www.honolulutraffic.com

Download Report

Transcript www.honolulutraffic.com

Every once in a while we need to build a road!

The American Highway Users Alliance Alan E. Pisarski

Every once in a while we need to build a road!

“The real solution is not reducing traffic to fit capacity,” Mineta said. “We must expand capacity to handle the growing traffic.” US DOT press release Feb 27, 2006

Alan E. Pisarski

Oh OK! -

That was an aviation conference!

Don’t they know that if you build new airports and runways they just fill up again? Maybe we could have FHWA do seminars at FAA?

Alan E. Pisarski

WE HAVE DRAMATIC NATIONAL GOALS FOR TRANSPORTATION !

Our Present National Transportation Goal: MAKING THINGS GET WORSE --- SLOWER!

Apply that to Education; Health?

Alan E. Pisarski

A thought on goals!

If your transportation goals can be met by everyone staying home you have the wrong goals!

Alan E. Pisarski

MY GOAL FOR TRANSPORTATION To reduce the effects of distance as an inhibiting force in our society’s ability to realize its economic and social aspirations

Alan E. Pisarski

The New Millennium World

A STABLE “OLD” POPULATION

THE GLOBALIZATION OF EVERYTHING

SKILLED WORKERS AT A PREMIUM

   

WORKERS CAN LIVE, WORK ANYWHERE WHO, WHERE ARE THE IMMIGRANTS?

MAINSTREAMING MINORITIES THE SCOURGE OF AFFLUENCE

A CHALLENGED AFFLUENT SOCIETY

Alan E. Pisarski

Work Force Issues

     

Older workers in labor force Even more females in labor force Even more variable schedules Work hours – a lot like part time Skills matches – more spreading out Amenities-based employment

Alan E. Pisarski

25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 -5000

1980-1990 NET CHANGE NATIONAL

Alan E. Pisarski

14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 -2000

90-00 NET CHANGE NATIONAL

Alan E. Pisarski

5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 -1,000,000 -2,000,000 W o rk e rs 1 6 + d ro ve a lo ne ca rp P o ol ub ed lic t ra n sp o rta tio n Alan E. Pisarski W a lk ed O th er m ea ns W o rk e d a t h om e

Non-Auto Tre nds in M ode Share s

7.00% 6.00% 5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% 1980 TRANSIT BICYCLE WORK AT HOME TAXI OTHER 1990 2000 MOTORCYCLE WALKED ONLY Alan E. Pisarski

12% 10%

Back to the ’80’s ?

10.40% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 5.00% 3.20% 2.70% 4.90% 3.40% 2.60% 4.80% 3.50% 2.50% 2000 2001 2002 carpooled Other means 10.40% 4.70% 3.50% 2.30% Public transportation Worked at home 20003 Walked 2004 10.10% 4.60% 3.80% 2.40% Alan E. Pisarski

OR LOOK AT THE POVERTY POP!

10% 5% 1% 2% 4% 78% drove alone: carpooled: Public transportation Walked: Taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, other Worked at home: Alan E. Pisarski 8% 6% 3% 5% 15% 63%

The Baby-Boomers are coming!

SHARES OF OVER 55 WORKERS BY AGE GROUP

12% 7% 5% 49% 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75+ 27% Alan E. Pisarski

OVER 55 MODE USAGE - DETAILMODES

14.00% 12.00% 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 Alan E. Pisarski 75+ Bus or trolley bus Subway or elevated Taxicab Walked Worked at home

Immigrant mode trend

Mode Use by Years in US

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% < 5 yrs 5- <10 yrs 10-<15 yrs 15-<20 yrs >20 yrs Alan E. Pisarski BORN US other Worked at home Walked Bicycle transit carpool Drove alone

Carpool Use by Years in US

6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% < 5 yrs 5- <10 yrs 10-<15 yrs 15-<20 yrs >20 yrs BORN US Alan E. Pisarski carpool 3 carpool 4 carpool 5 or 6 carpool 7&+

Percent of workers commuting over 60 minutes and under 20 minutes by metro size

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 5,000,000 or more 2,500,000 to 4,999,999 1,000,000 to 2,499,999 500,000 to 999,999 % under 20 % over 60 250,000 to 499,999 100,000 to 249,999 50,000 to 99,999 Alan E. Pisarski

% HH without vehicles in central cities by metro area size

45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 5 meg + 2.5-5 1-2.5

.5-1 .25-.5

.1-.25

Alan E. Pisarski WHITE NH cc ASIAN cc HISP cc AF AM cc

WE MUST CONFRONT THE FALLACIES DIRECTLY

     

“System is in place” Congest our way to the solution Induced Demand- “It just fills up again” “Efficiency” The air quality goal; benefits of free-flow travel dispersal in an affluent society

Alan E. Pisarski

Congestion is our friend!

  

Disinterest in congestion – bottom of the list of problems to solve Congestion as a goal – if we can let things get bad enough behavior will change The “Constituency for Congestion”

Alan E. Pisarski

The Present Policy Conflict Two Metro Visions

         

Neighborhood

Shorter trips Walk/bike Land use solutions Design What’s freight?

Accessibility Public Mass Change behavior Make it happen          

Globally Integrated

Longer trips Broad “community” Choices Market forces Major role for freight Mobility Private Personalized Technological fix Let it happen Alan E. Pisarski

2000 METRO FLOW MAP Other Metropolitan area Own Metropolitan Area suburbs

1.6

2.9

40.8

suburbs

16.6

24.5

7.5

Central city

.5

1.9

3.5

1.1

.7

2.2

Central city

24.4

Non-metropolitan Area

Alan E. Pisarski

The “Donut” Metro

      Jobs and workers centered in suburbs 46% of commutes; 64% of growth 90-00 7.5 million coming in to the subs from exurbs and other metros each day 7.5 million going out to the subs from central cities CC to subs > Subs to CC in share of growth Alan E. Pisarski

Counties exporting more than 25% of workers to work County-to-County Worker Flow Percentage: 2000

W N S E Alan E. Pisarski

Cnty_cnty_wrkrflow.shp

0 - 25 25 - 100

The great loss from congestion is not the extra three minutes it takes to get home

  

HOUSEHOLDS It’s the decline in the number of jobs I could reach in ½ hr!

It’s the decline in the number of affordable homes accessible to my work!

It’s the decline in the assurance of arriving on time!

   Alan E. Pisarski

BUSINESSES It’s the decline in the number of workers within ½ hr of my employment site!

It’s the decline in the number of suppliers & customers within ½ hr of my business!

It’s the decline in ship- ment reliability!

The beginnings of a reaction

   

freight needs – a dose of reality Irate reactions to congestion 9/11 as a wakeup call It is no longer acceptable that things are bad and our plans accept they will get worse

Alan E. Pisarski

THE LEAVENING POWER OF FREIGHT MOVEMENT

     

Forces serious consideration of costs Costs are direct and immediate Strongly and directly impacts jobs Think of “Trucks with glass sides” How many ton-miles in my breakfast?

Transportation policy and planning is not a parlor game

Alan E. Pisarski

Community Reactions

  

Legislatures and business communities demand response to congestion

   

Washington Georgia Texas Others Texas – “federal program a program for the average state – we are not average.”

What will it take to assure our competitiveness in the future Georgia - “Can we get out of congestion?”

Alan E. Pisarski

Texas: Study Purpose

    Led by Governor’s Business Council Goals set by needs and vision rather than available resources-- CLRP to define minimum performance standards and then seek resources to accomplish them compare the benefits of solutions to the cost of solutions Alan E. Pisarski

Texas: Study Recommendations

   

Focus on goal of TTI of 1.15 in major metros

(15% difference in travel time from peak to off-peak) Hold line where below 1.15

Evaluate projects based on:

Delay Reduction per $ Measure Progress and report annually

Alan E. Pisarski

Texas’s Roadways – Texas’s Future

Study Impacts:

   

Report to the Governor in April 2003 Governor asked TxDOT – “how addressing congestion?”

 

Deputy Director – Focus on urban issues TxDOT & metro MPOs -- joint process of identifying costs to meet regional mobility goals H.B. 3588 (2003) require statewide strategic transportation plan tied to:

specific congestion indices mobility plans to meet congestion relief goals

August, 2004 MPOs and TxDOT produced:

Regional mobility goals

 

provided short-term gap funding to help meet goals Cost estimates to meet goals Process for continual updates (August 2006)

Alan E. Pisarski

GEORGIA: Focus on Atlanta

 

Atlanta fastest growth big metro

40% population increase in 10 years

30 counties

Greatest growth in travel time Private Sector Studies convinced Governor of need & opportunity

Alan E. Pisarski

GEORGIA: Focus on Atlanta

   

Charge To Agencies - CMTF

GaDOT

ARC

 

GRTA SRTA Address Congestion Better Solve With Current Funding Use B/C Cost Analysis

Alan E. Pisarski

GEORGIA: Focus on Atlanta

   

Study/modify Goals Study/modify Planning Criteria Set Measures of Performance Use Current Funding Better

Alan E. Pisarski

GEORGIA: Focus on Atlanta

 

FINDINGS Congestion Relief Not a Goal

Given A Weight Of 10% in Plans

 

Little in Common in Methods Severe Weaknesses in Process Giving Congestion A 50-70% Weight Reduced Congestion -- & Safety & Air Quality

Alan E. Pisarski

GEORGIA: Focus on Atlanta

 

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS Set Congestion Goal TTI = 1.35

All Agencies Use Common Methods

Value Of Time

Trucking

  

Delay Reduction/$ Use B/C Establish Annual Reporting Systems

Alan E. Pisarski

GEORGIA: Focus on Atlanta

   

ACTIONS CMTF Adopted Recommendations All 4 Agencies Adopted Recommendations Individually Governor Accepted Recommendations Next: An Action Plan

Alan E. Pisarski

Congress hears

Shifts in Planning goals and focus

Safety/Security

Economic development

Accountability Measures

No teeth – parts per million for congestion or any other goal?

Alan E. Pisarski

A New Plan for Planning for States And MPO’s

  

MEET SAFETY NEEDS SUPPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSURE SECURITY -- REDUNDANCY

 

MAINTAIN MOBILITY/RELIABILITY SERVE AGING POPULATIONS

 

SERVE LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS CLRP Plus WHERE DOES AIR QUALITY FIT IN THIS?

Alan E. Pisarski

The right next steps

   

Accept public consumer sovereignty A real dedication to solving congestion Adopt measurable performance results Win public respect and support

OR, THE GOVT COULD ELECT NEW PEOPLE!

Alan E. Pisarski

THANK YOU!

Alan E. Pisarski [email protected]