Purpose
Sunday, December 20, 2015
California's roads cruisis: No matter how smooth the ride, congestion will remain
http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article49393225.html
December 12, 2015
Not much hope of adding roadway
Planners hope to coax more public into public transit, bikes
Technology might give some relief
December 12, 2015
Not much hope of adding roadway
Planners hope to coax more public into public transit, bikes
Technology might give some relief
Los Angeles and Orange Counties are home to 11 of the 12 most-congested
freeway segments in California, according to Caltrans, including this
stretch of Interstate 405 in Los Angeles.
Lawmakers are debating how to find money to fix the state’s
deteriorating roads and bridges. But it will be almost impossible to end
Californians’ top driving headache – congestion.
Making roads wider is a traditional solution. But this holds little appeal in California, where land is expensive and urban corridors are densely packed. Also, for environmental reasons, officials want people to drive less.
So future solutions will rely heavily on measures to manage traffic demand and on incentives to encourage Californians to get off the roads and onto public transit or bikes. The emerging revolution in automobile technology, with automated driving features and carpooling apps, will also help.
Traffic is most acute in the Los Angeles area. There, commuters lose 80 hours each year – more than three days’ worth – to delays, according to the Texas A&M Transportation Institute. It’s the second-worst snarl for commuters in the country (Washington, D.C. ranks first, San Francisco third). Los Angeles and Orange Counties are home to 11 of the 12 most-congested freeway segments in the state, according to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
In Los Angeles, local officials recently approved a controversial long-term plan to get people out of their cars. It would repurpose some roadway lanes as part of an effort to add 300 miles of protected bicycle lanes and another 300 miles of transit lanes (some of which could be for the busiest travel times only). One goal is a 20 percent reduction in the average miles driven per capita by 2035. The plan, however, has caused a storm of protest and legal action from opponents who charge that it will make congestion even worse.
At the state level, a draft 2040 transportation plan, released this spring, urges improvements in public transit, biking and walking options in order to improve traffic congestion and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Although the overall number of miles driven is projected to increase, models suggest that doubling transit services and speeds could cut the total projected miles driven in California by 6 percent by 2040, according to the plan.
With multi-modal development, “we give people other choices than just being stuck on the freeway,” said Joan Sollenberger, statewide manager of transportation planning at Caltrans.
Doubling the percentage of trips taken by bicycle could cut the number of projected vehicle miles traveled by 0.41 percent by 2040, the report said. And a 5 percent increase in carpool vehicles could cut projected vehicle miles traveled by 2.9 percent, the 2040 draft said.
Caltrans is also trying to relieve traffic by adding more lanes that are restricted to cars with passengers. Often, those restrictions are being added to existing lanes. The report said the effect of this needs further evaluation.
Harnessing technology to manage traffic demand – in other words, to change when people drive and how much – is a major focus of the state. Sollenberger of Caltrans can envision a future in which there “may be incentives for people to go buy coffee at the worst hour” of traffic, so they get off the road and delay their trip slightly.
Mobile mapping applications, like Google Maps, serve a similar function for some drivers by providing information on real-time traffic conditions. Tim Lomax of the Texas A&M Transportation Institute says such apps may smooth out rush hour, so that a peak period may be, for example, only three hours and a quarter rather than 3.5 hours.
Caltrans is investing in technologies, like signs and monitoring, to make trips safer and traffic smoother. On Interstate 80 in the San Francisco Bay Area, one of Northern California’s worst choke points, a pilot project will launch in the spring that includes new electronic signs warning drivers of slowdowns ahead; an alternative, off-freeway route with coordinated signals; and ramp meters on freeway on-ramps to keep traffic flowing smoothly.
Caltrans says the $79 million project could cut travel times by 10 percent to 15 percent, depending on the distance.
A similar pilot project is planned for 2017 on a stretch of Interstate 210 in Southern California, in the San Gabriel Valley.
But the reality is that congestion is a nearly intractable problem, and with the economy picking up, people are driving more again. One wild card is automated driving features in cars, and the coming communication between cars and roadways. Cars of the future should be able to automatically stay in their lanes, for example, and detect red light runners in an intersection ahead. Fewer collisions should mean less congestion.
“My prophecy, perhaps, is that there will be a lot of additional benefits,” Sollenberger of Caltrans said. But, she added, they will take years to arrive.
Making roads wider is a traditional solution. But this holds little appeal in California, where land is expensive and urban corridors are densely packed. Also, for environmental reasons, officials want people to drive less.
So future solutions will rely heavily on measures to manage traffic demand and on incentives to encourage Californians to get off the roads and onto public transit or bikes. The emerging revolution in automobile technology, with automated driving features and carpooling apps, will also help.
$20.4 billion the cost to California of delays due to traffic
Relieving
congestion is a high priority for motorists and the state. Delays due
to traffic cost the state $20.4 billion each year, according to TRIP, a Washington, D.C.-based transportation research nonprofit.Traffic is most acute in the Los Angeles area. There, commuters lose 80 hours each year – more than three days’ worth – to delays, according to the Texas A&M Transportation Institute. It’s the second-worst snarl for commuters in the country (Washington, D.C. ranks first, San Francisco third). Los Angeles and Orange Counties are home to 11 of the 12 most-congested freeway segments in the state, according to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
In Los Angeles, local officials recently approved a controversial long-term plan to get people out of their cars. It would repurpose some roadway lanes as part of an effort to add 300 miles of protected bicycle lanes and another 300 miles of transit lanes (some of which could be for the busiest travel times only). One goal is a 20 percent reduction in the average miles driven per capita by 2035. The plan, however, has caused a storm of protest and legal action from opponents who charge that it will make congestion even worse.
At the state level, a draft 2040 transportation plan, released this spring, urges improvements in public transit, biking and walking options in order to improve traffic congestion and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Although the overall number of miles driven is projected to increase, models suggest that doubling transit services and speeds could cut the total projected miles driven in California by 6 percent by 2040, according to the plan.
With multi-modal development, “we give people other choices than just being stuck on the freeway,” said Joan Sollenberger, statewide manager of transportation planning at Caltrans.
Doubling the percentage of trips taken by bicycle could cut the number of projected vehicle miles traveled by 0.41 percent by 2040, the report said. And a 5 percent increase in carpool vehicles could cut projected vehicle miles traveled by 2.9 percent, the 2040 draft said.
Caltrans is also trying to relieve traffic by adding more lanes that are restricted to cars with passengers. Often, those restrictions are being added to existing lanes. The report said the effect of this needs further evaluation.
Harnessing technology to manage traffic demand is a major focus of the state.
The
biggest prospective reduction in vehicle mileage could come from making
motorists pay more. Modeling suggests that increasing the cost to
operate a car by 16 cents a mile in urban areas and 8 cents a mile in
rural areas could cut the number of projected miles driven by 17 percent
by 2040, the draft report said.Harnessing technology to manage traffic demand – in other words, to change when people drive and how much – is a major focus of the state. Sollenberger of Caltrans can envision a future in which there “may be incentives for people to go buy coffee at the worst hour” of traffic, so they get off the road and delay their trip slightly.
Mobile mapping applications, like Google Maps, serve a similar function for some drivers by providing information on real-time traffic conditions. Tim Lomax of the Texas A&M Transportation Institute says such apps may smooth out rush hour, so that a peak period may be, for example, only three hours and a quarter rather than 3.5 hours.
Caltrans is investing in technologies, like signs and monitoring, to make trips safer and traffic smoother. On Interstate 80 in the San Francisco Bay Area, one of Northern California’s worst choke points, a pilot project will launch in the spring that includes new electronic signs warning drivers of slowdowns ahead; an alternative, off-freeway route with coordinated signals; and ramp meters on freeway on-ramps to keep traffic flowing smoothly.
Caltrans says the $79 million project could cut travel times by 10 percent to 15 percent, depending on the distance.
A similar pilot project is planned for 2017 on a stretch of Interstate 210 in Southern California, in the San Gabriel Valley.
But the reality is that congestion is a nearly intractable problem, and with the economy picking up, people are driving more again. One wild card is automated driving features in cars, and the coming communication between cars and roadways. Cars of the future should be able to automatically stay in their lanes, for example, and detect red light runners in an intersection ahead. Fewer collisions should mean less congestion.
“My prophecy, perhaps, is that there will be a lot of additional benefits,” Sollenberger of Caltrans said. But, she added, they will take years to arrive.
Congress Expected to Level Tax Benefit for Transit and Car Commuters
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/12/16/congress-has-finally-leveled-the-tax-benefit-for-transit-and-car-commuters/
By Angie Schmitt, December 16, 015
By Angie Schmitt, December 16, 015
A federal policy that has encouraged Americans to drive to work
instead of taking the bus or the train won’t tilt the playing field
toward car commuters so much.
A bill that extends provisions of the tax code will permanently
set the maximum transit commuter tax benefit at the same level car
commuters get for parking expenses. Both classes of commuters can now
pay for those costs with up to $255 in pre-tax income per month. The tax
deal is expected to clear Congress this week, reports Forbes.
Currently, the monthly pre-tax expense for transit riders is capped at $130, while the cap for parking is set at $250. The mismatch primarily works against commuter rail and express bus services, which can easily cost more than $130 per month.
In recent years, lawmakers went back and forth between temporarily leveling the playing field and stiffing transit riders.
Jason Pavluchuk of the Association for Commuter Transportation applauded the measure, which would take effect in 2016. “This provision will eliminate the financial incentive to drive alone and will increase transit,” he said. “Further, this will help both transit riders as well as drivers who will benefit from less congested roads.”
While commuter tax benefit parity is an improvement, eliminating the benefit entirely would be better.
A report released last year by TransitCenter and the Frontier Group pointed out that commuter tax benefits amount to a gigantic transfer from low earners to high earners, who are best positioned to take advantage of them. Also, the maximum benefit may now be level for individual commuters, but in the aggregate the vast majority of these tax incentives will continue to go toward driving, an enormous subsidy that makes rush hour traffic congestion worse.
People who take the bus or train to work should soon be eligible for the same tax benefits as people who drive.
Currently, the monthly pre-tax expense for transit riders is capped at $130, while the cap for parking is set at $250. The mismatch primarily works against commuter rail and express bus services, which can easily cost more than $130 per month.
In recent years, lawmakers went back and forth between temporarily leveling the playing field and stiffing transit riders.
Jason Pavluchuk of the Association for Commuter Transportation applauded the measure, which would take effect in 2016. “This provision will eliminate the financial incentive to drive alone and will increase transit,” he said. “Further, this will help both transit riders as well as drivers who will benefit from less congested roads.”
While commuter tax benefit parity is an improvement, eliminating the benefit entirely would be better.
A report released last year by TransitCenter and the Frontier Group pointed out that commuter tax benefits amount to a gigantic transfer from low earners to high earners, who are best positioned to take advantage of them. Also, the maximum benefit may now be level for individual commuters, but in the aggregate the vast majority of these tax incentives will continue to go toward driving, an enormous subsidy that makes rush hour traffic congestion worse.
Reducing congestion: Katy didn’t
http://cityobservatory.org/reducing-congestion-katy-didnt/
December 18, 2015
Here’s a highway success story, as told by the folks who build highways.
Several years ago, the Katy Freeway in Houston was a major traffic bottleneck. It was so bad that in 2004 the American Highway Users Alliance (AHUA) called one of its interchanges the second worst bottleneck in the nation wasting 25 million hours a year of commuter time. (The Katy Freeway,
Interstate 10, connects downtown Houston to the city’s growing suburbs almost 30 miles to the west).
Obviously, when a highway is too congested, you need to add capacity: make it wider! Add more lanes! So the state of Texas pumped more than $2.8 billion into widening the Katy; by the end, it had 23 lanes, good enough for widest freeway in the world.
It was a triumph of traffic engineering. In a report entitled Unclogging America’s Arteries, released last month on the eve of congressional action to pump more money into the nearly bankrupt Highway Trust Fund, the AHUA highlighted the Katy widening as one of three major “success stories,” noting that the widening “addressed” the problem and, “as a result, [it was] not included in the rankings” of the nation’s worst traffic chokepoints.
There’s just one problem: congestion on the Katy has actually gotten worse since its expansion.
Sure, right after the project opened, travel times at rush hour declined, and the AHUA cites a three-year old article in the Houston Chronicle as evidence that the $2.8 billion investment paid off. But it hasn’t been 2012 for a while, so we were curious about what had happened since then. Why didn’t the AHUA find more recent data?
Well, because it turns out that more recent data turns their “success story” on its head.
See article for chart.
We extracted these data from Transtar (Houston’s official traffic tracking data source) for two segments of the Katy Freeway for the years 2011 through 2014. They show that the morning commute has increased by 25 minutes (or 30 percent) and the afternoon commute has increased by 23 minutes (or 55 percent).
Growing congestion and ever longer travel times are not something that the American Highway Users Alliance could have missed if they had traveled to Houston, read the local media, or even just “Googled” a typical commute trip. According to stories reported in the Houston media, travel times on the Katy have increased by 10 to 20 minutes minutes in just two years. In a February 2014 story headlined “Houston Commute Times Quickly Increasing,” Click2Houston reported that travel times on the 29-mile commute from suburban Pin Oak to downtown Houston on the Katy Freeway had increased by 13 minutes in the morning rush hour and 19 minutes in the evening rush over just two years. Google Maps says the trip, which takes about half an hour in free-flowing traffic, can take up to an hour and 50 minutes at the peak hour. And at Houston Tomorrow, a local quality-of-life institute, researchers found that between 2011 and 2014, driving times from Houston to Pin Oak on the Katy increased by 23 minutes.
Even Tim Lomax, one of the authors of the congestion-alarmist Urban Mobility Report, has admitted the Katy expansion didn’t work:
The traffic surge on the Katy Freeway may come as a surprise to highway boosters like Lomax and the American Highway Users Alliance, but will not be the least bit surprising to anyone familiar with the history of highway capacity expansion projects. It’s yet another classic example of the problem of induced demand: adding more freeway capacity in urban areas just generates additional driving, longer trips and more sprawl; and new lanes are jammed to capacity almost as soon as they’re open. Induced demand is now so well-established in the literature that economists Gilles Duranton and Matthew Turner call it “The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion.”
Claiming that the Katy Freeway widening has resolved one of the nation’s major traffic bottlenecks is more than just serious chutzpah, it shows that the nation’s highway lobby either doesn’t know, or simply doesn’t care what “success” looks like when it comes to cities and transportation.
December 18, 2015
Here’s a highway success story, as told by the folks who build highways.
Several years ago, the Katy Freeway in Houston was a major traffic bottleneck. It was so bad that in 2004 the American Highway Users Alliance (AHUA) called one of its interchanges the second worst bottleneck in the nation wasting 25 million hours a year of commuter time. (The Katy Freeway,
Interstate 10, connects downtown Houston to the city’s growing suburbs almost 30 miles to the west).
Obviously, when a highway is too congested, you need to add capacity: make it wider! Add more lanes! So the state of Texas pumped more than $2.8 billion into widening the Katy; by the end, it had 23 lanes, good enough for widest freeway in the world.
It was a triumph of traffic engineering. In a report entitled Unclogging America’s Arteries, released last month on the eve of congressional action to pump more money into the nearly bankrupt Highway Trust Fund, the AHUA highlighted the Katy widening as one of three major “success stories,” noting that the widening “addressed” the problem and, “as a result, [it was] not included in the rankings” of the nation’s worst traffic chokepoints.
There’s just one problem: congestion on the Katy has actually gotten worse since its expansion.
Sure, right after the project opened, travel times at rush hour declined, and the AHUA cites a three-year old article in the Houston Chronicle as evidence that the $2.8 billion investment paid off. But it hasn’t been 2012 for a while, so we were curious about what had happened since then. Why didn’t the AHUA find more recent data?
Well, because it turns out that more recent data turns their “success story” on its head.
See article for chart.
We extracted these data from Transtar (Houston’s official traffic tracking data source) for two segments of the Katy Freeway for the years 2011 through 2014. They show that the morning commute has increased by 25 minutes (or 30 percent) and the afternoon commute has increased by 23 minutes (or 55 percent).
Growing congestion and ever longer travel times are not something that the American Highway Users Alliance could have missed if they had traveled to Houston, read the local media, or even just “Googled” a typical commute trip. According to stories reported in the Houston media, travel times on the Katy have increased by 10 to 20 minutes minutes in just two years. In a February 2014 story headlined “Houston Commute Times Quickly Increasing,” Click2Houston reported that travel times on the 29-mile commute from suburban Pin Oak to downtown Houston on the Katy Freeway had increased by 13 minutes in the morning rush hour and 19 minutes in the evening rush over just two years. Google Maps says the trip, which takes about half an hour in free-flowing traffic, can take up to an hour and 50 minutes at the peak hour. And at Houston Tomorrow, a local quality-of-life institute, researchers found that between 2011 and 2014, driving times from Houston to Pin Oak on the Katy increased by 23 minutes.
Even Tim Lomax, one of the authors of the congestion-alarmist Urban Mobility Report, has admitted the Katy expansion didn’t work:
“I’m surprised at how rapid the increase has been,” said Tim Lomax, a traffic congestion expert at the Texas A&M Transportation Institute. “Naturally, when you see increases like that, you’re going to have people make different decisions.”Maybe commuters will be forced to make different decisions. But for the boosters at the AHUA, their prescription is still exactly the same: build more roads.
The traffic surge on the Katy Freeway may come as a surprise to highway boosters like Lomax and the American Highway Users Alliance, but will not be the least bit surprising to anyone familiar with the history of highway capacity expansion projects. It’s yet another classic example of the problem of induced demand: adding more freeway capacity in urban areas just generates additional driving, longer trips and more sprawl; and new lanes are jammed to capacity almost as soon as they’re open. Induced demand is now so well-established in the literature that economists Gilles Duranton and Matthew Turner call it “The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion.”
Claiming that the Katy Freeway widening has resolved one of the nation’s major traffic bottlenecks is more than just serious chutzpah, it shows that the nation’s highway lobby either doesn’t know, or simply doesn’t care what “success” looks like when it comes to cities and transportation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)