Calgary Located In Alberta Canada is growing both in

population and in infrastructure, and with this growth

comes impacts to traffic on our roadways, specifically
traffic congestion. To address this issue, The City has
developed the Traffic Congestion Reduction program
(TCR).
The TCR program was developed to evaluate various
intersections across Calgary which experience heavy
traffic congestion. Once an intersection has found to
meet the necessary criteria of the TCR program, a
temporary traffic pilot or, in some cases, permanent
traffic measures will be proposed for installation. Traffic
pilot and/or permanent traffic measures could include:
 Changes to signal timings
 Temporary roadway restrictions
 Additional permanent turning lanes

What is a traffic pilot?

A traffic pilot is an adjustment to an existing traffic measure such as a signal, or the
installation of new traffic technology, for a designated period of time. During the
designated time period, the new traffic measures or technology are monitored and
data is collected for review. Once the designated time has ended, the data collected
is reviewed City Administration and then by Council After the review process a
decision is made on whether or not to make the changes permanent.
The Lake Fraser Gate traffic pilot was conducted in
November, 2012 for a three month period. The pilot
project implemented the following changes at the
intersection of Macleod Trail and Lake Fraser Gate S.E.:
 Restriction of the left turn from westbound Lake
Fraser Gate to southbound Macleod Trail during the a.m.
rush hour (6 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.).
 Restriction of the left turn from southbound Macleod
Trail to eastbound Lake Fraser Gate during the a.m. rush
hour (6 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.).
In July this pilot was approved by Council and will now
undergo a permanent installation beginning in the middle
of August, to be completed by fall, 2013.
1. What are the traffic volumes in this area? 
According to recent traffic studies northbound Macleod
Trail at Lake Fraser Gate accommodates approximately
4800 vehicles during morning rush hour traffic. By
comparison, the left turn at Lake Fraser Gate westbound
to southbound accommodates 40 vehicles during this
same time period. Additionally, the southbound Macleod
Trail left turn to eastbound Lake Fraser Gate
accommodates 140 vehicles during this time period.
2. What will the permanent installation of this pilot
look like? 
Currently, temporary barricades and signage are being
used as a part of this pilot. Permanent traffic equipment
and signage will now be installed now that the pilot has
been approved. This permanent equipment will include:
 Two drop down gate arms for the southbound left
turning lane from Lake Fraser Gate to Macleod Trail S.E.
 One drop down gate arm for the westbound left turn
from Macleod Trail S.E. on to Lake Fraser Gate, which will
come down at 6 a.m. on weekdays.
 Additional signage and LED lighted signage.
3. What were the benefits to this pilot?
The benefits to conducting have been measured
according to travel time savings. This is the amount of
time that is saved when travelling through this
intersection after the pilot was implemented. This travel
 time savings can be converted into an economic benefit
and greenhouse gas emission reduction:
 Overall travel time savings – 110 seconds for
motorists travelling northbound Macleod Trail between
Canyon Meadows Drive and Southland Drive S.E.
 Estimated economic benefit of $10,500 per day
 Estimated greenhouse gas emission reduction of
15.6 tonnes/year  
4. What are the alternative routes now that this
pilot is permanent? 
Alternative routes include rather than turning left at Lake
Fraser Gate from Macleod Trail, morning commuters are
advised to access Lake Fraser Drive through Canyon
Meadows Drive. According to initial travel time studies
this route, during morning rush hour, adds an additional
135 seconds to a commute.
The traffic pattern change for commuters wishing to
travel south on Macleod Trail from Lake Fraser Drive
should use Canyon Meadows Drive. According to initial
travel time studies this route, during morning rush hour
reduces a commute by 40 seconds.
5. Where can I find information to re-route my
commute? 
For more information about traffic please
visit Calgary.ca/trafficinfo.
6. Why did The City conduct this pilot? 
This pilot study is part of the Traffic Congestion
Reduction (TCR) program. The TCR program was
developed to evaluate various intersections across
Calgary which experience heavy traffic congestion. Once
an intersection has found to meet the necessary criteria
of the TCR program, a temporary traffic pilot or, in some
cases, permanent traffic measures will be proposed for
installation.
Online Q & A
The City of Calgary hosted an online chat about the Lake
Fraser Gate traffic pilot on Saturday, October 20 from 10
a.m. - noon and 2 p.m. – 4 p.m. Citizens were able to
write in with questions and receive answers in real-time
from members of the project team. Check out the chat
replay below.

Jennifer : 
Hello, today's Live Chat about the Lake Fraser
Gate traffic pilot will begin at 10 am. We look
forward to answering your questions!
9:47 

Comment From Shelley 

hi. How will the pilot help traffic move faster at this
spot?
10:10 

Pat Grisak: 
@Shelley Thanks for joining us. By removing
these turn signals, a green light that was
designated to these turns can then be given to the
highest volume of traffic during rush hour times,
which is traffic moving through the Lake Fraser
Gate intersection on Macleod Trail.
10:11 

Comment From Guest 

How many hours will the turns be removed for?
10:16 
Pat Grisak: 
@Guest The westbound left turn will be removed
for all hours of the day, and the southbound left
turn will be removed for the morning rush hours
only, or 6 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. We are looking for
feedback on the suggested times, as we
understand that rush hour is a subjective time
frame.
10:17 

Comment From George 

I don't understand why can’t you just build an
interchange there?
10:32 

Pat Grisak: 
@George Although an interchange may seem like
a viable option, it is more costly then the changes
we’ll be implementing during the pilot. A typical
traffic interchange costs approximately $30
million, versus these turn lane restrictions which
will cost approximately $30,000, or 0.1% of a full
interchange.
10:34 

Comment From Rob 

Is the long term goal to build an full
interchange?
10:53 

Pat Grisak: 
@Rob this location has been identified for an
interchange in the future. However, currently a
time frame for this has not been identified.
 10:56 

Comment From Guest 

So why did you decide to make changes to this
intersection?
11:12 

Pat Grisak: 
@Guest - We know that the congestion along
Macleod Trail is significant, and we’re always
working on how to lessen congestion times along
this roadway and other Calgary roads. After much
analysis, the changes to the Lake Fraser Gate
intersection were purposed as the number of
vehicles making these turns in much less in
comparison to the number of vehicles moving
directly through the intersection.
11:17 

Comment From Dana 

How will you know if this pilot has been successful?
11:50 

Pat Grisak: 
@Dana The success of this pilot will be
determined by a reduction in delay for northbound
and southbound vehicles at this intersection.
11:53 

Jennifer : 
Thanks so much for your questions, that ends the
first portion of the Live Chat, we'll return at 2 pm
today.
 12:21 

Jennifer : 
We'll be returning to the Live Chat in 5 minutes.
Looking forward to your feedback!
1:54 

Comment From Linda 

Anything that helps move traffic in this area is
welcomed, however, the right hand turn to Canyon
Meadows wb can be dangerous when n/b traffic from
MacLeod Trail turns wb on Canyon Meadows as both
curb lane traffic merges into one. Especially during peak
traffic times it is difficult to get from the curb lane to far
left lane to turn south on MacLeod Trail. I foresee this
becoming a high traffic area due to this circumstance.
What are your thoughts?
2:02 

Pat Grisak: 
@Linda – thanks for your comment. We are
aware that this is a very busy area, we will
monitor traffic conditions at Canyon Meadows
and Macleod Trail during the pilot. Please contact
us during the pilot with any more feedback you
might have as we want to keep the dialogue open. 
2:10 

Comment From area resident 

If people aren't happy with this change will you end the
pilot?
2:18 

Pat Grisak: 
@area resident - Although we are confident that
this pilot will be a benefit to a significant amount
people who both live and commute in the area, we
are always open to feedback both positive and
negative. We won’t stop the pilot during its
course, but once the pilot has ended we will be
considering and evaluating all aspects of the pilot
including citizen feedback and traffic data. From
there we will make an informed decision on
whether or not to implement permanent changes.
2:24 

Comment From Paul 

It feels like your travel estimates aren’t the same as mine,
how do you measure travel times?
2:58 

Pat Grisak: 
@Paul - Travel times are measured through
technology that geo-logs the time travelled in a
certain area. A car carrying the geo-log device
will drive through an area, like the Lake Fraser
Gate/Macleod Trail intersection and use GPS to
determine the amount of time spent at that
location. Traffic engineers recognize that results
may vary depending on time of day, road
conditions and other factors, the times presented
in a study are approximations.
3:02 

Jennifer : 
That concludes our Live Chat for today, thanks to
everyone for their participation. Please contact
311 if you have any further feedback during this
 pilot. Have a great weekend and drive safely!
4:00 

Pat Grisak: 
Thank you and have a nice day.

Congestion-reduction measures on I-
35W: How well do they work?

Buses leaving the 46th Street station in the median need to cross lanes to reach the
next
station located on the right side of the freeway.

In an effort to combat congestion in our country’s urban areas,

the United States Department of Transportation launched the
Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA) program in 2007. The
program infused nearly $900 million into transportation-related
projects in four cities nationwide, including the Twin Cities
metropolitan area. Minnesota’s projects—which include the
installation of MnPASS dynamic toll lanes and variable
message signs—focused on improving traffic flow in the I-35W
corridor between Minneapolis and the city’s southern suburbs.
To understand the effectiveness of the traffic operations
measures implemented under the UPA, University of Minnesota
researchers examined three separate but related areas: the
effects of a new variable speed limit (VSL) system, the impact
of severe weather conditions on road safety, and the behavior
and traffic impacts of bus rapid transit (BRT) operations. Their
work was funded by the Intelligent Transportation Systems
Institute, a part of CTS.
The U of M research team began by assessing the
effectiveness of variable speed limit signs along the I-35W
corridor designed to display advisory speed limits during
periods of congestion. They found that drivers don’t typically
comply with the advisory speed limit, but they do take it into
consideration. “Drivers may use the advisory speed limit to
gauge downstream congestion and prepare themselves for
encountering upcoming shockwaves,” says Minnesota Traffic
Observatory (MTO) director John Hourdos, the principal
investigator. The congested conditions observed after the VSL
system went into operation contained less severe shockwaves,
he adds, representing a smoother and possibly safer traffic
flow.
Project co-investigator Seraphin Abou investigated the impacts
of inclement weather on road safety, focusing on the new priced
dynamic shoulder lane (PDSL). Traditionally, shoulder lanes are
used for emergency stops as well as for rainwater storage
during heavy storms. The Minnesota Department of
Transportation, as part of the UPA, opened the shoulder lane to
traffic during specific times of the day. A portion of the road,
however, lies in a low area that can flood during heavy rains.
“Weather conditions have a significant impact on traffic safety,
traffic demand, and traffic flow,” says Abou, an assistant
professor in the Department of Mechanical and Industrial
Engineering at the U of M Duluth. “The risk assessment tool we
designed can be combined with intelligent transportation
systems, risk communication, and operation control to predict
causal mechanisms of weather-related crashes along the
corridor.”
Finally, the research team examined the effect buses have on
congestion along the I-35W corridor. “One of the biggest
advantages of the I-35W BRT corridor is the fact that buses can
use the MnPASS lane, guaranteeing uncongested traffic
conditions,” Hourdos says. However, some stations are located
in the median while others are located on the right side of the
highway—meaning bus drivers must cross several freeway
lanes to reach both stations.
By examining the buses’ movements and congestion impacts,
researchers made several key findings. First, bus drivers
underutilize the MnPASS lane, making lane changes as soon
as possible after leaving the station located in the median. They
also found that the bus lane changes do generate visible
disturbances during moderate and heavy congestion; however,
these disturbances do not seem to contribute to the breakdown
of traffic flow. Finally, the researchers estimate that the
underutilization of the MnPASS lane and the several lane
changes needed to move between stations cause a combined
delay of 12 to 19 minutes each day for all buses traveling
between two stations. “There is currently discussion about
moving the right-lane stations to the median, and we hope this
research can help policymakers in their deliberations,” Hourdos
says.

Effectiveness of Urban Partnership

Agreement Traffic Operations
Measures in the I-35W Corridor
John Hourdos, Seraphin C. Abou, Stephen Zitzow
August 2013
Report no. CTS 13-22
Projects: Effectiveness of Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA)
Traffic Operations Measures in the I-35W Corridor
Topics: Congestion, Traffic Operations

Abstract
One of the leading transportation project initiatives of the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is to reduce
transportation system congestion. The Minneapolis Urban
Partnership Agreement (UPA) project is one of the five major
projects funded by the U.S. DOT?s Strategy to Reduce
Congestion on America's Transportation Network. Minnesota?s
UPA is concerned with Active Traffic Management (ATM) systems
along I-35W from the southern junction with I-35 to downtown
Minneapolis (which will be referred to as the UPA corridor). Three
separate but related evaluations are included in this UPA related
project: the effects of the variable speed limit (VSL) system on
congestion and driver behavior, the impact of severe weather
conditions on road safety, and the behavior of bus rapid transit
(BRT) vehicles and their impacts on traffic conditions between
46th Street and Lake Street.

Reduce Traffic Congestion

Traffic congestion is no fun for anyone, but it’s
deadly for public transport. When buses and trams
are stuck in traffic jams they fall behind schedule
and, because this means that more people will be
waiting at the next stops, they fall even further
behind schedule leading to bunching and
compounding delays. Bunched buses and delays
make public transport unattractive for customers
and increase operational costs, so congestion
impacts on public transport must be eliminated
whenever possible.

Three techniques for reducing the impact of traffic

congestion on public transport are:
1. Provide exclusive lanes for public transport;
2. Use regulations and traffic engineering to control
traffic;
3. Use innovative ideas to reduce traffic impacts on
public transport;
These techniques are outlined below. More detailed
information is available in the Best Practices
wiki and public transport guideways wiki page.
1. Provide Exclusive Lanes for Public
Transport

Ljubljana Painted Bus Lane (Source: Andrew Nash, 2011)

Exclusive public transport lanes means the lane on
which the bus or streetcar runs is not open to private
vehicle traffic. Exclusive lanes enable buses and
trams to avoid congestion helping increase their
speed, reliability and attractiveness. Unfortunately,
exclusive lanes are often controversial since they
‘take’ space that could otherwise be used by private
vehicles.

Exclusive lanes come in many shapes and sizes, for

example:
 Taxicabs are allowed to use exclusive lanes in some
cities (e.g. Vienna, San Francisco. Paris).
 Bicycles are often allowed to use exclusive lanes.
 Exclusive lanes can be time-based, in other words
exclusive during certain times (peak periods) and
reverting to mixed-flow or parking lanes at other times.
The method of separating exclusive lanes
from other traffic is an important factor
in determining their effectiveness.
Simply put, the better the separation –
the more effective. Painted lanes are
least effective and lanes separated by
barriers or on their own right of way
arReduce Traffic Congestion
Traffic congestion is no fun for anyone, but it’s
deadly for public transport. When buses and trams
are stuck in traffic jams they fall behind schedule
and, because this means that more people will be
waiting at the next stops, they fall even further
behind schedule leading to bunching and
compounding delays. Bunched buses and delays
make public transport unattractive for customers
and increase operational costs, so congestion
impacts on public transport must be eliminated
whenever possible.

Three techniques for reducing the impact of traffic

congestion on public transport are:
1. Provide exclusive lanes for public transport;
2. Use regulations and traffic engineering to control
traffic;
3. Use innovative ideas to reduce traffic impacts on
public transport;
These techniques are outlined below. More detailed
information is available in the Best Practices
wiki and public transport guideways wiki page.
1. Provide Exclusive Lanes for Public
Transport
 Ljubljana Painted Bus Lane (Source: Andrew Nash, 2011)

Exclusive public transport lanes means the lane on

which the bus or streetcar runs is not open to private
vehicle traffic. Exclusive lanes enable buses and
trams to avoid congestion helping increase their
speed, reliability and attractiveness. Unfortunately,
exclusive lanes are often controversial since they
‘take’ space that could otherwise be used by private
vehicles.

Exclusive lanes come in many shapes and sizes, for

example:
 Taxicabs are allowed to use exclusive lanes in some
cities (e.g. Vienna, San Francisco. Paris).
 Bicycles are often allowed to use exclusive lanes.
 Exclusive lanes can be time-based, in other words
exclusive during certain times (peak periods) and
reverting to mixed-flow or parking lanes at other times.
The method of separating exclusive lanes from other
traffic is an important factor in determining their
effectiveness. Simply put, the better the separation –
the more effective. Painted lanes are least effective
and lanes separated by barriers or on their own right
of way are best.
Prague: Náměstí Republiky square. Buses and trams share the exclusive
transit right of way on a pededstrianized area. (Source: Andrew Nash,
2010)
Transit malls are a type of exclusive public transport
lane. They are sections of street, generally located in
a city centre, where several transit lines operate with
little or very limited private traffic. Transit malls can
increase urban livability while making public
transport more efficient and attractive to customers.
Well-designed transit malls, including those in San
Jose, Portland, and Denver, are good examples of
high-quality urban design and transportation
planning.

Building a separate right of way (for example, a bus

way) is a costly improvement but can be worthwhile
especially if it serves as the catalyst for implementing
other transit priority improvements. Furthermore,
even given their high cost, these improvements can
be less expensive than building new heavy rail public
transport systems.  The most effective purpose built
exclusive guideways are designed to serve several
different public transport routes (for example, a bus
tunnel in a downtown area).

More detailed information and examples are

available on the public transport guideways wiki
page.
2. Use Regulations and Traffic
Engineering to Control Traffic
Traffic regulations can be used to reduce congestion
impacts on public transport. This means adding
traffic restrictions that help public transport and
removing traffic restrictions that hurt public
transport. Examples of traffic regulations include:
 Parking Restrictions – one main cause of delays to
transit vehicles is waiting while private vehicles
maneuver in and out of parking spaces. Parking
restrictions and controls can be implemented to reduce
the impact of parking movements on transit vehicles
and to provide space needed for exclusive transit lanes.
 Turn Restrictions – turning vehicles are another
significant source of delay for transit vehicles.
Implementing turn restrictions carefully can
significantly reduce these delays.
 Transit Exemption from Turning
Requirements – in some cases, restrictions to turning
movements can lengthen and delay transit routes. In
these cases, it can be beneficial to exempt transit from
the turning movement restriction.
 Loading Restrictions – historically, vehicle loading
on public streets has been a problem in cities
throughout history. In ancient Rome, goods delivery was
banned during the day because of congestion. Careful
design of loading areas can improve transit priority by
reducing interference with transit vehicles.
It’s important to note that traffic regulations (e.g.
removing parking) can be controversial. This means
that they should be developed and implemented with
public input, and that they need to be designed to
minimize unnecessary negative impacts. One
effective method is including traffic regulations as
part of a comprehensive program designed to
improve neighborhood livability.

3. Use Innovative Ideas to Reduce

Traffic Impacts on Public Transport
In this section we’ll look at two ways of being
innovative in reducing the impact of traffic
congestion on public transport:
 clever application of exclusive guide way measures;
 New technology.
3.1 Clever Application of Existing Technology

There are many opportunities to use clever traffic

engineering to reduce the impacts of traffic on public
transportation.  Often these combine traffic signals
with short sections of exclusive public transport
lanes.  Two common examples are:
 
Queue Jumper (Source: Knoxville Area Transit Development Plan,
2009)

Queue bypasses are short sections of exclusive

roadway located near an intersection that enable
transit vehicles to bypass congestion at the
intersection.
 Queue jumps are queue bypass physical
improvements with the addition of change in traffic
signal timing that enables transit vehicles to start ahead
of private vehicles—essentially jumping ahead of them.
Implementing these types of measures involves
careful analysis of specific local conditions. Again the
best way to do this is as part of developing a
comprehensive plan for making a street more
livable.

An excellent reference for both specific measures

and the process for analyzing and planning them is
the City of Portland’s Transit Preferential Streets
Program Sourcebook (pdf).
Queue Jumper (Source: Knoxville Area Transit
Development Plan, 2009)
3.2 New Technology

New technologies are being developed that could

reduce the impact of traffic congestion on public
transport. Some specific examples include:
 Real time public transport lanes are lanes that
use real time traffic control devices (for example,
changeable message signs) to clear street lanes for
public transport vehicles exactly when the PT vehicles
are present; when PT vehicles are not present the lanes
are free for use by any traffic. This concept has been
evaluated in research (Eichler, M. “Bus lanes with
intermittent priority: assessment and design.” Master’s
Thesis, Dept. of City and Regional Planning, University
of California, Berkeley; 2006) but there are no actual
examples of it in operation yet.
Please add ideas in the comments!

Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required
fields are marked *
Name * 
Email * 
Website 
 Comment 
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr
title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code>
<del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Post Comment

 About
GreenCityStreets uses on line games, a social network, a best practices wiki
and this blog to support more sustainable urban transportation.
Seewww.greencitystreets.com for links and more information.

 Recent Posts
 Help develop a sustainable transport app for Vienna!
 Vote for Grr-Grr-Bike on Velo City 2013 Cycling Visionary
Awards
 Grr-Grr-Bike – Our new bike game!
 GreenCityStreets Presentations
 GreenCityStreets-Bicycling: Coming soon!
 Recommended Links
 Bus Meister: Best Practices Wiki
 Goodspeed Update
 Human Transit
 OpenPlans
 Recommended Links
 Streetsblog
 Pages
 About the Project
 Best Practices wiki
 BusMeister Game
 BusMeister Game Improvements
 Playing BusMeister
 Improve Public Transport
  Complimentary Measures
 Optimize Stop Design
 Real Time Information
 Reduce Traffic Congestion
 Speed-up Boarding
 Transit Signal Priority
 Recommended Links

Search
 
 Recent Comments
 Sam on Transit Signal Priority
 Update: September 5, 2011 | GreenCityStreets Wiki | Web Tech
News on Update: September 5, 2011
 rtyecript on BusMeister Game
 Public Transport Frequent Rider Programs | GreenCityStreets
Wiki onAbout the Project
 BusMeister Game Instructions | GreenCityStreets
Wiki onPlaying BusMeister
 Archives
 September 2013
 April 2013
 March 2013
 November 2012
 October 2012
 July 2012
 April 2012
 September 2011
 August 2011
 July 2011
 June 2011
 April 2011
Reducing Traffic Congestion in Los
Angeles
 Save to My RAND

 Email

 Print
 Share

View the print-friendly version: PDF (0.2 MB)

Visit the Transportation, Space, and Technology Program
Abstract
Traffic congestion in
Los Angeles is arguably
the worst in the nation.
Focusing on the densest
areas of L.A. County,
RAND researchers
analyzed the problem
and identified the key
factors that determine
the area's
transportation policy
needs. The researchers
provide a set of 13
complementary
recommendations that,
if implemented together,
could reduce congestion
substantially within the
next five years. Given
limited prospects for
building more
roadways, pricing
policies must be among
them to create lasting
traffic reduction.
L.A. traffic congestion is the worst in the nation, according to
many studies, and it takes its toll on quality of life, economic
competitiveness, fuel economy, driving safety, social justice, and
air quality. Congestion has recently eased somewhat with rising
fuel prices, but long-term trends indicate that it will continue to
get worse unless policymakers take steps to intervene. But what
steps?
To answer this question, RAND Corporation researchers
conducted a study to identify strategies to reduce traffic
congestion that could be implemented and produce significant
effects within five years. The study, which focused on the denser
urban areas within L.A. County, was sponsored by a small
consortium of public and private local donors that share an
interest in reducing traffic congestion through improved
transportation policy. They include James A. Thomas, the L.A.
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Music Center of
Los Angeles, and the RAND Corporation.
The authors reviewed the research literature related to
congestion, examined existing data, and spoke with agency staff
and elected officials in L.A. County. The researchers identified
several key factors that influence the kinds of solutions most
likely to benefit Los Angeles. Here, they provide a set of 13
recommendations that, if implemented together, could reduce
congestion substantially.

Several Factors Shape the Region's

Transportation Policy Needs
Congestion results from an imbalance in the supply of and
demand for road space. Therefore, reducing congestion means
either increasing the supply of road space or reducing the
demand for peak-hour automotive travel.
The prospects for building the way out of congestion are
limited. Failure to increase state and federal fuel taxes to keep
pace with inflation and improved fuel economy over the past
several decades has led to significant shortfalls in available
transportation revenue. Even if more funding were available,
however, the road network in Los Angeles is already by far the
most extensive in the nation, and there is very little space to add
more road capacity in the areas where congestion is most
intense. In addition, many local communities oppose the
construction of new or expanded roads in their neighborhoods, for
social, health, or environmental reasons, and this further limits
the possibility of adding new roads.
Managing the demand for roadways during peak hours
offers the greatest prospects for reducing
congestion. Compared to those in other large U.S. metropolitan
areas, L.A. residents drive more miles per person — thus
demanding more roadway — than would be expected based on
the region's overall population density. In other cities, higher
population density tends to result in lower per capita demand for
roadways, but in Los Angeles, the per capita demand for
roadways remains high despite high population density.
Therefore, the most realistic way to reduce congestion is to find
ways to manage the demand for driving during the peak hours.
Few congestion-reduction strategies remain effective over
time. When a congestion-reduction strategy is implemented and
traffic delays are reduced, travelers who had previously altered
their travel patterns to avoid congestion will notice the
improvement and return to driving along the once-busiest routes
during the peak hours. Some will shift from other times of travel,
some from other routes of travel, and some from other modes of
travel (such as subways or commuter rail). This pattern, often
described as triple convergence, slowly erodes the initial
congestion-reduction benefits offered by most strategies. Triple
convergence explains, for example, why traffic flow improves for
a short time when new lanes are added to a freeway but then
returns to being congested within just a few years.
Many strategies provide short-term relief, but only pricing
strategies resist triple convergence and manage
congestion in the long run. Often called congestion pricing,
these strategies involve charging drivers more for their use of
 roadways when travel demand is highest. They include assigning
higher tolls for driving during peak hours or collecting higher fees
for parking in the most convenient curb spaces at the busiest
times. Triple convergence does not diminish the effect of pricing
strategies, because the peak-hour charges encourage some
drivers to change their travel patterns and deter others from
converging on the freed capacity when prices rise with increased
demand.
Pricing strategies must be complemented by significant
alternative transportation improvements. Certain forms of
pricing may introduce concerns about the ability of lower-income
drivers to pay. To mitigate such concerns, policymakers must
offer faster, more reliable, and more convenient public-
transportation options throughout the region.

Recommendations Address Four Key Goals

The researchers determined that Los Angeles needs not just one
way to reduce congestion, but rather a set of integrated
strategies designed to accomplish four goals: manage peak-hour
automotive travel, raise transportation revenue, improve
alternative transportation options, and use existing roadway
capacity more efficiently. The table summarizes the
recommendations and shows the goals to which each one
corresponds.
The recommendations promise substantial benefits:
 Paired one-way street conversions can increase travel speed
by about 20 percent and reduce travel time by 20 to 30 percent.
 High-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes can maintain free-flowing
travel speeds (60 to 65 mph) during peak travel hours while
carrying up to twice the volume that congested general-purpose
lanes do.
 HOT lanes can also raise sufficient revenue to subsidize
express-bus operations.
 Bus rapid transit (BRT) featuring bus-only lanes can result in
much faster transit service at relatively low cost.
 Strategy Recommendations and Policy Objectives

Use
Manage Existing
Peak- Improve Capacity
Hour Raise Alternative More
Recommend Automoti Transportati Transportati Efficientl
ed Strategy ve Travel on Revenue on Options y

Primary recommendations

1. Prioritize
and fund
investments to
improve signal
timing and
control where
current
technology is
deficient,
coordinate
signal timing
among
jurisdictions,
and ensure that
new signal
technology can
give priority to
BRT.

2. Restrict
peak-hour
curbside
parking on
congested
streets and
dedicate the
added capacity
 to bus-only
lanes.

3. Develop a
network of
paired one-way
streets in high-
volume travel
corridors.

4. Promote
voluntary
reductions in
driving at
businesses and
other large
organizations.a

5. Develop a
network of HOT
lanes on
freeways and
use net
revenue to
subsidize
express bus
service in the
HOT lanes.

6. Implement
variable curb-
parking charges
in busy
commercial and
retail districts.
Return some of
the revenue to
local merchants
to invest in
public
amenities, and
use the rest to
fund municipal
transportation
 investments.

7. Enforce the
California
parking cash-
out law at the
municipal level
in cities where
a significant
share of
employers
lease parking.

8. Develop and
market deep-
discount transit
fares to
employers in
areas well
served by
public transit.

9. Expand BRT
in urban areas
with bus-only
lanes on the
arterial
network and
express
freeway service
in HOT lanes.

10. Develop a
regionwide
bicycle
network, with
specific focus
on dense urban
areas where
bicycles can
serve a large
share of trips.

Contingent recommendations
 11. Evaluate
costs and
benefits of
implementing a
regional
incident-
management
system to clear
accidents and
breakdowns
quickly on
congestion-
prone surface
streets.

12. Evaluate the

potential for
implementing
cordon tolls in
major activity
centers.b

13. Levy county

fuel taxes to
raise
transportation
revenues and
reduce the
demand for
driving.
 NOTE:   = an additional goal that a recommendation
may help support.   = a primary goal that a
recommendation is intended to accomplish.
a
 Voluntary reductions might entail ride-sharing,
telecommuting, and flexible work schedules.
b
 Cordon tolls are charges for vehicles to enter a
designated area.

These Strategies Should Be Implemented as

an Integrated Package
The researchers emphasize the importance of implementing the
recommendations as a package rather than choosing only certain
options (such as the least expensive). Although supply-
management strategies — such as traffic signal–timing
improvements — are less controversial, their benefits are likely to
be only temporary. For Los Angeles to reduce its traffic
congestion for the long term, its transportation policies must
include pricing strategies. In addition, the recommendations are
designed to complement one another in three important ways.
First, with respect to funding, some recommended measures will
be costly to implement, while others will raise revenue. Those
that will require significant investments include signal timing and
control, one-way street conversions, arterial incident
management, and BRT expansion. However, other measures,
such as cordon tolls, variable curb-parking rates, and local fuel
taxes, offer the potential to raise significant county or municipal
transportation revenues. HOT lanes and deep-discount transit-
fare programs can also provide modest net revenue.
Second, regarding drivers' ability to pay, some recommended
measures raise equity issues, while others mitigate them. Cordon
 tolls — and, to a lesser extent, HOT lanes, variable curb-parking
rates, and local fuel taxes — are likely to raise concerns about
how lower-income drivers will afford the resulting charges.
Therefore, it will be important to improve nonautomotive travel
alternatives through such strategies as voluntary, employer-
based demand-management programs; deep-discount transit
fares; and enhanced BRT service featuring bus-only lanes on
surface streets and express bus service in HOT lanes on the
freeways.
Third, concerning the competition for road space, some
recommended measures reduce road space for cars, while others
create more of it. One of the most promising short-term
strategies for improving the speed and convenience of public
transit in Los Angeles is the creation of bus-only lanes on transit-
rich surface streets, such as Wilshire Boulevard. However,
individual drivers are likely to object to allocating an existing lane
to buses because doing so reduces the road space for cars. To
balance this reduction in road space for cars, two measures
create additional lane capacity — peak-hour curbside-parking
restrictions and one-way street conversions. Combining these
strategies to balance one another may make it easier for
policymakers to gain the support needed to implement them.

Leaders Can Build Consensus to Support the

Needed Reforms
Recognizing that the recommendations require substantial policy
changes, the authors also researched how leaders can build
consensus to support the recommended transportation policy
reforms. The following actions will aid in such efforts:
 Form a diverse, inclusive coalition of community
representatives to provide political leadership.
 Broadly define the problems associated with congestion to
help foster agreement on the need for aggressive action to
reduce congestion and improve transportation options.
 Develop a compelling narrative of the benefits of action.
 Generate support for comprehensive programs rather than
for individual projects.
 Apply congestion-reduction strategies systematically.
The challenge of consensus building will be compounded by the
complexity of the transportation decision making environment in
L.A. County, in which cooperation among multiple agencies is
required and lack of agreement can delay or stop the process.
The authors' analysis indicates that successful collective action is
possible and that the recommendations offered in the book would
promote social welfare across multiple dimensions. Reducing
congestion should help to improve quality of life, enhance
economic competitiveness, reduce greenhouse-gas emissions,
improve air quality, and improve mobility for drivers and transit
patrons alike. 

Read the Full Report

This research brief describes work done for RAND Infrastructure,

Safety, and Environment documented in Moving Los Angeles:
Short-Term Policy Options for Improving Transportation, by Paul
Sorensen, Martin Wachs, Endy Y. Min, Aaron Kofner, Liisa Ecola,
Mark Hanson, Allison Yoh, Thomas Light, and James Griffin, MG-
748-JAT/METRO/MCLA, 2008, 716 pp., ISBN: 978-0-8330-4555-3
(Full Document).
This product is part of the RAND Corporation research brief
series. RAND research briefs present policy-oriented summaries
of individual published, peer-reviewed documents or of a body of
published work.
Copyright © 2008 RAND Corporation
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization
providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address
the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the
world. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of its research clients and sponsors.
MG-748-JAT/METRO/MCLA (2008)
rom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Traffic jam" redirects here. For other uses, see Traffic jam

(disambiguation).

Congestion on a city road in Moscow.

Traffic jam in Los Angeles, 1953

Traffic congestion is a condition on road networks that occurs as

use increases, and is characterized by slower speeds, longer trip
 times, and increased vehicular queueing. The most common
example is the physical use of roads by vehicles. When traffic
demand is great enough that the interaction between vehicles
slows the speed of the traffic stream, this results in some
congestion.
As demand approaches the capacity of a road (or of the
intersections along the road), extreme traffic congestion sets in.
When vehicles are fully stopped for periods of time, this is
colloquially known as a traffic jam or traffic snarl-up. Traffic
congestion can lead to drivers becoming frustrated and engaging
inroad rage.
Contents
  [hide] 

 1 Causes
o 1.1 Mathematical theories
o 1.2 Economic theories
 2 Classification
 3 Negative impacts
o 3.1 Road rage
 4 Positives of traffic congestion
 5 Countermeasures
o 5.1 Road infrastructure
o 5.2 Urban planning and design
o 5.3 Supply and demand
o 5.4 Traffic management
o 5.5 Other associated
 6 By country
o 6.1 Australia
o 6.2 Bangladesh
o 6.3 Brazil
o 6.4 Canada
o 6.5 China
 o 6.6 India
o 6.7 New Zealand
o 6.8 United Kingdom
o 6.9 United States
 7 See also
 8 References
 9 Further reading
 10 External links
Causes[edit]

Traffic congestion on Marginal Pinheiros, near downtown São Paulo. According

toTime magazine, São Paulo has the world's worst traffic jams. [1] Drivers are informed
through variable message signs the prevailing queue length.

Congestion on a street in Taipeiconsisting primarily of motorcycles.

Traffic congestion occurs when a volume of traffic or modal

split generates demand for space greater than the available road
capacity; this point is commonly termed saturation. There are a
number of specific circumstances which cause or aggravate
congestion; most of them reduce the capacity of a road at a given
point or over a certain length, or increase the number of vehicles
required for a given volume of people or goods. About half of U.S.
traffic congestion is recurring, and is attributed to sheer weight of
traffic; most of the rest is attributed to traffic incidents, road work
and weather events.[2]
Traffic research still cannot fully predict under which conditions a
"traffic jam" (as opposed to heavy, but smoothly flowing traffic)
may suddenly occur. It has been found that individual incidents
(such as accidents or even a single car braking heavily in a
previously smooth flow) may cause ripple effects (a cascading
failure) which then spread out and create a sustained traffic jam
when, otherwise, normal flow might have continued for some time
longer.[3]
Mathematical theories[edit]
Some traffic engineers have attempted to apply the rules of fluid
dynamics to traffic flow, likening it to the flow of a fluid in a pipe.
Congestion simulations and real-time observations have shown
that in heavy but free flowing traffic, jams can arise
spontaneously, triggered by minor events ("butterfly effects"),
such as an abrupt steering maneuver by a single motorist. Traffic
scientists liken such a situation to the sudden freezing
of supercooled fluid.[4]
However, unlike a fluid, traffic flow is often affected by signals or
other events at junctions that periodically affect the smooth flow of
traffic. Alternative mathematical theories exist, such as Boris
Kerner's three-phase traffic theory (see also
spatiotemporal reconstruction of traffic congestion).
Because of the poor correlation of theoretical models to actual
observed traffic flows, transportation planners and highway
engineers attempt to forecast traffic flow using empirical models.
Their working traffic models typically use a combination of macro-,
micro- and mesoscopic features, and may add
matrix entropy effects, by "platooning" groups of vehicles and by
randomising the flow patterns within individual segments of the
network. These models are then typically calibrated by measuring
actual traffic flows on the links in the network, and the baseline
flows are adjusted accordingly.
A team of MIT mathematicians has developed a model that
describes the formation of "phantom jams," in which small
disturbances (a driver hitting the brake too hard, or getting too
close to another car) in heavy traffic can become amplified into a
full-blown, self-sustaining traffic jam. Key to the study is the
realization that the mathematics of such jams, which the
researchers call "jamitons," are strikingly similar to the equations
that describe detonation waves produced by explosions, says
Aslan Kasimov, lecturer in MIT's Department of Mathematics.
That discovery enabled the team to solve traffic-jam equations
that were first theorized in the 1950s.[5]
Economic theories

India's economic surge has resulted in a massive increase in the number of private

vehicles on its roads, overwhelming the transport infrastructure. Shown here is a traffic
jam in Delhi.
As in India, China's economic surge has resulted in a massive increase in the number of
private vehicles on its roads overwhelming the transport infrastructure. Shown here is a
traffic jam at 17:30, downtown Haikou City, Hainan Province.

Congested roads can be seen as an example of the tragedy of

the commons. Because roads in most places are free at the point
of usage, there is little financial incentive for drivers not to over-
use them, up to the point where traffic collapses into a jam, when
demand becomes limited by opportunity cost. Privatization of
highways and road pricing have both been proposed as measures
that may reduce congestion through economic incentives and
disincentives. Congestion can also happen due to non-recurring
highway incidents, such as a crash or roadworks, which may
reduce the road's capacity below normal levels.
Economist Anthony Downs argues that rush hour traffic
congestion is inevitable because of the benefits of having a
relatively standard work day. In a capitalist economy, goods can
be allocated either by pricing (ability to pay) or by queueing (first-
come first-served); congestion is an example of the latter. Instead
of the traditional solution of making the "pipe" large enough to
accommodate the total demand for peak-hour vehicle travel (a
supply-side solution), either by widening roadways or increasing
"flow pressure" via automated highway systems, Downs
advocates greater use of road pricing to reduce congestion (a
demand-side solution, effectively rationing demand), in turn
plowing the revenues generated there from intopublic
transportation projects.
A 2011 study in the The American Economic Review indicates
that there may be a "fundamental law of road congestion."The
researchers, from the University of Toronto and theLondon
School of Economics, analyzed data from the U.S. Highway
Performance and Monitoring System for 1983, 1993 and 2003, as
well as information on population, employment, geography,
transit, and political factors. They determined that the number of
vehicle-kilometers traveled (VKT) increases in direct proportion to
the available lane-kilometers of roadways. The implication is that
building new roads and widening existing ones only results in
additional traffic that continues to rise until peak congestion
returns to the previous level.
Classification
Qualitative classification of traffic is often done in the form of a six
letter A-F level of service(LOS) scale defined in the Highway
Capacity Manual, a US document used (or used as a basis for
national guidelines) worldwide. These levels are used
by transportation engineers as ashorthand and to describe traffic
levels to the lay public. While this system generally uses delay as
the basis for its measurements, the particular measurements and
statistical methods vary depending on the facility being described.
For instance, while the percent time spent following a slower-
moving vehicle figures into the LOS for a rural two-lane road, the
LOS at an urban intersection incorporates such measurements as
the number of drivers forced to wait through more than one signal
cycle.[8]
Traffic congestion occurs in time and space, i.e., it is
a spatiotemporal process. Therefore, another classification
schema of traffic congestion is associated with some common
spatiotemporal features of traffic congestion found in measured
traffic data. Common spatiotemporal empirical features of traffic
congestion are those features, which are qualitatively the same
for different highways in different countries measured during
years of traffic observations. Common features of traffic
congestion are independent on weather, road conditions and road
infrastructure, vehicular technology, driver characteristics, day
time, etc. Examples of common features of traffic congestion are
the features [J] and [S] for, respectively, the wide moving
jam and synchronized flow traffic phases found in Kerner’s three-
phase traffic theory. The common features of traffic congestion
can be reconstructed in space and time with the use of the ASDA
and FOTO models.
Negative impacts[edit]

Traffic congestion detector in Germany.

Traffic congestion has a number of negative effects:

 Wasting time of motorists and passengers ("opportunity

cost"). As a non-productive activity for most people, congestion
reduces regional economic health.
 Delays, which may result in late arrival for employment,
meetings, and education, resulting in lost business, disciplinary
action or other personal losses.
 Inability to forecast travel time accurately, leading to drivers
allocating more time to travel "just in case", and less time on
productive activities.
 Wasted fuel increasing air pollution and carbon dioxide
emissions owing to increased idling, acceleration and braking.
 Wear and tear on vehicles as a result of idling in traffic and
frequent acceleration and braking, leading to more frequent
repairs and replacements.
 Stressed and frustrated motorists, encouraging road
rage and reduced health of motorists
 Emergencies: blocked traffic may interfere with the passage
of emergency vehicles traveling to their destinations where
they are urgently needed.
 Spillover effect from congested main arteries to secondary
roads and side streets as alternative routes are attempted ('rat
running'), which may affect neighborhood amenity and real
estate prices.

During rush hour, right turns onto the side street shown here are prohibited in order
to prevent rat running

 Higher chance of collisions due to tight spacing and constant

stopping-and-going.
Road rage[edit]
Road rage is aggressive or angry behavior by a driver of an
automobile or other motor vehicle. Such behavior might include
rude gestures, verbal insults, deliberately driving in an unsafe or
threatening manner, or making threats. Road rage can lead to
altercations, assaults, and collisions which result in injuries and
even deaths. It can be thought of as an extreme case
of aggressive driving.
The term originated in the United States in 1987–1988
(specifically, from Newscasters atKTLA, a local television station),
when a rash of freeway shootings occurred on the 405, 110 and
10 freeways in Los Angeles, California. These shooting sprees
even spawned a response from the AAA Motor Club to its
members on how to respond to drivers with road rage or
aggressive maneuvers and gestures.[9]
Positives of traffic congestion[edit]
It does not follow that congestion is an evil that should be fought
at all costs.
Congestion has the benefit of encouraging motorists to re-time
their trips so that expensive road space is in full use for a greater
number of hours per day. [10]
The standard response to congestion is to expand road space
somehow, perhaps by widening an existing road or else by adding
a new road, bridge or tunnel. However, this could well result in
increased traffic flow, otherwise known as induced demand,
causing congestion to appear somewhere else.
Moreover, Braess's paradox shows that adding road capacity
might make congestion worse even if demand does not increase.
It has been argued that traffic congestion, by reducing road
speeds in cities, could reduce the frequency and severity of road
accidents.[11]
 Countermeasures
It has been suggested by some commentators[who?] that the level
of congestion that society tolerates is a rational (though not
necessarily conscious) choice between the costs of improving the
transportation system (in infrastructure or management) and the
benefits of quicker travel. Others[who?] link it largely to subjective
lifestyle choices, differentiating between car-owning and car-free
households.
Road infrastructure[edit]

Metered ramp on the US I-894. The queue of cars waiting at the red light can be seen
on the upper portion of the picture.

 Junction improvements
 Grade separation, using bridges (or, less often, tunnels)
freeing movements from having to stop for other crossing
movements
 Ramp signalling, 'drip-feeding' merging traffic via traffic
signals onto a congested motorway-type roadway
 Reducing junctions
 Local-express lanes, providing through lanes that
bypass junction on-ramp and off-ramp zones
  Limited-access road, roads that limit the type and
amounts of driveways along their lengths
 Reversible lanes, where certain sections of highway operate
in the opposite direction on different times of the day/ days of
the week, to match asymmetric demand. These pose a
potential for collisions, if drivers do not notice the change in
direction indicators. This may be controlled by variable-
message signs or by movable physical separation
 Separate lanes for specific user groups (usually with the goal
of higher people throughput with fewer vehicles)

The HOV lanes in Highway 404 in Southern Ontario are separated by a stripped

buffer zone that breaks occasionally to allow vehicles to enter and exit the HOV
lane.

 Bus lanes as part of a busway system

 HOV lanes, for vehicles with at least three (sometimes
at least two) riders, intended to encourage carpooling
  Slugging, impromptu carpooling at HOV access
points, on a hitchhiking or payment basis
 Market-based carpooling with pre-negotiated
financial incentives for the driver
Urban planning and design
City planning and urban design practices can have a huge impact
on levels of future traffic congestion, though they are of limited
relevance for short-term change.

 Grid plans including fused grid road network geometry,

rather than tree-like network topologywhich branches into cul-
de-sacs (which reduce local traffic, but increase total distances
driven and discourage walking by reducing connectivity). This
avoids concentration of traffic on a small number of arterial
roads and allows more trips to be made without a car.
 Zoning laws that encourage mixed-use development, which
reduces distances between residential, commercial, retail, and
recreational destinations (and encourage cycling and walking)
 Carfree cities, car-light cities, and eco-cities designed to
eliminate the need to travel by car for most inhabitants.[12][13]
 Transit-oriented development are residential and commercial
areas designed to maximize access to public transport by
providing a transit station or stop (train station, metro
station, tram stop, or bus stop).
Supply and demand
See also: Transportation Demand Management
Widening works under way on the M25 motorway to increase the number of lanes.

Congestion can be reduced by either increasing road capacity

(supply), or by reducing traffic (demand). Capacity can be
increased in a number of ways, but needs to take account oflatent
demand otherwise it may be used more strongly than anticipated.
Critics of the approach of adding capacity have compared it to
"fighting obesity by letting out your belt" (inducing demand that did
not exist before). For example, when new lanes are created,
households with a second car that formerly was parked most of
the time may begin to use this second car for commuting.[14]
[15]
 Reducing road capacity has in turn been attacked as removing
free choice as well as increasing travel costs and times, placing
an especially high burden on the low income residents who must
commute to work.
Increased supply can include:

 Adding more capacity at bottlenecks (such as by adding

more lanes at the expense ofhard shoulders or safety zones, or
by removing local obstacles like bridge supports and widening
tunnels)
 Adding more capacity over the whole of a route (generally by
adding more lanes)
 Creating new routes
 Traffic management improvements (see separate section
below)
Reduction of demand can include:

 Parking restrictions, making motor vehicle use less attractive

by increasing the monetary and non-monetary costs of parking,
introducing greater competition for limited city or road space.
[16]
 Most transport planning experts agree that free parking
 distorts the market in favour of car travel, exacerbating
congestion.[17][18]
 Park and ride facilities allowing parking at a distance and
allowing continuation by public transport or ride sharing. Park-
and-ride car parks are commonly found at metro stations,
freeway entrances in suburban areas, and at the edge of
smaller cities.
 Reduction of road capacity to force traffic onto other travel
modes. Methods include traffic calming and the shared
space concept.
 Road pricing, charging money for access onto a
road/specific area at certain times, congestion levels or for
certain road users
 "Cap and trade", in which only licensed cars are
allowed on the roads.[19] A limited quota of car licences are
issued each year and traded in a free market fashion. This
guarantees that the number of cars does not exceed road
capacity while avoiding the negative effects
of shortages normally associated with quotas. However
since demand for cars tends to be inelastic, the result are
exorbitant purchase prices for the licenses, pricing out the
lower levels of society, as seen Singapore's Certificate of
Entitlement scheme.[20]
 Congestion pricing, where a certain area, such as the
inner part of a congested city, is surrounded with
a cordon into which entry with a car requires payment. The
cordon may be a physical boundary (i.e., surrounded by toll
stations) or it may be virtual, with enforcement being via spot
checks or cameras on the entry routes. Major examples
are Singapore's electronic road pricing, the London
congestion charge system, Stockholm congestion tax and
the use of HOT lanes predominately in North America.
 Road space rationing, where regulatory restrictions prevent
certain types of vehicles from driving under certain
circumstances or in certain areas.
 Number plate restrictions based on days of the week,
as practiced in several large cities in the world, such
as Athens,[21]Mexico City, Manila and São Paulo.[22] In effect,
such cities are banning a different part of the automobile
fleet from roads each day of the week. Mainly introduced to
combat smog, these measures also reduce congestion. A
weakness of this method is that richer drivers can purchase
a second or third car to circumvent the ban.[citation needed]
 Permits, where only certain types of vehicles (such as
residents) are permitted to enter a certain area, and other
types (such as through-traffic) are banned.[22] For
example, Bertrand Delanoë, the mayor of Paris, has
proposed to impose a complete ban on motor vehicles in the
city's inner districts, with exemptions only for residents,
businesses, and the disabled.[23]
 Policy approaches, which usually attempt to provide either
strategic alternatives or which encourage greater usage of
existing alternatives through promotion, subsidies or
restrictions.
 Incentives to use public transport, increasing modal
shares. This can be achieved through infrastructure
investment, subsidies, transport integration, pricing
strategies that decrease the marginal cost/fixed cost ratios,
[24][25]
 improved timetabling and greater priority for buses to
reduce journey time e.g. [Bus Lanes], [BTR] .[26][27]
 Cycling promotion through legislation, cycle facilities,
subsidies, and awareness campaigns.[28] The Netherlands
has been pursuing cycle friendly policies for decades, and
around a quarter of their commuting is done by bicycle.[29][30]
 Promotion of more flexible work place practices. For
example, a flexible workplaces pilot was undertaken in
 Brisbane, Australia during 2009 to test the applicability of a
voluntary travel behaviour change program to achieve
transport system outcomes, particularly as they related to
managing congestion, either through mode shift or peak
spreading. During the one-month Pilot, amongst almost 900
Brisbane CBD workers across 20 private and public sector
organisations, shifts of more than 30% out of the morning
and afternoon peak travel was recorded.[31]
 Telecommuting encouraged through legislation and
subsidies.[32]
 Online shopping promotion,[33][34] potentially
with automated delivery booths helping to solve the last mile
problem and reduce shopping trips made by car.
Traffic management
Use of so-called Intelligent transportation system, which guide
traffic:

 Traffic reporting, via radio, GPS and mobile apps, to advise

road users
 Variable message signs installed along the roadway, to
advise road users
 Navigation systems, possibly linked up to automatic traffic
reporting
 Traffic counters permanently installed, to provide real-time
traffic counts
 Convergence indexing road traffic monitoring, to provide
information on the use of highway on-ramps
 Automated highway systems, a future idea which could
reduce the safe interval between cars (required for braking in
emergencies) and increase highway capacity by as much as
100% while increasing travel speeds[citation needed]
 Parking guidance and information systems providing
dynamic advice to motorists about free parking
 Active Traffic Management[36] system opens up UK
motorway hard shoulder as an extra traffic lane, it uses CCTV
and VMS to control and monitor the traffic's use of the extra
lane
Other associated[edit]
 School opening times arranged to avoid rush hour traffic (in
some countries, private car school pickup and drop-off traffic
are substantial percentages of peak hour traffic).[citation needed]
 Considerate driving behaviour promotion and enforcement.
Driving practices such as tailgating and frequent lane changes
can reduce a road's capacity and exacerbate jams. In some
countries signs are placed on highways to raise awareness,
while others have introduced legislation against inconsiderate
driving.
 Visual barriers to prevent drivers from slowing down out of
curiosity (often called "rubbernecking" in the United States).
This often includes accidents, with traffic slowing down even on
roadsides physically separated from the crash location. This
also tends to occur at construction sites, which is why some
countries have introduced rules that motorway construction has
to occur behind visual barrier
 Speed limit reductions, as practiced on the M25 motorway in
London. With lower speeds allowing cars to drive closer
together, this increases the capacity of a road. Note that this
measure is only effective if the interval between cars is
reduced, not the distance itself. Low intervals are generally
only safe at low speeds.
 Lane splitting/filtering, in which some jurisdictions
allow motorcycles, scooters and bicycles to travel in the space
between cars, buses, and trucks.[37][38]
By country[edit]
Australia[edit]
Traffic during peak hours in major Australian cities, such as
Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Perth, is usually very
congested and can cause considerable delay for motorists.
Australians rely mainly on radio and television to obtain current
traffic information. GPS,webcams, and online resources are
increasingly being used to monitor and relay traffic conditions to
motorists.[39]
Bangladesh[edit]
This section may require cleanup to meet
Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem
is: Section worded badly, needs rewrite; external links
must be turned into sources; more facts; examples of
current situation and alleviation, ie Dhaka
Metro..Please help improve this section if you
can. (December 2012)
Traffic jam in Mirpur Road, Dhaka,Bangladesh

Traffic jams have become intolerable in Dhaka. Although a

modern city should have 25 per cent of its total area devoted to
road use[citation needed], Dhaka has only 7 per cent. Some other major
reasons are the total absence of a rapid transit system; the lack of
an integrated urban planning scheme for over 30 years;[40] poorly
maintained road surfaces, with potholes rapidly eroded further by
frequent flooding and poor or non-existent drainage;[41] haphazard
stopping and parking;[42] poor driving standards;[43] total lack of
alternative routes, with several narrow and (nominally) one-way
roads.[44]
Brazil[edit]

Typical traffic jam in São Paulodowntown, despite road space rationing by plate

number. Rua da Consolação, São Paulo, Brazil.

According to Time magazine, São Paulo has the world's worst

daily traffic jams.[1]According to reports from the Companhia de
Engenharia de Tráfego, the city's traffic management agency, the
historical congestion record was set on November 15, 2013, with
309 kilometres (192 mi) of cumulative queues around the city
during the evening rush hour.[45] However, according to the firm
MapLink, which tracks congestion from about 800,000 vehicles
using onboard GPS, cumulative queues reached 562 kilometres
(349 mi) during the same period.[45] The previous record was set
on July 26, 2013, with 300 kilometres (190 mi) of cumulative
queues.[46]
Despite implementation since 1997 of road space rationing by the
last digit of the plate number during rush hours every weekday,
traffic in this 20-million-strong city still experiences severe
congestion. According to experts, this is due to the accelerated
rate of motorization occurring since 2003 and the limited capacity
of public transport. In São Paulo, traffic is growing at a rate of
7.5% per year, with almost 1,000 new cars bought in the city
every day. The subway has only 61 kilometres (38 mi) of lines,
though 35 further kilometers are under construction or planned by
2010. Every day, many citizens spend between three up to four
hours behind the wheel. In order to mitigate the aggravating
congestion problem, since June 30, 2008 the road space rationing
program was expanded to include and restrict trucks and light
commercial vehicles.[47][48]
Canada[edit]

Highway 401 in Ontario, which passes through Toronto, suffers chronic traffic
congestion despite its immense width (up to 18 lanes), as its average speed varies
between 31km/h and 52km/h in 2008. The speed limit is 100 km/h. [49][50]

According to the Toronto Board of Trade, in 2010, Toronto is

ranked as the most congested city of 19 surveyed cities, with an
average commute time of 80 minutes.[51]
China[edit]
The August 2010 China National Highway 110 traffic
jam in Hebei province, China, is considered the world's worst
traffic jam ever, as traffic congestion stretched more than 100
kilometres (62 mi) from August 14 to the 26, including at least 11
days of totalgridlock.[52][53][54] The event was caused by a
combination of road works and thousands of coal trucks
from Inner Mongolia’s coalfields that travel daily to Beijing.
The New York Timeshas called this event the "Great Chinese
Gridlock of 2010."[54][55]
Towards the end of 2010, Beijing announced a series of drastic
measures to tackle the city's traffic jam, including limiting the
number of new plates issued to passenger cars to 20,000 a
month and barring cars of non-Beijing plates from entering areas
within the Fifth Ring Road during rush hours.[56]
India[edit]
India has a large number of increasing vehicles as the increasing
number of middle class can now afford to buy the vehicles.
Although India has launched various rapid transit like Kolkata
Metro, Delhi Metro and the Namma Metro and The Janmarg
Ahemdabad BRT service but traffic is still a problem in India. India
has more plans of increasing rapid transit systems.
New Zealand[edit]
New Zealand has followed strongly car-oriented transport policies
since after World War II (especially in Auckland, where one third
of the country's population lives),[57] and currently has one of the
highest car-ownership rates per capita in the world, after the
United States.[58]
United Kingdom[edit]
Congestion on the shopping high street of Keynsham, a small town in United Kingdom.

In the United Kingdom the inevitability of congestion in some

urban road networks has been officially recognized since
the Department for Transport set down policies based on the
report Traffic in Towns in 1963:
Even when everything that it is possibly to do by way of building
new roads and expanding public transport has been done, there
would still be, in the absence of deliberate limitation, more cars
trying to move into, or within our cities than could possibly be
accommodated..[59]
The Department for Transport sees growing congestion as one of
the most serious transport problems facing the UK.
 On 1 December 2006, Rod Eddington published a UK
government-sponsored report into the future of Britain's transport
infrastructure. The Eddington Transport Study set out the case for
action to improve road and rail networks, as a "crucial enabler of
sustained productivity and competitiveness". Eddington has
estimated that congestion may cost the economy of England £22
bn a year in lost time by 2025. He warned that roads were in
serious danger of becoming so congested that the economy
would suffer.[61] At the launch of the report Eddington told
journalists and transport industry representatives introducing road
pricing to encourage drivers to drive less was an "economic no-
brainer". There was, he said "no attractive alternative". It would
allegedly cut congestion by half by 2025, and bring benefits to the
British economy totalling £28 bn a year.
United States[edit]

On Fridays in California, Interstate 5 is often congested as Los Angeles residents travel

north for the weekend.

The Texas Transportation Institute estimated that, in 2000, the 75

largest metropolitan areas experienced 3.6 billion vehicle-hours of
delay, resulting in 5.7 billion U.S. gallons (21.6 billion liters) in
wasted fuel and $67.5 billion in lost productivity, or about 0.7% of
the nation's GDP. It also estimated that the annual cost of
congestion for each driver was approximately $1,000 in very large
cities and $200 in small cities. Traffic congestion is increasing in
major cities and delays are becoming more frequent in smaller
cities and rural areas.
See also[edit]
 Journal of Transport and Land Use
 Kerner’s breakdown minimization principle
 Peak car
 Smeed's law
 Transims
 Transportation forecasting
 Traffic Message Channel (TMC)
References[edit]
1. ^ Jump up to:a b Andrew Downie (2008-04-21). "The World's Worst
Traffic Jams". Time. Retrieved 2008-06-20.
2. Jump up^ Federal Highway Administration "Congestion: A
National Issue". 2008-08-29. Retrieved 2008-09-25.
3. Jump up^ "Science Hobbyist: Traffic Waves".
4. Jump up^ Critical Mass – Ball, Philip, ISBN 0-09-945786-5
5. Jump up^ Mathematicians Take Aim At 'Phantom' Traffic Jams
6. Jump up^ "Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence
from U.S. Cities". journalistsresource.org.
7. Jump up^ Gilles Duranton, Matthew A. Turner. "The
Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from U.S. Cities".
American Economic Review, Volume 101, Number 6, pp. 2616–52,
October 2011 doi:10.1257/aer.101.6.2616
8. Jump up^ Traffic Engineering, Third Edition. Roger P. Roess,
Elana S. Prassas, and William R. McShane. ISBN 0-13-142471-8
9. Jump up^ "Road rage" meaning and origin, Pprases.org.uk
10. Jump up^ Congestion - Friend or Foe? - W R Blunden 1983
11. Jump up^ Maximum fares for metropolitan and outer
metropolitan buses from January 2014 - Draft Report page 37, citing
work by LECG "Value of Sydney bus externalities and optimal
Government subsidy - Final report", September 2009, page 17
12. Jump up^ British to help China build 'eco-cities' – The
Observer, November 6, 2005
13. Jump up^ Wired, Pop-Up Cities: China Builds a Bright Green
Metropolis, 04.24.07
14. Jump up^ Dreaming of a Clean Car? – Kay, Jane Holtz,
journalist and author
15. Jump up^ 2005 Mayors Luncheon (from the NAIOP
website, Tampa Bay, United States)
16. Jump up^ Hermann Knoflacher (2006). "A new way to
organize parking: the key to a successful sustainable transport
system for the future". Environment and Urbanization (International
Institute for Environment and Development) 18 (2): 387–
400.doi:10.1177/0956247806069621.
17. Jump up^ Shoup, Donald C. (2005). The High Cost of Free
Parking. American Planning Association. ISBN 1-884829-98-8.
18. Jump up^ Knoflacher, Hermann (January 2001)
[2001]. Stehzeuge. Der Stau ist kein Verkehrsproblem. (in German).
Vienna: Böhlau.ISBN 978-3-205-98988-2.
19. Jump up^ Goddard, Haynes (July 1997). "Using Tradeable
Permits to Achieve Sustainability in the World's Large
Cities".Environmental and Resource Economics (Springer
Netherlands) 10 (1): 63–99. doi:10.1023/A:1026444113237.
20. Jump up^ The high cost of motoring in Singapore – Toh, Rex
S.,Business Horizons, Mar-April 1994
21. Jump up^ "LEDA Measure: License plate based traffic
restrictions, Athens, Greece". LEDA database. Retrieved 2008-04-
09.
22. ^ Jump up to:a b "Regulatory restrictions". KonSULT, the
Knowledgebase on Sustainable Urban Land use and Transport.
Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds. Retrieved 2008-
04-20.
23. Jump up^ Henley, Jon (2005-03-15). "Paris drive to cut traffic
in centre by 75%". The Guardian (London: Guardian Media Group).
24. Jump up^ Simon, Hermann; Robert J Dolan. "Price
Customization".Marketing Management (American Marketing
Association) 7 (3).
25. Jump up^ Link, Heike (March 2004). "PEP-A Yield-
Management Scheme for Rail Passenger Fares in Germany". Japan
Railway & Transport Review 38: 54.
26. Jump up^ Andersen, Bjørn (January 1993). "A survey of the
Swiss public transport system and policy". Transport Reviews 13 (1):
61–81.doi:10.1080/01441649308716835.
27. Jump up^ Adrian May (2007-03-16). "The philosophy and
practice of Taktfahrplan: a case-study of the East Coast Main
Line"(Working Paper). Working Paper 579. Institute of Transport
Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
28. Jump up^ Ogilvie, David; Matt Egan, Val Hamilton, Mark
Petticrew (2004-09-22). "Promoting walking and cycling as an
alternative to using cars: systematic review". British Medical
Journal (BMJ Publishing Group) 329 (7469):
763.doi:10.1136/bmj.38216.714560.55. PMC 520994.PMID 1538540
7.
29. Jump up^ Rietveld, Piet; Vanessa Daniel (August 2004).
"Determinants of bicycle use: do municipal policies
matter?". Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice (Elsevier) 38 (7): 531–550.doi:10.1016/j.tra.2004.05.003.
30. Jump up^ "Cycling in the Netherlands". Rijkswaterstaat (Dutch
Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management).
31. Jump up^ Marinelli, P.A. Cleary, N. Worthington Eyre, H and
Doonan, K. 2010. Flexible Workplaces: Achieving the worker’s
paradise and transport planner’s dream in Brisbane, Proceedings of
the 33rd Australasian Transport Research Forum, 29 September-1
October 2010, Canberra.
32. Jump up^ Matt Rosenberg (2007-09-26). "Slow But Steady
"Telework Revolution" Eyed". Cascadia Prospectus. Retrieved 2007-
10-07.
33. Jump up^ "Motoring Towards 2050 – Roads and Reality". RAC
foundation.
 34. Jump up^ "Smarter Choices – Changing the way we
travel".Department for Transport.
35. Jump up^ "New & Innovative Concepts for Helping European
Transport Sustainability". Niches Policy seminar. Committee of the
Regions; Niches. December 2006.
36. Jump up^ Highways Agency (2007-10-25). "M42 Active Traffic
Management Results –First Six Months" (PDF). Department for
Transport. Retrieved 2007-12-31.[dead link]
37. Jump up^ "Glossary". National Agenda for Motorcycle
Safety (US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration/Motorcycle Safety Foundation). Retrieved
2010-09-18
38. Jump up^ "Define:Lane Splitting". Motorcycle Glossary.com.
Archived from the original on May 2, 2009 04:32:55 GMT. Retrieved
2009-01-06

Urban congestion charging : road pricing as a

traffic reduction measure / W. Heyns
Heyns, Werner
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10394/523
Date: 2005
Abstract:
Urban traffic congestion is recognized as a major problem by
most people in world cities. However, the implementation of
congestion reducing measures on a wide scale eludes most world
cities suffering from traffic congestion, as many oppose the notion
of road pricing and despite economists and transportation
professionals having advocated its benefits for a number of
decades. The effects of road pricing have attracted considerable
attention from researchers examining its effects, as it is thought to
hold the key in understanding and overcoming some inherent
obstacles to implementation. Unfortunately, many of the attempts
 consider the effects in isolation and with hypothetical, idealised
and analytical tools, sometimes loosing sight of the complexities
of the problem. This research empirically investigates the effects
of road pricing in London, and identifies factors, which may prove
to sustain it as a traffic reduction instrument. The results indicate
that an integrated approach has to be developed and
implemented, based upon the recognition of local perceptions,
concerns, aspirations and locally acceptable solutions, if the
acceptance of road pricing is to be improved. The key to dealing
with the effects of road pricing, is to encourage a concerted effort
by various stakeholders developing strategies considering a
range of differing initiatives, coordinating and managing them in
the realm of the political-economic context in which they exist.

Rush hour states Can Reduce Congestion

Through Performance-Based
Transportation Programs
By Wendell Cox, Alan E. Pisarski and Ronald D. Utt,
Ph.D.
0
 Email
 Print PDF
Traffic congestion in most of America's metropolitan areas has worsened
steadily over the past two and a half decades and is at its worst in the
nation's major commercial centers. There is growing evidence that this
congestion, once considered merely a nuisance and an unpleasant side
effect of modernization and prosperity, is impeding economic activity in
some metropolitan areas-a trend that could diminish prosperity by raising
the cost of products and services by way of higher transportation costs and
wages, uncertain delivery, and production delays.
The most commonly used indicator of metropolitan-area traffic congestion
is the Travel Time Index (TTI), produced each year by the Texas
Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University.[1] Calculated for 85
urban areas, the TTI measures the additional time spent on a trip during
peak traffic hours as compared to the same trip off-peak. For example, a
TTI of 1.20 indicates a 20 percent time penalty in peak hours compared to
off-peak travel times-a 20-minute off-peak trip would take 24 minutes
during rush hour.
Table 1 shows the trends in the average TTI for all 85 areas combined and
for a few select urban areas. The data reflect that, on average and in many
urban areas, traffic congestion is worsening.

A key reason for this worsening congestion is that road capacity has not
kept pace with population, licensed drivers, automobiles, or vehicle miles
traveled (VMT). Indeed, the former chairman of the U.S. House Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure noted in 2003 that since 1970, the
number of licensed drivers had risen by 71 percent, the number of
registered vehicles had risen by 99 percent, and miles driven had risen by
148 percent, and yet new road miles had increased by just 6 percent.
[2] Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that traffic congestion
has worsened: Too many cars and trucks are sharing too little pavement.
Recent TTI data also raise questions about the validity of one of today's
more enduring urban myths: that a community cannot build its way out of
congestion. Mid-sized cities like Richmond, Virginia, for example, have little
congestion because they have added capacity to match their traffic needs.
Houston improved its TTI during the 1980s and improved its relative
congestion rank by building moreroads in the metropolitan area. Between
1983 and 1985, Houston had the worst traffic congestion in the nation. In
1986, its TTI peaked at 1.42, but then it began to fall, declining to 1.23 in
1992. Over the same period, its ranking went from worst in the nation to
15th. But Houston has since surrendered these gains and is back at a TTI
of 1.42, putting it six above last place.[3] Despite this evidence that road-
building can combat congestion, few American communities have tried it.
In response to the decline in the quality of transportation services offered
their constituents, federal, state, and local officials and their respective
departments of transportation (DOTs) often respond by arguing that the
anemic growth in capacity demonstrates that their highway and transit
programs are underfunded and that more financial resources are needed to
reverse the trend, relieve congestion, and improve mobility. The facts,
however, indicate otherwise.
Since 1970, the federal government has spent (in inflation-adjusted 2005
dollars) nearly $800 billion on roads, and the 50 state departments of
transportation combined have spent an even larger sum. Yet despite this
vast amount of money, capacity increased by only 6 percent. The outcome
for transit spending was considerably worse: Annual expenditures have
risen 275 percent, in inflation-adjusted terms, since 1970 while transit
ridership has risen less than 20 percent. This indicates a return of less than
10 cents for each additional dollar spent on transit. Over the same period,
transit's market share has declined by more than one-half, to 1.6 percent of
urban travel, and transit carried only 4.7 percent of commuting to work trips
in 2005.[4]
Given the apparent failure of the public sector to produce much new
capacity for the great sums of money it has spent on transportation
programs, taxpayers and elected representatives have become reluctant to
support many of the transportation-related tax increase proposals at the
federal, state, and local levels. As a result, the federal highway program
and the state DOTs have been forced to make do with current levels of
financial resources, which recently have stagnated because dedicated tax
and fee revenues (mostly from fuel taxes) have flattened out with the
leveling off of VMTs since 2000. In response, public officials have cited
funding limitations as an excuse for their inability to stem the decline in
mobility over the future, and some have attempted to turn the blame back
on motorists (for driving too much) and local communities (for building too
many houses).
Emerging Emphasis on Performance Measures and Quantitative Goals for
DOTs

While some state transportation officials have been content to shift the
blame, others are adopting new strategies to use available resources more
efficiently in order to provide the greatest measure of transportation
services. These plans differ significantly in detail, but all of them rely on
quantitative performance measures that the state DOT is required to attain
over a specified period of time.
Among the several performance plans implemented to date, the most direct
is that of Texas, where the state DOT is mandated to reduce congestion in
the state's metropolitan areas by 50 percent in 25 years. The Georgia
legislature adopted a similar plan, requiring its DOT to reduce Atlanta's TTI
to 1.35 over the next several years. By holding public officials responsible
for achieving quantitative goals within a specified time span, state DOTs
have a powerful incentive to spend their limited resources efficiently on
projects that have the maximum impact in reducing congestion and
improving mobility.
Although congestion relief should be the most important goal, other
quantitative performance goals could be included in a state performance
plan. These include measures of safety, roadway incidents and response
time, maintenance and repair, environmental quality, and emergency
preparedness.
When measurable goals are in place, projects that may be popular with
influential constituencies and powerful elected officials but ineffective in
achieving mobility and congestion relief are discouraged because they
would jeopardize goal attainment. Likewise, efforts to promote costly but
underutilized modes-often under the guise of providing "transportation
choice"-treat a state's DOT as if it were an affirmative action program
operating on the principles of "No Trolley Left Behind."
Essential to the creation and operation of a system based on quantitative
performance goals is the availability of timely and accurate information cov-
ering all facets of a state's transportation system. This includes measures
of regional congestion, road conditions, and safety measures as well as
extensive details on operational and capital costs by mode, geography, and
project needed to conduct the cost-benefit analyses critical to any perfor-
mance-based program.
Because few states collect and compile the volume and type of data
necessary to operate a performance-based accountability system
effectively, one of the earliest steps in implementing such a system is to
establish a comprehensive data collection and reporting system. The
availability and dissemination of detailed data on all facets of a state's
transportation network are also essential to gaining, justifying, and holding
support for the program among the public, the media, and other state
officials.
Without quantitative performance goals and a comprehensive set of data
on needs, congestion, conditions, opportunities, and comparative costs,
any DOT-whether federal, state, or local-will be hard-pressed to invest its
funds on programs and projects that provide the maximum benefit to its
citizens. Absent such information and the concise goals to guide the
allocation of limited resources, the outcome would be less than optimal,
and scarce resources would be wasted on inefficient and ineffective
programs and projects, as they are in most states and municipalities today.
Instead of being focused on mobility enhancement, most federal, state, and
local programs and projects are chosen to accommodate influential
constituencies, powerful elected officials, and whatever is currently in fash-
ion among America's planning community.
As a consequence, safety and mobility are compromised as political
leaders pursue the fashionable, ephemeral trends offered up by the
aesthetic elites to help people better relate to the "built environment" or to
that even more fashionable institution, "human settlement." From these
fashions spring such policies as "transportation choice," in which the goals
of congestion mitigation and safe roads lose out to rhetoric borrowed from
the reproductive and civil rights movement. One former university professor
and Sierra Club officer suggests, in regard to rebuilding the New Orleans
transportation system, that:
Reconceptualizing New Orleans's transport and land use would be a great place to be-
gin. But wherever and however it happens, the next innovations should create trans-
portation systems that enhance opportunities for diverse populations and for diverse
styles of life.[5]

For those communities searching for a transportation policy that goes

beyond the process of "reconceptualizing…for diverse styles of life," a
performance-based system anchored on the attainment of measurable
goals related to mobility and congestion relief and safety enhancement
requires the development of a comprehensive set of data on how the
citizens of the state choose to travel, measures of relative costs and
benefits among competing modes and projects, current conditions of
infrastructure quality, and the quality of system service (safety and
congestion, for example) provided to the users who largely fund the system
through their user fees and taxes.
Costs and Benefits, Modes and Choices

Most transportation programs are ill-equipped to serve their users because

they lack basic information on how much it costs to provide a particular
transportation service by mode and by location. Few, if any, state DOTs
have attempted such analyses, and the federal government has done it
only once.[6] Absent information on unit costs by mode of transportation,
officials cannot allocate scarce resources effectively among alternative
modes to maximize consumer mobility.
Table 2 reports the results of a one-time federal study of the value of the
federal subsidies received to passengers of different modes of
transportation per thousand miles traveled. As the table reveals, passenger
subsidies for some modes-namely, transit-are substantially more expensive
than subsidies for others.
Note also that at the federal level, automobiles yield a profit to the
government because the user fees motorists pay into the highway trust
fund via the 18.3 cent per gallon federal fuel tax exceeds spending on
roads. The remainder of the fuel-tax money is diverted to transit, sidewalks,
flower gardens, hiking trails, replica sailing ships, and many other non-road
purposes. As one study notes, only about 60 percent of federal highway
gas-tax spending is devoted to general-purpose roads.[7]
Absent information on modal/project unit costs, state DOTs have no way of
determining how best to allocate their fixed financial resources among
competing uses to serve the citizens of the state most effectively. For
example, such information would be a valuable resource for a state DOT
that is attempting to get the greatest mobility bang from its limited budget.
Suppose, for example, that the DOT identifies a certain corridor as suffer-
ing from severe congestion and subsequently reviews alternative modal
options as potential remedies subject to whatever budgetary limitations are
imposed on it. Obviously, it would want to use the most cost-effective
mode, and the relative cost information-such as that provided in Table 2-
would be essential to making the best decision. In essence, the current
predicament confronting state DOTs is not dissimilar from that which would
confront a family trying to get the best nutritional value on a limited budget
in a supermarket that posted no prices.
Another overlooked set of data that would be valuable to state and federal
DOTs is how Americans choose to move from point A to point B among the
many options offered them and what this information implies for
prospective public investment among the modes. Table 3, using data from
the U.S. Census, illustrates the preferred choices for travelers nationwide
and for those in select states. Overall, the disproportionate share of
travelers (motorists and carpoolers) are availing themselves of the most
cost-effective mode-from the federal perspective as described in Table 2-
while fewer than 5 percent on average are using the most expensive mode:
transit and rail, including Amtrak.
For the typical DOT, data from these two tables would suggest that it might
want to give some serious consideration to tilting the current allocation of
resources from transit (and other costly modes) to roads to get the biggest
bang at the least cost in budget resources.
Table 3 also reveals that the number of Americans working at home nearly
matches the number who commute via public transportation. Even carpool-
ing's share exceeds transit's share by two to three times. And unlike transit,
both working at home and carpooling impose little or no cost on taxpayers.
Given that carpooling would provide a "profit" (from the federal
perspective), transportation policies that encourage and facilitate
carpooling could have a monumentally greater impact per dollar spent than
those that favor transit would have. Despite the disproportionate
differences in the cost-benefit relationships among these modes, the most
recent federal highway bill, SAFETEA-LU, allocates about 25 percent of
federal spending to transit but only about a tenth of 1 percent to promote
and facilitate car and van pools.[8] With carpoolers nationally providing
10.7 percent of commuting trips, compared to 4.6 percent for transit, a
reallocation of resources might be in order.
Under the circumstances and with the cost differentials described above, a
performance-based system would suggest that states and the federal
government examine the potential benefits of shifting public financial
resources, civic energy, and government attention from transit to carpooling
and telecommuting so as to maximize the impact of available financial
resources on improving mobility. While many have noted the declines in
both carpooling and transit over time,[9] shifting some resources from
transit to carpooling (e.g., to fund more and bigger parking lots and
collection stations at critical connection points), deregulating carpools
(allowing fees to be charged), and telecommuting (e.g., modifications in
labor laws and incentives for remote telecommuting centers) might reverse
that trend.
Relying on the Market

 The issue of what type of mode serves what market under what measures
of efficiency merits more attention than it has received in the transportation
literature. For the most part, the debate between roads versus trolleys and
other transit devices is a false one, generally pitting one government
monopoly (the state and federal highway program) against another (the
local public transit authority, which is often protected against competition by
law).
As demonstrated in London, Denver, and other major metropolitan areas in
Europe and Asia, the relaxation of anti-competition regulations-such as by
competitive contracting-can lead to substantial cost reductions and service
improvements by involving private contractors who can perform the same
services at much lower costs or with reduced subsidies. Indeed, the
comparative mode costs that have been compiled, such as those in Table
3, are not always intrinsic to certain modes or inevitable. Rather, such
figures are often inflated as a consequence of operations confined to
unionized and bureaucratic public-sector monopolies.
When these high costs are fully exposed, officials can undertake
concentrated efforts to reduce costs in order to stretch limited resources
across more projects and opportunities. This opportunity should be
explored in states with substantially underutilized transit systems but very
congested highways (of the sort, for example, found in Atlanta, Georgia) so
that the money saved in transit could be reinvested in highways, which is
the mode used by most commuters in the state.
Related to the issue of comparative costs and cost savings are
opportunities for revenue enhancement to finance operations and
investment in new projects. Once performance goals are set and time
frames are established for their fulfillment, a state can then calculate the
financial resources needed to accomplish them. If the sum exceeds the
resources available from existing fees and taxes, and if the state is
committed to reaching its goals within the specified time frame, additional
financial resources will be required. Those extra resources, however, need
not be derived from new or higher taxes, but rather could come from tolls
and other user fees, including higher fares for transit. In either case, the
revenues derived from these user fees could service the debt incurred by
the projects needed to meet the performance goals.
Additional resources could be derived from public-private partnerships in
which the private sector provides the capital while toll or other fee revenues
provide private investors with a return on investment that is competitive
with other investment opportunities available in the private sector. Similarly,
the state could encourage private transportation investments-such as new
toll road capacity to relieve congestion or competitive contracting of transit-
that help the state to meet its goals. Whatever the source and volume of
the new revenues, and whatever the modal choices competing for funding,
a quantitative performance-based system allows the financial needs to be
determined more precisely and allocated more effectively than is common
today at the federal and state DOTs.
These options are illustrative of the mobility enhancement opportunities
that present themselves to a public entity-whether federal, state, or local-
that adopts a meaningful performance plan to reverse worsening traffic
congestion and improve mobility for all of its constituents.
Basic Principles for Performance and Accountability Legislation

One way to translate the above-described processes and goals into

legislation that establishes an operational program based on quantitative
measures of performance and accountability is to group the necessary
tasks into a series of separate, well-defined steps that, when combined, will
lead to an effective program that can be operated by any state DOT. Based
on the preceding analysis, a state transportation program built on
quantitative measures of performance and accountability should include
five components:
1. State Traffic Flow Improvement Plan. This plan will include
immediate, low-cost, high-return investments throughout the state that
reduce congestion and other impediments to traffic flow that affect
safety and the environment. Such actions will include traffic
management improvements, vehicle incident response systems, ramp
metering, and other information technologies that enhance the flow of
the state's existing investment in its transportation system. This program
should be completed within 18 months of enactment.
2. State Traffic Congestion Reduction Program. This plan will include
longer-term capital investments as part of a performance-based
investment plan to reduce congestion throughout the state. Investments
will be ranked by their ability to reduce delay. Performance of the
system and progress toward the goal will be strictly monitored. The goal
of this program is to increase the entire state's competitiveness in both
the national and international spheres.
3. State Infrastructure Improvement Plan. This plan will include
actions to bring the condition of the state's inadequate bridges,
roadways, and transit facilities up to acceptable levels. Those levels will
be strictly monitored and rated against predefined quantitative
performance standards of quality.
4. State Traffic Safety Enhancement Plan. This plan will include the
provision of safer and more secure transportation services on the state's
roadways and rails and will be a key component of the DOT's measure
 of performance and accountability. This plan will establish goals for
improving safety as measured by the annual rate per 100 million VMT of
collisions, personal injuries, and fatalities in the state.
5. State Data Collection and Reporting Plan. This plan requires the
state to establish a comprehensive and timely data collection and
reporting system that covers operating and capital costs by mode and
by normalized standards such as per-passenger-per-mile measures;
truck volume and truck share of VMT; quality of service measures in
terms of congestion and safety; quantitative measures of the quality of
infrastructure, including roadbeds and bridges; daily usage by mode by
number of passengers; and any and all other data necessary to fulfill the
performance goals established in the plans. The data will also be used
to provide meaningful periodic reports to the governor, legislature, and
public on all measures of performance and progress, or lack thereof,
toward the goals established in the legislation.
Model for a Legislative Proposal to Create a State Transportation
Performance and Accountability Program

Combining the principles and proposals of the preceding two sections

yields a general legislative proposal that could serve as the basis for model
legislation in any state. Where specific references to specific metropolitan
areas are required, this draft uses, by way of example, the state of Virginia,
where two of the authors reside. This model legislative language can be
modified, adapted, and expanded to accommodate the characteristics and
interests of any state.
TRANSPORTATION PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
OF 2006

A BILL to minimize traffic congestion, contribute to the economic growth of the

State, and improve the well-being and safety of all Virginians.
Background and Purpose

The state finds that the state's worsening transportation problems are
imposing substantial costs on the state's citizens and businesses; and
Traffic congestion in the state's major metropolitan areas has worsened
over time and in relation to comparable metropolitan areas in other states;
and
Traffic congestion diminishes air quality and safety; and
Traffic congestion undermines the state's economic health, its citizens'
quality of life, and prosperity and perpetuates poverty; and
The absence of a specific concrete plan by the state government to
address traffic congestion ensures that it will continue to worsen.
The purpose of the state's Transportation Performance and Accountability
Act is to minimize traffic congestion to contribute to the economic growth of
the state and to the well-being and safety of all the state's citizens.
I. Major Metropolitan Traffic Congestion Reduction Objectives

The Traffic Congestion Reduction Program shall apply to all counties and
cities within major metropolitan areas (as defined).
Long-Term Traffic Congestion Reduction Objective: The state DOT shall adopt
an objective to reduce traffic congestion in the major metropolitan areas of the
state within 25 years of enactment. The objective shall be a Travel Time
Index[10] of no more than 1.20 (compared to 1.51 in 2003) in the Washington
metropolitan area; 1.15 in the Virginia Beach metropolitan area (compared to 1.21
in 2003); and 1.05 in the Richmond metropolitan area (compared to 1.09 in 2003).
Interim Traffic Congestion Reduction Objectives: The state DOT shall adopt
interim objectives that reduce the Travel Time Index each five years on a "glide
path" toward the 2032 objective.
Traffic Congestion Reduction Plan: The state DOT shall propose a cost-effective
plan to achieve the long-term and interim objectives at the lowest possible cost.
The principal purpose of the plan shall be to identify the roadway resources and
strategies that would need to be implemented to achieve the long-term and interim
traffic congestion reduction objectives. The plan shall include cost estimates and
the cost per reduced delay hour compared to the status quo case for the
achievement of the long-term and interim traffic congestion reduction objectives.
Preservation of Free (Gas Tax-Financed) Roads: The Traffic Congestion
Reduction Plan shall not include the use of tolling or road pricing except (1) where
it is already in use or (2) for capacity expansion. No lanes currently operating
without tolls shall be converted to tolling or road pricing except as such tolls are
restricted to new users and the funds so raised are devoted to capacity expansion
and improvement on the roadway so tolled.
Roadway Segment Standard: The state DOT shall propose a maximum Travel
Time Index objective to be applied to all freeway equivalent roadway segments in
the major metropolitan areas.[11]
Reduced Delay Hour Standard: To the maximum extent feasible, the state DOT
shall apply a cost-per-delay-hour standard in project evaluation within each of the
major metropolitan areas. Costs shall include only actual proposed monetary
expenditures by the state or other organizations making actual monetary
expenditures with respect to the projects under consideration.[12]
Project Evaluation: In all of its project planning, the state DOT shall consider the
cost per reduced delay hour as a factor in decision-making. The state DOT shall
require the use of the cost-per-delay-hour factor in the major project planning by
any authority, agency, or jurisdiction receiving transportation funding from the
state. Major projects shall include any project with a projected cost of $10 million
or more. While the program is focused appropriately on highway improvements,
any improvement that is less costly per reduced delay hour than the highway
improvement in the same corridor will be fundable under this program. All major
projects will be re-evaluated two years after completion to ascertain actual delay
improvements and actual benefits and costs.
II. Statewide Traffic Flow Improvement Plan

Incident Management: Provide effective incident management that reduces annual

incident congestion delay by at least 25 percent within five years from date of
enactment.
Congestion Delays: Reduce delays caused by congestion on roadways that are
scheduled for improvement projects by an average of 10 percent per year.
Construction-Related Delays: Reduce delay caused by congestion in construction
work zones by 10 percent per year.
III. Statewide Infrastructure Maintenance and Improvement Program

Pavement Conditions: Maintain annually at least 80 percent of the state's road

surface in acceptable ride quality condition as measured by the International
Roughness Index.
Bridge Safety and Maintenance: Maintain annually all bridges identified as
weight restricted and/or structurally deficient so that there is no adverse effect of
their safe use by emergency vehicles, school buses, and vehicles servicing the area
economy.
Pothole Repair: Repair all reported potholes located in the roadway within one
day of the receipt of notification 98 percent of the time except during emergencies
and adverse weather.
IV. Statewide Safety Enhancement Program

Reduce the Number of Injuries and the Injury Rate: The state DOT will be
required to reduce the injury rate, as measured by injuries per 100 million vehicle
miles traveled (VMT), by an average of 2 percent per year over the next 10 years
and to reduce the number of injuries by 1.5 percent per year over the next 10 years.
Reduce the Number of Fatalities and the Fatality Rate: The state DOT will be
required to reduce the fatality rate, as measured by fatalities per 100 million VMT,
by an average of 2 percent per year over the next 10 years and to reduce the
number of fatalities by 1.5 percent per year over the next 10 years.
 Develop Statewide Transportation Emergency Preparedness Plan: The state
DOT will develop emergency preparedness plans, including regional evacuation
plans, to respond to natural disasters, incidents related to homeland security, and
serious disruption of major arteries due to infrastructure failure or serious traffic
accidents.
V. Annual Reporting

The information contained in the Annual Report shall be reported to the

legislature and the citizens of the state on an annual basis (which would
require the state DOT to obtain information from other agencies along the
lines of the information they already report to federal agencies, such as the
Bureau of the Census and the Federal Transit Administration).
The supplemental information contained in the Supplemental Report shall
be made available annually to the public on the Internet and shall be
maintained on the Internet for 25 years (which would make the reporting
available throughout the planning period).

Recommendations: Measures to reduce congestion

and improve bus speeds
Proposed street reconfiguration
This reconfiguration would limit the set of traffic movements at this site to create
safer conditions at the intersections for motorists and pedestrians alike. 

Types of changes: Bus and driver mobility | Pedestrian safety 

Location: Broadway and Roosevelt
Printer Friendly
Comments

1. Marie:
March 8, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Why can’t I find any recommendations for 73-74th street on 37th Avenue? It is often absurdly
choatic around there especially 73rd and 37th. Where on this site can I find solutions for the
problems there? I wonder why the directions of those streets couldn’t be switched make 73rd NB
and 74 SB? Thanks
2. Willa, NYCDOT:
March 15, 2011 at 4:55 pm
 Marie, we agree that the intersection of 73rd Street and 37th Avenue can be very congested – and
problems at this intersection often affect nearby intersections. We think that the change proposed
at 73rd Street and 37th Road / Broadway will discourage many vehicles from going through the
upstream intersection at 37th Avenue. Currently, the plan proposes that all vehicles traveling SB
on 73rd Street make a right turn onto Broadway. Hopefully, the prohibition of left-turns onto
37th Road or Broadway will make 73rd Street less attractive for some vehicles.
3. Carlos Martinez:
April 23, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Re: Improve bus speeds (and pedestrian safety)
Most of the bus stops in the neighborhood are not located according to straphanger needs,
especially for those routes that overlap with street intersections. For instance, on Northern
Boulevard pedestrians risk their lives to catch eastbound/westbound buses and viceversa because
bus stops are not located on the same side of the intersection.
4. Steve:
June 16, 2011 at 5:17 pm
I have a problem with this what Willa, NYCDOT: wrote…mostly with the word “Hopefully”.
“Hopefully, the prohibition of left-turns onto 37th Road or Broadway will make 73rd Street less
attractive for some vehicles.”
5. Saud:
November 1, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Hello DOT,
I would like to write some of the CONS on DOT decision at Jackson Heights
street reversal of 75 st, the problem is residents are facing more car and bus
horns, and that street is more congested due as apposed to 73 st. The signal
which is on 37 ave and 75 street is turn green for mostly 10 to 15 second,
hardly 4 cars make it and it turns Red. If somebody wants to make a right
turn then the traffic starts to jammed in the street and they start to honk,
and not even care that it is a residential area.
I would like to request you if you just please move the bus route or reverse
the street back again would be great.
Thanks