Durham MPO Data FHWA Data Base Year Pct Ch

Transcription

1 6. Durham A. Regional trends The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization is responsible for transportation planning in Durham County and eastern portions of nearby Orange County (Hillsborough, Carrboro and Chapel Hill) and the northern portion of Chatham County 1. The urbanized area (a smaller geography) is itself a portion of the greater Triangle commuting region within which Raleigh (Wake County) is the largest city; the two MPOs share a common boundary. However, Durham and Raleigh are within easy commuting distance of each other, and each also contributes substantial commuting traffic to the Research Triangle Park between the two. The inter-county flow from Wake to Durham, about 43,000 commuters, is by far the largest in the state. Although growth has been quite strong in Durham County in the past decade, about 23 percent, that is only ½ the growth rate of Wake County, 48 percent. Table II.B.6.1 summarizes the current trends for the Durham urbanized area. The data are based on statistics provided by the MPO 2, for a larger region than the urbanized boundary, and FHWA for the urban boundary. The forecasts for the region are based on a revised travel model developed jointly with the Raleigh MPO. Table II.B.6.1: Regional Growth Trends, Durham Durham MPO Data FHWA Data Base Year Pct Ch Pct Ch Population 365, , Employment 255, , DVMT, k 10,478 19, ,500 12, Net Size, mi 1,357 1, % VMT/net 4.50% 8.50% % 2.60% Congested Transit Share 2.10% 3.10% % The MPO forecasts a 53 percent increase in population (for the larger planning region), compared with a 44 percent increase within the urbanized area boundary. Traffic is also likely to grow sharply: the MPO estimates it will increase 84 percent over the 25- year horizon. For the urban boundary, the increase is estimated at 44 percent. In recent years the growth has been concentrated in northeast Durham County and in western Orange County, but future growth is expected to be in eastern Orange, northern Chatham and western Durham counties, primarily on the edges of the currently built-up area; as a result average trip lengths are expected to increase about 10 percent. Longer-distance commuting from western Orange County, Chatham County, and eastern Alamance County are also likely, but are not discussed. Some of this growth is related to the 1 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, April 13, 2005, p. ii. 2 DCHCMPO LRP, p. i. 1

2 continuing strong employment base for the region (universities, government, RTP) as well as in-migration from the northeast US, along with longer-distant commuting from more distant counties. The MPO forecasts a more rapid growth of jobs than population 3, implying either a very significant shift in societal working (unlikely) or large increases of in-commuting from outlying regions (much more likely). B. Commuter characteristics The Durham MPO participated in an update of regional travel data in the late 1990 s, but for our analysis we use the data from the 2000 Census for consistency purposes. Table II.B.6.2 summarizes the characteristics of Durham County resident commuters (workers age 16+) for 1990 and As noted above, the growth rate for Durham County was about 23 percent between 1990 and 2000, about ½ as rapid as Wake County (48 percent). The percentage of county households without a vehicle, 9.3 percent, declined from 11.0 percent in 1990, indicating increasing access to private mobility. Mode-to-work splits in the county are somewhat less auto-oriented than other urban areas. About 74.8 percent of Durham County workers are solo drivers, and another 15.9 percent are carpoolers; carpooling actually increased during the 1990 s, and solo-driving declined slightly as a share. Also the use of public transit/taxi increased, from 2.5 to 3.0 percent. Bike/walk shares have declined, from 3.9 percent to 3.0 percent, but work-at-home commuting has increased from 2.0 to 2.7 percent. Durham is the only urbanized area in the state to report declining solo driving shares and increased carpooling and transit shares between 1990 and Median travel times for the region are modest, about 21.2 minutes overall and 20.5 minutes for solo drivers. Transit commuters have a somewhat longer mean travel time, about 34.4 minutes. Table II.B.6.2: Durham County Profile of Resident Commuters 1990 % 2000 % Pct Change Population Households Vehicle Workers Drove Alone Carpooled Public Trans and Taxi Bike/walk Motorcycle/other Work at home Mean travel time Drove alone 20.5 Carpooled 23.2 Public Trans and Plan, p

3 Taxi Bike/walk 12.9 Motorcycle/other 41.1 Working in Durham Total workers car hh Bus or trolley car hh Using the revised model, the MPO has forecast the share of travel in different modes in The surprising conclusion is that the above trends will reverse and the share of solo driving (all trips, not just commuting) will increase from 59.8 to 61.7 percent, carpooling will decrease from 38.1 to 35.2 percent, and transit use will increase from 2.1 to 3.2 percent. This forecast is with the implementation of the huge transit expenditures described below. The overall impression for Durham County is one of modest growth, along with recent increasing dependence on shared-ride and transit use. Although other regions in NC have reported slow growth, this is the only one which is reducing its dependence on solo driving. Combined with the slow growth, the reason seems to be a slow-moving economy rather than transportation policies favoring transit or carpooling. C. How much delay needs to be saved to hold congestion? Next to Charlotte and Raleigh, Durham has the highest current congestion index in the state, It is also one of just 3 cities that are regularly tracked by the annual TTI survey of congestion. Table II.B.6.3 summarizes our forecast of the congestion situation for the Durham urbanized area. With the current urbanized area population of 281,000 and 143,000 commuters, the current peak commuting travel time for the urbanized area is about 82,274 hours daily. With increasing congestion and increasing population, this will grow about 66 percent, to 136,521 hours, over the next 25 years. The time spent in delay will almost triple, from 13,136 hours to 36,673 hours. This increase in delay (23,537 hours) will be caused by the increasing congestion and by regional growth. Thus, if planners wanted to hold congestion to approximately current levels, they would have to take actions that, in total, save about 23,537 hours of travel time in the region. Table II.B.6.3: Potential Increases in Commuting Delay, Durham UA Durham Urbanized Area Change Item Pop Commuters TTI Mean T Time DCHCMPO LRP, p. i. 3

4 Free Flow TT Free Flow DVHT Delay DVHT Total DVHT Ave Hrs Del/yr While this is substantial, we show below that it is about equal to the projected savings from the TIP and LRP projects. However, it could be a significant underestimate of the needed savings since it does not include VMT from long-distance commuting, growth at the edge of the urbanized area, or increased in-commuting from Wake County. D. What does the LRP say about congestion? The Durham LRP and TIP 5 are not particularly focused on congestion as an issue. The goals of the Plan do not specifically refer to congestion, but the highway goals do refer to the heed to...enhance the capacity of arterial streets 6. The Plan proposes to spend about $6.13B over 25 years to maintain and improve the transportation system of the region 7. The proposed distribution of these funds is shown in the following Table II.B.6.4. Table II.B.6.4: Proposed Expenditures, , Durham LRP Category Type Amount ($B) Percent of total Highways Capital Operating/Maint Total Transit Capital (HCT, Fixed Guideway, ROW Operating/Maint (incl bus expansion) Total Other TDM, non-motorized, ITS, TSM actions Total $ The Plan proposes to spend about 45.5 percent of funds on highway needs, and about 50.6 percent on transit actions. However the LRP forecasts only $ B in likely revenues, leaving a shortfall of $ 558 M; it suggests a number of sources of alternative revenues to close this gap. Technically, the Plan is not financially constrained as required by federal law, since these alternative sources are not in place; even worse, the likelihood of funding for several large portions of the Plan is in serious doubt, given the demise of the TTA s regional rail proposal. 5 DCHCMPO Transportation Improvement Program, , September 10, 2003, updated to Plan, p. 12 ff. 7 DCHCMPO LRP, p

5 However, the LRP recognizes the threat of increasing congestion. It initially identifies a number of locations currently congested in the region (mentioning I40, I85, US 70, Us , NC 147 and NC 54), and estimates the current percent of travel in congested conditions at 4.5 percent. Also mentioned are Fayetteville Street, Alston Avenue, NC 54, University Drive and Academy Street. Figure II.B.6.1 shows the current V/C ratios for major roads in the area. Figure II.B.6.1: Current Congestion, Durham area Using the new regional model, the Plan then forecasts that congestion will increase to 8.5 percent of VMT in 2030, AFTER the LRP is completed. This forecast indicates a larger listing of roads with capacity problems. Figure II.B.6.2 shows the projected congestion. Figure II.B.6.2: Future Congestion, Durham UA 5

6 A more detailed listing of traffic growth rates for major highways is also provided 8, indicating familiarity with the locations of present and likely future problems. In the details of the section on highways, the Plan acknowledges that congestion will double, from 4.5 to 8.5 percent of VMT, even if the Plan s recommendations are adopted 9. The highway improvement portion of the Plan identifies about $2.8 B in additional and expanded facilities, of which $ 2.05 B is for capital actions 10. Major new roads include the East End Connector, the upgrading of US 70 to freeway status, and the widening of I 85 to 6 lanes. The following tables list some of the major projects. Table II.B.6.5: Major Projects on the Durham TIP, ID Route/City From To Description Projec t Lengt h R-2000 (part 1) I-540 NC 55 west of Morrisville I-0306 I-85 Orange County line US 64 east East of Midland Terrace Rd on I-85 Freeway on new location (through map selection) Widen to eight lanes from US to US 70 and add lighting Est. Cost, K Plan, p Plan, p Plan, p

7 U-71 (part 1) East End Connector NC 147 NC 98 Multi-lane divided I-3306 I-40 I-85 in NC 147 Add additional Orange (Buck Dean lanes County Freeway) U-2405 M.L. King, M.L. King, M.L. King, Construct Jr. Parkway Jr. Parkway Jr. Parkway interchange and NC 55 and NC 55 and NC 55 R-2906 (part 1) NC 55 US 64 SR 1121 (Cornwallis Road) Widen to multi-lanes (through map selection) The Plan in total contains over 100 projects. The following figure shows the major locations. Figure II.B.6.3: Durham MPO Long Range Plan Many of the projects in the Plan (beyond the TIP) are arterial widening and related projects. The following table indicates some of the major projects listed. Table II.B.6.6: Major Projects on the Durham UA LRP 7

8 Key Route/ City DU-48 NC 751 DU-80 US 70 Bypas s DU-40 NC From To Descriptio n US 64 (MAB) NC 86 Durham Co Line I-85 (exit 170) East End 147 Conn I-2204 I-40 NC 147 Wake County Line DU-70 US Bypas s Pickett Rd DU-44 NC 54 I-40 Interchang e DU-41 NC 147 (Triangl e Parkwa y) DU-49 NC 751 U-4722 Roxbor o Road (501 N) U-2807 US Widen to 4 lanes, divided Widen to 4 lane I-40 New HOV lane Widen from a 6 lane to 8 lane freeway Morreane Rd I-40 County line Scott King Rd Duke Street Widen to 6 lane freeway NC 55 Widen to 4 lane, Divided S Roxboro St. Goodwin Rd I-40 Franklin St. New 6 lane freeway Widen to 4 lanes, divided Widen to 6 lane, divided Widen to 6 lane, divided Existing Lanes Futu re Lane s Lane s Adde d Proj. Lengt h Est. Cost, K Beyond highway projects, the LRP also allocates considerable funds for transit improvements. The major initiatives are fixed-guideway plan coordinated with the TTA s regional rail program, at $ 1.1 B, and a major expansion and operation of bus services, at $ 2 B. Together the transit initiatives constitute 50.6 percent of proposed regional expenditures over the next 25 years, to serve a projected 3.2 percent of regional travel. The effect of these expenditures on congestion, or other criteria for that matter, is not quantified. 8

9 The Plan also proposes to spend about $ 50M on demand management actions focused on peak spreading and encouraging less single-occupant-vehicle use. An additional $ 57M is proposed for ITS and TSM actions, primarily information processing and incident removal. The effect of neither of these expenditures on congestion is quantified 11. The region has also prepared a congestion management planning document 12 which focuses on the process for preparing a congestion management plan. It contains no information on rising congestion and how to combat it, but rather it discusses measuring congestion. Although the region is presently designated as non-attainment for the new 8- hour ozone standard, it is in conformity and air emissions are predicted to decline substantially as vehicles get less emitting 13. E. TIP and Long-Range Plan and VHT Savings To determine the effect of the TIP and LRP on congestion reduction, we used the shorthand method described in the methodology section above. All projects were reviewed for capacity additions, and then estimates of savings in travel time were developed. Appendix 3 contains a list of all the projects we evaluated; these are not all projects in the TIP or LRP but just those that are likely to have an impact on congestion. Figure II.B.6.4 shows the projects evaluated. Figure II.B.6.4: Major Congestion-Reducing Projects, Durham MPO 11 Plan, p DCHC MPO, Congestion Management System procedures and Responsibilities Report, September DCHCMPO LRP, p

10 The potential for these projects to reduce congestion delays is summarized in the following table. These 106 projects, if implemented, would add about 549 lane-miles to the road system at a cost of about $ 2.540B. They have the potential to save about 24,206 hours of delay daily, considerably more than the estimated delay savings needed to hold congestion at its present levels. Thus, contrary to the findings of the LRP, we conclude that the Durham LRP has the potential to reduce, not increase, congestion if the Plan is implemented judiciously. Table II.B.6.7: Potential Savings in Delay from the Durham TIP and LRP TIP LRP Total Number of Projects Lane-Miles Added Total Cost, M$ $ $ $ Estimated Commuter DVHT Saved The distribution of delay savings in the LRP is shown in the following table. As noted above a considerable portion of the savings are in arterial widenings, with additional savings coming from freeway widenings. 10

11 Table II.B.6.8: Potential Savings in Delay by Project Type Work Type TIP LRP Grand Total 01-New Frwy New Arterial New Exit/Ramp Frwy Widening Urban Arterial Widening Intersection Improvements HOV/HOT Lanes Bridge Minor Improvements, No Widen Grand Total F. Recommendations While the Durham LRP means well and is in some respects superior in analysis, it fails to achieve congestion reduction by first, diverting funds from projected highway revenues (fund flexing) to transit projects, and second, by hugely overspending on the transit side of the ledger. This might be justified if the transit projects were able to provide real regional benefits. But none are quantified and the projects (even if believed) increase in transit use, from 2 to 3 percent of regional travel, comes at a huge cost in delayed or deleted highway congestion reduction projects, and of course delays to local commuters. It is inappropriate to spend 50 percent of the funds available on 2 percent of the regional commuting. At stake here is the economic competitiveness of the region. The critical transportation issue in the Durham region is good accessibility of its residents to highquality jobs in RTP and other employment centers. By spending $ 2 B on a transit system that will not do that, the region is dooming itself to rising congestion and to weakened competitiveness against its neighbors. Jobs will come, but Durham residents will not be accessible to them. The result will be greater commuting from other counties to those jobs, and greater isolation of the Durham residents. Capacity Provision or Management Immediately review the LRP for realism. The LRP has been developed under the false illusion that provision of rapid transit services will shape land uses and raise densities thereby reducing congestion. This flies in the face of virtually all recent LRT starts, which produced both more congestion and less smooth traffic flow. Even more critical is the recent shift in direction of TTA, deleting the regional rail proposal from the region s vision. This change provides a golden opportunity to get the highway planning right. The Plan needs to significantly focus on rising congestion and how to reduce it. The LRP should be restructured to provide at least $ 750 M more funds for road projects over the next 25 years. This means reducing transit funding substantially (those funds would have come largely from flexed highway funds). The 11

12 following table suggests how the extra $750 M might be efficiently spent. Expenditures for signal optimization, intersection treatments, and HOT (not HOV) lanes should be significantly expanded. The resulting savings in delay would provide a substantial cushion allowing the region to grow while holding congestion in check. Table II.B.6.9: A Suggested Allocation for Additional $ 750 M in Road Funds, Durham Focus Note Additional Amount Suggested (above LRP) Unit Cost, $M/lane -mile* Tota l Cost, $M Ave Cost per Delay Hour Saved Est. Delay Hours Saved, Daily* * * Freeway Selected lane 10 lane- $ 6.5 $ Widening Art to Frwy Upgrade Freeway Intersectio n Upgrades Bottleneck removal Intersectio n treatments Arterial widenings Signal Optim HOT lanes additions Inner circumferenti al road upgrades Single-point urban diamonds and flyovers Lane additions, 15 locations Primarily left turn capacity Selected lanes added City wide coordination Lanes on selected radials miles 10 lanemiles $ 11.0 $ locations $ 10.0 $ lanemiles 50 intersection s 35 lanemiles 250 intersection s 15 lanemiles $ 7.0 $ $ 3.0 $ $5.5 $ $ 0.2 $ $ 8.0 $ 120 Totals $ 753 $ The role of transit should be to help with mobility, not to shape land or encourage mode shifts. Other studies of the transit systems in Durham and the Triangle region show them to be primarily serving captive markets as an essential steppingstone 12

13 for those who need mobility. With travel times approaching 44 minutes for relatively short trips, the Durham system cannot attract choice riders. The systems should be restructured to be stronger mobility providers and not saddled with goals they cannot achieve. Increase attention to bottleneck removal. Within the region there are numerous locations that regularly experience recurrent congestion. These should be attended to and other locations (predicted or emerging over time) addressed. Determine the congestion reduction impacts of each major project. The Durham planning process has estimated the impact of the LRP on congestion, but not the individual projects in it. This next step should be undertaken to determine the most worthy projects in terms of congestion relief. Set a congestion reduction goal for the region, and develop a plan to achieve it. The Durham region has the opportunity to get ahead of its congestion problems, if it puts focus on it. This means setting a goal for congestion reduction, not just slowing the increase, and then identifying those actions that will most effectively achieve it. Place more attention on signal optimization, intersection improvements and selected arterial widenings. As written the Plan relies too heavily on transit improvements. A suggested above, funds for signal optimization and intersection treatments should be increased. The focus on arterial widenings should also be increased. Demand Reduction or Management Develop an expanded ridesharing program, both residential and employer based. The Durham region has a relative concentration in a few major employers (universities, government, RTP, hospitals, etc) that make employer-based ridesharing feasible. And the region s data shows that ridesharing is increasing (although the LRP predicts it to fall). This element of the Plan should be strengthened and expanded. However, the Plan does not deal with longer-distance residential based ridesharing, from distant communities and rural counties, or for than matter to Raleigh or Burlington. These are the ridesharing components that are the largest and have the greatest vehicle-miles. To increase ridesharing from these communities, the focus must be shifted from employer-based to residence-based. This provides an opportunity to work with other MPOs and transportation service providers in the greater region (such as TTA) to offer more efficient ridesharing services, not through transit vehicles but through private cars. Since ridesharing travel times are typically only 1-2 minutes longer than drive-alone commuting, they provide an opportunity to significantly reduce transportation costs while not impacting travel times. (Transit services, on the other hand, typically result in large increases in travel time in exchange for cost savings.) Develop an expanded flex-time and staggered work-hour program. The Durham region is ideally suited for implementing a flex-time program. Many high-tech 13

14 and professional workers can move starting hours conveniently to avoid congestion. The region has a nascent program but it needs to be expanded. Investigate the application of HOT lanes on I-40, perhaps elevated a la Tampa. The Tampa region has recently built an elevated, reversible 3-lane section reserved for HOT lane service, above a freeway. This option should be explored for I-40 (although, frankly, right-of-way exists along most of I-40 for additional at-grade lanes that could be HOT or open). Drop plans for parking surcharges or reduced supply. While such plans may reduce car use in some controlled employer environments or in some restricted geographies that have high demand, these restricting actions serve only to reduce local competitiveness and turn businesses and workers away. If implemented they would be highly damaging to the Durham economy. Reduce the intense focus on transit expansion. As noted above, the Plan is overly concentrated on transit expansion. Reduction of this focus, which is not effective in congestion relief, would provide additional funds for other more effective actions. Particularly, the Plan s intense reliance on fixed-guideway and local transit service expansion should be reduced. Develop a work-at-home plan component. As noted above work-at-home commuting is the most rapidly growing component of regional commuting, and its growth is likely to continue, particularly in the Durham-Chapel Hill community where high-tech, university and internet-based activities abound. The LRP ignores this trend. The MPO should develop a program for encouraging work-at-home employment as part of the region s economic recruitment strategy. Planning and Administration Increase the weight on congestion reduction, and select projects using congestion criteria. While some attention is place on congestion reduction, through the use of V/C ratios, those criteria are applied only within the highway portion of the Plan and not the other portions. The LRP should evaluate ALL projects according to their impact on congestion and then use those findings in setting all project priorities, not just highways priorities. Determine the congestion impacts of individual projects. The MPO has a new tool (the regional model) that can be used for larger projects. For smaller projects or bike/pedestrian and transit projects, a reasonable estimate of the impact caused by diversion from auto use can be made. Use the regional model to evaluate traffic from distant counties. This may require expanding the use of the external and 2000 Census data to look more carefully at trip origins. 14

15 Improve the transit mode split portion of the model. The present regional model does not have a credible transit mode split feature; that was a key factor leading to the demise of the TTA regional rail proposal. This feature, and better congestion modeling, should be added. Coordinate with CAMPO in project selection and demand-reduction programs. The LRP only briefly mentions commuting from nearby counties, particularly Wake, but this is and will be a major portion of the problem and the solution must come from coordinated efforts region-wide. The two MPOs need to work together better on project selection and priority-setting. 15