Seattle’s Expensive and Ineffective Rail Tax Proposal
Rail tax advocates are at it again in a number of US metropolitan areas, including Seattle. A recent story in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer caught our attention because of claims being made proposed rail expansions that would be financed by a proposed tax increase. Two issues stand out:
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: According to the article, the proposed plan will reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the Seattle area by nearly 100,000 metric tons annually. Sounds like a big number. It isn’t. Based upon previously announced Sound Transit spending announcements (an equivalent increase of $1.1 billion annually, including capital and operations costs), the cost of this reduction would be about $11,000 per metric ton. That is 220 times the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change ceiling of from $20 to $50 per ton (the amount of spending per ton is the maximum amount necessary to accomplish deep reversal of GHG concentrations between 2030 and 2050). The Sound Transit plan is not only expensive in general terms, it is profligate in the amount of spending required to reduce GHG emissions. This is illustrated by the fact that at $11,000 per metric ton, it would cost more than double the Gross Domestic Product each year to reduce US GHG emissions by 50 percent --- an often cited goal.
Traffic Reduction: The article also cites a Sound Transit report indicating that the expanded rail system could reduce driving by 30 percent. Never before has there been a forecast of such a reduction in traffic in any urban area in the world and surely it won’t happen in Seattle. Indeed, it would be charitable to call the 30 percent reduction prediction “laughable.” In other rail projections, the expected traffic reduction rarely exceeds 1 percent, and even then is not achieved. Despite having studied transportation investments for decades, never before have we seen such absurdity. If Sound Transit were subject to the same regulations as apply to used car salesmen, heavy fines and even jail terms might be in the offing.
Source Wendall Cox
Transportation
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Seatle Light Rail: cost of reducing carbon is ludicrous
Friday, March 28, 2008
Puget Sound grows 8% since 2000: Adds 0% Road Capacity
Tri-Cities leads in state's population growth, census says
Seattle-Tacoma up 300,000 since 2000
By NICHOLA K. GERANIOS
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Many of Washington's metropolitan areas have grown substantially since 2000, with the Tri-Cities, Bellingham and Olympia showing the highest percentage growth, the Census Bureau reported Thursday.
The state's smaller communities, called "micropolitan" areas, also showed solid growth, the agency said.
More than 5.6 million of the state's 6.4 million residents live in metro or micropolitan areas, with the rest in more rural settings.
The Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue metropolitan area contained about half the state's population, estimated at 3.3 million in July 2007, the Census Bureau estimated. That was an 8.7 percent jump from the April 1, 2000, population of 3.0 million.
Tacoma, if broken out as a stand-alone metro area, had 773,165 people, the Census Bureau said.
The Tri-Cities metro area of Richland, Kennewick and Pasco grew 19.4 percent in that time, to 228,992 people, sixth largest in the state.
The Tri-Cities metro area consists of Benton and Franklin counties, located on the Columbia River in arid, sunny southeastern Washington. The area is home to high-paying jobs at the huge Hanford Nuclear Reservation and has a big farm and food processing sector. Tourism, anchored by numerous wineries, golf courses and youth sports, is also on the rise.
The Tri-Cities area will likely soon supplant Yakima and Bremerton-Silverdale to become the fourth-largest metro area in Washington.
Yakima had 233,062 people, but grew only 4.7 percent since 2000. Bremerton had 236,732 people, but grew just 2.1 percent since 2000, slowest among the state's metro areas.
Spokane, the second-largest metro area, had 456,175 people, up 9.1 percent.
Bellingham grew 15.7 percent to reach 192,999 residents. Olympia grew 15 percent to reach 238,555 residents.
Mount Vernon-Anacortes grew to 116,397 people, up 13 percent. Wenatchee grew 8 percent to 107,170 people. Longview crossed the 100,000 mark for the first time, with the state's smallest metro area growing 8.1 percent to 100,467.
The fast-growing Vancouver, Wash., area is part of the Portland metro area and was not broken out separately in the statistics. But recent county population estimates from the Census Bureau said Clark County, which includes Vancouver, had 418,000 people and grew more than 20 percent since 2000.
Nationally, Seattle-Tacoma was the 15th-largest metro area.
Micropolitan areas also showed steady growth. Ellensburg grew 15.5 percent and Shelton 14.1 percent between 2000 and 2007.
Moses Lake, with 83,047 residents, was the largest of those and grew 11.2 percent. Pullman (1.2 percent) had the smallest growth rate.
Washington had 6.46 million residents in 2007, growing 9.7 percent from 2000
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
70% Voters Dissatified with State's Efforts to Reduce Congestion
Washington Policy Center Poll Shows Nearly 70% of Voters are Unhappy with the State’s Performance on Reducing Congestion
New Statewide Survey Reveals How Important Traffic Relief is to Washington Voters
by Michael Ennis,
Director, Center for Transportation
January 16, 2008
Washington Policy Center has released the results of a statewide poll that asked voters about the importance of traffic relief both in the Puget Sound region and across Washington State.
The poll revealed the following key findings:
Traffic Congestion
* 70% of voters statewide say traffic congestion is an “extremely” or “fairly” important issue for state government to address
* But only 25% rate the state’s efforts as “excellent” or “good,” while 69% rate those efforts “not so good” or “poor.”
* On a statewide basis, voters place a higher priority on reducing traffic congestion (51%) than funding other transportation needs (38%).
Proposition 1
* Of those who voted against Prop. 1 in November in the Puget Sound area, 44% said they would have voted for it if they had been convinced the measure would reduce traffic congestion.
Tolling Policy
* State law requires that gas tax revenues must be used for road and highway projects. 81% of voters think that toll revenues should also be used only for road and highway projects, not for general spending.
* 57% of voters said the government should charge tolls on new roadways only, not on existing roads.
The finding that nearly half of those who voted against Prop. 1 would have supported the measure if it reduced congestion demonstrates to policymakers the importance of mobility.
Traffic congestion is not only on the minds of voters in the Puget Sound but also among those who live in Eastern Washington. According to the poll, 56% of voters in Eastern Washington also think that reducing traffic congestion is important.
Overall, these results show that voters think congestion relief should be a higher priority all across Washington.
The full poll results can be found on our website.
Washington Policy Center Traffic Congestion Poll
WASHINGTON VOTERS (N=500 + 140 OVERSAMPLE IN KING/PIERCE/SNOHOMISH)
DECEMBER 1-2, 2007
As you may know, there was a measure on the ballot earlier this month called Proposition One, Regional Roads and Transit System, also known as the Roads and Transit Measure.
Did you vote for or against Proposition One?
IF DID NOT VOTE: Regardless of whether or not you were able to vote, were you for or against Proposition One?
King/Pierce/
Snohomish voters
for
30%
don't remember/wouldn't say/don't know
29%
against
41%
Would you have voted for or against Prop One if you were convinced that it would have reduced congestion?
for
44%
don't know
8%
against
48%
In 1996, Sound Transit said they would roll back Sound Move taxes, the first phase of Sound Transit, if a second phase extension was rejected by voters. Prop One included this second phase extension and voters rejected it. Do you think Sound Transit should continue with their current tax rates, or reduce tax rates as they promised?
continue with current tax rates
30%
don't know
20%
reduce tax rates
50%
When spending your transportation tax dollars, do you think state government’s first priority should be to reduce traffic congestion, or to fund other transportation needs? Do you feel strongly about that?
All voters
strongly reduce traffic congestion
28%
reduce traffic congestion
23%
Total reduce traffic congestion
51%
don't know
11%
Total fund other transportation needs
38%
fund other transportation needs
17%
strongly fund other transportation needs
21%
As you think about the government’s role in transportation, how important to you personally is reducing traffic congestion?
extremely important
32%
fairly important
38%
Total extremely/very important
70%
Total somewhat/not at all important
29%
only somewhat important
23%
not important at all
6%
don't know
1%
How would you rate state government’s performance on relieving traffic congestion?
excellent
1%
good
24%
Total excellent/good
25%
Total not so good/poor
69%
not so good
40%
poor
29%
don't know
5%
Would you vote for or against a major tax increase if you were convinced the plan would actually reduce traffic congestion in your area? IF FOR/AGAINST: Is that definitely for/against or probably for/against?
definitely for
22%
probably for
32%
Total for
54%
don't know
9%
Total against
37%
probably against
16%
definitely against
21%
Which one of the following tax increases, if any, would you be most likely to support if you were convinced the tax increase would actually reduce traffic congestion?
tolls
27%
gas tax
16%
automobile sales tax
16%
vehicle license fees
13%
sales tax
9%
none
12%
don't know
6%
As you may know, state law requires that gas tax revenues must be used for road and highway projects. Which one of the following uses of bridge and highway tolls do you prefer?
All voters
use tolls only for road and highway projects
81%
place toll revenues in the state's General Fund to be used
for anything approved by the legislature
13%
neither
2%
don't know
4%
If state government were to charge tolls, would you favor charges on existing roadways or on new roadways only?
existing roadways
32%
don't know
11%
new roads only
57%
Here are two views on state government’s role in transportation.
Mr. Smith believes state government should try to get people out of their cars and that we need to focus tax dollars on public transportation, not building more highways. He says trying to fix traffic congestion with road improvements will result in more people driving more cars, more damage to the environment and more congestion.
OR
Mr. Jones believes state government should focus on fixing traffic congestion chokepoints. Congestion relief will help commuters get to work, help businesses move their products and help the environment because shorter commutes mean less air pollution.
Do you agree more with Mr. Smith or Mr. Jones? WAIT AND ASK: Do you feel strongly about that?
strongly Mr. Smith/focus on public transportation
26%
Mr. Smith/focus on public transportation
13%
Total Mr. Smith
39%
don't know
13%
Total Mr. Jones
49%
Mr. Jones/focus on traffic relief
27%
strongly Mr. Jones/focus on traffic relief
22%
On another subject, in order to place more money into projects that relieve traffic congestion, would you support or oppose reduced spending in other areas of the state’s General Fund? IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE: Do you feel strongly about that?
All voters
strongly support
21%
support
25%
Total support
46%
don't know
17%
Total oppose
38%
oppose
22%
strongly oppose
Monday, March 10, 2008
E & Y study shows congestion costs New Zealanders close to a billion annually
Combating the congestion: Creative ways to beat the traffic
Business at work 6/1/01
Auckland's traffic congestion is not just about irate commuters and constant traffic snarl-ups. It's also an issue that costs businesses dearly. Sue Weston hunted out some Auckland businesses finding creative ways around the log jams... so they can get on with business.
Early morning in Auckland and by 6.30am the traffic on Auckland's motorway system and feeder roads is heavy, but flowing. By 6.45am on many routes it is starting to clog and by lam - it's back home for another coffee.
"Five years ago, a truck could make nine or 10 deliveries from the port around the city in an eight-hour day. That's down to four or five a day now, even taking into account increased efficiencies at the port."
So says Barrie Lunny, the general manager northern region for the Road Transport Association, (www.nzrta.co.nz) in discussing the day-to-day impact of traffic congestion in Auckland.
This example brings the problem into sharper focus than the aggregated figures, such as an annual cost to business of $755 million in 1997. That figure, from an Ernst & Young study, is now estimated to have increased to at least $1 billion a year.
Invariably everyone is trying to absorb costs as much as possible by working smarter. But it is often a juggling act to satisfy customers' expectations for speed and frequency on the one hand, with the need to avoid extremes of unachievable schedules or vehicle downtime on the other.
Freightways Express (www.freight ways.co.nz) operates New Zealand Couriers, Post Haste, Castle Parcels and SUB60 Couriers in the Auckland region. Managing director Dean Bracewell says that the existing system of spokes feeding into a central hub at Penrose has been refined to work around traffic problems.
"We've had to introduce additional satellite depots in suburban areas, ensuring the courier spends more time actually out in their delivery area. We now have additional shuttle trucks to move packages in volume between the hub and satellite depots, so there's less vehicle movements."
Despite this innovation, traffic congestion still means that Auckland customers have fewer pick-ups in a working day than is possible in other New Zealand centres where congestion is less of an issue. Fewer scheduled pick-ups, combined with lower stock levels and high end-customer expectations, can result in a company using urgent pointto-point services, such as SUB60, more frequently. Bracewell says this is a cost to Auckland businesses, as is the alternative approach of carrying more stock.
Inter-city deliveries are hit too And the additional costs aren't just incurred by Auckland businesses, he says.
"If the roads jam up in Auckland, it can mean inter-city deliveries are compromised as well. If we can't get deliveries to our plane in Auckland on time, it will arrive late in Christchurch, and in turn delay arrival into Invercargill."
Managing the expectations of clients outside Auckland was also mentioned by Rod Giles, managing director of Contract Warehousing (www.cwlnz.co.nz), which operates from Pakuranga in Auckland's eastern suburbs.
"We tackle the problem when preparing quotes and negotiating service level agreements. But clients based outside Auckland are not always aware of the impacts on schedules of traffic in Auckland."
Traffic congestion issues have led to more complex and formal service level agreements between distribution companies and their clients, says Tim Munro, chairman of Logistics New Zealand (www.log-inz.org.nz), and general manager of Stocklink Distribution. "Instead of larger sub-regions for deliveries, smaller areas are now used, and this has made service level agreements increasingly sophisticated."
Increasing congestion affects staff commuting time, and for some companies this is a significant enough issue to influence location or work hours. Nigel Ingham, of Colliers Jardine Commercial (www.colliersjardine.co.nz), says staff retention objectives, as well as access to a suitable employment pool, is now a factor in location decisions for companies which are already on the move.
He mentions a company which is locating as close to the international airport as possible, so that executives can check-in for their flight, then return to their desk for another hour's work before the flight. Ingham adds that companies with significant staff numbers in the eastern and south-eastern suburbs are often keen to locate in Mt Wellington.
Both Mt Wellington and Penrose have become prime real estate for distribution companies who want motorway and railhead access, and for other companies which also seek motorway access, says Ewan Orsborn, of Barfoot and Thompson Commercial (www.barfoot.co.nz).
Demand has driven price up, encouraging some companies to move to the East Tamaki area, which now has improved transport links with both the airport and the eastern suburbs. The Airport Oaks area is also growing in popularity. Service and manufacturing companies are increasingly looking to the Rosebank and Avondale areas which are only eight minutes from the CBD, says Orsborn.
And the commute for staff
Staff commuting time was significant enough for graphic design company Paradigm Productions to allow flexible work hours for its six staff. Director John Ringer says most staff at the company, based in inner-city Freemans Bay, start and finish work later to avoid the worst of both rush-hours.
Teleworking is sometimes an option, but he explains that neither teleworking nor electronic contact with clients from the office is fully satisfactory when client approval of colour proofs is required.
"Colours are dependent on the recipient's computer screen, so we still use couriers extensively." Personal contact with clients remains important, both to complete existing jobs, but also to identify opportunities for other work.
"The lack of a comprehensive inner city public transport system in Auckland with a single ticket system, effectively means that we have to drive to meetings with clients."
While businesses are looking at how they can work around congestion, both the Auckland Regional Chamber of Commerce (www.chamber.co.nz) and the Auckland Business Forum are planning to put the issue firmly on the political agenda for this October's local body elections. The central objective for the chamber and forum campaign is the completion of an integrated transport corridor by 2010.
Chamber of Commerce CEO Michael Barnett says they are not asking for a whole new roading programme, just the completion of what was planned for 30 years ago, but not completed.
Business is frustrated by the cumbersome current approach, with too many government authorities involved, instead of one single agency with a clear mandate, and also concerned about an under-resourced Environment Court.
"The regulatory system needs to keep pace with local and global business changes, and it needs to be resourced. Auckland business has an option - we can either tinker with the problem and accommodate congestion; or we can stand up and take a stand on infrastructure issues. We'll be doing the latter in the lead-up to the October elections."
Sue Weston is an Aucklond-bosed writer.
Federal Government Congestion Relief Initiative 2006
3/8/06 Transportation system congestion is one of the single largest threats to our nation's economic prosperity and way of life. Whether it takes the form of cars and trucks stalled in traffic, cargo stuck at overwhelmed seaports, or airplanes circling over crowded airports, congestion costs America an estimated $200 billion a year. In 2003, Americans lost 3.7 billion hours and 2.3 billion gallons of fuel sitting in traffic jams and wasted $9.4 billion as a result of airline delays. Congestion is also affecting the quality of life in America by robbing us of time that could be spent with families and friends and in participation in civic activities. The Bush Administration does not believe that this is an inevitable fate. The National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America's Transportation Network (the "Congestion Initiative") is premised on the fact that there exist innovative and demonstrated strategies that more efficiently and effectively provide relief to traffic gridlock than current practice. These options include technologies such as congestion pricing and high-speed open road tolling, and the billions of dollars in private capital available for investment in public infrastructure. In 2006, the U.S. Department of Transportation, led first by Secretary Norman Mineta and then Secretary Mary Peters, announced a major initiative to reduce transportation system congestion. This plan provides a blueprint for Federal, State, and local officials to consider as we work together to reverse the alarming trends of congestion. It includes several major components: (1) Congestion Relief Programs; (2) Public Private Partnerships; (3) Corridors of the Future; (4) Implementing Technological and Operational Improvements; and (5) Increasing Aviation Capacity. The root causes of congestion have long been understood, and there is now broad consensus that congestion generally reflects a fundamental imbalance of supply and demand. That is, during hours of peak usage of the transportation facilities most desirable to motorists, the supply of, for example, roadway capacity is insufficient to meet the demand for those facilities. Economists have long understood that such an imbalance stems from inefficient pricing, where the true costs of usage are not reflected in prices paid by the users. For example, travelers are not generally charged for the impact their trip will have on others using the same facility (e.g., increased levels of congestion) or on other members of society (e.g., increased air pollution). In fact, in this country, access to highway travel is, for the most part, rationed by delay. Congestion pricing can provide the balance uch as employee telecommuting options or making transit easier and more attractive to use. Also of interest in managing demand are driver incentive programs that, for example, promote ridesharing and off-peak use. Strategically Invest in New Transportation Capacity. Although there is significant and widespread demand for new highway capacity, concerns about air pollution, noise, and urban sprawl often stand in the way of expanding the system. Equally significant, adding new capacity can be enormously expensive and physically challenging. Despite the barriers, however, new construction that serves critical strategic purposes will go forward in order to preserve or improve system performance. Although widespread capacity increases are a thing of the past, many of the barriers may be addressed through increased expenditures. Environmental concerns may be mitigated and physical challenges overcome (for example, through tunneling). However, the resources to fund such improvements simply are not available through traditional sources. For this reason, many professionals in the transportation community are enthusiastic about the opportunities potentially afforded by public-private partnerships and road pricing.Overview
Causes and Solutions
between supply and demand that allows
traffic to flow more smoothly, avoiding scenes
of congested traffic like this one.
The imbalance of supply and demand leading to congestion is also impacted by the absolute volume of traffic (e.g., demand) on a given facility relative to its physical capacity (e.g., supply). When we look at traffic congestion from a demand perspective, we are looking at how many vehicles compete for space on a particular facility at a given time. The demand for a facility is a function of individual decisions as to when, where, how, and even if highway travel will take place.
On the supply side, congestion is a function of physical constraints and how the driver interacts with a given facility as well as with other vehicles on the facility. On-the-road congestion is characterized as either recurring (routine) or nonrecurring (random). Recurring congestion happens in roughly the same time and place on the same days of the week. It results when physical capacity is simply not adequate to accommodate short-term demand during peak periods. Recurring congestion may also result from improperly timed traffic signals. As indicated in Figure 1, recurring congestion accounts for close to half of total delay. On the other hand, nonrecurring congestion is caused by transitory events such as construction work zones, traffic incidents, and bad weather. The significance of nonrecurring congestion is that it can temporarily prevent full utilization of the existing physical capacity.
Figure 1. Congestion experienced by highway travelers is caused by many different factors.
Consistent with the paradigm of its causes, there are four distinct, but nonetheless related strategies available to attack congestion. It is important to note that the strategies, while individually of merit, work best when implemented as a coordinated package of tools.
Bring Supply and Demand into Alignment through Congestion Pricing. Congestion pricing or peak-period pricing, entails fees or tolls for road use that vary by level of vehicle demand on the facility. As with market pricing in other sectors, road pricing helps allocate limited supply - in this case that of available road space.
With user charges assessed at the point of use, greater efficiency results through improved response to market forces. Charges are typically assessed electronically to eliminate delays associated with manual toll collection facilities. Road-use charges that vary with the level of vehicle demand provide incentives to shift some trips to off-peak times, less-congested routes, or alternative modes; or to cause some lower-value trips to be combined with other trips or simply to be eliminated.
Congestion pricing has several important objectives. First, it seeks to balance demand with available capacity, i.e., the supply of road space. Second, it seeks to fairly allocate the costs associated with operating, maintaining, and expanding the transportation system to meet growing travel demand. Third, it seeks to improve operation of the highway system. A fourth objective may include revenue generation.
Provide Better Choices as to How, When, Where, and If to Travel. The goal with this strategy is to reduce the number of vehicles on a given road. This may take the form of promoting alternative commute options s
Effective and efficient management and operation of the system is foundational to all of the above congestion reduction strategies. This is true because as traffic volumes have grown over time and physical capacity has remained relatively constant, the system has become less able to absorb "surprise" - or nonrecurring events. In the realm of managing the highway system, the margin for error is very small and continues to decline. In addition, operational fixes to the system are also helpful in addressing the recurring congestion resulting from bottlenecks and improper traffic signal timing.
To combat the country's growing transportation congestion problem, the U.S. Department of Transportation launched the National Strategy to Reduce Congestion to America's Transportation Network. Not surprisingly, one element of this initiative is focused on applying 21st century tools to manage and operate the system at peak efficiency.
>2 U.S. DOT Congestion Initiative:
" >Operations & Technology
Why is my route to work always congested, and why isn't more being done to reduce congestion?
The U.S. Department of Transportation's Strategy to Reduce Congestion focuses on the answer to this question. While the root causes of traffic congestion have long been understood, there is now broad consensus that congestion generally reflects a fundamental imbalance of supply and demand. The core principle of the Department's Congestion Initiative is that we can bring transportation system supply and demand into alignment through congestion pricing, which is detailed in the Relieve Urban Congestion point of the initiative (one of six points). The Operational and Technological Improvements point of the Congestion Initiative focuses on the supply side - how we can better manage and operate the transportation system (supply) to relieve congestion.
Recurring congestion (non-optimized supply not meeting user demand) experienced by drivers on the road today is caused by physical bottlenecks and poor traffic signal timing. Other congestion events are caused by non-recurring factors, such as crashes and other incidents, highway construction, and bad weather. The goal of this point of the Congestion Initiative is to have transportation system managers manage these recurring and nonrecurring conditions successfully (in conjunction with a congestion pricing approach to balancing supply and demand) so that the system is optimized and more efficient. For more information on how Operational and Technological solutions fit into the overall congestion problem, read about the Congestion Problem and its Causes and Solutions.
The operational and technological solutions presented in this point of the Congestion Initiative include providing traveler information, improving traffic incident management, enhancing mobility in the vicinity of work zones, improving traffic signal timing, and reliving traffic congestion at bottlenecks (see Key Focus Areas box at the top right of this page or Figure 1, an interactive diagram visually showing how some of the elements in this point of the Congestion Initiative fit together, for links to the focus areas). Collectively, these practices provide operators, planners, decision makers, and travelers with information that allows for more informed decisions, better coordination, and quicker actions that can help avoid and reduce traffic congestion.
The Federal Highway Administration and State and local transportation officials are building on early successes with these focus areas and are demonstrating the potential for significant benefits to national mobility, with the ultimate goal of deploying these technologies and practices broadly across the country.
Operations & Technology Home
3 Traffic Incident Management
Good Practice Examples
Atlanta, GeorgiaSan Antonio, Texas
>Florida
>You're driving in rush hour traffic, traffic is heavy, but it's still moving. Then, all of a sudden, traffic comes to a stand still. You wonder why. When you finally make it to the "problem" it seems to be nothing more than a flat tire. Often, there will be no apparent reason for the slowness and traffic returns to its normal speed. What happened? Why did such a small event cause such a big problem?Lane-blocking incidents affect traffic flow far out of proportion to the number of lanes blocked. An incident blocking one lane out of three on a freeway reduces the capacity of that facility by approximately 50 percent. Blocking two lanes of three reduces capacity by nearly 80 percent.
If a lane is blocked when traffic flow is at or near the capacity of a facility the queue of traffic that accumulates behind the incident will not dissipate after the incident is removed until the traffic flow into the queue decreases - in other words until the peak period ends. Thus a standing queue of traffic may exist for several hours, even after the incident is removed, depending on when the incident occurred, how many lanes were blocked, and how long the blockage lasted. In general, each minute of lane blockage creates 4 minutes of congestion after the incident is cleared.
The safety of responders, such as the law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical services personnel shown here, continues to be of utmost importance under Federal and State initiatives on incident clearance.
Not surprisingly, of all the reasons for traffic congestion, traffic incidents cause approximately 25 percent of total delay. For this reason the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has in place a robust Traffic Incident Management (TIM) program to assist State and locals transportation agencies in reducing the time it takes to restore capacity following a traffic incident. TIM is a planned and coordinated process to detect, respond to, and remove traffic incidents and restore capacity as safely and quickly as possible. Quick clearance of traffic incidents also reduces the likelihood of secondary incidents such as crashes, or stalls from overheating or running out of gas. Quick and coordinated clearance also increases safety for travelers and incident responders. Promoting more aggressive and widespread traffic incident management is an important strategy to lessen the effects of nonrecurring congestion as well as provide a safer driving environment.
Under the banner of the USDOT Congestion Initiative FHWA signaled out TIM four strategies for particularly intense focus:
Full-Function Service Patrols
Driver Removal ("Move It") Laws
Safe, Quick Clearance Policy Agreements
Integrated Communications for Transportation and Public Safety Agencies
These strategies complement the recently ratified National Unified Goal (NUG) for Traffic Incident Management. The NUG, developed through the efforts of the National Traffic Incident Management Coalition (NTIMC), is intended to improve safety for incident response personnel and facilitate clearing incidents as quickly as possible. The NTMIC includes 20 national transportation, public safety, and private sector associations working together to improve traffic incident management in the United States.
4 Traffic Signal Timing
Good Practice Examples
ACS-Lite
Texas, California, and Florida - Upgrading Systems
Puget Sound Washington
Every morning on your way to work, you pass through the same series of intersections. And, every morning you are stopped by a red traffic signal for no apparent reason; where you sit in a very long line of cars. The green signals never seem to be long enough, and once you make it through the intersection you are soon stopped by another red traffic signal. It is a tremendous source of irritation! The signals change colors but traffic never seems to move efficiently. You may be the victim of poor traffic signal timing and this scenario is repeated daily all around the country.
Updating traffic signal timing is a cost effective way to improve the flow of traffic on arterials and is one of the most basic strategies to help mitigate congestion. Of the estimated 330,000 traffic signals in the United States, and as many as 75 percent could be made to operate more efficiently by adjusting their timing plans, coordinating adjacent signals, or updating equipment. In fact, optimizing signal timing is considered a low-cost approach to reducing congestion, estimated at $2,500 to $3,100 per intersection to update. Optimizing traffic signal timing can produce benefit to cost ratios as high as 40 to 1. Those benefits include:
An image showing vehicles traveling through multiple traffic signals along a busy roadway.
- Shorter commute times
- Improved air quality
- Better fuel efficiency, and
- Decreased driver frustration
It is estimated that poor traffic signal accounts for 5 percent of all supply-side traffic delay on major roadways. The U.S. DOT is working with the State and local transportation agencies to improve the management, operation and maintenance of traffic signal systems. The FHWA sponsored The National Traffic Signal Report Card which has confirmed the need for greater attention and investment in traffic signal operations. Improving traffic signal operations pays great dividends and is one of the most cost effective means of reducing congestion. One effective strategy to improving traffic signal operations is regionalizing traffic signal operations; meaning multiple agencies collaborate to leverage their signal timing expertise and resources to provide more consistent and efficient operations both within and across jurisdictional boundaries.
5 Traveler Information
Around The Country
Good Practice Examples
Houston and Chicago
Virginia 511
Southeast Florida
"What's causing this traffic back-up and how much further does the slow traffic last?"
"When is the next bus supposed to come?"
"What's the quickest way to downtown and how much will it cost?"
"When do I need to leave to get to the airport in time?"
Sound familiar? You have certainly heard these questions and perhaps uttered them yourself as congestion has grown on our country's transportation systems. And while there are a number of ways for transportation agencies to deal with the causes of congestion, providing information to the public – motorists, transit users, potential travelers, etc. – can allow them to make better choices and have more control in their travel plans. Real time traveler information gives travelers the opportunity to know what to expect about their routes and make informed travel decisions. Based on traveler information, a traveler can 1) stay the course, 2) alter the time of trip, 3) take an alternate route, or 4) take an alternate mode. Regardless of the decision, the control is back in the traveler's hands.
A changeable message sign displaying real time travel time in Wisconsin.
There are a variety of ways that the public can get traveler information. Most people get traffic information from TV and radio reports that are often fed by private firms that specialize in packaging traffic content. Another growing source for travel information is the 3-digit telephone number, 511, where people can get automated information 24 hours of the day. Highway agencies have traditionally used methods such as dynamic message signs and highway advisory radios to alert motorists to traffic problems. Transit agencies are beginning to provide expected arrival times for buses and trains. And the Internet is becoming the most pervasive method for making real-time information and camera images available to the public.
U.S. DOT is working with the State and local transportation agencies and private firms to expand traveler information capabilities throughout the country. More 511 services are coming online with the goal of having nationwide coverage in 2010. More of the country's most congested cities are beginning to inform motorists of travel times and bus arrivals in real-time. Lessons learned from these experiences are shared with other agencies so that they can use similar methods of informing travelers. Standard ways of representing this information electronically allows private companies to use real-time traveler information and package it for their customers and the public. As people use personalized communication devices and in-vehicle equipment for more information, they can expect real-time traveler information to be available on-demand. When unexpected conditions arise, messages can be sent automatically so travelers can make informed travel decisions. For traveler information, we're striving for all roads, all modes, all the time!
6 Work Zone Safety & Mobility
Ohio - Defining and Implementing a Policy
California
North Carolina - Outreach to Truckers
Work zones seem to be everywhere. And, they always seem to mean traffic delays. The perception is not far from the reality. For example, an estimated 3,110 work zones were present on the National Highway System during the peak summer roadwork season of 2001. This meant that motorists encountered an active work zone one out of every 100 miles and a lane closure every 200 miles. It is not surprising that work zones on freeway account for nearly 24 percent of non-recurring del
ay. In addition, work zone safety is a major concern in the United States, with 1,065 fatalities and more than 40,000 injuries resulting from work zone crashes in 2004 alone.
Travel time reliability is also a key factor associated with work zones, with travelers reporting being frustrated with the delays and unexpected road conditions caused by work zones. This is particularly an issue for road users when a project is in progress but no work appears to be going on for days at a time, yet congestion and delays continue to occur.
An image of a work zone with back up traffic.
Traffic volumes and congestion are increasing, but little corresponding growth in road miles is happening. Many of the Nation's highways are approaching middle age, requiring additional construction and repair, and thus more work zones. Increasingly, construction is taking place while traffic continues to flow on the facility undergoing repair, which applies great pressure on contractors to compress schedules, finish projects early, and perform work art night while maintaining safety and quality.
These trends pointed to a strong need for updating the Federal regulations governing safety and mobility in work zones. The USDOT responded by publishing a new Work Zone Safety and Mobility Rule in September 2004. The updated Rule provides a decision-making framework for considering the broader safety and mobility impacts of work zones across all stages of a project. It also facilitates the implementation of appropriate strategies to help manage those impacts. Compliance with the updated rule is required by October 12, 2007.
Growth in Traffic Congestion 1982 -2005
Table 4. Trends—Annual Delay per Traveler, 1982 to 2005
Long-Term Change
3/3/06
Annual Hours of Delay per Traveler
1982 to 2005 Change 82-05
Urban Area 2005 2004 1995 1982 Hours Rank
Very Large Avera 54 51 43 21 33
Dallas-Fort Worth58 51 34 10 48 1
Washington, DC-VA60 60 53 16 44 3
San Francisco-Oak60 56 56 24 36 7
Atlanta, GA 60 63 70 26 34 10
Boston, MA-NH-R 46 45 30 12 34 10
Miami, FL 50 49 35 16 34 10
New York-Newark,46 42 30 12 34 10
Seattle, WA 45 42 52 13 32 18
Chicago, IL-IN 46 44 33 15 31 19
Detroit, MI 54 56 51 25 29 21
Los Angeles-LBch72 70 71 45 27 24
Houston, TX 56 52 32 30 26 27
Philadelphia, P 38 37 27 16 22 36
Phoenix, AZ 48 42 33 35 13 57
Large Average 37 36 30 11 26
San Diego, CA 57 59 35 12 45 2
Riverside-San Be49 47 28 5 44 3
Minneapolis-St. 43 40 34 6 37 5
Orlando, FL 54 56 54 18 36 7
Denver-Aurora, 50 46 37 16 34 10
Baltimore, MD 44 43 33 11 33 15
San Antonio, TX 39 38 19 6 33 15
San Jose, CA 54 51 51 23 31 19
Columbus, OH 33 34 27 4 29 21
Las Vegas, NV 39 39 37 10 29 21
Sacramento, CA 41 40 35 14 27 24
Providence, RI-M29 29 12 3 26 27
Portland, OR-WA 38 37 33 13 25 29
Indianapolis, I 43 46 53 19 24 31
Memphis TN-MS-AR30 29 23 6 24 31
Cincinnati, OH-K27 27 26 5 22 36
St. Louis, MO-I 33 31 38 12 21 40
Tampa-St. Peters45 46 41 24 21 40
Virginia Beach, 30 30 27 14 16 49
Kansas City, MO-17 16 17 3 14 54
Milwaukee, WI 19 20 22 7 12 62
Cleveland, OH 13 14 16 3 10 67
Buffalo, NY 11 11 6 3 8 72
Pittsburgh, PA 16 17 19 11 5 80
New Orleans, LA 18 18 20 16 2 84
85 Area Average 44 42 36 16 28
Remaining Areas
Areas over 250k 22 25 18 6 16
Under 250,000 20 19 16 5 15
All Urban A 38 37 31 14 24
Very Large Urban Areas—over 3 million population.
Large Urban Areas—over 1 million and less than 3 million population.
Annual Delay per Traveler - Extra travel time for peak-period travel during the year divided by the number of travelers who begin a trip during the peak period (6 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 7 p.m.). Free-flow speeds (60 mph on freeways and 35 mph on principal arterials) are used as the comparison threshold.
Data for years 2000 to 2005 include the effects of operational treatments.
: Please do not place too much emphasis on small differences in the rankings. There may be little difference in congestion
between areas ranked (for example) 6th and 12th. The actual measure values should also be examined. Also note: The best congestion comparisons use multi-year trends and are made between similar urban areas.
Table 4. Trends—Annual Delay per Traveler, 1982 to 2005, Continued
Long-Term Change
Annual Hours of Delay per Traveler 1982 to 2005
Urban Area 2005 2004 1995 1982 Hours Rank
Medium Average 28 27 21 9 19
Austin, TX 49 44 32 12 37 5
Oxnard-Ventura, 39 35 21 4 35 9
Charlotte, NC-S 45 47 23 12 33 15
Raleigh-Durham, 35 35 26 8 27 24
Birmingham, AL 33 33 21 8 25 29
Louisville, KY-I42 44 34 18 24 31
Jacksonville, F 39 41 40 16 23 34
Albuquerque, NM 33 30 30 11 22 36
Bridgeport-Stamf31 28 22 9 22 36
El Paso, TX-NM 24 22 10 3 21 40
Nashville-Davids40 40 35 20 20 43
Omaha, NE-IA 25 26 19 5 20 43
Salt Lake City, 27 29 32 8 19 46
Grand Rapids, 24 24 19 6 18 47
Tucson, AZ 42 39 23 24 18 47
Oklahoma City, O20 22 17 5 15 51
Hartford, CT 19 19 13 4 15 51
New Haven, CT 19 18 13 5 14 54
Richmond, VA 20 20 22 6 14 54
Albany-Schenect 16 16 8 3 13 57
Allentown-Bethle22 22 21 9 13 57
Toledo, OH-MI 15 17 12 2 13 57
Tulsa, OK 19 19 14 8 11 65
Honolulu, HI 24 22 26 14 10 67
Sarasota-Bradent25 26 19 15 10 67
Akron, OH 10 11 9 2 8 72
Fresno, CA 20 19 17 12 8 72
Dayton, OH 17 19 22 10 7 76
Rochester, NY 10 10 7 3 7 76
Springfield, M 11 10 10 7 4 83
Small Average 17 17 13 6 11
Colorado Springs27 22 12 4 23 34
Pensacola, FL-A 25 24 16 5 20 43
Charleston-North31 32 28 15 16 49
Cape Coral, FL 24 24 28 9 15 51
Little Rock, AR 17 17 10 4 13 57
Bakersfield, CA 14 12 7 2 12 62
Columbia, SC 16 16 11 4 12 62
Salem, OR 14 14 12 3 11 65
Laredo, TX 12 11 7 2 10 67
Boulder, CO 16 16 16 7 9 71
Eugene, OR 14 12 7 6 8 72
Beaumont, TX 11 11 6 4 7 76
Brownsville, TX 8 8 4 2 6 79
Corpus Christi, 10 10 7 5 5 80
Spokane, WA 8 8 10 3 5 80
Anchorage, AK 10 10 9 10 0 85
85 Area Average 44 42 36 16 28
Remaining Areas
Areas Over 250k 22 25 18 6 16
under 250k 20 19 16 5 15
All Urban Areas 38 37 31 14 24
Medium Urban Areas—over 500,000 and less than 1 million population. Small Urban Areas—less than 500,000 population.
Annual Delay per Traveler - Extra travel time for peak-period travel during the year divided by the number of travelers who begin a trip during the peak period (6 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 7 p.m.). Free-flow speeds (60 mph on freeways and 35 mph on principal arterials) are used as the comparison threshold.
Data for years 2000 to 2005 include the effects of operational treatments.
: Please do not place too much emphasis on small differences in the rankings. There may be little difference in congestion
between areas ranked (for example) 6th and 12th. The actual measure values should also be examined. Also note: The best congestion comparisons use multi-year trends and are made between similar urban areas.
Monday, September 4, 2006
$533 billion needed for 104,000 new lane miles over next 25 yrs
Posted by Chuck Bennett on September 4, 2006 3:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) |These guys ever hear of mass transit?
The Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank, released a report last Friday calling for the construction of a new 104,000 miles of new lines at a cost of $533 billion over the next 25 years.
“The good news is that this investment would save drivers a stunning 7.7 billion hours annually. And our current traffic - and the looming congestion - can be reduced with just a fraction of the money we are already committing to transportation projects.”
Nationwide it predicted traffic delays will grow 65% and congested roads will jump 50% over the next quarter-century. And luckily, by 2030, New York won’t even be in the top ten worst for traffic. New York will be 13.
For the New York City - Newark region it called for the creation of 2,400 new lane-miles by 2030 for about $38.5 billion.
“This investment would save an estimated 1,248 million hours per year that are now lost sitting in the traffic,” the report says.
The American Public Transportation Association called the report “short-sighted” for ignored commuter rails, subways and buses.
What about dense development to avoid sprawl in the first place? And how will the libertarians feel about all the eminent domain likely to arise from constructing all those new roads?
Worst Traffic in 2030
1. Los Angeles-Long Beach
2. Chicago
3. Washington
4. San Francisco-Oakland
5. Atlanta
6. Miami
7. Denver-Aurora
8. Seattle-Tacoma, WA
9. Las Vegas
10. Minneapolis-St. Paul
11. Baltimore
12. Portland
13. New York-Newark
14. Sacramento
15. Dallas-Fort Worth
16. San Diego
17. San Jose
18. Phoenix-Mesa
19. Riverside-San Bernardino
20. Charlotte
Source: Reason Foundation
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
The Case for More Road Capacity
Seattle's Congestion Future Is Bleak Without More Road Capacity
We can build our way out of this mess
By David T. Hartgen and Robert W. Poole, Jr.
3/29/06
When it comes to traffic jams, the Seattle-Tacoma area is the most congested in the Northwest, just ahead of much-smaller Portland, and ranks 12th nationwide. The area has a congestion index of 1.38, meaning that trips at rush hour take 38 percent longer than off-peak journeys. But if you think that's bad, just wait until 2030.
Over the next 25 years, after absorbing almost 1 million more residents and even more car and truck trips, that same rush-hour trip will take 79 percent longer than a trip made at off-peak times, making Seattle's congestion even worse than the gridlock experienced in Los Angeles today. A trip in Seattle that is supposed to take 30 minutes, will take over 52.
And by 2030, Seattle will have jumped up to the 8th worst commute in the nation.
This forecast comes from our new Reason Foundation study and assumes that all transportation projects in the region's current 25-year plan are actually implemented. The Seattle transportation plan proposes to spend $102 billion over 25 years, including $46 billion for transit and $49 billion for highway projects.
Many motorists or taxpayers might well be asking: do you mean that we are going to spend $102 billion over the next 25 years, and our congestion will be significantly worse after all the spending? Sad to say, the answer is yes.
That's because local transportation planners have bought the idea that we can't build our way out of congestion, so it's hopeless to try. In keeping with recent trends around the country they focused more on reducing driving, proposing mass transit systems and high-density housing projects intended to get people out of their cars. They know that the demand for highway travel will be greater than the supply, but instead of increasing road space in response to what people want they hope to reduce the demand instead to fit within the limited available road space.
This is the approach California tried for 20 years. In the 1980's California stopped building freeways and poured billions of dollars into rail transit systems in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose and San Diego. Unfortunately, the planners couldn't close the door: people kept moving to California and they brought their cars with them. Transit use and carpooling today handle a smaller fraction of trips than they did 20 years ago. The result is that Los Angeles and San Francisco top the national charts in congestion. Other cities that have lately tried the California model have seen their congestion soar, as well. Seattle is one of them.
But the tide may be turning. To its credit, Seattle is among a handful of cities that have gingerly begun to investigate the costs and benefits of expanded highway capacity. And our new research suggests that adding highway capacity is the most important part of an effective effort to reduce traffic congestion.
Our study modeled the hypothetical addition of enough capacity in every U.S. metro area to eliminate the worst congestion by 2030. Seattle was one of the participating cities in that analysis. We found the Seattle region would require adding 704 lane-miles to the existing highway system over the next 25 years, on freeways, arterials, and local roadways. We estimate the cost of that as $4.8 billion in today's dollars. That amounts to a bit under $34 per resident per year, but is less than a tenth of what Seattle plans to spend anyway. So, just by re-focusing its present spending, Seattle could actually reduce congestion if it chose to do so. That investment would save 200 million hours of delay per year that would otherwise be spent stuck in traffic, and the cost, just 96 cents per hour of delay saved – and that is 1/ 20th the minimum cost for light rail proposals.
Where would the new capacity go? While our study did not get into this level of detail, one of most likely possibilities is to add a complete network of HOT or express toll lanes to the existing freeway system. Another possibility is adding truck-only toll lanes in selected corridors, as Atlanta and Los Angeles are now planning to do. Many major thoroughfares that serve growing suburbs should also be widened to handle the traffic that we know is coming.
The Seattle region is at a crossroads in transportation planning. Pulling one way are those who favor the California model: try to get people out of their cars by diverting transportation funds away from highways and into transit and land-use densification. On the other side are harried commuters just trying to cope. In reality, there is no realistic alternative to highways for personal mobility, goods movement, and bus transit, so we need to keep growing the highway system in step with demand for vehicular travel. Cities like Atlanta and Houston – and now Seattle - are beginning to re-think their planning to focus more on congestion relief, and we applaud this trend.
The Seattle region is in competition with other cities as a place to live, do business and play. Seattle's ace cards are its great environment and easy access to the world stage. But these will not be enough. A key factor in people and companies' location choices is mobility: does the transportation system permit smooth and reliable commuting, goods movement and personal trips for recreation and tourism? Those metro areas that can offer such mobility will break out of the pack, ahead of those whose systems are increasingly gridlocked.
Which future do you want for Seattle?
Thursday, March 6, 1997
The Case for Road Expansion articulated in 1998
Washington
Policy
Research Council
PB 97:1
March 6, 1997
Brief
Transportation’s Role in the State
Economy
Concerns about transportation infrastructure and its ability to meet the ever-greater needs of the Puget Sound
region are growing. Most of the goods and services produced in state and delivered out of state travel through this region.
Population and employment projections indicate that the state’s congestion problem will worsen considerably in the
future.
The Washington Research Council recently completed a report for the Washington Transportation Policy Institute on forecasted growth in the state economy and the transportation infrastructure’s ability to cope with that growth. The following Policy Brief represents the highlights of that report.
Growth
The state economy grows for one of two reasons. Either businesses already located in the state expand or new businesses are attracted to the state. The cost of producing goods and services is of primary importance. Other factors being comparable, a business will choose to operate where its costs of operating are the lowest. Increasingly,
transportation infrastructure is impacting business costs. Whether a business produces its own transportation or pays someone else to do it, infrastructure investment will potentially lessen costs to that business. For many businesses, the greatest impact of transportation is employees’ commute to and from work. As the commute worsens, a greater wage will be required to attract employees. An improved infrastructure serves to decrease the cost of production and delivery. In this way, economic growth depends on the transportation infrastructure.
Net Migration and Population Change for Washington State
1 98 0 - 2 02 0
160 000
140 000 Change
Net Migration
120 000
100 000
800 00
600 00
400 00
200 00
0
198 1 198 3 198 5 198 7 198 9 199 1 199 3 199 5 199 7 199 9 200 1 200 3 200 5 200 7 200 9 201 1 201 3 201 5 201 7 201 9
108 S Washington St., Suite 406 w Seattle, Washington 98104-3408 w (206) 467-7088 w FAX (206) 467-6957 w http://www.researchcouncil.org
PB 97:1 March 7, 1997
Washington’s population and total employment are expected to grow by 32 percent in the next 20 years. While nearly half of this increase will be centered in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties, others (like Spokane, Thurston,
Clark and Kitsap) will also experience significant growth. The population growth is driven by net migration into the
state. Washington is considered a relatively good place to live, work, and raise a family, but increases in congestion
could alter this view in the future.
Employment growth is primarily driven by employment gains in sectors selling goods and services out-of-state.
Currently, nearly one fifth of the aggregate output of Washington’s businesses is sold out-of-state (to both foreign and
domestic markets). Foreign exports are twice as important to Washington’s economy as they are to the national
economy. Slightly more than one in six Washington jobs was related to foreign trade in 1985. This will increase as the
global marketplace and trade along the Pacific rim expand. Exports are important for virtually every community in the
state. For example, 46 percent of our fruit and vegetable crop is sold out-of-state. Further, exports represent 46 percent
of our lumber output, 63 percent of plywood, and 77 percent of paper. In the next twenty-five years, air cargo activity for
Sea-Tac will more than double (from 381,000 annual metric tons to 880,000). Similarly, cargo activity from Boeing field
will increase from 22,000 to 78,000.
Projected Employment Growth
1995 to 2015
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1995
Washington State
2000 2005
32%
24%
United States
2010 2015
Nearly half (43 percent) of the state’s exports leave by water. To meet demands projected for central Puget
Sound ports, improved port access and rail transportation capacity will be required. Trade and business leaders in the
Puget Sound Region concerned with freight mobility cite the need for the development of grade separations at railroad
crossings in the South Kingdome and Tacoma Dome areas as well as in the Kent Valley. Without these investments,
potential exporters, including agricultural producers in eastern Washington, will experience costly delays in reaching
export markets.
p. 2
Washington PB 97:1 March 6, 1997
Research Council
Just-In-Time Delivery
A recent trend toward “just-in-time” delivery has led to a greater emphasis being placed on decreasing congestion on
the states’ highways. Just-in-time delivery is a low inventory, transportation intensive production system, used to attempt
to enhance workforce productivity. Just-in-time strategies seek to eliminate disruptions in the production process,
increase flexibility in the mix and level of output produced, reduce set-up and lead times, minimize inventories an
eliminate waste. It often requires manufacturing and shipping in relatively small lot sizes, increasing the use of
transportation resources.
As large blocks of vacant industrial land become scarce in the central Puget Sound region, the need for
manufacturers to ship goods between facilities will increase. Similarly, increasing land values will extend the advantages
of low inventory production methods. As a result, more truck traffic will be forced onto the region’s freeways, where it
will face ever increasing automobile traffic. The problem will be particularly acute in suburban areas, where freeways
often already carry a disproportionate share of local traffic. The morning commute is beginning earlier and ending later.
Likewise, the afternoon commute is expanding. Savvy commuters who believe that they can avoid traffic problems are
spreading the congestion to arterials. The windows available for the transport of oversize products or the relative
congestion free transport of any product is dwindling, in both time span and uncongested roadway.
The Returns To Investments in Highways Compare Favorably With Those
To Business Investment
Average Annual Rate of Return Over Period:
1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1950-1989
Investment in
Regional and 47.9% 47.4% 23.8% 16.1% 33.8%
National Roadways
Business Investment 13.4% 14.0% 12.0% 11.0% 13.3%
Source:M . Ishaq Nadiri and Theofans P . M am uneas
Rates-Of-Return
There have been many studies produced which have attempted to quantify the returns to infrastructure
investment. While their methods have differed widely, their results have been quite stable. They overwhelmingly show
that the return on infrastructure investment has been greater than business investments. Nadiri and Mamuneas have done
the most recent (and widely accepted) study. Their study attempted to value the cost savings to private sector industries
that have resulted from Highway investment. From these cost savings, they calculate the rates-of-return on the Highway
investments. (A similar approach is used to calculate rates-of-return on business private investment.) The rates-of-return
calculated for Highway investment represents an underestimate of the actual benefits of any project, as there are direct
benefits to consumers that would augment these results. The rates-of-return were greatest during the construction of the
Interstate System and have tapered recently. However, the returns are still much greater that the return on business
investment.
Discussion
The pressure on Washington’s transportation system will continue to build in the future. Increased capacity is
needed if the infrastructure is to keep pace with anticipated growth. Funding this capacity will require either new revenue or more effective use of the existing revenue. In order to earn the highest rates-of-return from these resources, it is
critical that we use them efficiently.
p. 3
