An Agency Guide on Overcoming Unique Challenges to Localized Congestion Reduction Projects

2.0 Common Barriers and Challenges to Localized Congestion Projects

2.1 Background

There really are no set, widely utilized guidelines for roles and responsibilities of an LBR program or project development process. State DOTs, MPOs, or local transportation agencies could all lead an effective LBR effort or individual project. State DOTs and MPOs are traditionally the organizations who lead LBR efforts simply because they usually have larger missions, which include congestion management and mitigation, as well as access to a variety of funding mechanisms. Many successful LBR programs actually depend on a high level of coordination between state DOTs and MPO. Many times, the state may identify bottlenecks and work closely with MPOs to integrate these projects into their Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and other targeted funding sources such as Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and safety. However the split or leadership role is defined, any agency can lead an effective program.

This current document is aimed at determining and understanding the common barriers/challenges to localized congestion mitigation programs and projects and why some agencies have had success overcoming them while others have not. The research team used a variety of methods to gather information on common barriers/challenges, including an agency survey, attendance at LBR workshops, and a state-of-the-practice review of published studies and internet pages dealing with the subject of localized congestion and bottleneck removal projects.

LBR Workshop Feedback

FHWA has sponsored a number of workshops to help partner agencies become engaged in starting or improving efforts aimed at reducing localized bottlenecks. LBR staff has occasionally heard “push back” from some agencies that cite institutional or other barriers to enacting either individual projects or agency-wide programs. Examples of some of these barriers would be:

1. “we can’t enact (these types of solutions) because (we feel) they violate firm safety design tenets or regulations”
2. “we can’t undertake a spot-solution on a freeway absent having a vetted, adopted, twenty-year plan (or similar) already in place”
3. “how would such projects affect (our) MPOs air quality, nonattainment status?”

Conversely, the LBR staff has conducted state visits and workshops wherein these barriers never came up; either signifying no such concerns, or success in overcoming them. Those agencies that have been effective at dealing with bottlenecks have developed either special or ongoing programs specifically targeted at dealing with current bottleneck projects. The options for structuring an LBR program vary widely, as described in An Agency Guide on How to Establish Localized Congestion Mitigation Programs. There is no cookie-cutter approach to implementing low-cost bottleneck projects.

2.2 Barrier/Challenge Categories

This section describes the four categories for common barriers and challenges to localized congestion and bottleneck reduction projects. The research team developed the categories based on synthesizing available information from the LBR workshops, agency surveys, and state-of-the-practice review. Table 3 outlines the four categories for most of the common barriers and challenges to localized congestion and bottleneck reduction projects.

Table 3. Bottleneck Barrier and Challenge Categories.

Category	Symbol	Description
Institutional		Barriers and challenges that are bureaucratic in nature – caused by the way transportation agencies have traditionally operated and functioned.
Design		Barriers and challenges that are related to the way the transportation facilities are physically designed – particularly in relation to accepted standards and practices.
Funding		Barriers and challenges that are related to how transportation facilities are paid for and implemented.
Safety		Barriers and challenges that are related to the potential traffic safety impacts resulting from localized congestion relief treatments.

2.3 Institutional Barriers and Challenges

This section outlines the common barriers and challenges to localized congestion projects that are bureaucratic in nature – that is they are caused by the way agencies have traditionally operated. The research team identified ten common institutional barriers shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Common Institutional Barrier and Challenges.

Barrier	Symbol	Description
Project champion		Localized congestion relief projects often need a project champion to be successful. Someone with a high-level of authority and ability to gain consensus make implementation easier.
Disposition towards mega projects		Many transportation agencies are organized to plan, design and construct large projects and do not have a well defined process for smaller, localized congestion reduction projects.
Project planning and programming requirements		Transportation agencies that receive federal funds use a defined planning process that is sometimes at odds with implementing localized congestion reduction projects (see air quality conformity later in this section).
Lack of training		There is a lack of available training for DOTs and MPOs on how to properly identify, analyze, and successfully implement localized congestion reduction projects.
Knowledge of problem locations		The barrier for some agencies is a lack of knowledge of localized congestion locations in their jurisdiction that might be mitigated with a low-cost/spot operational or geometric improvement.
Deficiency with internal and/or external communication		Communication – both internally within a transportation provider – and externally with partner agencies or key stakeholders can often be a barrier to project initiation and ultimately field implementation.
Culture of historical practices/resistance to change		Many DOTs struggle with organizational change and rely heavily on historical practices and approaches to project development.
Lack of incentives or recognition		Formal incentives and/or recognition for successful implementation of localized congestion reduction projects are not widespread.
Project is not in or consistent with approved regional and state transportation plans		Some agencies will not implement localized congestion reduction projects unless they have been through a formal process and been added to approved regional and state transportation funding plans.
Lack of confidence in proposed solution		Some engineers struggle with confidence in the ability of low-cost/localized improvements to be effective at reducing the congestion and not just moving it or making the situation worse.

Example of Institutional Barrier: Project Planning and Programming Requirements – Air Quality Conformity

An example barrier to localized congestion reduction projects in large urban areas relates to air quality conformity. Because they are short-term in nature, localized bottleneck improvements may emerge as formal projects that have not been previously identified in Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs (STIP) or TIP. Thus, they may not be part of those projects that have been approved to deal with air quality issues in the region or state. Such occurrences must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis by agencies wishing to undertake bottleneck projects. One point worth noting: if air quality conformity in a location precludes or discourages major capital expansion (e.g., additional lane-miles), the type of improvements in a localized bottleneck program clearly do not fall in this category.

Example of Institutional Barrier: Consistency with Long-Range Transportation Plans

Another example of a potential institutional barrier is that bottlenecks may not be seen as consistent with long-range transportation plans. Most bottleneck mitigation strategies such as roadway widening, left-turn lengthening, auxiliary lanes on freeways, or improvement of weave/merge areas may all be seen as distracting resources or blurring the need for larger design solutions, which will be made anyway in a larger longer-term project already in a 20-year plan. Agencies must decide and weigh the benefits themselves whether the cost of doing smaller bottleneck solutions in the short term is against the cost of waiting for a more complete solution. This decision can be difficult, especially for agencies without a good appreciation for the typical benefits and costs of smaller bottleneck solutions and how long those benefits might last.

2.4 Design-Based Barriers and Challenges

This section outlines the common barriers and challenges to localized congestion projects that are related to the way the transportation facilities are physically designed – particularly in relation to accepted standards and practices. The research team identified five common design-based barriers shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Common Design-Based Barriers and Challenges.

Barrier	Symbol	Description
Design exception process is difficult		Many bottleneck solutions require design exceptions for narrow lanes, shoulder width, etc. and the process of getting approval can sometimes be difficult.
Non-standard design is considered a deal-breaker		Many transportation agencies adhere strictly to design standards such as the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets and do not move non-standard designs forward to implementation.
Problem is too big and nothing short of a total rebuild will fix it		A common thought process by DOTs, MPOs and elected officials is that most congestion problems require a large investment and multi-year construction to fix.
Spot treatment will move the problem and not fix it		Quite a few planners and engineers often believe that smaller, spot treatments will move the bottleneck and not fix it; therefore, the project is not pursued.
Standard practices contribute to bottleneck formation		Some agencies cite that existing design standards and practices (e.g., maintaining basic number of lanes through major freeway-to-freeway interchanges) actually contribute to the formation of bottlenecks.

Example Design-Based Barrier: Design Exception Process is Difficult

An example design-based barrier to localized congestion reduction relates to the FHWA design exception process. Because some bottleneck treatments use innovative solutions that maximize effectiveness with a minimum of new construction, they are occasionally at odds with highway design standards and might require a design exception (e.g., the addition of slip ramp to a collector/distributor road or the use of a shoulder as a through lane at selected locations may not strictly follow design standards). Such deviations have the potential to degrade safety if not properly implemented (e.g., shoulder elimination may lead to more collisions with roadside features or may impede incident management activities).

As it is FHWA’s intent to foster creative approaches for low-cost bottleneck projects, agencies should not see the design standard issue as insurmountable. Rather, they should fully assess the potential safety impacts of strategies and devise ways of addressing them, if necessary. For example, in the case of a shoulder-to-lane conversion, review of crash data, and the specific roadway location (perhaps through a Roadway Safety Audit), it may be determined that a barrier is required to keep vehicles off of the roadside. It may also require a change in incident management policy that would allow emergency vehicles to access incidents from the opposite direction. Finally, agencies should be in contact with the FHWA Division offices throughout the process as design review may be required, depending on circumstances.

2.5 Funding Barriers and Challenges

This section outlines the common barriers and challenges to localized congestion projects that are related to how transportation facilities are paid for and implemented. The research team identified four common funding barriers shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Common Funding Barriers and Challenges.

Barrier	Symbol	Description
There is no dedicated funding category or named program		Bottleneck projects typically do not have a dedicated funding category like what exists for safety. Unless there is a formal program identity, bottleneck remediation is usually relegated to a few project completed as part of an annualized safety program, or as a subordinate part of larger, other purposed projects.
Low-cost solution may blur or preclude the need for a bigger project		Some agencies do not implement localized solutions because they might distract resources from or blur the need for a bigger capital investment project.
Do not understand if alternative funding categories can be used		Transportation funding can be a complex process and some agencies do not understand what types of categories can be used to support implementation of localized bottleneck reduction-type projects.
Lack of available resources for implementation		Perhaps the most universal barrier is a lack of available resources for building, maintaining and operating transportation infrastructure. Some agencies cite lack of roadway striping crews as a challenge.

Example Funding Barrier: Lack of Available Resources for Implementation

An example funding barrier to localized congestion reduction relates to the lack of available resources for implementation. Many transportation agencies are dealing with increased congestion and transportation needs while receiving less funding into the future. On a high level, most of the funding for roadway improvements comes from motor vehicle fuel taxes. This revenue source is fixed (most state and federal fuel taxes have remained at the same level since the early 90s) and the buying power has been diminished by increasing construction costs and the increasing overall fuel efficiency of the vehicle fleet. All of this makes agencies careful about where money is spent. Some DOTs have taken steps to reduce expenditures by outsourcing operations and maintenance activities. One example of a reduced in-house function that has affected their ability to implement localized congestion reduction projects is not having dedicated crews and equipment for roadway restriping. Simple restriping – such as adding marking to create option lanes at diverge points – is sometimes all that is needed in order to mitigate an existing bottleneck. Not having a dedicated striping crew or equipment has made it difficult to implement small, low-cost restriping projects because they are not cost efficient for their private contractors.

2.6 Safety-Related Barriers and Challenges

This section outlines the common barriers and challenges to localized congestion projects that are related to the safety performance of transportation facilities. The research team identified four common safety-related barriers shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Common Safety-Related Barriers and Challenges.

Barrier	Symbol	Description
Hesitancy to implement a solution that does not follow standards		Agencies typically follow design standards and accepted practices very strictly in order to promote consistency and meet driver expectation. There is often a hesitancy to implement solutions that do not follow standards due to fear of unwanted outcomes.
Perception that safety is compromised with low-cost solutions		Some agencies have an organizational culture with a strong commitment to putting safety first and perceive that safety might be compromised by low-cost solutions, particularly when non-standard designs are involved.
Lack of shoulders takes away refuge areas		Utilization of shoulders as travel lanes, either permanently, during peak periods, or by special vehicles such as buses, can be an effective bottleneck improvement. Some agencies are reluctant to take away shoulders because the cross section is reduced and the refuge areas for disabled vehicles are eliminated.
Lanes that are not full width create safety issues for large trucks		Transportation agencies reduce lane widths in order to create an additional travel lane for bottleneck relief. Some agencies are adverse to this practice because of the potential safety implications – particularly when it is on freeways with high truck volumes.

Example Safety-Related Barrier: Lack of Shoulders Takes Away Refuge Areas

An example safety-related barrier to localized congestion reduction relates to when an agency rejects moving a project forward because of concerns about the lack of roadway shoulders. The concerns about safety being compromised and incident management being more difficult, whether real or perceived, have to be adequately addressed before there is a comfort level to implement a project. Transportation agencies can struggle with the paradox and balancing act of putting safety first with the implementing mobility solutions such as shoulder removal – even if it is for short sections like would be the case for localized congestion reduction projects.