2007 urban mobility report
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 28

2007 Urban Mobility Report PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 68 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

2007 Urban Mobility Report. Principal Speaking Points . Main Points – Congestion Levels. Congestion is getting worse in areas of all sizes But, systems are handling much more demand Congestion levels are related to area population

Download Presentation

2007 Urban Mobility Report

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


2007 urban mobility report

2007 Urban Mobility Report

Principal Speaking Points


Main points congestion levels

Main Points – Congestion Levels

  • Congestion is getting worse in areas of all sizes

  • But, systems are handling much more demand

  • Congestion levels are related to area population

  • Operational remedies and public transportation have a beneficial effect that amounts to about 5 years of growth

  • Ops/Public Trans remedies could have 2 to 3 times more effect if they were more widely deployed.

  • Public transportation benefits related to ridership; very significant in larger areas


Main points strategy benefits

Main Points - Strategy Benefits

  • Reliability examined in some locations – an emerging important issue and one that might see more progress than reducing average congestion levels

  • Road growth can reduce congestion

  • Operations treatments can also provide benefits but not to the same level as widened roads

  • Public transportation can improve mobility and reliable travel. Benefit estimates use ridership, but they do not capture benefits from connecting people to jobs, schools, etc.


Main points solutions

Main Points - Solutions

  • Report does not evaluate specific projects or project types.

  • “Solution” is more: capacity, operational treatments, demand management, land use changes

  • The operations treatments “get the most out of the system that is built” and are proven very cost effective; they make sense and should be done where practical and accepted.

  • Operations and public transportation benefits are only estimates using a consistent methodology – local variations can be significant and you should look at them to get a complete picture.

  • Pricing may have a role where public accepts it.


Main points measures

Main Points - Measures

  • Should use multiple measures to evaluate cities & compare to areas of similar population

  • It is more appropriate to use the data at the Urban Area group level than at the individual area level

  • Long-term trends are only available for the without-strategy set of measures; but they indicate the general growth of congestion in areas, with-strategy measures are only available in 2000-2005 data


Measure overview

Measure Overview

  • Travel Time Index (TTI) – Extra time per minute of travel; Expressed in ratio to free-flow travel time; 1.3 means a 20 minute trip at the speed limit turns into a 26-minute trip

  • Delay per traveler – Extra time added up into annual amount for peak period travelers; Includes effects of distance

  • Cost – Includes delay and fuel

  • Change in measures – Trends are what the measures and data are best at showing


Study issues

Study Issues

  • There is a Media section on http://mobility.tamu.edu /ums

  • Mobility remedy estimates included

    • Operational treatments – access management (new), ramp metering, incident management, signal coordination

    • Public transportation & bus/carpool lanes

  • Methods are based on ITS Deployment Analysis System (IDAS) from FHWA and local analysis of projects; procedures and data described on website

  • Associations sponsoring study so that DOT research funds can be spent on less proven projects; private funds used for preparing report and printing.

  • Pooled fund project will continue to analyze performance measures and data.


Urban mobility report

Urban Mobility Report

Texas Transportation Institute

2007


Urban mobility report1

Urban Mobility Report

  • The 2007 report evaluates mobility levels and travel conditions on the freeway and principal arterial street networks in urbanized areas from 1982 to 2005 in 85 urban areas.

  • Nine basic measures were used to measure congestion in the urban areas.

  • The following is a comparison of mobility levels in the Oregon urban areas and the average mobility levels from four population groups in the 85 areas included in the report.


Population

Urban Area2005 Pop.

(000)

Very Large Area Average6,023

Portland (Lrg)1,730

Large Area Average1,666

Population

Urban Area2005 Pop.

(000)

Medium Area Average741

Small Area Average321

Eugene (Sml)240

Salem (Sml)225


2005 delay per traveler

Urban Area Hours

Very Large Area Average54

Portland (Lrg)38

Large Area Average37

Urban Area Hours

Medium Area Average28

Small Area Average17

Eugene (Sml)14

Salem (Sml)14

2005 Delay per Traveler

Delay per Traveler: Expresses the extra travel time in a ratio with the number of peak period travelers in the urban area. This measure estimates the amount of time, on average, each traveler would spend in congested traffic each year. The measure is shown with operational treatment effects.


2005 travel time index

2005 Travel Time Index

Urban AreaTravel Time Index

Very Large Area Average1.38

Portland (Lrg)1.29

Large Area Average1.24

Urban AreaTravel Time Index

Medium Area Average1.16

Eugene (Sml)1.10

Salem (Sml)1.09

Small Area Average1.09

Travel Time Index: Measure of the amount of extra time it takes to travel during the peak period due to heavy traffic demand and incidents. The travel rate (in minutes per mile) in the peak is compared to the off-peak, uncongested speeds. A TTI of 1.20 indicates that it will take 20 percent longer to travel to a destination during the peak than off-peak. The measure is shown with the effects of operational treatments.


2005 travel delay

Urban AreaPerson-Hours

of Delay (000)

Very Large Area Average169,278

Large Area Average33,809

Portland (Lrg)33,660

2005 Travel Delay

Urban AreaPerson-Hours

of Delay (000)

Medium Area Average11,087

Small Area Average3,047

Salem (Sml)1,773

Eugene (Sml)1,766

Travel Delay: The total hours lost due to delay during the peak travel periods is estimated from travel speed estimates on the freeways and principal arterial streets. Total delay is related to the speed and the population. These figures include the benefits from operational treatments.


2005 delay savings

Urban Area Hours (1000)

Oper.P.T.

Very Large Area Avg14,77930,681

Portland (Lrg)2,6536,676

Large Area Average2,1432,558

2005 Delay Savings

Urban Area Hours (1000)

Oper.P.T.

Medium Area Avg426488

Small Area Average8689

Eugene (Sml)72174

Salem (Sml)2985

Delay Savings: Expresses the amount of delay reduction that occurs due to enhancements made to the transportation system.

Oper.—Includes savings due to ramp metering, incident management, signal coordination, and access management.

P.T.—Includes savings due to public transportation and bus/carpool lanes.


2005 total congestion cost

Urban AreaAnnual Cost Due

to Congestion ($mil.)

Very Large Area Average3,205

Large Area Average628

Portland (Lrg)625

2005 Total Congestion Cost

Urban AreaAnnual Cost Due

to Congestion ($mil.)

Medium Area Average206

Small Area Average56

Eugene (Sml) 32

Salem (Sml)31

Congestion Cost: Is estimated by applying hourly values to the amount of travel time delay and per-gallon estimates of the amount of fuel wasted in congested travel. The areawide “congestion tax” may be thought of as one expression of the cost of congestion to residents of an urban area. These figures include the benefits from operational treatments.


2005 congestion cost per traveler

Urban AreaCost per Traveler

Medium Area Average512

Small Area Average318

Salem (Sml)257

Eugene (Sml)246

2005 Congestion Cost per Traveler

Urban AreaCost per Traveler

Very Large Area Avg1,014

Portland (Lrg)704

Large Area Average683

Congestion Cost per Traveler: The cost of congestion is estimated with a value for each hour of travel time and each gallon of fuel. The value of travel time is based on the value that people demonstrate by their behavior. Paying tolls, erratic lane changing and traffic citations are some ways motorists illustrate they value their travel time. Fuel cost is estimated from state averages. These figures include the effects of operational treatments.


2005 congestion cost savings

Urban Area Annual Savings ($mill.)

Oper. P.T.

Medium Area Average 89

Eugene (Sml) 13

Small Area Average 22

Salem (Sml) 12

2005 Congestion Cost Savings

Urban Area Annual Savings ($mill.)

Oper. P.T.

Very Large Area Avg277578

Portland (Lrg)50124

Large Area Average4048

Congestion Cost: Is estimated by applying hourly values to the amount of travel time delay and per-gallon estimates of the amount of fuel wasted in congested travel. The areawide “congestion tax” may be thought of as one expression of the cost of congestion to residents of an urban area. Cost savings are due to implementation of operational and public transportation strategies in each area.

Oper.—Includes savings due to ramp metering, incident management, signal coordination, and access management.

P.T.—Includes savings due to public transportation and bus/carpool lanes.


2005 wasted fuel

Urban AreaTotal Gallons of

Fuel Wasted (mil.)

Very Large Area Average120

Portland (Lrg)24

Large Area Average23

2005 Wasted Fuel

Urban AreaTotal Gallons of

Fuel Wasted (mil.)

Medium Area Average7

Small Area Average2

Eugene (Sml)1

Salem (Sml)1

Wasted Fuel: The fuel lost due to inefficient operation can be totaled just as the travel delay is, and the relationship is very similar. Most of the areas have excess fuel consumption rankings very near to their populations rankings. These figures include the effects of operational treatments.


2005 wasted fuel per traveler

Urban AreaGallons per Traveler

Very Large Area Average38

Portland (Lrg)27

Large Area Average25

2005 Wasted Fuel per Traveler

Urban AreaGallons per Traveler

Medium Area Average18

Small Area Average10

Eugene (Sml)8

Salem (Sml)8

Wasted Fuel per Traveler: Expresses the extra fuel consumed due to congestion in a ratio with peak travelers in the urban area. This is a measure of the effect of slow speeds on the extra fuel needed each year to travel in congested conditions. These figures include the effects of operational treatments.


Amount of capacity needed each year

Urban AreaLane Miles Needed

Freeway & Prin. Art.

Very Large Area Average301

Large Area Average92

Portland (Lrg)88

Urban AreaLane Miles Needed

Freeway & Prin. Art.

Medium Area Average53

Small Area Average35

Salem (Sml)17

Eugene (Sml) 8

Amount of Capacity Needed Each Year

Amount of Capacity Needed Each Year [to maintain congestion]: The rate of traffic growth (in percent of additional traffic volume per year) has to equal the rate of freeway and street expansion (in percent of the system added per year). Comparing the two growth rates, yields an estimate of the amount of additional road system expansion needed every year to keep a constant congestion level if traffic continues to grow at the present rate.


Amount of ridesharing needed each year

Urban AreaAnnual Growth in

Trips (million)

Very Large Area Average356

Large Area Average109

Portland (Lrg)26

Amount of Ridesharing Needed Each Year

Urban AreaAnnual Growth in

Trips (million)

Medium Average55

Small Area Average31

Salem (Sml)4

Eugene (Sml)2

Amount of Ridesharing Needed Each Year [to maintain congestion]: The additional passenger miles of travel are divided by a national average trip length (9 miles) to estimate number of additional carpool or transit trips that would be needed so that congestion levels would not increase.


2007 urban mobility report

Since You Asked, Here’s Why the Numbers Are Different

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


2007 urban mobility report

  • For almost all urban areas that were intensively studied, and for urban America as a whole, there was more delay, more wasted fuel and higher congestion cost in 2005 than in 2004. That is the conclusion of this report—congestion is worse in urban areas of all sizes.

  • The revised methodology described below, however, shows that the estimated speeds on the most congested freeways are better in the 2007 Report than in the 2005 Report. But the year-to-year congestion trends are still “up.”

  • The 2007 report also estimates congestion problems in all urban areas, instead of only 85 regions. The 352 added regions were mostly small areas with relatively low congestion levels. Their addition reduces the average congestion values for each person traveling in the peak period (i.e., a little more delay and a lot more people), but it also increases the total congestion estimates (i.e., a lot more people that each have a small amount of delay).

  • The benefits from operational treatments and public transportation likewise appear to decline compared to the 2005 report; the actual numbers increase if the same methods are used.

  • More information on the methodology is included on the website at:

  • http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/report/methodology.stm


2007 urban mobility report

  • Change Highlights—Additions to Congestion Estimates

  • National estimate of congestion and costs – The 352 areas that are not intensively studied were grouped together and congestion estimates were developed to describe the congestion problem in the nation’s 437 urban areas. Adding these urban areas increased the total number of peak-period travelers included in the analysis from 82.1 million in the 85 urban areas to 110.5 million in the 437 urban areas. This change increases the total delay but, because the smaller areas are much less congested than the large regions, it reduces the average hours of delay per traveler.

  • Minor arterial congestion – As major roads became congested, minor road traffic volumes have increased. The estimates of congestion are more complete with these streets included in the arterial category for the 2007 Urban Mobility Report.

  • HOV travel – Buses and carpools traveling in reserved lanes provide one solution that is successful in many urban corridors. In some cases these lanes can also be used by single travelers who pay a fee. The person volume and travel speed statistics from operational evaluations in 70 corridors have been included in the urban area congestion estimates.


2007 urban mobility report

  • Change Highlights—Changes to Congestion Methodology

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


2007 urban mobility report

  • Change Highlights—Changes to Congestion Methodology, cont.

  • Population estimate – Urban area populations are not updated by all state departments of transportation (DOTs) every year in every region. As better estimates are prepared by local planners, they are incorporated into the Urban Mobility Report database, even if data from previous years must be changed.

  • Truck percentages for each road – Freight congestion has become a separate issue in some communities with its own set of solutions. Truck travel estimates included in the state and local datasets have improved over the years and have replaced the previous estimate of 5 percent trucks on all urban roads.

  • Average of daily fuel price – The recent fluctuations in gas prices suggested a need to include more than a small sample of fuel prices. An average of daily prices in each study state has been developed.

  •  Seattle region – Regions are grouped according to population. Seattle’s population is now above 3 million and its statistics are now included in the Very Large group. As with similar past changes, the Large and Very Large averages for each statistic and every year have been recalculated with the new urban area groupings.


  • Login