2007 Urban Mobility Report

1. 2007 Urban Mobility Report Principal Speaking Points

2. Main Points – Congestion Levels • Congestion is getting worse in areas of all sizes • But, systems are handling much more demand • Congestion levels are related to area population • Operational remedies and public transportation have a beneficial effect that amounts to about 5 years of growth • Ops/Public Trans remedies could have 2 to 3 times more effect if they were more widely deployed. • Public transportation benefits related to ridership; very significant in larger areas

3. Main Points - Strategy Benefits • Reliability examined in some locations – an emerging important issue and one that might see more progress than reducing average congestion levels • Road growth can reduce congestion • Operations treatments can also provide benefits but not to the same level as widened roads • Public transportation can improve mobility and reliable travel. Benefit estimates use ridership, but they do not capture benefits from connecting people to jobs, schools, etc.

4. Main Points - Solutions • Report does not evaluate specific projects or project types. • “Solution” is more: capacity, operational treatments, demand management, land use changes • The operations treatments “get the most out of the system that is built” and are proven very cost effective; they make sense and should be done where practical and accepted. • Operations and public transportation benefits are only estimates using a consistent methodology – local variations can be significant and you should look at them to get a complete picture. • Pricing may have a role where public accepts it.

5. Main Points - Measures • Should use multiple measures to evaluate cities & compare to areas of similar population • It is more appropriate to use the data at the Urban Area group level than at the individual area level • Long-term trends are only available for the without-strategy set of measures; but they indicate the general growth of congestion in areas, with-strategy measures are only available in 2000-2005 data

6. Measure Overview • Travel Time Index (TTI) – Extra time per minute of travel; Expressed in ratio to free-flow travel time; 1.3 means a 20 minute trip at the speed limit turns into a 26-minute trip • Delay per traveler – Extra time added up into annual amount for peak period travelers; Includes effects of distance • Cost – Includes delay and fuel • Change in measures – Trends are what the measures and data are best at showing

7. Study Issues • There is a Media section on http://mobility.tamu.edu /ums • Mobility remedy estimates included • Operational treatments – access management (new), ramp metering, incident management, signal coordination • Public transportation & bus/carpool lanes • Methods are based on ITS Deployment Analysis System (IDAS) from FHWA and local analysis of projects; procedures and data described on website • Associations sponsoring study so that DOT research funds can be spent on less proven projects; private funds used for preparing report and printing. • Pooled fund project will continue to analyze performance measures and data.

8. Urban Mobility Report Texas Transportation Institute 2007

9. Urban Mobility Report • The 2007 report evaluates mobility levels and travel conditions on the freeway and principal arterial street networks in urbanized areas from 1982 to 2005 in 85 urban areas. • Nine basic measures were used to measure congestion in the urban areas. • The following is a comparison of mobility levels in the Oregon urban areas and the average mobility levels from four population groups in the 85 areas included in the report.

10. Urban Area 2005 Pop. (000) Very Large Area Average 6,023 Portland (Lrg) 1,730 Large Area Average 1,666 Population Urban Area 2005 Pop. (000) Medium Area Average 741 Small Area Average 321 Eugene (Sml) 240 Salem (Sml) 225

11. Urban Area Hours Very Large Area Average 54 Portland (Lrg) 38 Large Area Average 37 Urban Area Hours Medium Area Average 28 Small Area Average 17 Eugene (Sml) 14 Salem (Sml) 14 2005 Delay per Traveler Delay per Traveler: Expresses the extra travel time in a ratio with the number of peak period travelers in the urban area. This measure estimates the amount of time, on average, each traveler would spend in congested traffic each year. The measure is shown with operational treatment effects.

12. 2005 Travel Time Index Urban Area Travel Time Index Very Large Area Average 1.38 Portland (Lrg) 1.29 Large Area Average 1.24 Urban Area Travel Time Index Medium Area Average 1.16 Eugene (Sml) 1.10 Salem (Sml) 1.09 Small Area Average 1.09 Travel Time Index: Measure of the amount of extra time it takes to travel during the peak period due to heavy traffic demand and incidents. The travel rate (in minutes per mile) in the peak is compared to the off-peak, uncongested speeds. A TTI of 1.20 indicates that it will take 20 percent longer to travel to a destination during the peak than off-peak. The measure is shown with the effects of operational treatments.

13. Urban Area Person-Hours of Delay (000) Very Large Area Average 169,278 Large Area Average 33,809 Portland (Lrg) 33,660 2005 Travel Delay Urban Area Person-Hours of Delay (000) Medium Area Average 11,087 Small Area Average 3,047 Salem (Sml) 1,773 Eugene (Sml) 1,766 Travel Delay: The total hours lost due to delay during the peak travel periods is estimated from travel speed estimates on the freeways and principal arterial streets. Total delay is related to the speed and the population. These figures include the benefits from operational treatments.

14. Urban Area Hours (1000) Oper. P.T. Very Large Area Avg 14,779 30,681 Portland (Lrg) 2,653 6,676 Large Area Average 2,143 2,558 2005 Delay Savings Urban Area Hours (1000) Oper. P.T. Medium Area Avg 426 488 Small Area Average 86 89 Eugene (Sml) 72 174 Salem (Sml) 29 85 Delay Savings: Expresses the amount of delay reduction that occurs due to enhancements made to the transportation system. Oper.—Includes savings due to ramp metering, incident management, signal coordination, and access management. P.T.—Includes savings due to public transportation and bus/carpool lanes.

15. Urban Area Annual Cost Due to Congestion ($mil.) Very Large Area Average 3,205 Large Area Average 628 Portland (Lrg) 625 2005 Total Congestion Cost Urban Area Annual Cost Due to Congestion ($mil.) Medium Area Average 206 Small Area Average 56 Eugene (Sml) 32 Salem (Sml) 31 Congestion Cost: Is estimated by applying hourly values to the amount of travel time delay and per-gallon estimates of the amount of fuel wasted in congested travel. The areawide “congestion tax” may be thought of as one expression of the cost of congestion to residents of an urban area. These figures include the benefits from operational treatments.

16. Urban Area Cost per Traveler Medium Area Average 512 Small Area Average 318 Salem (Sml) 257 Eugene (Sml) 246 2005 Congestion Cost per Traveler Urban Area Cost per Traveler Very Large Area Avg 1,014 Portland (Lrg) 704 Large Area Average 683 Congestion Cost per Traveler: The cost of congestion is estimated with a value for each hour of travel time and each gallon of fuel. The value of travel time is based on the value that people demonstrate by their behavior. Paying tolls, erratic lane changing and traffic citations are some ways motorists illustrate they value their travel time. Fuel cost is estimated from state averages. These figures include the effects of operational treatments.

17. Urban Area Annual Savings ($mill.) Oper. P.T. Medium Area Average 8 9 Eugene (Sml) 1 3 Small Area Average 2 2 Salem (Sml) 1 2 2005 Congestion Cost Savings Urban Area Annual Savings ($mill.) Oper. P.T. Very Large Area Avg 277 578 Portland (Lrg) 50 124 Large Area Average 40 48 Congestion Cost: Is estimated by applying hourly values to the amount of travel time delay and per-gallon estimates of the amount of fuel wasted in congested travel. The areawide “congestion tax” may be thought of as one expression of the cost of congestion to residents of an urban area. Cost savings are due to implementation of operational and public transportation strategies in each area. Oper.—Includes savings due to ramp metering, incident management, signal coordination, and access management. P.T.—Includes savings due to public transportation and bus/carpool lanes.

18. Urban Area Total Gallons of Fuel Wasted (mil.) Very Large Area Average 120 Portland (Lrg) 24 Large Area Average 23 2005 Wasted Fuel Urban Area Total Gallons of Fuel Wasted (mil.) Medium Area Average 7 Small Area Average 2 Eugene (Sml) 1 Salem (Sml) 1 Wasted Fuel: The fuel lost due to inefficient operation can be totaled just as the travel delay is, and the relationship is very similar. Most of the areas have excess fuel consumption rankings very near to their populations rankings. These figures include the effects of operational treatments.

19. Urban Area Gallons per Traveler Very Large Area Average 38 Portland (Lrg) 27 Large Area Average 25 2005 Wasted Fuel per Traveler Urban Area Gallons per Traveler Medium Area Average 18 Small Area Average 10 Eugene (Sml) 8 Salem (Sml) 8 Wasted Fuel per Traveler: Expresses the extra fuel consumed due to congestion in a ratio with peak travelers in the urban area. This is a measure of the effect of slow speeds on the extra fuel needed each year to travel in congested conditions. These figures include the effects of operational treatments.

20. Urban Area Lane Miles Needed Freeway & Prin. Art. Very Large Area Average 301 Large Area Average 92 Portland (Lrg) 88 Urban Area Lane Miles Needed Freeway & Prin. Art. Medium Area Average 53 Small Area Average 35 Salem (Sml) 17 Eugene (Sml) 8 Amount of Capacity Needed Each Year Amount of Capacity Needed Each Year [to maintain congestion]: The rate of traffic growth (in percent of additional traffic volume per year) has to equal the rate of freeway and street expansion (in percent of the system added per year). Comparing the two growth rates, yields an estimate of the amount of additional road system expansion needed every year to keep a constant congestion level if traffic continues to grow at the present rate.

21. Urban Area Annual Growth in Trips (million) Very Large Area Average 356 Large Area Average 109 Portland (Lrg) 26 Amount of Ridesharing Needed Each Year Urban Area Annual Growth in Trips (million) Medium Average 55 Small Area Average 31 Salem (Sml) 4 Eugene (Sml) 2 Amount of Ridesharing Needed Each Year [to maintain congestion]: The additional passenger miles of travel are divided by a national average trip length (9 miles) to estimate number of additional carpool or transit trips that would be needed so that congestion levels would not increase.

22. Since You Asked, Here’s Why the Numbers Are Different Each year the Urban Mobility Report revises procedures and improves the processes and data used in the estimates. With sponsorship from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program of the Transportation Research Board, the methodology was significantly revised in 2006 and 2007 to take advantage of new studies and detailed data sources that have not been available in previous studies. Some key changes for this year and their general effects are summarized in Exhibit 2. All of the congestion statistics in the 2007 Urban Mobility Report have been revised for all years from 1982 so that true trends can be identified.

23. For almost all urban areas that were intensively studied, and for urban America as a whole, there was more delay, more wasted fuel and higher congestion cost in 2005 than in 2004. That is the conclusion of this report—congestion is worse in urban areas of all sizes. • The revised methodology described below, however, shows that the estimated speeds on the most congested freeways are better in the 2007 Report than in the 2005 Report. But the year-to-year congestion trends are still “up.” • The 2007 report also estimates congestion problems in all urban areas, instead of only 85 regions. The 352 added regions were mostly small areas with relatively low congestion levels. Their addition reduces the average congestion values for each person traveling in the peak period (i.e., a little more delay and a lot more people), but it also increases the total congestion estimates (i.e., a lot more people that each have a small amount of delay). • The benefits from operational treatments and public transportation likewise appear to decline compared to the 2005 report; the actual numbers increase if the same methods are used. • More information on the methodology is included on the website at: • http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/report/methodology.stm

25. Change Highlights—Additions to Congestion Estimates • National estimate of congestion and costs – The 352 areas that are not intensively studied were grouped together and congestion estimates were developed to describe the congestion problem in the nation’s 437 urban areas. Adding these urban areas increased the total number of peak-period travelers included in the analysis from 82.1 million in the 85 urban areas to 110.5 million in the 437 urban areas. This change increases the total delay but, because the smaller areas are much less congested than the large regions, it reduces the average hours of delay per traveler. • Minor arterial congestion – As major roads became congested, minor road traffic volumes have increased. The estimates of congestion are more complete with these streets included in the arterial category for the 2007 Urban Mobility Report. • HOV travel – Buses and carpools traveling in reserved lanes provide one solution that is successful in many urban corridors. In some cases these lanes can also be used by single travelers who pay a fee. The person volume and travel speed statistics from operational evaluations in 70 corridors have been included in the urban area congestion estimates.

26. Change Highlights—Changes to Congestion Methodology • Freeway speed estimate – Data from freeway operation centers have become available in many travel corridors over the last few years. While the data are not complete enough to use as a direct measure of congestion in all 85 areas, it was used to update the estimation procedures. In general, the very low speeds used in previous studies are not sustained for an entire peak period in most freeway corridors (Exhibit 4). The detailed data show that freeways carry more vehicles at higher speeds than models previously estimated. In addition, traffic growth in the faster flowing off-peak direction has been greater than growth in the slower speed peak direction. The average traffic speed for all lanes, therefore, has not declined as much as previous models predicted. The congestion estimates for all urban areas are lower because of this change, but in most cases the trends have not changed from previous studies.

27. Change Highlights—Changes to Congestion Methodology, cont. • Population estimate – Urban area populations are not updated by all state departments of transportation (DOTs) every year in every region. As better estimates are prepared by local planners, they are incorporated into the Urban Mobility Report database, even if data from previous years must be changed. • Truck percentages for each road – Freight congestion has become a separate issue in some communities with its own set of solutions. Truck travel estimates included in the state and local datasets have improved over the years and have replaced the previous estimate of 5 percent trucks on all urban roads. • Average of daily fuel price – The recent fluctuations in gas prices suggested a need to include more than a small sample of fuel prices. An average of daily prices in each study state has been developed. •  Seattle region – Regions are grouped according to population. Seattle’s population is now above 3 million and its statistics are now included in the Very Large group. As with similar past changes, the Large and Very Large averages for each statistic and every year have been recalculated with the new urban area groupings.