Pisaraki A, Commuting in America III, Transportation Research Board, September 2006. 29 Samuel (op. cit.) has estimated the potential for this option as significant for many larger cities.
• Establish multi-county ‘commuting councils’. The commuting sheds for the state’s largest regions are much larger than the urbanized area boundaries or even the MPO planning regions. Effective commuter planning can only be done over larger areas than at present. The state should take the lead, under the ‘coordination’ requirements of federal planning, to enlarge planning regions to encompass the practical commuter shed areas, such as described in this report.
• Establish regional ‘congestion tsars’. A key problem in congestion planning is that responsibility for congestion monitoring and reduction is diffused among numerous agencies. Basically, if commuters are stuck in traffic, there is no one to call who can deal with it. MPOs do the long range planning, but implementing agencies plan and build the projects for their own jurisdictional roads. No one is responsible for monitoring or planning congestion improvement for the region. The result is disjointed and uncoordinated effort on major initiatives such as congestion reduction. Working with each MPO, the state should put in place a more visible structure for addressing congestion.
• Establish better coordination between intersection and arterial capacity investment and land use development. One particularly frustrating (to citizens) element of North Carolina’s highway investment policy is the apparent disconnect between land use planning and road planning. Citizens often express frustration that road widenings are subsequently followed by rapid development which eats away at the extra capacity. Other states have greater involvement in ‘access control’ prohibiting access to widened facilities except at major intersections. The state government needs to review the need for greater access control on state-owned roads when widened, so that the added capacity is not frittered away. This will involve balancing the rights of adjacent landowners and the state’s traveling public.
Local Governments and MPOs • Change weighting schemes for project selection. Each region should put more weight
on congestion as a factor in project selection. In most regions, travel times and reliability of travel are the key issue confronting most citizens. While other goals (accident reduction, travel reliability, environmental impact minimization, and equity) are important, they are not as important as congestion relief. Less weight should be given to the ‘wants’ expressed at hearings, which often advocate ‘nice to have’ projects and ineffective actions. More attention should be given to the views obtained through polls and surveys, which invariably call for greater road capacity at key locations. Atlanta has recently changed its project selection process to place 70% of the weight on congestion relief30; NC cities should follow suit.
• Review plans for congestion reduction effectiveness. Charlotte, Raleigh and Durham: In the largest 3 regions (Charlotte, Raleigh and
Durham), congestion mitigation strategies need to be objectively assessed against their potential for delay reduction. Light-rail proposals should be removed from congestion mitigation plans. An appropriate plan of action for these regions is: 30 Governor’s Congestion Mitigation Task force, Op. cit.
• Review all major projects for congestion reduction potential, using equilibrium traffic assignment methodology.
• Determine how congested the region will be AFTER the current TIP and LRP are completed, compared with current congestion.
• Develop and implement a congestion monitoring plan. • Identify other major projects needed, particularly bottleneck removals,
intersection treatments, selected lane additions. • Estimate the cost of providing these treatments and their impact on congestion. • In project selection, increase the weight for congestion-reduction potential to at
least 50 percent. • Lower the focus on transit service, and increase highway-capacity provision. • Add flex-time and work-at-home policies to the plans. • Revise carpooling programs to focus on the residential end. Other regions: In other regions, our analysis indicates that the TIP and LRPs
together have the potential to reduce congestion while improving mobility. In these cases the regional plans should be firmed up with respect to their congestion-reduction, and commitments made based on that factor. In these regions, the focus should be on ensuring that congestion-reducing projects are completed expeditiously and that less worthy projects are dropped.
• Give greater consideration to arterial treatments. In most regions, most of the congestion occurs not on freeway links but at transitions between freeways and arterials and between arterials and lower functional classes. It is generally congested intersections, and often specific turns at each intersection, which are the most troublesome. These locations are often will known in urban regions but for a variety of reasons they go untreated. Some cities, like Charlotte have even gone so far to list roads that will NOT be widened. This is shortsighted since often great improvements in street carrying capacity can be achieved by relatively small upgrades of intersection turns31. Assertions that the location ‘cannot be treated’, or that ‘we can’t pave over the region’ merely worsen the problem by replacing analysis by histrionics and pass the problem unresolved to our children. Samuel32 has shown that a variety of innovative designs for intersection capacity can be done so as not to take up much space.
MPOs and their implanting agencies should carefully review the need for additional arterial intersection capacity in each region, with an eye to creative solutions. Among the options that should be considered are:
• Possible double-left and (perhaps some) triple-left turns. • Lengthened left-turn storage areas. • Revised signal timing to give more capacity to left turns. • The need for so-called ‘urban diamonds’ (single point urban interchanges)
at additional locations. • Extra-long exiting and entrance ramps and double-lane treatments on
some freeway exits. • Selected lane additions to address perennial ‘bottleneck’ locations.
31 Charlotte is experimenting with intersection treatments for these road sections; see Rubin R, Test-drive your future at Woodlawn and South, Charlotte Observer, January 2, 2007. 32 Peter Samuel, Innovative Highway Design, Reason Foundation, September 2006.
• ‘Fly-over’ turn ramps at key urban intersections • Trenched or below-grade intersection treatment at high volume locations. • Wider areas controlled by traffic optimization strategies. • Innovative intersection designs for tight locations. • Possible conversion of at-grade intersections to partially grade-separated
intersections. • Creation of de-facto ‘beltway’ routes within urban regions through the use
of preferential signal timing and intersection treatment.
• Establish work-at-home and flex-time programs. Of the 17 plans we reviewed, none had a significant flex-time program and none even mentioned work-at-home policies. Together, these commuting behaviors account for 5-7 times as much travel demand as transit commuting in most regions, yet they are totally ignored as congestion mitigation strategies. They are particularly important in smaller regions where peak periods are short, and a few minutes of movement either way of the peak can significantly smooth congestion and traffic flow. Each region should develop a sensible plan for encouraging and monitoring the impact of these policies on local travel patterns.
• Develop effective ridesharing strategies. The regional plans typically use carpooling as verbal filler, suggesting that the tiny formal carpool matching programs now in place now are having an impact. But they are too small in all regions to affect commuting. The largest program, in Charlotte, has about 2000 registered carpoolers, but the actual amount is likely closer to 1000 commuters. This is about 2 percent of regional carpoolers; the other programs, where they exist, are smaller in impact. The plans ignore the facts of carpooling: most are family members, most commuter carpools are very long-distance from 3rd tier counties, and the largest market is Hispanic workers33. Each region should re-design its program, working not from the work end but in distant 3rd tier counties to encourage carpool formation from the residence end.
• Establish congestion monitoring procedures for all cities. The TTI data applies only to
85 large cities and just 2 in North Carolina (Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham). Smaller regions not included in the annual Texas Transportation Institute assessment typically have no measures for monitoring area-wide congestion.). Except for the Reason study cited earlier, there are no measures of congestion for smaller cities. Each city should review the HPMS data gathered by the state for its adequacy in estimating a TTI-like congestion index for each city, and supplement it with additional samples if needed. Then, each city should compute its estimated congestion index annually, using local traffic counts and capacity data. Each city should also use its traffic assignment methodology to estimate future congestion when the TIP and LRP are completed. This analysis should be updated with each LRP update cycle.
• Enlist the support of the NC Association of MPOs. This organization can be helpful in tracking congestion and in determining how best to deal with it state-wide, and in sharing information between MPOs on actual progress made and on ineffective actions tried out. 33 Pisarski A, op. cit.
• Reduce the role of transit service in congestion mitigation. Only a few of the plans we reviewed presented an objective picture of the role of transit service in congestion mitigation. Most suggested that transit service was somehow (unstated specifics) a key element of mitigation, when in fact numerous studies show that transit in North Carolina is primarily used by auto-less riders, and the choice ridership is too small in number to affect congestion34. The largest transit system in the state, Charlotte, affects less than 1 percent of urbanized area commuting; most of the 10 largest transit systems in the state account for less than 0.25 percent of their regions' commuting. Even if these systems were to triple their ridership from choice riders, a clear impossibility, the effect on congestion would not be noticeable. MPOs need to update their plans, bringing transit service into an objective perspective.
• Avoid the ‘Planners’ Agenda’. Most of the state’s long-range transportation plans appear to have been co-opted by an anti-car ‘green’ agenda that prescribes planners’ views of the region’s transportation future, rather than objectively assessing the trends and suggesting how to deal with them. This well-known ‘planner’s agenda’ bias has the effect of stifling sensible solutions to congestion. The state and the MPO in each region need to look hard in the mirror, asking, “What are the demographic trends here? Do our plans confront them objectively? What should we be doing to reduce congestion, not just ignore it or slow its growth?” The following table summarizes our recommendations for the 17 urbanized areas of the state. For each region, we show what is planned now, versus what needs to be done to deal with congestion. Table II.A.3: Summary of TIP/LRP Actions and Recommendations
Action
Charlotte
Concord
Gastonia
Raleigh
Durham
Winston-
Salem
Greensboro
High Point
Burlington
Asheville
Wilm
ington
Fayetteville
Jacksonville
Greenville
Goldsboro
Rocky M
t
Hickory
Capacity Provision or Management New freeway e R Er ER ER ER ER ER ER Er er ER Er ER Er
New arterials eR er Er er Er ER ER ER Er er Er Er ER er Er New exits or ramps on freeways
R r r R eR er er er er er
Freeway widenings eRR
ER R ER ER Er eR ER Er er
Urban arterial widenings RR Er ER ER EERR
ER ERR
ER ER ER ER
ER ER ER ER ER eR
Rural arterial widenings R Er Er E e Er Er Er Er E e Er ER Er Intersection improvements
ER eR R eR eR eR ER ERR
eR R eR ER ER R eR ER eR
Bottleneck removal program
R R R R R RR R r R R R R ER R er ER
Loop or Bypass road ER Er Er ER ER ER EER
ER ER ER Er ER ER ER er Er
Signal optimization eR eR eR ER eR eR eR R eR er R eR eR r eR ER eR
34 Hartgen DT, Policy versus Performance: Directions for North Carolina’s Largest Transit Systems, John Locke Foundation, Raleigh, NC. May 2006. Available at www.johnlocke.org.
Action
Charlotte
Concord
Gastonia
Raleigh
Durham
Winston-
Salem
Greensboro
High Point
Burlington
Asheville
Wilm
ington
Fayetteville
Jacksonville
Greenville
Goldsboro
Rocky M
t
Hickory
Incident management Er r r er eR ER R R R R eR R HOV lanes E E E HOT lanes R r r ER R R Reversible lanes/ shoulders
R r ER R r E R
Bridge widenings or new crossings
R Er e ER er ER R e er ER
Minor improvements with no widening
e Er e e
Other TA
P revisions
Transit
capital actions
AT
IS and var m
essages
Intersection m
onitoring
ITS/
monitoring
Tunnel
replacement
Demand Reduction or Management Employee carpool matching program
e r R er eR er er er er r R r r R r
Residential carpool matching program
RR R R R R R R R R R R R R r R r R
Vanpool program eR r er e er er er er er r r R r r Express bus service eR r er e er Er er e r r R r Bike or ped’tn program EE e e E e e e e e e e e Er Employer incentives e Rapid transit, LRT/BRT EE er E EE E E Toll roads, bridges/ lanes eR Er ER R r eR r Truck routes/hours/days R R r R E r Er Flexible work hours ram R R R R eR eR R er R R R R R R R r r Work-at-home/telec R R R R R R er r R R R r R R r Improved local transit E e er Er er er E r e e e e Commuter transit fares Er r er R r Parking surcharges/fees e Reduced parking supply e Lane reduction/ecalming e e e e Other ___ B
ragg A
ccess C
ontrol
Lejeune
Access
Control
Planning and Other Administrative Actions Increase priority for congestion-relief projects
R R eR R eR R ER R eR R R eR E r eR R R
Evaluate project cong impacts of TIP
E R R R R R ER R R R R ER eR R eR R R
Evaluate cong impact of LRP, HP
R R R R ER R ER R R R R ER eR R eR R R
Strengthen Cong Mgt Plan
R R R R ER R R R R R r eR ER r eR R
Modeling improvements E eR R eR er r R R R r eR r R R R R Plan coordination with other MPOs
R R R R R R R R R R R
eE In TIP or LRP (minor/major focus) rR Recommended (minor/major focus)
.
Implementing these actions will go a significant way to reducing current congestion and reversing its growth. In particular, the smaller regions of North Carolina stand a good chance of reducing this growing problem, if they objectively focus on actions that will have an effect. We are, generally, NOT calling for additional funding. We believe that refocusing existing programs toward congestion relief can be effective, without additional funds.