Innovative Approaches to Addressing Aviation Capacity Issues in Coastal Mega-regions (2010)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

135 From the original project statement and request for pro- posal, the research effort has been concerned with the poten- tial impacts on aviation capacity from possible changes in competing or complementary modes. The research team’s work has included, therefore, a review of the extent to which there might be some additional capacity in the roadway networks in the two mega-regions that could in some way influence alternative futures for the accommodation of avi- ation demand. This Appendix to the main document sum- marizes the results of the research team’s review of demand and capacity of highways as undertaken as an input to the analysis of the capacity needs of the U.S. aviation/airport system. Section B.1 reviews what is known about the bottlenecks and sources of congestion in the East Coast Mega-region; it reviews highway demands and capacities at the region’s key locations. Areas where demand significantly outweighs capac- ity are documented for the East Coast. By way of example, demands and supplies on a key link across the Hudson River in the NYC area are reviewed to show the difficulty of predict- ing what major improvements to the total network can be expected. Section B.2 includes a review of known congested seg- ments of the California highway system—in particular, those that serve as gateways for north–south traffic between the two West Coast Mega-regions. In California, a future high- way network was developed as part of the HSR forecasting process, and the impact of that future highway network on interregional travel was calculated. The California analysis shows that, even with the creation of an aggressive future highway network, the fundamental long-distance intercity travel times do not improve. Section B. 3 concludes with the finding that the only way in which future highways could provide continuous capacity not available today would be with the creation of continuous intercity-managed lanes to support new kinds of intercity bus services. B.1 Highway Demand and Capacity in the East Coast Mega-region The coastal mega-regions are served by highway systems that include major interstate highways, state highways, toll roads, and toll bridges. As with most transportation facilities, the performance of these systems is heavily affected by di- urnal, daily, weekly, and seasonal fluctuations in demand. Because of this, characterizations of system capacity are gen- erally referenced against some time period. The traditional traffic engineering approach is to design a facility so that it operates without significant congestion during the so-called “design hour” that, in many regions, is defined as the 30th high- est hourly traffic flow over the course of a year. However, in the coastal mega-regions, most of the major highway facili- ties operate with traffic flows that are well above levels that would maintain that standard. The I-95 Corridor Coalition has made a major commit- ment to providing improved understanding of the long- distance trip, including the trips by vehicles on the roadway system. The Coalition is an alliance of transportation agen- cies, toll authorities, and related organizations encompass- ing the multistate East Coast Mega-region. The Coalition provides a forum for key decision- and policymakers to address transportation management and operations issues of common interest, including current and future perfor- mance of the highway system. As one of its projects, the Coalition has been developing a new tool to identify major transportation system bottlenecks and potential multimodal approaches to address those bottlenecks. The tool, labeled ICAT (Integrated Corridor Analysis Tool), includes a coded highway network for the I-95 region with traffic flow and capacity data. ICAT was used by the Coalition to identify major facilities that are subject to significant congestion and that, in effect, serve as bottlenecks in the corridor. A capacity index was cal- culated as the annual average daily traffic volume divided by A P P E N D I X B Highway Congestion and the Aviation System

the hourly traffic capacity of the facility. This can be inter- preted as the number of hours of full capacity flow that are represented by the average daily traffic volumes. The maxi- mum possible value for this index would be 24, but that would imply that traffic flows equal capacity for all 24 hours of an average day. As traffic flows in practice vary significantly across the day and, in particular, are very much lower at night, index values above 10.0 are generally associated with significant con- gestion levels on “average” days and for more than the typical few hours of peak congestion. B.1.1 East Coast Highways with High Volume-to-Capacity Relationships Table B.1 lists 20 of the East Coast Mega-region highways with the highest index values as calculated by ICAT. The full ICAT-generated lists includes close to 100 East Coast Mega- region highway sections with index values above 10.0, so the table should be viewed as indicative of the sections that are the most congested. I-95, which is the major highway serving the corridor, is heavily represented both in the truncated list above and in the longer ICAT list. This indicates that the cor- ridor is currently operating at its effective capacity for much of the day and for much of its length. A more direct measurement of the current highway oper- ating conditions is provided by the detailed INRIX “Smart Dust Network” data (B-2). Since 2006, INRIX has acquired “GPS-enabled probe vehicle reports from commercial fleet vehicles – including taxis, airport shuttles, service delivery vans, long haul trucks – and cellular probe data.” The I-95 Corridor Coalition has a contract to INRIX to provide the Coalition access to both real-time and historical performance data for the highways and arterials in the region. This dataset will provide detailed information about the performance of the highway network over time, and INRIX has used the data to calculate its own congestion index. That index is calculated as the number of hours during which traffic moves at a speed lower than 50% of the free-flow speed per week divided by the average speed during those hours. It is not surprising that the coastal mega-regions high- ways are prominently featured in INRIX’s list of the worst 100 bottlenecks in the United States, based on their index. Of the top 100, over 70% are in the coastal mega-regions, includ- ing all of the top 5. Table B.2 lists the East Coast Mega-region highways that appear on the INRIX Top 100 list, along with their performance statistics. As shown in Table B.2, the top-ranked (worst) from this list, the Cross-Bronx westbound, is congested, on average, for 94 hours per week at an average speed of less than 10 mph. Assuming that the congested hours are spread across week- days and weekends evenly, this amounts to over 13 hours of congested conditions per day. 136 Location Route Daily Traffic No. of Lanes Capacity Index Queens, NY I-678 178,434 4 20.4 Delaware, PA I-95 173,664 4 19.9 Norfolk, VA I-264 198,317 5 18.1 Brooklyn, NY I-278 156,632 4 17.9 Prince Georges, MD I-95 191,610 5 17.5 Baltimore, MD I-695 227,133 6 17.3 Fairfax, VA I-95 146,114 4 16.7 Philadelphia, PA I-76 139,692 4 15.9 Hartford, CT I-84 137,500 4 15.8 Long Island, NY I-495 206,379 6 15.7 New Castle, DE I-95 130,459 4 15.1 Baltimore, MD I-83 192,790 6 15.0 Staten Island, NY I-278 194,734 6 14.8 Bronx, NY I-95 130,012 4 14.8 Montgomery, MD I-270 126,781 4 14.5 Bergen, NJ I-95 312,592 10 14.3 New Haven, CT I-91 90,800 3 14.0 Philadelphia, PA I-95 178,945 6 13.7 Delaware, PA I-476 117,378 4 13.4 Fairfax, VA I-66 174,275 6 13.3 Table B.1. ICAT Top 20 East Coast bottlenecks (B-1).

B.1.2 An Example of Road Capacity Constraints, Current and Future: A Hudson River Crossing Tables B.1 and B.2 provide vivid proof that someone driving from Boston to Virginia will hit a bottleneck at some time, almost certainly including a peak-period delay. The Coali- tion’s comprehensive program to deal with the I-95 corridor as a single network, including (at some point) the forecast for a 20-year timeframe, is not yet complete. Rather, this one example of an East Coast Mega-region bottleneck is presented here, this time providing some forecast of its possible future demand and its possible future capacity. (The project is cur- rently under environmental analysis, and data about several alternative futures are readily available to the public.) Present capacity, present demand. The Tappan Zee Bridge (TZB) is a major Hudson River crossing north of New York City and is a well-known bottleneck in the road- way network. It has been chosen as an example for this sec- tion as it provides a good representation of a major highway facility on U.S. roadways in the coastal mega-regions. It has also been chosen because, unlike most other U.S. highway facilities, it will likely receive a major upgrade of anywhere from $5 billion to $15 billion within the next decade. The bridge is old and needs significant repair or replacement, like 137 Rank Road County Hours Congested Avg. When Congested 1 Cross Bronx Expy WB Bronx 94 9.8 2 Cross Bronx Expy WB Bronx 92 9.5 4 Cross Bronx Expy WB Bronx 81 11.1 5 Cross Bronx Expy WB Bronx 95 11.3 5 Harlem River Dr SB New York 65 8.4 7 I-95 NB Bergen 65 7.2 8 Van Wyck Expy NB Queens 81 12.3 15 Harlem River Dr. SB New York 70 11.1 17 Van Wyck Expy NB Queens 75 14.7 19 Lincoln Tunnel EB Hudson 61 6.9 22 Hwy 495 EB Hudson 42 7.2 23 Staten Island Expy EB Richmond 64 12.4 24 I-95 NB Bergen 55 10.4 25 George WA Bridge Bergen 62 8.0 31 Major Deegan Expy NB Bronx 52 10.4 34 Hwy 495 EB Hudson 48 9.2 42 Van Wyck Expy NB Queens 77 13.7 43 Cross Bronx Expy WB Bronx 68 14.5 45 Staten Island Expy EB Richmond 57 13.7 47 Alexander Hamilton Bridge EB Bronx 63 12.7 51 I-91 SB New Haven 68 15.4 59 Harlem River Dr SB New York 45 11.1 61 Van Wyck Expy NB Queens 58 13.3 67 Van Wyck Expy NB Queens 58 13.1 70 Brooklyn Queens Expy SB Kings 58 12.1 74 George WA Bridge New York 68 14.4 75 Brooklyn Queens Expy SB Kings 51 11.7 78 Major Deegan Expy NB Bronx 50 12.5 79 FDR Dr SB New York 67 13.1 80 Long Island Expy EB Queens 42 11.8 84 Henry Shirley Memorial Hwy NB Arlington 43 10.5 90 Cross Bronx Expy WB Bronx 55 14.8 91 Van Wyck Expy NB Queens 75 15.8 97 Cross Bronx Expy WB Bronx 65 15.7 Table B.2. INRIX Top 100 U.S. bottlenecks—East Coast highways (B-2).

many other major U.S. highway facilities. It opened in 1955 and carried an average of 18,000 vehicles daily in its first year. Now the bridge carries a huge number of vehicles relative to its orig- inal design, which was considered a maximum of 100,000 vehi- cles per day. This extra capacity is carried with little change to its original design: about 140,000 vehicles cross the 3.1-mi TZB every day, with daily volumes as high as 170,000. By 2030, traffic in this corridor is expected to increase significantly, with about 200,000 cars per day crossing the bridge. There is significant congestion on the bridge currently, even with a variety of transportation demand management measures in place, such as variable toll pricing, tolling in only one direc- tion, a movable barrier system, and the like. Owing to both congestion issues and structural problems, the bridge is slated for either complete overhaul or replacement. However, all replacement options offer little to no additional auto capacity to absorb the forecast growth in auto traffic. For example, most alternatives being considered add only one addi- tional travel lane over what currently exists now (eight lanes instead of seven, and two of those are high-occupancy toll/ bus rapid transit lanes). Future capacity, future demand. The extra capacity esti- mates for the TZB constitute an increase of 14% in auto capacity, assuming the high-occupancy toll lanes are fully used (significant transit improvements are also planned for all alternatives), whereas auto traffic is expected to increase from an average of 140,000 vehicles daily to 200,000. That is an increase in auto volumes of 43%. When one subtracts the increased volume percentage from the increased capacity per- centage, it is clear that the bridge will have 29% less capacity than it will need—and this is after a major replacement ini- tiative. This undercapacity will create significant congestion and delay (although some corridor improvements will help mitigate this, but only slightly). In other words, the bridge, which today is already a highly congested facility, will be more congested in 2030 than it is today—even with additional capacity and significant infrastructure investment. This example analysis leads the research team to conclude that, even with very expensive roadway investment and improvement, roadway capacity issues will not be solved by extensive capacity increases. There is not enough money to build the infrastructure; even when there is, as in the case of the TZB, roadway capacity additions are dwarfed by future auto demand. In the TZB example, mobility is being improved based on the new TZB alternatives that create additional tran- sit options—not highway capacity. This is no coincidence, as planners for this improvement realize that high-volume tran- sit modes are the only way to increase mobility in this corri- dor cost effectively and realistically. Highway capacity, on the TZB and for most other loca- tions, remains fairly stagnant and seems very unlikely to be increased in any significant basis over existing infrastructure. Therefore, the analyst must conclude that the answer to the issue of aviation capacity constraints as described in this report will not be provided in any significant way through additional roadway capacity. B.2 Highway Demand and Capacity in the West Coast Mega-region There are even more facilities on the West Coast on the INRIX list (B-2), as shown in Table B.3. These data are illus- trated graphically in Figure B.1. Overall, these data demonstrate that the highway systems in both the East and West Coast Mega-regions are currently operating at or near their effective capacities and, in the case of numerous bottlenecks, at severely degraded levels of service. B.2.1 Future Increases in Capacity: The California Statewide Model Highway Network As the East Coast Mega-region comprises several states— each of which has its own process for identifying and priori- tizing highway improvement projects—there is currently no single, consistent plan for the highway system nor any projec- tion of future traffic volumes and service levels. The I-95 Cor- ridor Coalition plans to develop ICAT in a way that could be useful to that purpose, but that work will likely not be com- pleted in time to be useful to this ACRP project. However, most of the major bottlenecks shown in the ICAT table are in sections of facilities whose expansion would be extremely dif- ficult and expensive. Therefore, it likely is safe to assume that whatever highway improvements are implemented before 2025 would, at best, keep up with any increases in highway traffic and more likely will not keep up with any growth, result- ing in further declines in travel speeds. Without question, the roadways that make up the network carrying vehicles between the Northern California Mega- region and the Southern California Mega-region will experi- ence great increases in demand over the next 25 years. One such gateway, made up of I-5 and State Road 14, is estimated to register a 170% growth in demand between 2000 and 2030; I-5 and I-15 between LA and San Diego are forecast to grow by 140%. The key cordon points in the study together show an average 119% growth projected. Although it is difficult to forecast highway operating con- ditions as far as 25 years out, it appears from the available data that bottlenecks that currently exist in the coastal mega- regions highway networks are unlikely to be relieved over that time horizon. To test the relationship between future addi- tional highway growth and improved highway travel speeds, the California modelers built a 2030 highway model. 138

B.2.2 Stability in Predicted Change in Intercity Travel Times—West Coast As part of the California HSR study, a multimodal travel forecasting model was developed, whose future highway net- work is shown in Figure B.2. In addition to representing cur- rent intercity travel conditions, the model includes forecasts to the year 2030 that consider growth in population and employment, corresponding growth in traffic, and planned major highway improvements. As shown in Table B.4, the net effects of all of those changes, however, were estimated to result in very little change in highway travel times—only small increases in most cases and no notable improvements. B.3 Future Highway Capacity to Respond to Aviation Demand: Conclusion Table B.4 shows clearly that, even with the assumption of new highway capacity, there does not seem to be any breakthrough that would invalidate the basic assumption 139 Rank Road County Hours Congested Avg. Speed when Congested 3 1 580 WB Marin 69 7.6 10 Hollywood Fwy SB Los Angeles 83 13.8 11 San Diego Fwy NB Los Angeles 81 15.5 13 Hollywood Fwy NB Los Angeles 79 12.9 14 Hollywood Fwy SB Los Angeles 75 15.0 18 Harbor Fwy NB Los Angeles 75 15.5 20 Hollywood Fwy SB Los Angeles 67 14.5 21 Hollywood Fwy SB Los Angeles 74 15.7 25 Harbor Fwy NB Los Angeles 71 15.7 27 Moreno Valley Fwy WB Riverside 72 14.7 28 Hollywood Fwy SB Los Angeles 55 13.1 29 I-238 NB Alameda 84 18.9 32 Hollywood Fwy NB Los Angeles 68 12.2 35 Hollywood Fwy NB Los Angeles 77 14.5 37 Harbor Fwy NB Los Angeles 63 14.6 38 Hollywood Fwy SB Los Angeles 79 17.9 40 Pomona Fwy EB Riverside 32 7.9 45 San Diego Fwy NB Los Angeles 61 17.2 50 Santa Monica Fwy EB Los Angeles 59 15.7 53 Riverside Fwy EB Orange 33 9.4 54 San Diego Fwy NB Los Angeles 55 15.4 55 Santa Ana Fwy NB Los Angeles 73 19.3 55 I-80 WB Alameda 41 11.0 58 Riverside Fwy EB Orange 32 9.3 60 Harbor Fwy SB Los Angeles 62 15.4 64 Pomona Fwy EB Riverside 29 8.3 65 Pomona Fwy EB Riverside 41 9.1 69 Santa Monica Fwy EB Los Angeles 60 15.9 71 Harbor Fwy SB Los Angeles 54 15.0 72 Pasadena Fwy NB Los Angeles 48 14.1 81 Harbor Fwy SB Los Angeles 53 15.5 83 San Diego Fwy SB Los Angeles 48 15.2 85 Harbor Fwy SB Los Angeles 43 13.5 85 James Lick Fwy NB San Francisco 40 10.2 88 Harbor Fwy SB Los Angeles 43 13.3 92 Hollywood Fwy SB Los Angeles 54 15.7 95 San Gabriel River Fwy SB Los Angeles 55 18.0 98 James Lick Fwy NB San Francisco 48 13.1 100 Santa Ana Fwy NB Los Angeles 61 19.1 Table B.3. INRIX top 100 U.S. bottlenecks—West Coast highways (B-2).

140 Auto Air High-Speed Rail Conventional Rail City-to-City Pair 2000 2030 2000 2030 2030 2000/2030 Los Angeles downtown to San Francisco downtown 6:28 6:32 3:30 3:38 3:23 No service Fresno downtown to Los Angeles downtown 3:32 3:38 3:17 3:24 2:14 No service Los Angeles downtown to San Diego downtown 2:37 2:39 2:51 3:01 2:13 3:26 Burbank (airport) to San Jose downtown 5:31 5:40 2:46 2:43 3:07 No service Sacramento downtown to San Jose downtown 2:29 2:24 2:41 2:41 2:15 4:06 Figure B.1. U.S. Highway bottlenecks (B-2). Figure B.2. The California 2030 highway network used in travel time calculations (B-3). Table B.4. Predicted changes in intercity travel times on the West Coast (2000–2030) (B-3).

that the roadway system is highly used and that any future unmet needs at congested airports will not be mitigated by newly available reliable traffic flows on the roadway system. The exception to this conclusion, though unexplored in this study of aviation capacity, is the chance that the roadways on both coastal regions might become more carefully man- aged, with the specific inclusion of managed lanes capable of supporting reliable bus service for short-distance ser- vices such as Boston–Washington, D.C., or Philadelphia– Washington, D.C. In this case, buses might play a significantly larger role in complementing the nation’s air system than they do now. References B-1. ICAT output tabulations provided February 2008 B-2. INRIX—http://scorecard.inrix.com/scorecard/Top100WorstDetails. aspx retrieved 6/30/2008 B-3. Cambridge Systematics, Bay Area/California High Speed Rail Rider- ship and Revenue Forecasting Study. Prepared for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and California High Speed Rail Author- ity, July 2007. 141