An Agency Guide on How to Establish Localized Congestion Mitigation Programs

3.0 Additiona Resources

3.1 Case Studies of Agency Programs

The following provide comparisons of how different state agencies have incorporated low-cost bottleneck projects into their planning and programming processes.

Caltrans

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) does not have a formal bottleneck planning process; rather, bottleneck issues are addressed at the district level as part of their Corridor System Management Plans (CSMP), which are developed for some of California’s most congested transportation corridors. System monitoring and evaluation is seen as the foundation for the entire process because it cannot only identify congestion problems, but also be used to evaluate and prioritize competing investments. The CSMP includes the identification of bottlenecks and potential short-term fixes as part of an overall and long-term strategy for making corridor improvements. This may take the form of an “LBR audit,” which is a review of traditional large-scale corridor studies to identify opportunities for using LBR improvements as part of the package of improvements. The LBR audit concept is similar to that of Road Safety Audits. Caltrans does not have a direct funding for bottlenecks, although bottleneck projects are routinely programmed through the CSMP process.

Florida DOT

In Florida, there is not a “bottleneck” planning process, per se; rather, bottleneck-related issues are addressed as part of the Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) standard planning process. The planning process, which is managed by the FDOT Systems Planning Office, begins with needs identification conducted at the district level, then projects are developed and proposed for the Cost Feasible Plan. The Cost Feasible Plan is adopted and projects are ranked for inclusion into the 5- or 10-year programs. Traffic data and the statewide model are used to identify deficiencies, but it is the responsibility of the districts to identify and resolve hot spots.

Indiana DOT

Indiana DOT is in the beginning stages of developing a bottleneck program, as they are transitioning to a new asset management-based funding system with multiple funding teams. A program champion has been identified. Funding for bottlenecks will fall under the newly formed Mobility Asset Funding Team. The program will initially focus on Interstates, although INDOTis still considering how to best identify the spot location bottlenecks. It is expected that bottleneck countermeasures will have a very good benefit/cost ratio and compete well in the funding decision matrix that is a part of the new funding system.

Maryland State Highway Administration

The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) has a dedicated program of about $5M per year for the identification and implementation of low-cost traffic congestion improvements at intersections. The program’s genesis tracks to when SHA asked, “What can be done if and when a megaproject’s ‘no‑build’ alternative is chosen?” The program has been well received by the public and local governments. Projects typically include low-cost projects that can be implemented quickly, such as signal timing upgrades and adding turn lanes and through lanes at intersections. The Maryland SHA also has had considerable success with projects to improve freeway ramps and merge areas that have reduced congestion bottlenecks at a low cost.

Michigan DOT

Michigan DOT currently is in the process of developing a structured Localized Bottleneck Reduction Program. The effort began several years ago with structured changes at MDOT, during which MDOT officially reorganized their Maintenance and Traffic and Safety Divisions to create a Division of Operations. The next step was the formation of a new section titled Systems Operations and Management (SOM). One of their early charges was to develop an approach to identify and eliminate bottlenecks throughout the State. Several years previous to this reorganization, MDOT developed and utilized a “Choke Point” Program, and their current efforts are patterned after that effort.

One of the first official action steps that the SOM Section pursued was to solicit potential bottleneck locations and problem descriptions from each of their seven region offices. More than 200 locations were identified, with about one-third being freeway interchanges. Based on further review by the SOM Section, the total number of potential locations was reduced to approximately 125 locations, which they believed: 1) met their definition of a “bottleneck” location; and 2) had a potential cost-effective solution that could address the problem. One of the primary goals of this highly focused initial effort is to develop a documented and sustainable approach that can demonstrate excellent benefit-to-cost ratios, as well as justification for allocation and expenditure of funds on the statewide LBR Program. The underlying goal was to obtain leadership support and a dedicated funding template specifically for bottleneck reduction projects, which has now been achieved.

Many challenges exist as the Program and structure move forward. One primary challenge is the need to complete a detailed analysis necessary for a large number of potentially competing projects, as well as a freeway analysis of these projects. MDOT staff resources are limited and MDOT is reviewing the potential use of consultants and/or universities for project analysis. Another issue is how to justify and evaluate the impacts of the suggested changes as well as the existing problem. The intent is to create a level playing field for application of LBR funding by each of the seven regions. The third major challenge is the availability of funding. Michigan is going through an extremely dynamic period with the overhaul of the automobile industry, and their funding has been reduced. These issues are all being discussed and debated as MDOT moves forward to establish and document a formal, fully funded LBR Program.

Minnesota DOT

Minnesota DOT was originally driven to explore low-cost congestion relief projects because of budgetary restrictions, but soon realized that these projects could be implemented very quickly and, as a bonus, were highly visible and popular with the public. In much less than one year, Mn/DOT developed a highly accelerated process for bottleneck identification and prioritization, which led to many effective projects in the following two years. Mn/DOT also found that because of lower costs, it could identify multiple locations throughout the region and “spread around” bottleneck reduction projects in a fair and equitable manner. This process consisted of completing a study, which included a five-step process to narrow potential projects into a recommendation list to the state legislature. Evaluation of completed projects produced high benefit/cost ratios, usually greater than 8:1. Note: Circa 2009, this one-time activity was replaced by an ongoing CMS process known as the Congestion Management Planning Process, which has been formally adopted as part of the 3C planning process.

New York DOT

New York DOT’s Regional 11 Planning Office (New York City) established their Localized Bottleneck Reduction (LBR) program with a mission to mitigate recurring congestion at selected chokepoints and the operational influences that cause them on the region’s highway corridor mainlines, service roads, ramps, and immediate adjacent local streets and intersections. The operational influences include highway junctions and decision points, lane drops, weaves, merges, ramps, signals, intersections, width-restricted underpasses, and other factors that can adversely impact traffic flow at moderate to high volumes. The LBR program will investigate the opportunities as well as develop measures for the application of operational and low-cost infrastructure improvements to address chokepoints and to identify cost-effective improvements either as stand-alone initiatives or as part of existing Capital Projects. The goal of the LBR will be to move recommendations into the capital program.

Project Team. The LBR Program is administered through an interdisciplinary team headed by the Planning Director, with members designated by the functional unit managers. The approach is modeled after the Preliminary Feasibility Investigation (PFI) concept currently used by the Planning Office, which utilizes a multifunctional project scoping team as the “vehicle” for building consensus on the nature of a transportation problem, the key issues, and best solutions. This approach has been used by the Planning and Development unit to focus on and analyze the feasibility of specific projects, and it creates a forum for early consensus and buy-in of preferred alternatives and course of actions by the different functional groups.

The LBR Team will evaluate various completed inventories/studies and will bring other agencies on board as needed in order to develop a current inventory of bottleneck locations citywide; develop screening criteria; select and recommend priority locations for improvements; develop strategies for the selected locations; and prepare the implementation plan. The team will work through Program Management to address programming, funding, and schedule issues, and they will coordinate with the local MPO regarding any TIP and/or conformity issues. At the present time, the Localized Bottleneck Reduction program will be confined only to Region 11 functional groups plus FHWA. As the work of the LBR program becomes better defined and develops greater focus, the LBR PFI Team will be expanded to include external agencies, such as the NYCDOT, NYCT, MTA, PANYNJ, etc.

Program Benefits. The benefits of the LBR program include:

• Proactively engaging in reducing recurring delays and improving quality of life for affected communities;
• Reduce the rate of RCNs by elected officials and citizens to the department;
• Low-cost, effective solutions which will not require significant environmental actions and are relatively low-cost capital projects or maintenance work orders;
• Short implementation schedule; and
• Provide opportunity for incorporating recommended mitigations into ongoing projects, etc.
  

Screening Criteria and Schedule. The screening criteria for project selection is as follows: 1) project cost < $10M; 2) annual vehicle-hours-delay > 25,000 hours; 3) speeds < 30 mph; 4) requires little or no environmental documentation; and 5) projects NOT already programmed in the TIP. Once the LBR PFI Team is constituted and established, it is expected that within the next 9 to 12 months, the identification and assessment, including corresponding mitigation strategies, of up to four bottleneck locations, will be available for further LBR team review and comment.

Ohio DOT

In 2008, Ohio DOT initiated a new Systematic Signal Timing Program that provides district offices and local governments with technical assistance (task order consultants) to analyze, coordinate, and upgrade the timing and phasing of signal systems in high-crash areas. Funding can also be used to upgrade signal equipment as needed. Funding is targeted to those areas listed as a top crash priority by ODOT, MPOs, or local governments. Project sponsors must verify that the crash patterns are relevant to signal timing concerns. Requests are funneled through the appropriate ODOT district office, which typically must concur with the request for assistance.

In Ohio, bottlenecks are part and parcel of the overarching Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) Highway Safety Program (HSP), which ranks all candidate projects and drives the statewide highway project selection and scheduling process. Beginning in 2002, ODOT developed a “congestion mapping” division that uses V/C ratios developed from traffic data recorders and roadway inventory. About the same time, ODOT administration pushed for an annual process of overlaying congestion-index and safety-index “hot spots.” As a result, congestion hot spots now have a “voice” in the process regardless of crash indices, and congestion-related problems now compete for attention in the HSP listing. Specifically, highway sections with V/C ratios greater than 1.0 are considered “congested” and are added to the listing. Sections with V/C between 0.9 and 1.0, but outside the cities of Columbus, Cincinnati, and Cleveland, are also added. After ODOT headquarters completes their statewide effort of congestion mapping and safety indexing, the respective District engineers are responsible for developing countermeasures for their top-listed candidate projects. District Safety Review teams sort projects into three scales – low (less than $100K and quickly implementable), medium ($100K to $5M and one to two years), and high (greater than $5M and necessitating more than years to implement) – and then compete with other projects having the same scale but in other districts.

Utah DOT

Funded by the Utah Legislature, Utah DOT initiated a Choke Point Program in 2006 to address safety, congestion, and bottleneck areas. It was successful, so the Legislature put forth more funding for additional chokepoint projects. The UDOT has used the choke point program to identify potential projects that could improve operations and safety with relatively low cost and in a short time period. Potential projects are identified through public observations in the regions and input from users and local governments. Qualifying criteria for potential projects include small safety, capacity, or bottleneck projects that: 1) cost less than $10M; 2) qualify for a categorical exclusion; 3) can be designed and constructed within one year; and 4) require minimum right-of-way needs. Examples of choke point projects include roadway widening, left-turn lengthening, dual left turns, auxiliary lane on freeway, intersection or signal improvement, passing lanes on rural routes, and improvement of weave/merge areas. Projects are selected and prioritized in each region based upon several factors, including Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT), volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C), constructability, region priority, and accident rates.

Virginia DOT

Virginia DOT implemented the Strategically Targeted Affordable Roadway Solutions (STARS) Program. This program is a safety and congestion program that partners state, planning district and local transportation planners, traffic engineers, safety engineers, and operations staff to identify “hot spots” along roadways where safety and congestion problems overlap and are suitable for short-term operational improvements. The major goals of the STARS Program are to identify roadway improvements that:

• Are relatively low in cost with no more than $2M for a primary project and $5M for an Interstate project;
• Address existing mobility and safety problem areas;
• Require minimal preliminary engineering and right-of-way; and
• Can be implemented quickly, with a goal of 24 months or less.

Current funding for the program is through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), although VDOTis looking for other funding mechanisms.

Washington State DOT

Washington State DOT(WSDOT) has no direct funding or a separate program just for bottlenecks, but formally recognizes “bottlenecks and chokepoints” in their project planning and development process and devotes a portion of the Washington Transportation Plan (WTP) to them. Financing large congestion relief projects has become a serious problem due to reduced tax revenues, so WSDOT has organized the Moving Washington initiative. As stated in their most recent Congestion Report: (Washington State Department of Transportation, The 2010 Congestion Report, November 2010.)

…WSDOT applies three balanced strategies to fight congestion – operate efficiently, manage demand, and add capacity strategically. By strategically adding capacity, WSDOT targets bottlenecks and chokepoints in the transportation system. However, because of limited resources, WSDOT understands that adding capacity cannot be the only solution for solving the congestion problem. That is why WSDOT uses operational strategies to maximize the efficiency of the existing transportation system (operate efficiently). WSDOT manages demand by providing alternatives to drive-alone commutes between and within modes of travel and encouraging the traveling public to use them. Performance results show that Moving Washington strategies and projects are making a difference around the State to relieve congestion.

Strategic, low-cost capacity improvements currently are a major emphasis for WSDOT. In the safety area, WSDOT learned that by targeting “black spots” rather than corridor- or systemwide safety improvements, much greater impact for investments could be achieved. This same philosophy is being carried over to bottlenecks.

The Moving Washington initiative is part of the larger planning and programming activity of WSDOT. The Highway System Plan is the result of this process, which is performance-driven, as described below.

The process starts with definitions. Bottlenecks and chokepoints are defined differently from a functional viewpoint, but they both relate to the physical characteristics of the facility that impede traffic. Bottlenecks are places where the physical attributes of a roadway change in a manner that impacts the flow of traffic. Typical bottlenecks are locations where the number of lanes decreases; the roadway physically narrows either in shoulder width or lane width and narrow bridges. WSDOT defines chokepoints as places where congestion occurs because of traffic interference and/or the roadway configuration. Both bottleneck and chokepoint locations can be identified by WSDOT or other agency staff just by observation.

The next step is that the observed congestion must be supported with traffic data and analysis models. If congestion is a problem today or anticipated within the next 20 years, it also must satisfy one of the following applicable criteria:

• The congestion problem impacts the flow of mainline through-traffic. Mainline traffic flow is considered to be impacted when through-vehicle peak-hour speeds are equal to or less than 70 percent of the posted speed.
• Traffic flow criteria for ramps will also be considered to determine if the congestion is caused by on/off-ramp traffic.

Once problem locations are identified, potential improvements are identified by central WSDOT staff, regional WSDOT staff, and MPO staff. The potential improvements follow a tiered process:

• First, low-cost improvements are considered, including LBR-type projects and operations.
• Second, larger-scale projects with a longer duration of benefits, short of major reconstruction, are considered.
• Finally, the “ultimate” long-term fix is identified, which usually involves major reconstruction.

Problem locations can have one, two, or three of these tiers identified for it. Solutions are then tested using analytic models developed by WSDOT for benefit/cost ratios and performance analysis. From this, the best combination of improvements is identified statewide.

The entire planning and project development process is performance-based. This fits into WSDOT’s longstanding emphasis on using performance measures to guide investment as well as the Governor’s Government Management, Accountability and Performance (GMAP) program, which spans all state agencies. Every month, the Governor and her staff meet with the heads of state agencies and departments to evaluate the performance results that these organizations currently are delivering. These open, candid meetings provide insight into what is and what is not working in state agencies, and what is needed to improve performance and achieve on deliverables. These meetings (held in Olympia twice a month in the Legislative Building) are open public forums. (WSDOT Government Management, Accountability & Performance.)

Metroplan, Little Rock, Arkansas

Metroplan, the MPO for the Little Rock region, has implemented a program dubbed “Operation Bottleneck” aimed at identifying current congested locations that are amenable to relatively quick and inexpensive treatments. Major congestion problems – arterial corridors and freeway sections/interchanges with major capacity deficiencies – are well known throughout the area. Further, future (major) problems have been identified with the modeling done for the long-range transportation plan. However, funding for the major improvements necessary at these locations must come from either:

• State DOT, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (they would be managed as state projects; and
• Local governments saving up several years of state and Federal allocations for a single project.

Metroplan wanted a way to serve their constituents better than constructing a scarce few megaprojects. Further, the region is almost in nonattainment for the eight-hour ozone standard. The text from their press release on the program sums up their intent very well:

“We’re aware of the major congestion issues in our area and have identified those in our long-range plans, but we know there are dozens, maybe hundreds of neighborhood problems throughout the region that could be fixed with something as simple as a roundabout or coordinating traffic signals to improve flow,” McKenzie says. “Localized problems like these can be harder to identify and are sometimes overlooked, even though they can be just as frustrating to drivers. Often they can be addressed much more quickly than larger projects. Those are the types of areas we are hoping to identify through Operation Bottleneck.”

Operation Bottleneck is largely based on the establishment of a Regional Mobility Authority (RMA). In Arkansas, an RMA is a coordinating body with no taxing powers – member counties would have to raise the taxes necessary to fund projects; multiple counties would be involved. Most likely, the RMA will be based on a temporary increase in local sales taxes county-by-county; they feel it is important to sunset the tax so it is more palatable to the public and elected officials. Metroplan hopes to leverage state and Federal funds against their self-generated revenue to fund the projects. Also key to the strategy is a specific list of projects to be funded by the tax increase, and most of the Operation Bottleneck effort has gone into project identification, as discussed below.

Project identification is being driven almost exclusively by public input via local meetings and an Internet survey. Metroplan also hired a marketing firm to promote the program through local media. Both congestion safety problem areas are being solicited, along with other modal deficiencies (transit, special transportation). A huge range of responses has been received, from megaprojects to minor problems on local roads. For congestion problems, signals and interchanges are dominating the responses. Safety problems identified by the public tend to be more general than site-specific. (This is understandable since congestion is experienced routinely but crashes are rare events for individuals.)

Metroplan staff will assemble the projects and will develop a list of projects to iterate with the public. Staff will also make revenue projections under different sales tax rates. No formal benefits assessment is planned – as with project identification Metroplan emphasized that public input is the driver for Operation Bottleneck, not technical processes (which they use for all other transportation planning activities). The staff will compare public-identified projects with those in the TIP and LRTP as well as against congested sections identified in their Congestion Management System in developing a prioritized list. Metroplan staff offered two types of improvements that are likely to dominate the project list:

• Low-cost arterial improvements – improved timing, intersection approach geometric improvements, and access management; and
• Roundabouts at uncontrolled, stop sign-controlled, or low volume signal locations.

Initial results are planned to be presented to public officials in October 2008.

Metroplan would like to make this an ongoing process, especially since the public support for the program has been very high. How to structure the funding for an ongoing program will be tricky, however.