Unclogging America's Arteries

Home , Arizona State Route 51, Interstate 10, Interstate 110 (Florida), Interstate 110 (Texas), Interstate 15, Interstate 17

Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999 - 2004 Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks

Saving Lives

Conserving Fuel

Preventing Injuries

Improving the Economy

Cutting Commute Times

Accelerating Cleaner Air

Reducing Greenhouse Gases ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was made possible thanks to the generosity of a number of contributing partners. Sponsors include:

Platinum Level

www.autoalliance.org

Gold Level

www.cement.org www.nssga.org

Silver Level

www.agc.org www.aednet.org

In addition, the Highway Users recognizes the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association for its support.

Finally, the Highway Users would like to thank the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi cials (AASHTO) for the group’s assistance and cooperation in developing this study. UNCLOGGING AMERICA’S ARTERIES Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks 1999-2004

American Highway Users Alliance One Thomas Circle, NW Tenth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-857-1200 Fax: 202-857-1220 www.highways.org

About the American Highway Users Alliance About Cambridge Systematics

The American Highway Users Alliance is a nonprofit advocacy Cambridge Systematics is an internationally recognized, organization serving as the united voice of the transportation employee-owned consulting firm that has been providing community promoting safe, congestion-free highways and planning, policy, and management solutions for more than 25 enhanced freedom of mobility. Known as the Highway Users, the years. Cambridge Systematics applies state-of-the-art analytical group has worked for sound transportation policy in the United techniques to develop innovative, practical solutions for clients in States since 1932. many areas, including transportation planning and management, travel demand forecasting, CVO, ITS, information technology, The Highway Users represents motorists, truckers, bus companies asset management, and market research. and a broad cross-section of businesses that depend on safe and efficient highways to transport their families, customers, The firm’s headquarters is located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, employees and products. Our members pay the taxes that finance with other offices in Oakland, California; Washington, DC; the federal highway program and advocate public policies that Chicago, Illinois; Seattle, Washington; Princeton, New Jersey; dedicate those taxes to improved highway safety and mobility. Denver, Colorado; and Knoxville, Tennessee. Cambridge Systematics serves a broad mix of public organizations and The Highway Users regularly publishes studies on transportation private corporate clients. These organizations include a variety trends and developments, as well as reports on other pertinent of local, state, national, and international agencies, as well as issues that affect highway safety and mobility. For more transportation, logistics, telecommunications, and manufacturing information, visit our web site at www.highways.org. companies; electric utilities; banks; and other private corporations and business organizations.

© Copyright February 2004 by the American Highway Users Alliance. Prepared for the American Highway Users Alliance by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Member Price: $25 All rights reserved. Nonmember Price: $75 Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary 1

II. Introduction: A Primer on Highway Bottlenecks 4 and the Benefits of Congestion Relief

III. Effective Relief for America’s Worst Bottlenecks 11 Ranking the Bottlenecks 11

What Has Changed in the Past Five Years? 13 Success Story: US-59 (Southwest Freeway)/I-610 Loop in Houston 15 Success Story: e “Big I” in Albuquerque 16 Success Story: I-25/I-225 Interchange in Denver 17

America’s Worst Bottlenecks and the Benefits of Fixing em 18 1) Los Angeles, CA: US-101 (Ventura Fwy) at I-405 Interchange 20 2) Houston, TX: I-610 at I-10 Interchange (West) 22 3) Chicago, IL: I-90/94 at I-290 Interchange (“Circle Interchange”) 24 4) Phoenix, AZ: I-10 at SR-51/SR-202 Interchange (“Mini-Stack”) 26 5) Los Angeles, CA: I-405 (San Diego Fwy) at I-10 Interchange 28 6) Atlanta, GA: I-75 at I-85 Interchange 30 7) Washington, DC (MD): I-495 at I-270 Interchange 32 8) Los Angeles, CA: I-10 (Santa Monica Fwy) at I-5 Interchange 34 9) Los Angeles, CA: I-405 (San Diego Fwy) at I-605 Interchange 36 10) Atlanta, GA: I-285 at I-85 Interchange (“Spaghetti Junction”) 38 11) Chicago, IL: I-94 (Dan Ryan Expwy) at I-90 Skyway Split (Southside) 40 12) Phoenix, AZ: I-17 (Black Canyon Fwy) at I-10 Interchange (the “Stack”) to Cactus Rd. 42 13) Los Angeles, CA: I-5 (Santa Ana Fwy) at SR-22/SR-57 Interchange (“Orange Crush”) 44 14) Providence, RI: I-95 at I-195 Interchange 46 15) Washington, DC (MD): I-495 at I-95 Interchange 48 16) Tampa, FL: I-275 at I-4 Interchange (“Malfunction Junction”) 50 17) Atlanta, GA: I-285 at I-75 Interchange 52 18) Seattle, WA: I-5 at I-90 Interchange 54 19) Chicago, IL: I-290 (Eisenhower Expwy) Between Exits 17b and 23a 56 20) Houston, TX: I-45 (Gulf Freeway) at US-59 Interchange 58 21) San Jose, CA: US-101 at I-880 Interchange 60 22) Las Vegas, NV: US-95 at I-15 Interchange (“Spaghetti Bowl”) 62 23) San Diego, CA: I-805 atI-15 Interchange 64 24) Cincinnati, OH: I-75, from Ohio River Bridge to I-71 Interchange 66

Bottlenecks Nationwide: Benefits Analysis 68 IV. Summary and Conclusions 70

Appendix A: Methodology 72

Appendix B: Major Bottlenecks State-by-State 78

Appendix C: Major Bottlenecks Ranked 1 to 233 87

American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

he American Highway Users Alliance in 1999 released a first-of-its-kind study examining a significant T cause of traffic congestion – the country’s worst highway bottlenecks. In the five years that have passed, two trends have become unmistakably clear. Congestion Has Grown Across the U.S. . . . In 1999, we identified 167 major highway bottlenecks located in 30 states plus the District of Columbia. Using the same methodology and delay criteria, the number of severe traffic chokepoints in the U.S. where drivers experience at least 700,000 hours of delay annually has now increased to a total of 233 bottlenecks in 33 states plus the District, a 40 percent increase. . . . . But Improvements Are Possible Seven of the top 18 bottlenecks we identified five years ago – including hot spots in Houston, Albuquerque, Denver, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington, DC – no longer appear on our ranking of the country’s worst chokepoints because major reconstruction projects are either completed or underway to improve traffic flow at these sites. In Albuquerque alone, motorists have regained more than 15 million hours each year that would have otherwise been wasted sitting in traffic at the I-40/I-25 interchange, also know at the “Big I.” Similar improvements are possible nationwide. Over the 20-year life of the projects, modest improvements to improve traffic flow at the 233 severe bottlenecks we identify in this report would prevent more than 449,500 crashes (including some 1,750 fatalities and 220,500 injuries). Carbon dioxide emissions would drop by an impressive 77 percent at these bottlenecks and more than 40 billion gallons of fuel would be conserved. Emissions of smog-causing volatile organic compounds would drop by nearly 50 percent, while carbon monoxide would be reduced by 54 percent at those sites. Rush hour delays would decline by 74 percent, saving commuters who must negotiate these bottlenecks an average of more than 30 minutes each day.

The Benefits of Unclogging America’s Arteries his updated study attempts to quantify the benefits Americans can realize if major bottlenecks are T eliminated, and conversely, the price to be paid if congestion is allowed to increase. The benefits of congestion relief include: n Saving Lives. Traffic congestion causes highway crashes that can kill drivers, their passengers and others. As highway crowding increases and motorists jockey for position at exits and entryways, the potential for crashes increases. Improving bottlenecks saves lives and averts injuries. n Improving the Environment. Bottlenecks retard the nation’s otherwise impressive progress in improving air quality. Vehicles caught in stop-and-go traffic emit far more pollutants – particularly carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds – than they do when operating without frequent braking and acceleration. Improving bottlenecks reduces tailpipe pollutants. n Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Vehicles emit carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, as fuel is consumed. Because congestion relief has a direct effect on fuel consumption, improvement projects will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. n Conserving Fuel. The longer vehicles are delayed in traffic, the more fuel they consume. Nationwide, 5.7 billion gallons of fuel are wasted annually because of congestion. n Saving Time. Traffic congestion is a major source of frustration for American motorists, adding stress to our already busy lives. Reducing road delays eases that frustration and means more time for families, errands, work and play. I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE I.

American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 1 n Enhancing Productivity. Bottlenecks also delay product deliveries, inhibiting productivity and raising costs. Businesses suffer direct economic consequences because of congestion. In the world of “just-in-time” deliveries, time really is money. Congested roadways can also discourage businesses from locating facilities and bringing jobs to urban areas. Improving bottlenecks boosts productivity and economic health.

Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks or more than a decade, conventional wisdom has held that gridlock is an unavoidable part of F modern life. Some elected officials, others in the media, and even many motorists seem resigned to the “fact” that congestion can only get worse – certainly never better. While past experience shows that no single strategy can adequately address the problems of metropolitan congestion, the good news is that there are effective solutions that can reduce traffic congestion. This study shows that metropolitan areas can realize significant benefits by focusing on improvements to major traffic bottlenecks as a first step in an overall congestion relief plan. A balanced, comprehensive approach to traffic congestion that uses all the tools at our disposal can reduce the stifling gridlock found on many of our highways. This approach can include improving the safety and convenience of public transportation. We also need to use the roads we already have in the most efficient way possible. Investing in smart road technologies – such as synchronized traffic lights, computerized systems to route traffic around congested areas, and options like reversible commuter lanes and movable barriers that add capacity during peak hours of travel – will help. But in many instances, as highlighted by the bottlenecks profiled in this report, our overstressed road system needs additional capacity at key points. Providing that capacity by removing strategic bottlenecks as part of a comprehensive congestion relief program will reduce the amount of time commuters have to spend on the road, save thousands of lives, prevent hundreds of thousands of injuries and help safeguard the environment.

Bottlenecks Plague Commuters in 33 States Nationwide

Urban Areas with a Top 24 Bottleneck

Urban Area with Major Bottlenecks

2 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 3 America’s Worst Highway Bottlenecks

Annual Vehicles Hours of Rank City Freeway Location per Day Delay 1 Los Angeles US-101 US-101 (Ventura Fwy) at I-405 Interchange 318,000 27,144 2 Houston I-610 I-610 at I-10 Interchange (West) 295,000 25,181 3 Chicago I-90 I-90/94 at I-290 Interchange (“Circle Interchange”) 293,671 25,068 4 Phoenix I-10 I-10 at SR-51/SR-202 Interchange (“Mini-Stack”) 280,800 22,805 5 Los Angeles I-405 I-405 (San Diego Fwy) at I-10 Interchange 296,000 22,792 6 Atlanta I-75 I-75 at I-85 Interchange 259,128 21,045 7 Washington (DC- I-495 I-495 at I-270 Interchange 243,425 19,429 MD-VA) 8 Los Angeles I-10 I-10 (Santa Monica Fwy) at I-5 Interchange 318,500 18,606 9 Los Angeles I-405 I-405 (San Diego Fwy) at I-605 Interchange 318,000 18,606 10 Atlanta I-285 I-285 at I-85 Interchange (“Spaghetti Junction”) 266,000 17,072 11 Chicago I-94 I-94 (Dan Ryan Expwy) at I-90 Skyway Split (Southside) 260,403 16,713 12 Phoenix I-17 I-17 (Black Canyon Fwy) at I-10 Interchange (the 208,000 16,310 “Stack”) to Cactus Rd. 13 Los Angeles I-5 I-5 (Santa Ana Fwy) at SR-22/SR-57 Interchange 308,000 16,304 (“Orange Crush”) 14 Providence I-95 I-95 at I-195 Interchange 256,000 15,340

15 Washington (DC- I-495 I-495 at I-95 Interchange 185,125 15,035 MD-VA) 16 Tampa I-275 I-275 at I-4 Interchange (“Malfunction Junction”) 201,500 14,371 17 Atlanta I-285 I-285 at I-75 Interchange 239,193 14,333 18 Seattle I-5 I-5 at I-90 Interchange 301,112 14,306 19 Chicago I-290 I-290 (Eisenhower Expwy) Between Exits 17b and 23a 200,441 14,009 20 Houston I-45 I-45 (Gulf Freeway) at US-59 Interchange 250,299 13,944 21 San Jose US-101 US-101 at I-880 Interchange 244,000 12,249 22 Las Vegas US-95 US-95 at I-15 Interchange (“Spaghetti Bowl”) 190,600 11,152 23 San Diego I-805 I-805 at I-15 Interchange 238,000 10,992 24 Cincinnati I-75 I-75, from Ohio River Bridge to I-71 Interchange 136,013 10,088

What This Study Is About ighway traffic congestion is a major source of frustration for American travelers, causing an H estimated 3.5 billion hours of delays per year in 75 of the largest metropolitan areas.1 Put another way, in the 10 largest metropolitan areas, trips during rush hours take an average of 52 percent longer than if they occurred when no congestion was present. In the next 30 largest cities, rush hour trips take 32 percent longer because of congestion.2 Besides adding to the frustration and stress levels of American drivers, traffic congestion also has strong economic, environmental and safety consequences. When vehicles are delayed in traffic, they emit far more pollutants and consume far more fuel than if traffic congestion did not exist: an estimated 5.7 billion gallons are wasted because of congestion in 75 of the largest cities.3 In addition, as highway crowding increases, so does the potential for crashes. Businesses also suffer direct economic consequences because of congestion. In the world of “just-in-time” delivery services, time really is money. Finally, businesses and individuals often decide where to locate based on congestion patterns in a metropolitan area. When dollar figures are assigned to the value of travel time and excess fuel consumed, the cost of congestion is staggering: $70 billion in 2001.4 If environmental, safety and relocation costs had been included, this figure would be much higher. his study is an update to our 1999 study, Unclogging America’s Arteries: Prescriptions for Healthier T Highways. That study was the first national-level analysis examining a major cause of traffic congestion: the highway bottleneck. By updating that initial work we are able to develop comparisons and analyze trends in congestion patterns five years later. Bottlenecks are something that most motorists can easily identify. In nearly every American city, there are one or more highway locations that have notorious reputations among travelers – heavy traffic congestion occurs in these areas every weekday, and sometimes on weekends, for several hours during the morning and afternoon rush periods. As described in more detail later in this Introduction, a bottleneck is a specific, physical location on the highway that routinely experiences traffic backups. We have focused on bottlenecks because they are easily recognized and because their removal can lead to immediate and positive improvements in traffic flow. Also, average national statistics, such as those reported above, can mask the most serious problems experienced by many travelers; identifying bottleneck locations draws attention to these extreme conditions. Specifically, we have set three objectives for this study: 1. Identify the worst traffic bottlenecks in the United States, recognizing that some cities may have more than one. We have focused in detail on those bottlenecks that create the longest delays for travelers, limiting our consideration to interstate highways and other freeways. We also make comparisons with the conditions found in our 1999 study. 2. Estimate the benefits to travelers and the environment by removing the bottlenecks, based on the actual improvement plans if they exist. The benefit estimation is driven by a set of assumptions and analysis methods, as detailed in Appendix A. To show that those benefits are not simply theoretical, we also highlight several “success stories” – bottlenecks from our 1999 study that have since been improved. 3. Estimate the benefits that would be derived from removing bottlenecks nationwide.There are many more bottlenecks in the country than the top 24 on which we have focused. These bottlenecks occur not only in the major metropolitan areas, but also in smaller ones. We examine the effects of improving these bottlenecks.

1 Schrank, David and Lomax, Tim, The 2003 Annual Urban Mobility Report, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, September 2003. 2 Schrank and Lomax, 2003. 3 Schrank and Lomax, 2003. II. INTRODUCTION II. 4 Schrank and Lomax, 2003.

4 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 5 Highway Travel in Metropolitan Areas: Is It Getting Better or Worse? We begin with an examination of recent trends in congestion. The best single source for monitoring congestion trends is produced annually by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI). In their 2003 report, TTI’s researchers found that congestion levels have grown continuously between 1990 and 2001: n Peak period5 trips take on average 10 percent longer. n The annual hours of delay experienced by individual commuters has grown from 18 hours per year to 26 hours. n The percentage of congested freeway mileage has grown from 43 percent to 55 percent. The researchers also observe more long-term trends: n “Congestion extends to more time of the day, more roads, affects more of the travel and creates more extra travel time than in the past. And congestion levels have risen in all size categories, indicating that even the smaller areas are not able to keep pace with rising demand.” n “Congestion has spread significantly over the 20 years of the study. A few notable changes from 1982 to 2001 include: • 27 urban areas have a Travel Time Index6 above 1.30 compared with one such area in 1982. • 67 percent of the peak period travel is congested compared to 33 percent in 1982. • 59 percent of the major road system is congested compared to 34 percent in 1982. • The number of hours of the day when congestion might be encountered has grown from about 4.5 hours to about 7 hours.” TTI’s researchers also note that despite the economic slowdown in 2001, congestion levels increased slightly between 2000 and 2001. Given these statistics, an economy that is on the verge of expansion and continued population growth, we can expect further increases in traffic congestion for the foreseeable future. Creeping Congestion: Congestion Outside of Metropolitan Areas Congestion is not just a problem for city dwellers. Analysis of data reported to the Federal Highway Administration reveals a dramatic trend: Since 1992, traffic has grown substantially on rural highways and at a faster pace than on metropolitan highways. The table below shows that between 1992 and 2002, traffic on rural interstates increased 36 percent compared with an increase of 26 percent on urban interstates. Further analysis shows that traffic volumes per available lane increased by 35 percent on rural interstates compared with 23 percent on urban interstates. Further, trucks now comprise eight percent more of the rural interstate traffic stream than they did in 1992. (Over 26 percent of rural interstate traffic is now comprised of trucks.) By 2010, 16 percent of rural interstate mileage will be operating at what is generally considered to be unacceptable crowding levels for rural conditions,7 while 11 percent will experience actual congestion.8 Growth in Key Traffic Statistics, 1992–2002 TRAFFIC STATISTIC RURAL INTERSTATE GROWTH URBAN INTERSTATE GROWTH Total Daily Volume +36% +26% Daily Volume per Traffic Lane +35% +23% Trucks in Traffic Stream +8% +4% Source: Analysis of Highway Performance Monitoring System data

5 In most metropolitan areas, the idea of “rush hour” is obsolete – congestion happens for multiple hours on both morning and evening weekdays. 6 Travel Time Index is the ratio of actual travel time for a trip compared to the “ideal” travel time for a trip. Thus, a Travel Time Index of 1.30 indicates that the trip takes 30 percent longer than it would under “ideal” or uncongested conditions. 7 Levels of Service D through F, as defined in theHighway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board. 8 Levels of Service E and F.

4 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 5 What Causes Traffic Congestion? Congestion has several root causes that can be broken down into two main categories: n Excess demand for physical capacity – Put simply, “too many cars on the road.” Just like a pipe carrying water supply or the electrical grid, there are only so many units that can be moved at a given time. Transportation engineers refer to this as the physical capacity of the highway system. Physical capacity is determined by such things as: how many lanes are available to carry traffic, the curvature of the highway, side clearance, and interchange and intersection design (for example, length and position of on-ramps and exclusive turning lanes at intersections). Bottlenecks are locations where the physical capacity is restricted, with flows from upstream sections (with higher capacities) being funneled into them. This is roughly the same as a storm pipe that can carry only so much water – during floods the excess water just backs up behind it, much the same as traffic at bottleneck locations. n Traffic-influencing events – In addition to the physical capacity, external events can have a major effect on traffic flow. These include traffic incidents such as crashes, vehicle breakdowns, work zones, bad weather and poorly timed traffic signals. Only recently has the transportation profession started to think of congestion in these terms. Yet it is critical to do so because strategies must be tailored to address each of the sources of congestion, and they can vary significantly from one highway to another. Nationally, the best estimates of how much each of these sources contribute to total congestion are:9 Bottlenecks (Demand/Physical Capacity)…………...... 50% of total congestion Traffic Incidents……………………………………..…...... 25% Work Zones………………………………………..……...... 15% Bad Weather…………………………………………..…...... 10% Poor Signal Timing……………………………………...... 5% Clearly, physical roadway-related bottlenecks are a major part of the national congestion problem. Further, estimates of the contributions of each congestion source shown above mask the interaction that physical capacity can have with other traffic events. That is, how much physical capacity exists prior to the event determines how much impact the traffic incident will have on congestion. Consider a traffic crash that blocks a single lane on a freeway. That incident has a much greater impact on traffic flow if only two normal lanes of travel are present than if three lanes are present. Therefore, strategies that improve the physical capacity of bottlenecks also lessen the impacts of roadway events such as incidents, weather and work zones.

9 http:// www.ops.fhwa.dot. gov/ aboutus/opstory.htm

he layman’s definition of a bottleneck as “too many Type III Bottlenecks – Intended Interruption to Flow. T cars trying to use a highway at the same time” is “Bottlenecks on purpose” are sometimes necessary in essentially correct. Transportation engineers formalize order to manage flow. Traffic signals, freeway ramp this idea as capacity— the ability to move vehicles past meters and tollbooths are all examples of this type of a point over a given span of time. When the capacity of bottleneck. a highway section is exceeded, traffic flow breaks down, Type IV Bottlenecks – Vehicle Merging Maneuvers. This speeds drop and vehicles crowd together. These actions form of bottleneck has the most severe effect on traffic cause traffic to back up behind the bottleneck. A more flow. Type IV bottlenecks are caused by some sort of formal definition of a bottleneck is “an event on or near a physical restriction or blockage of the road, which in turn highway, or physical restriction, that causes traffic flow causes vehicles to merge into other lanes of traffic. How to degrade from ideal levels.” So, what situations would severely a bottleneck influences traffic flow is related to cause the overload that leads to traffic backups? We how many vehicles must merge in a given space over a break these situations down into four types of bottlenecks given time. Type IV bottlenecks include: for the purpose of discussion. n Areas where a traffic lane is lost – a “lanedrop” Type I Bottlenecks – Visual Effects on Drivers. Driver which sometimes occurs at bridge crossings and in behavior is a very important part of traffic flow. When work zones. traffic volume is high and vehicles are moving at relatively high speeds, it may take only the sudden slowing down n Lane-blocking incidents. of one driver to disrupt traffic flow. Driver behavior in n Areas where traffic must merge across several lanes this case is influenced by some sort of a visual cue and can to get to and from entry and exit points (called include: “weaving areas”). n Roadside distractions – unusual or atypical events n Freeway on-ramps – merging areas where traffic that cause drivers to become distracted from from local streets can join a freeway. driving. n Freeway-to-freeway interchanges – a special case of n Limited lateral clearance – drivers will usually on-ramps where flow from one freeway is directed slow down in areas where barriers get too close to to another. travel lanes or if a vehicle has broken down on the shoulder. For the purposes of this study, only Type IV bottlenecks related to specific highway features and design are n Incident “rubbernecking” – call it morbid curiosity, considered because these lead to the largest amount of but most drivers will slow down just to get a delay. These locations have historically been chokepoints glimpse of a crash scene, even when the crash has in the system, and traffic queues there consistently, occurred in the opposite direction of travel or there especially during weekday rush hours. Incident delay is plenty of clearance with the travel lane. has been found to be a function of several factors: traffic Type II Bottlenecks – Abrupt Changes in Highway volume, available highway space (capacity), characteristics Alignment. Sharp curves and hills can cause drivers to of incidents (how frequently they occur and how long and slow down either because of safety concerns or because severe they are), and availability of wide shoulders.10 their vehicles cannot maintain speed on upgrades. Another Many of the same improvements that aim to fix physical example of this type of bottleneck is in work zones where bottlenecks can affect these factors as well. For example, lanes may be redirected or “shifted” during construction. additional lanes increase highway capacity, and transit Both Type I and Type II bottlenecks are usually short-lived or high-occupancy vehicle alternatives can lower traffic and have a limited effect on traffic flow. volume. However, these positive effects on reducing incident delay were not assessed in this study.

10 Cambridge Systematics, Sketch Methods for Estimating Incident-Related Impacts, prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, December 1998.

6 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 7 What Can We Do About Traffic Congestion? Transportation engineers and planners have developed a variety of strategies to deal with congestion. These fall into several general categories: 1. Increasing the Number and Size of Highways. Adding more lanes to existing highways and building new ones has been the traditional response to congestion. In some metropolitan areas, however, it is becoming increasingly difficult to undertake major highway expansions because of funding constraints, increased right-of-way and construction costs, and opposition from local and national groups. However, it is clear from observing what has happened since our 1999 study that adding new physical capacity is an important strategy for alleviating congestion. This often means that highway designers must think “outside the box” to find creative ways to incorporate new designs that accommodate all stakeholders’ concerns. Since the worst bottlenecks we have identified are interchanges, advanced design treatments that spread out turning movements and remove traffic volumes from key merge areas have been developed, often by using multi-level structures that minimize the footprint of the improvement on the surrounding landscape. 2. Getting More Out of What We Have. In recent years, transportation engineers have increasingly embraced strategies that deal with the operation of existing highways, rather than just building new infrastructure. The philosophy behind transportation operations is to mitigate the effects of roadway events and to manage short-term demand for existing roadway capacity. Transportation operations strategies can include the application of advanced technologies using real-time information about highway conditions to implement control strategies. Referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), real-time control of highway operations has become a major activity undertaken by transportation agencies. ITS control strategies take many forms: metering flow onto freeways, dynamically retiming traffic signals, managing traffic incidents, and providing travelers with alternative routes and modes. In addition to ITS technologies, other transportation operations strategies to improve the efficiency of the existing road system have been implemented, including reversible commuter lanes, movable median barriers to add capacity during peak periods and restricting turns at key intersections. The idea behind transportation operations is to increase the efficiency of the existing transportation infrastructure. That is, roadway events essentially “steal” roadway capacity, and transportation operations seek to get it back. The deployment of these strategies and technologies is increasing, and evaluations have shown their impact to be highly cost-effective. However, relying on transportation operations alone is a limited approach to addressing the congestion problem. A sound base infrastructure must already exist before transportation operations can be used. Also, only so much extra efficiency can be squeezed out of an already-stressed highway system. 3. Minimizing Vehicle-Miles of Travel—Travel Demand Management (TDM) and Nonautomotive Travel Modes. Other approaches to the problem of congestion involve managing the demand for highway travel. These strategies include putting more people into fewer vehicles (through ridesharing or dedicated highway lanes for high occupancy vehicles), shifting the time of travel (through staggered work hours), and eliminating the need for travel altogether (through telecommuting). The major barrier to the success of TDM strategies is that they require an adjustment in the lifestyles of travelers and the requirements of employers. Flexible scheduling is simply not possible for a large number of American workers, which limits the effectiveness of TDM strategies. Investing in nonautomotive modes of travel—such as rail and bus transit systems and bikeways— is another strategy for reducing the number of personal use vehicles on the highway system. These approaches can be a useful supplement to the highway system, particularly for commuter trips. However, in most metropolitan areas, the level of investment required to meet transportation demand solely through these means is massive and infeasible. Still, when considered as part of an overall program of transportation investments, TDM and nonautomotive modes of travel can contribute substantially to a metropolitan area’s transportation system.

8 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 9 4. Managing Urban Growth and Form. The historical cycle of suburban growth has led to an ever- increasing demand for travel. Suburban growth was originally fueled by downtown workers who moved from city centers to the urban fringe to take advantage of lower land prices and greater social amenities. In the past 20 years, businesses have also moved to the suburbs to be closer to their employees. This in turn allows workers to live even further away from city centers, thereby perpetuating suburban expansion. To influence these processes, strategies that attempt to manage and direct urban growth have been used in several metropolitan areas. These include land use controls (zoning), growth management restrictions (urban growth boundaries and higher development densities) and taxation policy (incentives for high-density development). The main problem with many of these strategies is that they often are contrary to market trends burdening consumers with extra costs and dampening economic efficiency, at least in the short-run. Unless a truly regional approach is followed – with cooperation from all jurisdictions within the region – urban growth may simply be pushed into areas not conforming to growth policies. It is clear from past experience that no single strategy can adequately address the problem of metropolitan congestion. However, a balanced, comprehensive approach to traffic congestion can lessen the stifling gridlock found on many of our highways. Such an approach needs to include improving the convenience and safety of transit. At the same time, we need to use the roads we already have in the most efficient way possible. Investing in smart road technologies—such as synchronized traffic lights and computerized systems to route traffic around congested areas, and options such as reversible commuter lanes and movable barriers that add road capacity during peak hours of travel— will help. But in many instances, as highlighted by the projects included in this study, our overstressed road system needs additional capacity at key points. Providing that capacity by removing strategic bottlenecks as part of an overall program of congestion relief will reduce the amount of time commuters have to spend on the road, save thousands of lives, prevent hundreds of thousands of injuries and help us safeguard the environment.

Vehicle Emissions As vehicles operate, transforming the chemical energy of motor fuel into the kinetic energy of motion, they produce a number of gases that are by-products of internal combustion. The four vehicle emissions examined by this study are the most important from a public policy standpoint.

Criteria Pollutants the atmosphere and, in the presence of ultraviolet light, form smog. The Environmental Protection Agency tracks the emission of six major pollutants, known n Nitrogen oxides—Nitrogen oxides are as criteria pollutants. Three of the six criteria the other half of the smog-forming duo pollutants are found in tailpipe emissions. They mentioned above. are: Greenhouse Gases n Carbon monoxide—Carbon monoxide Carbon dioxide (CO ) is a natural by-product poses a direct health threat to people by 2 of both internal combustion and human entering the bloodstream through the respiration. While not a pollutant, increased lungs and forming carboxyhemoglobin, CO emissions may affect the Earth’s climate. a compound that inhibits the blood’s 2 Because CO is known to trap heat in the capacity to carry oxygen to organs and 2 Earth’s atmosphere, it is often referred to as a tissues. “greenhouse gas.” n Volatile organic compounds—These emissions mix with nitrogen oxides in

esidents in each of the cities identified as having one of the nation’s worst traffic bottlenecks R would realize substantial benefits—in terms of lives saved, injuries avoided, tailpipe pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions reduced, decreased fuel consumption and time saved on the average commute—by fixing those chokepoints. n Saving Lives. Popular wisdom often suggests that gridlock can be good for highway safety, based on the assumption that lower travel speeds lead to a lower risk of serious and fatal crashes. However, as highway crowding increases and motorists jockey for position at exits and entryways, the potential for crashes actually increases. Outdated highway design at many bottlenecks can also lead to serious crashes. n Saving the Environment. Congestion is a serious barrier to the nation’s otherwise impressive air quality progress. Under most conditions, vehicles caught in stop-and-go traffic emit far more pollutants—carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides—than they do when operating without frequent braking and acceleration. However, the relationships between average vehicle speed and these pollutants can conflict. Emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds decrease as speed increases up to

55 mph and increase very slightly between 55 and 65 mph. Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX), however, decrease as speed increases up to approximately 20 mph, hold steady between 30 and 45 mph, and then increase sharply above 45 mph. Therefore, when a transportation improvement leads to increases in vehicle speeds, it is possible to decrease levels of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds while increasing emissions of nitrogen oxides. Transportation analysts have dubbed this phenomenon “The NOX Dilemma,” and it is evident in the improvements studied

in this report. The relationship between levels of NOX and volatile organic compounds in the formation of ground-level ozone (also known as “smog”) is complex. However, because the improvements studied also show dramatic decreases in volatile organic compounds, overall smog levels are expected to improve, especially compared with making no improvements at all. Vehicles stuck in traffic also increase emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. They emit

CO2 as fuel is consumed. The longer they are delayed in traffic, the more fuel vehicles consume

and, thus, the more CO2 they emit. n Saving Fuel. Congestion causes increased fuel use over what would have been consumed if traffic were flowing smoothly. This is due to less efficient engine operation as well as vehicles taking a longer time to complete trips. n Saving Time. Traffic congestion is a major source of frustration for American travelers. Reducing road delays eases that frustration and gives motorists more time for families, errands, work or play. Congestion also has real economic consequences for businesses. Delays in shipments caused by urban congestion can lead to increased costs for transportation that are ultimately passed on to consumers. Because reconstruction often causes additional delays by reducing highway capacity, this report takes into account projected construction period delays when analyzing the time savings attributable to improvements at each bottleneck site. To estimate a construction-related delay, we assume that motorists will lose 20 percent of available highway capacity during the entire reconstruction period. In reality, state transportation departments endeavor to keep all lanes open through reconstruction zones as much as possible. Even assuming these construction delays, the time savings produced by the bottleneck improvements outweigh the additional delays caused by roadwork.

10 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org 11 EFFECTIVE RELIEF FOR AMERICA’S WORST BOTTLENECKS

o identify, rank and assess the nation’s worst bottlenecks, we relied on information provided by T state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and the cooperation of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). All 50 DOTs were asked to identify their worst bottleneck locations. These candidates were then examined and ranked by analysts at Cambridge Systematics, Inc. For a more thorough discussion of the methodology, see Appendix A. Ranking the Bottlenecks Based on the Cambridge analysis, Table 3.1 displays the 24 worst traffic bottlenecks in the United States, ranked by total hours of delay.11 The choice of total hours of delay as the ranking criterion implies that higher traffic volume roadways will be favored. For example, consider two bottlenecks, one with low volume and one with high volume. Also assume that the relationship between traffic volume and available capacity is the same at each bottleneck—that is, the unit delay (e.g., minutes of delay per vehicle) at each site is the same. In this example, total delay will be higher at the higher-volume bottleneck simply because more vehicles are subjected to congested conditions. Consequently, it would be ranked higher on our list. We chose this approach because if you were forced to choose which one should receive improvements, you would select the one with the higher traffic volumes because more drivers would receive the benefits of the improvement. A cutoff point of 10 million annual hours of delay was established for identifying bottlenecks for detailed analysis. Bottlenecks below this cutoff were not studied in detail but are included in the national-level analysis later in this chapter (see pages 68-69). A total of 24 bottlenecks met the 10 million hours of delay threshold. Several other bottleneck locations came close to the delay cutoff. Prominent among them are: n I-75 at the I-74 Interchange (Cincinnati, OH): 9,800,000 annual hours of delay n I-880 at the State Route-237 Interchange (San Jose, CA): 9,488,000 annual hours of delay n I - 71 at the I-75 Interchange (Cincinnati, OH): 9,346,000 annual hours of delay n I-4 at the State Route-408 Interchange (East/West Tollway, Orlando, FL): 9,187,000 annual hours of delay n I-35E at the I-30 interchange (“Mixmaster”, Dallas, TX): 9,141,000 annual hours of delay. It should be noted that other analysis methods, distinct from the methodology employed by this report, might produce different rankings. Though such alternative analyses might cause some shifting in the ranking order, we would still expect the locations identified here to show up as severe bottlenecks because of the solicitation of these locations from local experts and the high-volume nature of these sites. Still, with such small differences between two adjacent bottlenecks on the list, care must be exercised before concluding that one location is substantially worse than another.

As a final caveat, congestion is systemic in many of the larger urban areas in the United States. Entire corridors can operate at unacceptable levels of service (characterized by low speeds over long distances), and several locations along the corridor can be potential bottlenecks, depending on daily conditions. The close spacing on interchanges in many areas compound the problem, creating numerous merging and conflict areas for traffic. In these cases, the one location with the most severe conditions was identified as the bottleneck. Transportation agencies have recognized the problem of systemic congestion and have created improvement strategies that treat the entire corridor, rather than a specific location. Even cases in which a single severe bottleneck can be identified, planned improvements almost always include improvements to local streets in the bottleneck vicinity and often to interchanges upstream and downstream from the bottleneck. In the case of systemic congestion in corridors, highway improvements aimed at the entire corridor, along with transit and demand management strategies, are often employed. III. EFFECTIVE RELIEF FOR AMERICA’S WORST BOTTLENECKS WORST AMERICA’S FOR RELIEF EFFECTIVE III.

11 The delay calculations for the rankings do not consider the effect of any current work zones. 10 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org 11 Table 3.1 America’s 24 Worst Highway Bottlenecks

* In reviewing the list of bottleneck locations identified by this report, readers will note that none of the worst bottlenecks are in the New York City area. As most travelers know, congestion in and around the boroughs of New York can be significant. However, a very large share of delay in the New York area is related to bridge and tunnel crossings into Manhattan, most of which are toll facilities. Also, while the New York metropolitan area is laced with Interstates, parkways, and expressways, they seldom reach the proportions seen in other major areas, except where multiple highways converge on bridge of tunnel crossings. (A typical lane configuration for a New York area freeway is six lanes, three in each direction. But there are many of these.) Early in the study, we decided to exclude toll facilities from our ranking of the worst bottlenecks in the United States. The reason for this exclusion is that toll facilities are fundamentally different from other physical bottlenecks (such as freeway-to-freeway interchanges) that are prevalent around the country. Delay comparisons between toll facilities and other types of bottlenecks might not be consistent since different modeling techniques would be used. If objective field measurements of delay could be made at all locations around the country, several river crossings into Manhattan would no doubt be included in a list of the nation’s worst bottlenecks.

12 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 13 What Has Changed in the Past 5 Years? Congestion Has Grown Across the Country . . . Table 3.1 shows the current rankings of the worst bottlenecks in the country, based on analysis of 2002 data. Since our last report in 1999, traffic nationwide has grown significantly, as documented in the annual series of Urban Mobility Studies from the Texas Transportation Institute (see the Introduction for details).

ur own analysis also indicates that congestion is continuing to worsen. Table 3.2 shows that for O bottlenecks that were ranked in both this study and our 1999 study, congestion has increased. Some have grown worse and some have grown worse faster than others. Another indication that congestion has grown in the past five years is that in the 1999 study, 18 bottlenecks were above a cutoff point of nine million annual hours of delay. In 2002, 24 bottlenecks were above a higher threshold: 10 million annual hours of delay. Considering all potential major bottlenecks throughout the nation experiencing delays of 700,000 annual hours or more, in 1999 we found a total of 167 bottlenecks (18 considered in-depth, 149 others above the 700,000 hour threshold), while in this study we identify a total of 233 (24 considered in-depth, 209 others). This represents a 40 percent increase in the number of locations over the delay threshold. . . . But Improvements Are Possible Several of the worst bottlenecks identified in the 1999 study have seen substantial improvements, indicating that success in reducing congestion is achievable. Table 3.2 shows the rankings of the 18 worst bottlenecks in the 1999 report and where they stand now. Seven of the 18 bottlenecks are no longer ranked because state DOTs have undertaken reconstruction projects to improve the performance of these bottlenecks. These locations include: n I-93/US-1 Interchange in Boston: The Central Artery. Called the “Big Dig” because of the extensive tunnel system used in the improvements, the Central Artery is a massive public works project. A major piece of the tunnel system is now open to traffic. The Northbound Central Artery/I-93 opened on March 29, 2003. Northbound traffic uses a 1.5 mile tunnel below Kneeland to Causeway streets and emerges to cross the Charles River on the Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge. n I-95/I-495 Interchange in Washington: The Springfield Interchange. Known locally as the “Mixing Bowl,” the Springfield Interchange Improvement Project is scheduled for completion by the end of 2007. The new Springfield Interchange is designed to handle the more than 500,000 vehicles that are expected to pass through the area each day. Engineers have incorporated advanced designs to eliminate the dangerous weaving and merging that contribute to both congestion and crashes. n SR-55 (Newport Freeway)/SR-22 Interchange in Los Angeles (Orange County). The SR-55/SR-22 interchange was rebuilt with new, wider overcrossings and with a new lane in each direction, which offers an easier transition between the two freeways. To accommodate the new widened interchange, the La Veta Avenue overcrossing was also widened. In addition, a general purpose lane was added on SR-55 between I-405 and SR-91. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) also plans to add a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane on SR-22 in each direction from Valley View Street to approximately SR-55. The interchange was rebuilt starting in 1999 and was completed in 2002. n I-290/I-88/I-294 Interchange in Chicago. Dubbed by locals with the grisly moniker the “Hillside Strangler,” this interchange has been a major source of frustration for Chicago area commuters for many years. The majority of the construction outlined in our 1999 report has been completed. The key piece of the construction was the widening of an approximately two-mile stretch eastward from the point where I-88 merges into I-290 and from where IL-38 eastbound and the I-294 exit ramps also merge.

12 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 13 If state DOTs had not made improvements to these locations, delay would have grown significantly, as shown in Table 3.3. Note that the increase in delay is much larger than the growth in traffic volumes at these locations (between 1.0 and 2.5 percent per year). This is due to the nonlinear nature of congestion: adding more vehicles to an already congested highway adds a disproportionately high amount of congestion.12 For the three remaining chokepoints removed from the top ranking this year because traffic improvement projects were either underway or completed by 2002 (the year from which all data analyzed in this study was collected), we developed the following case studies detailing the impact of bottleneck improvements at those sites. Table 3.2 Seven of the 18 bottlenecks identified in 1999 have undergone improvements and are no longer ranked among the worst bottlenecks in the nation. Changes Since 1999 1999 City Bottleneck 2004 Ranking Rank 1 Los Angeles I-405 (San Diego Freeway)/I-10 Interchange Ranked #5 Reconstruction underway (now nearing 2 Houston US-59 (SW Freeway)/I-610 Loop Interchange completion); no longer ranked 3 Seattle I-5/I-90 Interchange Ranked #17 First phase of reconstruction open (2003); no 4 Boston I-93/US-1 Interchange (Central Artery) longer ranked 5 Washington (DC-MD-VA) I-495 (Capaital Beltway)/I-270 Interchange Ranked #7 6 Washington (DC-MD-VA) I-95/I-495 Interchange (Springfield Interchange) Reconstruction underway; no longer ranked 7 Los Angeles US-101 (Ventura Freeway)/I-405 Interchange Ranked #1 Not ranked, Caltrans partially reconstructed 8 Los Angeles SR-55 (Newport Freeway)/SR-22 Interchange 1999-2002 9 Los Angeles I-10 (Santa Monica Freeway)/I-5 Interchange Ranked #8 Major reconstruction completed (2003); no 10 Albuquerque I-40/I-25 Interchange (“Big I”) longer ranked 11 Atlanta I-285/I-85 Interchange Ranked #10 12 Atlanta I-75/I-85 Interchange Ranked #6 Reconstruction underway; (majority of 13 Chicago I-290/I-88/I-294 Interchange (“Hillside Strangler”) reconstruction completed 2004); no longer ranked 14 Denver I-25/I-225 Interchange (“Tech Center Interchange”) Reconstruction underway; no longer ranked 15 Houston I-610/I-10 Interchange Ranked #2 16 Washington (DC-MD-VA) I-66/I-495 Interchange Not ranked 17 Washington (DC-MD-VA) I-95/I-495/US-1 Interchange Ranked #14 18 Atlanta I-285/I-75 Interchange Ranked #16

Table 3.3 What Would Have Happened to Improved 1999 Bottlenecks if No Action Had Been Taken Delay Increases Without Improvements With No Improvements

1999 City Bottleneck 1999 Delay % Growth in Rank 2004 Delay Delay 2 Houston US-59 (SW Freeway)/I-610 Loop Interchange 22,085 28,458 28.9% 4 Boston I-93/US-1 Interchange (Central Artery) 20,264 25,174 24.2% 6 Washington, DC (VA) I-95/I-495 Interchange (Springfield Interchange) 19,629 25,757 31.2% 8 Los Angeles SR-55 (Newport Freeway)/SR-22 Interchange 18,049 23,880 32.3% 10 Albuquerque I-40/I-25 Interchange (“Big I”) 16,029 25,658 60.1% 13 Chicago I-290 – I-88/I-294 Interchange (“Hillside Strangler”) 12,628 16,441 30.2% 14 Denver I-25/I-225 Interchange (“Tech Center Interchange”) 11,296 17,992 59.3%

12 The reader may notice that many locations have moved around quite a bit in the rankings comapred to the 1999 study. The main reason is that traffic growth has an enormous effect on delay estimates, given the nonlinear relationship between congestion and delay. Delay in 14 areas experiencing high traffic growth will qucikly overwhelm delay in areas with modest traffic growth. American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 15 Success Story: US-59 (Southwest Freeway)/I-610 Loop in Houston The Texas Department of Transportation’s (TxDOT) reconstruction of the I-610 West Loop encompasses nearly a five-mile stretch of highway, from US-59 (Southwest Freeway) to I-10 Katy Freeway. The reconstruction includes the renovation of the existing roadway and the addition of new entrances and exits, as well as the creation of “hot links”: slip ramps (right hand exit ramps providing access to local streets) and frontage roads (auxiliary lanes separate from the mainline freeway designed for traffic between local streets and freeway interchanges, and to spread traffic out over a wider area) that provide direct access into and out of local land, while removing traffic from the West Loop main lanes, helping to dramatically reduce congestion. West Loop reconstruction is composed of three different projects: n Project 1: US-59/ I-610 interchange – COMPLETE. n Project 2: West Loop – US-59 to Post Oak Boulevard – UNDER CONSTRUCTION. n Project 3: West Loop - Post Oak Boulevard to I-10-Katy Freeway – UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

n our 1999 study, we identified this interchange as the The entire West Loop project also exhibits further I second worst traffic bottleneck in the country. At that innovations in DOT practice. During construction, time we did not document any imminent improvements, TxDOT’s work zone policy dictated that: although improvement plans were “on the books.” n the same number of main lanes be maintained, However, things have progressed rapidly due to and Houston’s high growth rate. As a result, the project took shape quickly and the improvements to the interchange n current entrances and exits also be maintained. have been completed. Even though traffic has grown from 321,000 vehicles per day on US-59 in 1997 to 339,000 hough reconstruction projects are often criticized in 2002, we estimate that the total hours of annual delay T for producing more congestion through work zones have dropped from 22.1 million to 2.9 million as a result than the completed project will alleviate, these policies of the interchange improvements alone (including the minimize disruption to existing traffic. Many states have addition of access to the new Westpark Tollway; level of adopted similar policies and have instituted advanced service “D” for the interchange). When the surrounding traffic control plans during reconstruction to address this improvements are made and the entire area functions at issue. Under these policies, work zones will produce its target level of service of “C,” 13 delay will be reduced minor forms of bottlenecks – visual distraction and even further. reduced side clearance14 – but the impact on traffic flow is small compared to reducing the number of lanes. This project also highlights an important consideration for improving bottlenecks: the influence of removing the In addition to developing traffic control plans to maintain bottleneck on adjacent roadways. Simply making spot these policies, TxDOT (and many other DOTs) use improvements often releases more traffic downstream – incentive programs with contractors to complete work like opening up the floodgates on a dam. This may result on-time or ahead of schedule. Contractors are given in transferring the bottleneck to other locations rather than significant financial incentives/disincentives to complete truly eliminating the problem. As exhibited by TxDOT, the projects in a timely fashion: contractors receive an highway designers tend to conceive bottleneck removal extra bonus for every day they finish ahead of schedule as part of a system problem and will take steps to ensure and for every day they are late, a similar amount is levied that “bottleneck migration” doesn’t occur. In this case, in penalty. For example, on the reconstruction of the US- the addition of the Westpark Tollway and the planned 59/I-610 interchange ramps, the contractor completed improvements to the I-10/I-610 interchange are part of each ramp ahead of schedule. In fact, interchange work this thinking. Also, the re-working of the frontage road was scheduled to take 204 days; however, the contractor and land access ramps (“hot links” in TxDOT’s jargon) completed the project in only 137 days, 67 days ahead of helps to manage traffic flow on the main highway. schedule.

13 Level of service is a concept that traffic engineers have devised to describe how well highway facilities operate. Six levels of service categories are used: A, B, C, D, E, and F. In layman’s terms, they roughly correspond to the letter grades used in education. On freeways, level of service A is characterized by free-flow conditions with high vehicle speeds and wide spaces between vehicles. As level of service goes from B to D, speeds stay high, but vehicle spacing decreases. The physical capacity of the roadway is reached at level of service E; at this level the highest traffic flows are observed and speeds start to fall off sharply. Level of service F is stop-and-go traffic. Highway designers typically set a goal of level of service C or D for traffic in future years.

14 “Type I” bottlenecks, as discussed in the Introduction

14 American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 15 S u c c e s s S t o ry : T h e “ B i g I ” i n A l b u qu e r qu e s reported in our 1999 study, the A interchange of I-40 and I-25 in downtown Albuquerque was the 10th worst bottleneck in the country. So called because it resembles a giant eye when viewed from the air, the “Big I” is located near Albuquerque’s downtown district. When the Interstate system was laid out, most routes went directly through cities and north/south routes often intersect with east/west routes in the downtown area. To deal with the problem of getting through cities during peak periods of congestion, circumferential highways – “beltways” – have been constructed around the perimeter of many cities. Such is not the case in Albuquerque. When confronted with severe congestion on its freeways through downtown, the New Mexico interchanges, and our study uncovered widespread Department of Transportation (NMDOT) opted use in redesigns developed by state DOTs. to improve the existing roadways rather than undertake new road construction on its perimeter. uring the construction period, traffic The centerpiece of this improvement was the D conditions were collected with closed reconstruction of the I-40/I-25 interchange. circuit TV surveillance cameras and sensors, and disseminated to the public through variable The “Big I” project entailed the complete message signs, the internet and local media. reconstruction of the I-25 and I-40 Interchange Between 5:30 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. the contractor and included 111 lane miles of new road. Ten was to maintain two lanes of traffic in all bridges were rehabilitated and 45 bridges were directions and maintain all ramps that connected constructed, including eight flyovers that route one interstate to another. The entire project was drivers between the two interstates. On-ramps of accomplished in 23 months. So successful was insufficient length were extended and left-sided the on-time performance, work zone management exits were eliminated. The new design also creates and public outreach, that the Big I Reconstruction a two-lane frontage road system 30 feet under the Project Team was awarded the 2002 President’s “Big I” to carry an extra 60,000 daily motorists each Transportation Award for Highways from the way. American Association of State Highway and Frontage roads are auxiliary lanes physically Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The award separated from the mainline of the freeway. Their recognized the team for its positive impact on purpose is primarily to collect traffic between local transportation nationwide. streets and freeway interchanges. They are used We estimate that the total hours of annual delay to remove turning and weaving movements from has dropped from 16.0 million in 1997 to 1.1 million the mainline and to spread traffic out over a wider in 2002 as a result of the interchange improvements area. They may also provide access to adjacent alone (level of service “C” for the interchange). land, though the more common type is used These delay numbers include the growth in traffic strictly as an aid to mainline freeway traffic. They at about 2.6 percent per year. are an integral part of improving highly congested

he Southeast Corridor has long been recognized other transit options, a multi-modal approach is being T as one of the Denver region’s highest priority used to address congestion and safety problems. The travel corridors. The corridor follows I-25, the only T-REX project involves: north-south freeway in the state, for approximately Highway Strategies 14 miles, and I-225, which provides access to I-70, the region’s major east-west freeway, for approximately n Adding one through lane in each direction from four miles. The Southeast Corridor connects the two Logan Street to I-225 (for a total of four lanes largest employment centers in the region: the Denver each way) Central Business District, with approximately 112,000 n Adding two through lanes in each direction from employees in the mid-1990s, and the Southeast I-225 to the C470/E470 interchange (for a total of Business District, with approximately 120,000 five lanes each way) employees in the mid-1990s. With employment centers at both ends, the Southeast Corridor is the n Reconstructing eight interchanges, including I- highest volume, most congested corridor in the 25/I-225 region. Located approximately in the middle of the n Reconstructing and widening numerous bridges corridor is the I-25/I-225 interchange. According to Colorado DOT (CoDOT) information, I-25 currently n Adding and improving shoulders experiences “severe congestion” for several miles on n Improving ramps and acceleration/deceleration either side of the interchange, and I-225 experiences lanes “moderate congestion.” Although several locations in this corridor are potential traffic bottlenecks, the I-25/I- Transit Strategies 225 interchange is a major one. n Adding 19 miles of double-track light rail connecting to the existing system at Broadway dentified as the 14th worst bottleneck in our 1999 in Denver and extending along the west side of study, CoDOT has since undertaken a massive I I-25 to Lincoln Avenue in Douglas County and reconstruction project in the I-25 corridor – nicknamed in the median of I-225 from I-25 to Parker Road T-REX (for Transportation Expansion); we reported in Aurora that this project was in the planning stages in our 1999 study. The project was initiated in 2001 with an n Building 13 light-rail stations with Park-n-Rides anticipated completion date of 2006. The T-REX Project at all but one of those stations is one of the most extensive multi-modal transportation n Adding 34 light-rail vehicles to RTD’s fleet projects in the history of Colorado. When the project is completed in late 2006, the traveling public will have n Constructing a new light-rail maintenance expanded transportation options and safer highways. facility in Englewood T-REX exhibits the principles we found being applied In 1999, we estimated that the I-25/I-225 interchange to complex bottleneck mitigation projects across the causes 11.3 million hours of annual delay to motorists. country: a single solution is rarely effective, but when When the proposed improvements are completed in multiple strategies are applied real progress can be 2006, we estimate that this will be reduced to 2.0 million made. T-REX is considered by CoDOT to be one hours of delay without considering any positive effects of their next generation transportation projects. By from the light rail system. When light-rail is factored combining light rail, highway, bike, pedestrian and in, the potential exists to reduce delay even further.

16 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 17 America’s Worst Bottlenecks and the Benefits of Fixing Them On the following pages, we detail each of the top 24 worst bottlenecks and show the benefits that residents in those cities would realize—in terms of lives saved and injuries avoided, tailpipe pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions reduced, fuel saved and time saved on the average commute—by fixing those chokepoints.

n nine of the 24 cases, transportation officials have identified the location as a serious problem and I have immediate plans to improve traffic flow through the bottleneck. Many of the bottleneck locations are now under reconstruction (2004) but were not in 2002 when the data were collected, or have specific design plans that will be implemented by 2005. Where the design is known, the benefits analysis is based on an estimate of the capacity increase attributable to that design. The remaining locations have been identified as highly congested locations by transportation agencies, and most of them have longer-range plans for improvements. However, we did not analyze the effect of these future improvements, given the uncertainty about design specifics and timing. In these cases where no specific improvements have been approved, our analysis poses hypothetical improvements that would bring traffic operations at the bottleneck up to a minimum acceptable level of traffic flow— technically dubbed “level of service D” by traffic engineers. This analysis is conservative, because traffic engineers typically design so that level of service D conditions or better will still exist 10 to 20 years in the future. A three-year construction period is assumed for these cases: 2004 to 2007. We have chosen to focus solely on the direct benefits experienced by motorists, with the exception of emissions improvements that have a benefit to all persons in a region. In addition to these direct benefits, improving congestion will lead to regional and national economic expansion because the cost of transportation is lowered. This effect has not been included in the analysis, mainly due to lack of consensus on the exact nature of the relationship. However, it is clear that lower transportation costs will lead to increased economic activity.

e also have not estimated the direct monetary impacts on truck freight. While the dollar value of W travel-time savings to private individuals can be debated, there is little doubt that, particularly to the trucking industry, time is indeed money. Travel-time savings can be directly traced to savings in the costs of labor, vehicle operation and lost opportunities due to missing shippers’ deadlines. According to federal estimates, truck freight tonnage is expected to nearly double between 2000 and 2020. Since most cross-country freight moves involve a substantial amount of time traveling through or delivering to urban areas, bottlenecks will be a substantial issue for truck freight. For each bottleneck, we provide two analyses: n “Vital Statistics” – a snapshot of current conditions; and n “Benefits of Improvements” – the difference in the impact measures between implementing an improvement and doing nothing.

18 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 19 Vital Statistics n Vehicles per Day. Current and projected future daily traffic volumes at the VITAL STATISTICS bottleneck. The most recent year for which complete data on current traffic volumes are Bottleneck Location available is 2002. Using the applicable traffic Annual Delay: in hours growth rate for each bottleneck location, we 2002 2025 (estimated) show projected traffic volumes at each site Vehicles Per Day 318,000 437,396 in 2025. Peak Period Delay 17.5 48.2 n Peak Period Delay. The additional time (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) motorists currently spend stuck in traffic at Annual Traffic 1.40% Growth this bottleneck, and the delay that will occur in 2025 at this site if no improvements are made. n Annual Traffic Growth Rate. The percentage rate by which traffic volumes are projected to grow annually at the particular bottleneck location.

Benefits of Improvements n Saving the Environment. The cumulative total reduction in emissions of carbon SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) No With Percentage monoxide, volatile organic compounds, Improvements Improvements Change 15 Carbon 898,077 340,317 -62.1 nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide over Monoxide

the multiyear construction period and the Volatile Organic 93,205 39,634 -57.5 Compounds 20-year life of the project. Nitrogen Oxides 28,976 27,870 -3.8 Carbon Dioxide 10,910,015 2,377,541 -78.2 n Saving Time. The peak period delay, with SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip improvements to the bottleneck and with no (averaged over construction period and project life) improvements, averaged over the multiyear No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change construction period and 20-year project life. Peak Period 39.6 9.6 -75.8 Delay n Saving Fuel. The amount of fuel saved by improving congestion at the bottleneck SAVING FUEL locations. Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 875,125,552 Percentage Reduction 78.2% n Saving Lives. The cumulative total reduction Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 140.0 in crashes, fatalities and injuries over the SAVING LIVES multiyear construction period and the 20- Fewer Total Crashes 7,187 year life of the project. Fewer Fatalities 29 Injury Reduction 3,529

15 Note: This analysis does not assume implementation of “Tier II” emissions standards or “Zero Emission Vehicle” requirements in California, New York, and Massachusetts, although these changes should have little, if any, impact on the percentage change between emissions with and without improvements to the bottleneck site.

Summary When the needed improvements to the Ventura 101 2 101 134 134 210 Freeway/I-405 interchange 134 Pasadena are implemented, Los 5B

Angeles residents will realize 110 5

significant gains in safety, air 27 101 LOS ANGELES Wilmar quality and overall quality of 405 2 10 10 life. 1 Santa Monica 10 60 5 19

Like many freeways in Los 72 110 605 Angeles, it is difficult to 1 405 90 710 5 distinguish a dominating 1 Inglewood physical bottleneck. Long 42 42 stretches of highway operate at similar levels of service (usually poorly) VITAL STATISTICS during peak periods. For that reason, corridor- US-101 (Ventura Fwy) at I-405 Interchange or area-wide strategies, including the addition Annual Delay: 27,144,000 hours of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, transit 2002 2025 improvements, traffic lights on freeway entrance (estimated) ramps, and real-time traveler information systems Vehicles Per Day 318,000 437,396 are employed to address congestion. Such Peak Period Delay 17.5 48.2 (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) strategies, combined with the reconfiguration of Annual Traffic 1.40% the US-101/I-405 interchange, will improve traffic Growth flow at this site. Over the 20-year life of the improvements planned through reconstruction zones as much as for this interchange, there will be 9,017 fewer possible. crashes (including 36 fewer fatalities and 4,427 Bottleneck Description fewer injuries), a 60 percent decrease in smog- causing volatile organic compounds, and an 82 The US-101/I-405 interchange is located in the

percent decrease in CO2 emissions. In addition, San Fernando Valley area north of Beverly Hills. motorists and truckers traveling through the Commuters from the west and north destined for interchange during morning or evening rush downtown Los Angeles must pass through this hours will shave 25 minutes off their driving time area. The California Department of Transportation each trip. For commuters, who typically negotiate (Caltrans) District 7 estimates traffic is congested the interchange twice each day, nearly 50 minutes in this area for nearly five hours every weekday of commuting time will be saved daily. In afternoon. addition, 113 gallons of fuel per commuter will be saved over the life of the project. These figures include the effect of a four-year reconstruction phase, during which it is assumed that available highway capacity is reduced by 20 percent every day. In reality, state transportation departments endeavor to keep all lanes open

20 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 21 Benefits of Improvements Proposed Improvements 2004-2027 Allowing for a four-year construction period and a 20-year Planned improvements at the interchange include: project life, bringing the US-101 (Ventura Fwy) at the I-405 interchange up to level of service C will significantly re- a) Northbound HOV Lane – A High Occupancy duce congestion, thereby smoothing the flow of traffic and: Vehicle (HOV) lane on the northbound side of the 405, between Ventura Boulevard and Burbank Boulevard, is scheduled to break SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) ground in winter 2004/2005. This extension No With Percentage will improve traffic flow at the interchange by Improvements Improvements Change increasing capacity. When complete, this HOV Carbon 777,917 284,402 -63.4 lane will be continuous from Interstate 10 to Monoxide

Burbank Boulevard. Volatile Organic 82,642 33,494 -59.5 Compounds b) Auxiliary Lane – As commuters travel north on Nitrogen Oxides 29,159 35,890 23.1* the 405, past Mulholland Drive and down the Carbon Dioxide 8,790,371 1,587,514 -81.9 hill into the San Fernando Valley, an auxiliary lane on the far right of the freeway recently SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip opened to commuter traffic. An auxiliary (averaged over construction period and project life) lane exists between on- and off-ramps to ease No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change merging onto and off of the freeway. This lane Peak Period 31.4 6.7 -78.8 is an extension of the existing on-ramp lane Delay that begins when you enter the freeway at Mulholland Drive. SAVING FUEL c) Connector Widening, Northbound 405 to Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 738,754,511 Eastbound 101 – Construction is under way Percentage Reduction 81.9% to add the connector from the northbound 405 Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 113.8 to the southbound 101, doubling its capacity. This project, together with the removal of SAVING LIVES cross-traffic with the Gap Closure/Flyunder Fewer Total Crashes 9,017 Project, will significantly reduce congestion at Fewer Fatalities 36 the interchange. The project is scheduled to be Injury Reduction 4,427 completed in the summer of 2004. * Emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds decrease as d) Reconstructing the Connector from speed increases up to 55 mph, and increase very slightly between 55 and 65 Southbound 405 to US 101 – An improved mph. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, however, decrease as speed increases up to approximately 20 mph, hold steady between 30 and 45 mph, and then increase connector from the southbound 405 to both sharply above 45 mph. Therefore, when a transportation improvement leads to directions of the 101 is currently in the increases in vehicle speeds, it is possible to decrease levels of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds while increasing emissions of nitrogen oxides. planning phase. When funding is secured, this Transportation analysts have dubbed this phenomenon “The NOX Dilemma,” four-year project will help improve traffic flow and it is evident in the improvements studied in this report. The relationship at the 101/405 interchange. Construction could between levels of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the formation of ground-level ozone (also known as “smog”) is complex. However, begin as early as 2009. because the improvements studied also show dramatic decreases in volatile organic compounds, overall smog levels are expected to improve. e) Extending the Southbound HOV Lane – The next southbound segment to be constructed begins at Waterford Street and concludes at Interstate 10. Groundbreaking is scheduled for spring 2004 and it is expected to be open and operating by 2007.

Summary 261

When the proposed improve- 290 45 ments to the I-610/I-10 in- 610 terchange are implemented, 610 90 Houston residents will realize 59 significant gains in safety, air 10 quality, and overall quality of 10 10 life. The Texas Department Jacinto City of Transportation (TxDOT) 610 is undertaking a massive Galena Park

improvement project on the 45 59 entire Katy Freeway from the HOUSTON 90

I-610 interchange westward to 225 610 the Fort Bend County line. Bellaire Over the 20-year life of the improvements planned VITAL STATISTICS for the interchange, there will be 9,362 fewer I-610 West Loop at the I-10 Interchange crashes (including 37 fewer fatalities and 4,597 Annual Delay: 25,181,000 hours fewer injuries), a 60 percent decrease in smog- 2002 2025 causing volatile organic compounds, and an 80 (estimated) Vehicles Per Day 295,000 442,038 percent decrease in CO2 emissions. In addition, motorists and truckers traveling through the Peak Period Delay 17.5 48.2 (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) interchange during morning or evening rush Annual Traffic 1.77% hours will shave 27 minutes off their driving time Growth each trip. For commuters, who typically negotiate the interchange once in the morning and once in the evening, over 54 minutes of commuting time will be saved each day. In addition, 128.3 gallons Bottleneck Description of fuel per commuter will be saved over the life of I-610 was Houston’s original “beltway.” With the the project. construction of the Sam Houston Parkway—a These figures include the effect of a five-year perimeter highway further out—it now serves as reconstruction phase, during which it is assumed an inner beltway. I-10, known locally as the Katy that available highway capacity is reduced by 20 Freeway, is one of the major east-west Interstates, percent every day. In reality, state transportation running from California to Florida. It is also a departments endeavor to keep all lanes open major commuter route to downtown Houston through reconstruction zones as much as from both the eastern and western suburbs. possible.

22 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 23 Benefits of Improvements Proposed Improvements 2003-2027 Allowing for a five-year construction period and a 20-year As of late 2003, the interchange area is under project life, planned improvements to bring the I-610 at complete reconstruction. Highlights include: the I-10 interchange (West) up to level of service C will a) Reconstruction of 1.08 miles along I-10 and significantly reduce congestion, thereby smoothing the 2.55 miles along I-610 flow of traffic and:

b) Total reconstruction of the Four-Level SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) Directional Interchange No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change n Reconstruction of eight (8) “direct Carbon 882,319 318,119 -63.9 connectors” – ramps that tie directly from Monoxide one freeway to another Volatile Organic 92,521 36,895 -60.1 Compounds c) Reconstruction of 14 structures Nitrogen Oxides 30,481 36,781 20.7* n Including bridge structures at Post Oak, Carbon Dioxide 10,389,806 2,040,476 -80.4 Woodway, Memorial and Buffalo Bayou SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip d) $263 million project cost with construction (averaged over construction period and project life) beginning on October 1, 2003 No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change e) Traffic requirements Peak Period 35.7 8.7 -75.8 Delay n Maintain existing number of lanes n Maintain local access across corridor SAVING FUEL Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 856,341,544 n Maintain existing HOV lanes in operation Percentage Reduction 80.4% n Maintain current ITS (Intelligent Transport Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 128.3 Systems) operations, including variable message signs, cameras and ramp meters SAVING LIVES Fewer Total Crashes 9,362 In addition to the interchange reconstruction, Fewer Fatalities 37 TxDOT is also adding variable-priced toll lanes in Injury Reduction 4,597 the center of the Katy Freeway improvement west of

the interchange. * Emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds decrease as speed increases up to 55 mph, and increase very slightly between 55 and 65 mph. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, however, decrease as speed increases up to approximately 20 mph, hold steady between 30 and 45 mph, and then increase sharply above 45 mph. Therefore, when a transportation improvement leads to increases in vehicle speeds, it is possible to decrease levels of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds while increasing emissions of nitrogen oxides. Transportation analysts have dubbed this phenomenon “The NOX Dilemma,” and it is evident in the improvements studied in this report. The relationship between levels of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the formation of ground-level ozone (also known as “smog”) is complex. However, because the improvements studied also show dramatic decreases in volatile organic compounds, overall smog levels are expected to improve.

Summary If needed improvements 64 64 64 34 to the “Circle Interchange” 20 41 Elmhurst 290 45 43 90/94 83 Maywood were implemented, Chicago Oak Park residents would realize 290 CHICAGO 38 Berwyn significant gains in safety, air 294 41 88 Cicero 34 quality and overall quality 55

294 43 of life. However, because 34 55 90/94 no specific improvements to 20 the interchange have been 50 designed at this time, we 83 41 analyzed the benefits to be 294 94 90 gained if improvements were made to bring the interchange up to a minimum acceptable level of traffic flow VITAL STATISTICS (technically dubbed “level of service D” by traffic I-90/94 at the I-290 Interchange engineers) in the year 2007. Annual Delay: 25,068,000 hours Level of service is a concept that traffic engineers 2002 2025 have devised to describe how well highway (estimated) facilities operate. Six levels of service categories Vehicles Per Day 293,671 329,367 are used: A, B, C, D, E and F. In layman’s terms, Peak Period Delay 17.5 24.1 (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) they roughly correspond to the letter grades used Annual Traffic 0.50% in education. On freeways, level of service A is Growth characterized by free-flow conditions with high vehicle speeds and wide spaces between vehicles. the wishes and concerns of the general public, As level of service goes from B to D, speeds stay budgetary priorities, and applicable legal and high, but vehicle spacing decreases. The physical regulatory requirements. We have assumed that a capacity of the roadway is reached at level of combination of improvements could achieve level service E; at this level the highest traffic flows of service D operations, and we have analyzed the are observed and speeds start to fall off sharply. benefits to be gained from such improvements. Level of service F is stop-and-go traffic. Highway designers typically set a goal of level of service C Over the 20-year life of the improvements, or D for traffic in future years. there would be 4,869 fewer crashes (including 19 fewer fatalities and 2,391 fewer injuries), a For the purposes of this analysis, we have not 51 percent decrease in smog-causing volatile attempted to identify a specific combination organic compounds, and a 77 percent decrease of improvements that would ease congestion in CO2 emissions. In addition, motorists and at the interchange. Such decisions are properly truckers traveling through the interchange made at the state and local level, reflecting during morning or evening rush hours would

24 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 25 Benefits of Improvements shave 17 minutes off their driving time each trip. For 2004-2026 commuters who typically negotiate the interchange Allowing for a three-year construction period and a 20-year twice each day, nearly 34 minutes of commuting project life, bringing the I-90/94 at the I-290 interchange time would be saved daily. In addition, 72.6 gallons (“Circle Interchange”) up to level of service D would of fuel per commuter would be saved over the life significantly reduce congestion, thereby smoothing the of the project. flow of traffic and:

These figures include the effect of a three-year SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) reconstruction phase, during which it is assumed No With Percentage that available highway capacity is reduced by 20 Improvements Improvements Change

percent every day. In reality, state transportation Carbon 470,089 211,886 -54.9 Monoxide departments endeavor to keep all lanes open Volatile Organic 51,731 25,329 -51.0 through reconstruction zones as much as possible. Compounds Bottleneck Description Nitrogen Oxides 21,955 25,844 17.7* Carbon Dioxide 4,673,594 1,091,737 -76.6 The “Circle Interchange” is located in the heart of downtown Chicago, immediately west of The SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip (averaged over construction period and project life) Loop – the major downtown business district. The No With Percentage operation of the interchange itself is complicated by Improvements Improvements Change a series of closely spaced on/off-ramps with local Peak Period 22.0 5.3 -75.7 streets immediately to the north. Delay

SAVING FUEL Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 367,369,942 Percentage Reduction 76.6%

Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 72.6

SAVING LIVES Fewer Total Crashes 4,869 Fewer Fatalities 19 Injury Reduction 2,391

* Emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds decrease as speed increases up to 55 mph, and increase very slightly between 55 and 65 mph. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, however, decrease as speed increases up to approximately 20 mph, hold steady between 30 and 45 mph, and then increase sharply above 45 mph. Therefore, when a transportation improvement leads to increases in vehicle speeds, it is possible to decrease levels of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds while increasing emissions of nitrogen oxides. Transportation analysts have dubbed this phenomenon “The NOX Dilemma,” and it is evident in the improvements studied in this report. The relationship between levels of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the formation of ground-level ozone (also known as “smog”) is complex. However, because the improvements studied also show dramatic decreases in volatile organic compounds, overall smog levels are expected to improve.

Summary When needed improve-

ments to the “Mini-Stack” PHOENIX interchange are implemented,

Phoenix residents will realize 17 60 51 significant gains in safety, air 101 quality and overall quality of life. The Arizona Department 10 10 202 of Transportation (AzDOT)

has initiated a $75.7 million 85 202 renovation project to modern- 17 ize State Route (SR) 51 from Interstate 10 and Shea Boule- vard that will positively affect traffic flow at the interchange. VITAL STATISTICS I-10 at the SR-51 and 202 Interchange Over the 20-year life of the planned improvements, there will be 4,236 fewer crashes Annual Delay: 22,805,000 hours 2002 2025 (including 17 fewer fatalities and 2,080 fewer (estimated) injuries), a 56 percent decrease in smog-causing Vehicles Per Day 280,800 314,932 volatile organic compounds, and an 88 percent Peak Period Delay 16.7 22.0 (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) decrease in CO2 emissions. In addition, motorists and truckers traveling through the interchange Annual Traffic 0.50% during morning or evening rush hours will Growth shave 17 minutes off their driving time each trip. For commuters, who typically negotiate the Bottleneck Description interchange twice each day, nearly 34 minutes of Also known as the “Short Stack” (to distinguish commuting time will be saved daily. In addition, it from its western neighbor, the “Stack”), the 74 gallons of fuel per commuter will be saved interchange of I-10 with State Routes 51 and 202 over the life of the project. is part of a “box” of Interstate highways framing These figures include the effect of a three-year downtown Phoenix. Within about a four-square reconstruction phase, during which it is assumed mile area there are three major interchanges (this that available highway capacity is reduced by 20 one plus two separate ones involving I-10 and percent every day. In reality, state transportation I-17); a tunnel (I-10 under Central Avenue); and departments endeavor to keep all lanes open numerous surface street interchanges. From through reconstruction zones as much as a traffic standpoint, this makes identifying a possible. single bottleneck difficult – indeed, any of these areas could function as a bottleneck on any given day. Through traffic on I-10 avoids having to use freeway-to-freeway connectors, but must negotiate a 90 degree curve.

26 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 27 Benefits of Improvements Proposed Improvements 2004-2024 Allowing for a one-year construction period and a 20-year AzDOT is currently constructing High Occupancy project life, planned improvements bringing the I-10 at Vehicle (HOV) lanes on SR-51 and HOV ramps for the SR-51/SR-202 interchange (“Mini-Stack”) up to level the I-10 to SR-51 interchange. Construction of an of service D will significantly reduce congestion, thereby elevated ramp to carry the new HOV lanes over smoothing the flow of traffic and: westbound I-10 to the SR-51/Loop 202 interchange is part of this improvement. Also included is the SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) construction of new bridges for the HOV ramp, a No With Percentage new connector road, and the relocated westbound Improvements Improvements Change

I-10 exit over Van Buren Street. Carbon 379,470 149,959 -60.5 Monoxide

Volatile Organic 42,156 18,631 -55.8 Compounds Nitrogen Oxides 18,912 22,673 19.9* Carbon Dioxide 3,622,016 449,433 -87.6

SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip (averaged over construction period and project life) No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change Peak Period 19.6 2.5 -87.3 Delay

SAVING FUEL Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 325,393,128 Percentage Reduction 87.6%

Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 74.0

SAVING LIVES Fewer Total Crashes 4,236 Fewer Fatalities 17 Injury Reduction 2,080

Summary Once proposed improvements 101 2 to the I-405 corridor are 101 134 134 210 completed, residents of Los 134 Pasadena 5B Angeles will realize gains in

110 safety, air quality and overall 5

27 quality of life. 101 LOS ANGELES Wilmar 405 2 10 Over the 20-year life of the 10 planned improvements, there 1 Santa Monica 10 60 5 19

72 will be 6,061 fewer crashes 110 605 1 405

(including 24 fewer fatalities 90 710 5 and 2,976 fewer injuries), a 1 Inglewood 42 42 54 percent decrease in smog- causing volatile organic VITAL STATISTICS compounds, and an 80 percent decrease in CO2 emissions. In addition, motorists and truckers I-405 at the I-10 Interchange traveling through the interchange during morning Annual Delay: 22,792,000 hours or evening rush hours will shave 20 minutes off 2002 2025 their driving time each trip. For commuters, who (estimated) typically negotiate the interchange twice each Vehicles Per Day 296,000 410,190 day, nearly 40 minutes of commuting time will Peak Period Delay 15.8 35.8 (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) be saved daily. In addition, 87.6 gallons of fuel Annual Traffic 1.43% per commuter will be saved over the life of the Growth project. These figures include the effect of a three-year Bottleneck Description reconstruction phase, during which it is assumed I-405, also known as the San Diego Freeway, that available highway capacity is reduced by 20 connects to I-5 both north and south of Los percent every day. In reality, state transportation Angeles, and is a major access route for the coastal departments endeavor to keep all lanes open communities in the Los Angeles area. through reconstruction zones as much as possible. I-10 intersects with I-405 only a few miles from its western terminus in Santa Monica. The University of California at Los Angeles and Los Angeles International Airport are in close proximity to the interchange. The California Despartment of Transportation (Caltrans) District 7 estimates that the 11-mile segment of I-405 between I-10 and US- 101 experiences congestion for almost five hours every weekday afternoon.

28 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 29 Proposed Improvements Benefits of Improvements 2004-2026 Caltrans plans to construct High Occupancy Allowing for a three-year construction period and a 20-year Vehicle (HOV) lanes in both directions near the I-10 project life, bringing the I-405 (San Diego Fwy) at the I-10 interchange. interchange up to level of service D would significantly Northbound HOV: The Sepulveda Pass Project will reduce congestion, thereby smoothing the flow of traffic create a northbound HOV lane on Interstate 405 and: between National Boulevard (just south of Interstate 10) and Greenleaf Street (just south of US-101). All SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) work on the project has been suspended. New dates No With Percentage for circulation of the environmental document and Improvements Improvements Change the projected start of construction are not known Carbon 590,858 245,770 -58.4 Monoxide at this time. The project was part of former Gov. Volatile Organic 64,137 29,510 -54.0 Gray Davis’s traffic Congestion Relief Program - a Compounds $5.3 billion effort to invest in the state’s highway Nitrogen Oxides 25,348 27,560 8.7* system. Carbon Dioxide 6,192,857 1,260,529 -79.6 Southbound HOV: On Feb. 22, 2002, California SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip officially opened a new, $20.5 million HOV lane in (averaged over construction period and project life) Los Angeles County – the 7.8-mile southbound I- No With Percentage 405 lane between the 101 and Waterford Street. The Improvements Improvements Change next southbound segment to be constructed begins Peak Period 25.1 5.6 -77.6 Delay at Waterford Street and concludes at Interstate 10. The use of additional HOV lanes as a strategy to SAVING FUEL reduce congestion throughout the entire I-405 Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 505,879,796 corridor is noteworthy. The major interchanges Percentage Reduction 79.6%

are closely spaced and are already constructed Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 87.6 to very high design standards. This means that making design improvements to one would be very SAVING LIVES expensive, as it would involve massive additional Fewer Total Crashes 6,061 structures. Such improvements may just deliver Fewer Fatalities 24 additional traffic downstream to the next bottleneck. Injury Reduction 2,976 Thus, the use of a corridor-wide treatment like HOV lanes makes sense in this particular case. * Emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds decrease as speed increases up to 55 mph, and increase very slightly between 55 and 65 mph. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, however, decrease as speed increases up to approximately 20 mph, hold steady between 30 and 45 mph, and then increase sharply above 45 mph. Therefore, when a transportation improvement leads to increases in vehicle speeds, it is possible to decrease levels of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds while increasing emissions of nitrogen oxides. Transportation analysts have dubbed this phenomenon “The NOX Dilemma,” and it is evident in the improvements studied in this report. The relationship between levels of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the formation of ground-level ozone (also known as “smog”) is complex. However, because the improvements studied also show dramatic decreases in volatile organic compounds, overall smog levels are expected to improve.

Summary

If needed improvements to Bethesda 285 85 the I-75 and I-85 interchange 360 75 285 Chamblee

were implemented, Atlanta Smyrna 141 29 5 North Atlanta 280 residents would realize 285 19 significant gains in safety, air 75 Buckhead 85 quality and overall quality of 236 140 78 13 life. The Georgia Department Stone Mountain 278 280 139 10 6 42 285 of Transportation (DOT) 75/85 Decatur 20 recognizes the severity of ATLANTA 155 139 traffic congestion problems 154 154 260 20 on these two major freeways, 154 278 75/85 42 but no specific improvements 154 are scheduled for the I-75/ I-85 interchange at this time. Consequently, for VITAL STATISTICS purposes of this report, we analyzed the benefits I-75 at the I-85 Interchange to be gained if improvements were made to bring the interchange up to a minimum acceptable level Annual Delay: 21,045,000 hours 2002 2025 of traffic flow (technically dubbed “level of service (estimated) D” by traffic engineers) in the year 2007. Vehicles Per Day 259,128 510,076 Level of service is a concept that traffic engineers Peak Period Delay 16.7 48.2 (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) have devised to describe how well highway Annual Traffic 2.99% facilities operate. Six levels of service categories Growth are used: A, B, C, D, E and F. In layman’s terms, they roughly correspond to the letter grades used For the purposes of this analysis, we have not in education. On freeways, level of service A is attempted to identify a specific combination of characterized by free-flow conditions with high improvements that would ease congestion at vehicle speeds and wide spaces between vehicles. the interchange. Such decisions are properly As level of service goes from B to D, speeds stay made at the state and local levels, reflecting high, but vehicle spacing decreases. The physical the wishes and concerns of the general public, capacity of the roadway is reached at level of budgetary priorities, and applicable legal and service E; at this level the highest traffic flows regulatory requirements. We have assumed that a are observed and speeds start to fall off sharply. combination of improvements could achieve level Level of service F is stop-and-go traffic. Highway of service D operations, and we have analyzed the designers typically set a goal of level of service C benefits to be gained from such improvements. or D for traffic in future years. Over the 20-year life of the improvements, there Better operations at this interchange might be would be 7,187 fewer crashes (including 29 achieved through a combination of improvements, fewer fatalities and 3,529 fewer injuries), a 58 including a redesigned interchange to alleviate percent decrease in smog-causing volatile organic weaving caused by through traffic mixing with compounds, and a 78 percent decrease in CO2 other traffic entering and exiting the highway; emissions. In addition, motorists and truckers operational controls, such as traffic lights on entry traveling through the interchange during morning ramps, to smooth the flow of merging traffic; or evening rush hours would shave 30 minutes the addition of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) off their driving time each trip. For commuters, lanes; corridor access for bus or rail transit; and who typically negotiate the interchange twice a flexible work hours at major employment centers day, over one hour of commuting time would be in the corridor. saved each day. In addition, 140 gallons of fuel

30 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 31 Benefits of Improvements per commuter would be saved over the life of the 2004-2026 project. Allowing for a three-year construction period and a 20-year project life, bringing the I-75 at the I-85 interchange up to These delay numbers include the effect of a level of service D would significantly reduce congestion, three-year reconstruction phase, during which thereby smoothing the flow of traffic and: it is assumed that available highway capacity is reduced by 20 percent every day. In reality, state

transportation departments endeavor to keep all SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) lanes open through reconstruction zones as much No With Percentage as possible. Improvements Improvements Change

Carbon 898,077 340,317 -62.1 Bottleneck Description Monoxide

Volatile Organic 93,205 39,634 -57.5 I-75 and I-85 intersect about three miles north of Compounds downtown Atlanta. This stretch, commonly referred Nitrogen Oxides 28,976 27,870 -3.8 to as the Downtown Connector, passes through Carbon Dioxide 10,910,015 2,377,541 -78.2 midtown and downtown Atlanta in a north/south direction. It is the overlap of I-75, which connects SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip the region to Michigan to the north and Florida (averaged over construction period and project life) to the south, and I-85, which connects the region No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change to Alabama to the southwest and Virginia to the Peak Period 39.6 9.6 -75.8 northeast. The section of I-75/I-85 just south of the Delay interchange is the third highest volume highway in the country, experiencing 340,000 vehicles per day. SAVING FUEL According to the Atlanta Regional Commission’s Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 875,125,552 2025 Regional Transportation Plan: Percentage Reduction 78.2% Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 140.0 [the I-75/85] corridor was identified as being a congested corridor in the Atlanta SAVING LIVES Regional Congestion Management System Fewer Total Crashes 7,187 (1999 Update). The portions of I-75 and I- Fewer Fatalities 29 85 within I-285 on both the north and south Injury Reduction 3,529 are also Congestion Management System (CMS) corridors. Since the I-75/85 corridor already has full Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) implementation and HOV lanes and would be extremely difficult to widen, the CMS report does not identify any recommended strategies for the corridor. Solutions to congestion on I-75/85 will need to be identified and implemented on a regional basis.

Summary If needed improvements to the North Bethesda I-495/I-270 interchange were 270 29 95 355 implemented, residents of the 193 Washington, DC metropolitan 270 270 495 area would realize significant 495 gains in safety, air quality 495 355 and overall quality of life. 410 1 The Maryland State Highway Silver Spring 495 Bethesda 193 Administration has been 190 D College Park N A L C studying the entire I-495 Y D 410 R A corridor within Maryland. M Part of the study determined that variable toll pricing should be considered. The project is in the early VITAL STATISTICS stages and would convert one existing lane and I-495 at the I-270 Interchange an additional lane on I-495 into variable toll lanes. However, it is currently not funded. Annual Delay: 19,492,000 hours 2002 2025 For this study, it was assumed that no specific (estimated) improvements to the I-495/I-270 interchange are Vehicles Per Day 243,425 382,230 planned for the next five years. Still, the location Peak Period Delay 16.4 48.2 (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) remains a high priority, and the Maryland State Annual Traffic 1.98% Highway Administration recognizes that future Growth physical improvements may be required. For the purposes of this report, we analyzed the benefits Better operations at this interchange might be to be gained if improvements were made to bring achieved through a combination of improvements the interchange up to a minimum acceptable level including a redesigned interchange to alleviate of traffic flow (technically dubbed “level of service weaving caused by through traffic mixing with D” by traffic engineers) in the year 2007. other traffic entering and exiting the highway; Level of service is a concept that traffic engineers operational controls, such as traffic lights on entry have devised to describe how well highway ramps, to smooth the flow of merging traffic; facilities operate. Six levels of service categories the addition of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) are used: A, B, C, D, E and F. In layman’s terms, lanes; corridor access for bus or rail transit; and they roughly correspond to the letter grades used flexible work hours at major employment centers in education. On freeways, level of service A is in the corridor. characterized by free-flow conditions with high For the purposes of this analysis, we have not vehicle speeds and wide spaces between vehicles. attempted to identify a specific combination of As level of service goes from B to D, speeds stay improvements that would ease congestion at high, but vehicle spacing decreases. The physical the interchange. Such decisions are properly capacity of the roadway is reached at level of made at the state and local levels, reflecting service E; at this level the highest traffic flows the wishes and concerns of the general public, are observed and speeds start to fall off sharply. budgetary priorities, and applicable legal and Level of service F is stop-and-go traffic. Highway regulatory requirements. We have assumed that a designers typically set a goal of level of service C combination of improvements could achieve level or D for traffic in future years. of service D operations, and we have analyzed the benefits to be gained from such improvements.

32 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 33 Benefits of Improvements Over the 20-year life of the improvements, there 2004-2026 would be 5,942 fewer crashes (including 24 Allowing for a three-year construction period and a 20-year fewer fatalities and 2,918 fewer injuries), a 59 project life, bringing the I-495 at the I-270 interchange up percent decrease in smog-causing volatile organic to level of service D would significantly reduce congestion, thereby smoothing the flow of traffic and: compounds, and an 82 percent decrease in CO2 emissions. In addition, motorists and truckers traveling through the interchange during morning or evening rush hours would shave 26 minutes off SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) their driving time each trip. For commuters, who No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change typically negotiate the interchange twice a day, Carbon 639,846 233,984 -63.4 more than 50 minutes of commuting time would Monoxide

be saved daily. In addition, 121.2 gallons of fuel Volatile Organic 67,540 27,853 -58.8 per commuter would be saved over the life of the Compounds project. Nitrogen Oxides 23,144 23,642 2.2* Carbon Dioxide 7,377,028 1,333,213 -81.9 These figures include the effect of a three-year reconstruction phase, during which it is assumed SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip that available highway capacity is reduced by 20 (averaged over construction period and project life) percent every day. In reality, state transportation No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change departments endeavor to keep all lanes open Peak Period 32.9 6.7 -79.6 through reconstruction zones as much as possible. Delay Bottleneck Description SAVING FUEL I-495, the Capital Beltway, is the beltway for the Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 619,878,414 Washington, DC area, crossing through both Percentage Reduction 81.9%

Maryland and Virginia. I-270 terminates where Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 121.2 it meets I-495 and runs northwest to Frederick, Maryland. It is a major commuter corridor that SAVING LIVES has experienced—and is expected to continue Fewer Total Crashes 5,942 experiencing—rapid growth. I-270 has two Fewer Fatalities 24 “branches” where it intersects with I-495; the western Injury Reduction 2,918 branch is the I-270 spur, which connects with I-495 more than two miles from the main interchange * Emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds decrease as of I-495 and I-270. Even with this bifurcation, speed increases up to 55 mph, and increase very slightly between 55 and 65 mph. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, however, decrease as speed increases up to traffic volumes at the I-495/I-270 interchange are approximately 20 mph, hold steady between 30 and 45 mph, and then increase extremely high. The problem is compounded by the sharply above 45 mph. Therefore, when a transportation improvement leads to increases in vehicle speeds, it is possible to decrease levels of carbon monoxide nearby interchange of Wisconsin Avenue (SR-355). and volatile organic compounds while increasing emissions of nitrogen oxides. Transportation analysts have dubbed this phenomenon “The NOX Dilemma,” and it is evident in the improvements studied in this report. The relationship between levels of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the formation of ground-level ozone (also known as “smog”) is complex. However, because the improvements studied also show dramatic decreases in volatile organic compounds, overall smog levels are expected to improve.

Summary If needed improvements 101 2 to the I-10/I-5 interchange 101 134 134 210 were implemented, Los 134 Pasadena 5B Angeles residents would

110 realize significant gains in 5

27 safety, air quality, and overall 101 LOS ANGELES Wilmar 405 2 10

quality of life. The most 10 recent federal Transportation 1 Santa Monica 10 60 Improvement Program 5 19 72 110 605 in Southern California 1 405

90 recognizes this interchange as 710 5 1 Inglewood a congestion area. However, 42 42 it does not identify specific improvements to be undertaken. VITAL STATISTICS As with many freeways in Los Angeles, it is I-10 at the I-5 Interchange difficult to distinguish a dominating physical Annual Delay: 18,606,000 hours bottleneck. Long stretches of highway operate 2002 2025 at similar levels of service (usually poor) during (estimated) peak periods. For that reason, corridor- or Vehicles Per Day 318,000 379,909 area-wide strategies, including the addition of Peak Period Delay 12.0 20.5 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, transit (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) improvements, traffic lights on freeway entrance Annual Traffic 0.776% Growth ramps, and real-time traveler information systems are employed to address congestion. Such in education. On freeways, level of service A is strategies, combined with the reconfiguration of characterized by free-flow conditions with high the I-10/I-5 interchange, may work to improve vehicle speeds and wide spaces between vehicles. traffic flow at this site. As level of service goes from B to D, speeds stay The California Department of Transportation high, but vehicle spacing decreases. The physical (Caltrans) is currently studying alternatives to capacity of the roadway is reached at level of widen the existing six lane I-5 corridor by adding service E; at this level the highest traffic flows HOV lanes, and/or general purpose lanes, from are observed and speeds start to fall off sharply. just south of the I-5/I-10 interchange to SR-91. Level of service F is stop-and-go traffic. Highway designers typically set a goal of level of service C For this report, no specific improvements or D for traffic in future years. to the interchange are assumed at this time. However, we analyzed the benefits to be For the purposes of this analysis, we have not gained if improvements were made to bring the attempted to identify a specific combination of interchange up to a minimum acceptable level of improvements that would ease congestion at traffic flow (technically dubbed “level of service the interchange. Those decisions are properly D” by traffic engineers) in the year 2007. made at the state and local level, reflecting the wishes and concerns of the general public, Level of service is a concept that traffic engineers budgetary priorities, and applicable legal and have devised to describe how well highway regulatory requirements. We have assumed that a facilities operate. Six levels of service categories combination of improvements could achieve level are used: A, B, C, D, E and F. In layman’s terms, of service D operations, and we have analyzed the they roughly correspond to the letter grades used benefits to be gained from such improvements.

34 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 35 Benefits of Improvements Over the 20-year life of the improvements, there 2004-2026 would be 4,116 fewer crashes (including 16 Allowing for a three-year construction period and a 20-year fewer fatalities and 2,021 fewer injuries), a 46 project life, bringing the I-10 (Santa Monica Fwy) at the percent decrease in smog-causing volatile organic I-5 interchange up to level of service D would significantly reduce congestion, thereby smoothing the flow of traffic compounds, and a 76 percent decrease in CO2 emissions. In addition, motorists and truckers and: traveling through the interchange during morning or evening rush hours would shave 13 minutes SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) off their driving time each trip. For commuters, No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change who typically negotiate the interchange once in Carbon 448,143 223,166 -50.2 the morning and once in the evening, 26 minutes Monoxide of commuting time would be saved each day. In Volatile Organic 50,354 27,110 -46.2 addition, 55.4 gallons of fuel per commuter would Compounds be saved over the life of the project. Nitrogen Oxides 24,224 28,369 17.1* Carbon Dioxide 4,052,541 981,953 -75.8 These figures include the effect of a three-year reconstruction phase, during which it is assumed SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip that available highway capacity is reduced by 20 (averaged over construction period and project life) percent every day. In reality, state transportation No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change departments endeavor to keep all lanes open Peak Period 16.9 4.3 -74.4 through reconstruction zones as much as possible. Delay Bottleneck Description SAVING FUEL The I-10/I-5 interchange is located on the eastern Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 314,932,095 edge of the City of Los Angeles in an area where Percentage Reduction 75.8%

many freeways converge. Dodger Stadium, the Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 55.4 University of Southern California, and the Civic Center are all in close proximity to the interchange. SAVING LIVES Caltrans District 7 estimates that traffic is congested Fewer Total Crashes 4,116 in this area for four hours every weekday Fewer Fatalities 16 afternoon. Injury Reduction 2,021

Summary

La Palma Bingham If needed improvements 5 to the San Diego Freeway/ 19 Anaheim

I-605 interchange were 605 39 57 55

implemented, Orange County 405 residents would realize 5 Orange

Garden Grove 22 significant gains in safety, air 22 22 quality and overall quality of 1 405 Westminster

life. The most recent federal Santa Ana Transportation Improvement 5

Program in Southern 1 405 California recognizes the 55 congestion of this interchange. However, it does not identify specific improvements to be undertaken. VITAL STATISTICS Like many freeways in Los Angeles, it is difficult I-405 at the I-605 Interchange to distinguish a dominating physical bottleneck. Annual Delay: 19,492,000 hours Long stretches of highway operate at similar levels 2002 2025 of service (usually poorly) during peak periods. (estimated) For that reason, corridor- or area-wide strategies, Vehicles Per Day 318,000 356,654 including the addition of High Occupancy Vehicle Peak Period Delay 12.0 17.5 (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) (HOV) lanes, transit improvements, traffic lights Annual Traffic 0.50% on freeway entrance ramps, and real-time traveler Growth information systems are employed to address congestion. Such strategies, combined with the service E; at this level the highest traffic flows reconfiguration of the I-405/I-605 interchange, are observed and speeds start to fall off sharply. may improve traffic flow at this site. Level of service F is stop-and-go traffic. Highway Because no specific improvements to the designers typically set a goal of level of service C interchange have been designed at this time, or D for traffic in future years. however, we analyzed the benefits to be gained For the purposes of this analysis, we have not if improvements were made to bring the attempted to identify a specific combination interchange up to a minimum acceptable level of of improvements that would ease congestion traffic flow (technically dubbed “level of service at the interchange. Such decisions are properly D” by traffic engineers) in the year 2007. made at the state and local level, reflecting Level of service is a concept that traffic engineers the wishes and concerns of the general public, have devised to describe how well highway budgetary priorities, and applicable legal and facilities operate. Six levels of service categories regulatory requirements. We have assumed that a are used: A, B, C, D, E and F. In layman’s terms, combination of improvements could achieve level they roughly correspond to the letter grades used of service D operations, and we have analyzed the in education. On freeways, level of service A is benefits to be gained from such improvements. characterized by free-flow conditions with high Over the 20-year life of the improvements, vehicle speeds and wide spaces between vehicles. there would be 3,590 fewer crashes (including As level of service goes from B to D, speeds stay 14 fewer fatalities and 1,763 fewer injuries), a high, but vehicle spacing decreases. The physical 44 percent decrease in smog-causing volatile capacity of the roadway is reached at level of organic compounds, and a 74 percent decrease in

36 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 37 Benefits of Improvements 2004-2026 CO2 emissions. In addition, motorists and truckers traveling through the interchange during morning Allowing for a three-year construction period and a 20-year or evening rush hours would shave 11 minutes project life, bringing the I-405 (San Diego Fwy) at the I-605 off their driving time each trip. For commuters, interchange up to level of service D would significantly who typically negotiate the interchange twice each reduce congestion, thereby smoothing the flow of traffic day, nearly 22 minutes of commuting time would and: be saved daily. In addition, 48.4 gallons of fuel per commuter would be saved over the life of the SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) project. No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change

These figures include the effect of a three-year Carbon 403,952 211,990 -47.5 reconstruction phase, during which it is assumed Monoxide Volatile Organic 45,795 25,789 -43.7 that available highway capacity is reduced by 20 Compounds percent every day. In reality, state transportation Nitrogen Oxides 23,206 27,886 20.2* departments endeavor to keep all lanes open Carbon Dioxide 3,491,362 907,271 -74.0 through reconstruction zones as much as possible. SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip Bottleneck Description (averaged over construction period and project life) The I-405/I-605 interchange is located just east of No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change the City of Long Beach. The California Department Peak Period 15.2 4.1 -73.0 of Transportation (Caltrans) District 7 estimates Delay traffic is congested in this area for three hours in the morning and four hours every weekday afternoon. SAVING FUEL Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 265,034,995 Percentage Reduction 74%

Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 48.4

SAVING LIVES Fewer Total Crashes 3,590 Fewer Fatalities 14 Injury Reduction 1,763

Summary If needed improvements to Bethesda 285 85 the I-285 and I-85 interchange 360 75 285 Chamblee

were implemented, Atlanta Smyrna 141 29 5 North Atlanta residents would realize 280 285 significant gains in safety, air 19 75 Buckhead 85 quality and overall quality of 236 140

78 13 life. The Georgia Department Stone Mountain 278 280 139 10 of Transportation (DOT) 6 42 285 75/85 Decatur 20 recognizes the severity of ATLANTA 155

139 traffic congestion problems 154 154 260 on these two major freeways, 20 154 278 75/85 42 but no specific improvements 154 are scheduled for the I-285/I- 85 interchange at this time. Consequently, for VITAL STATISTICS purposes of this report, we analyzed the benefits I-285 at the I-85 Interchange to be gained if improvements were made to bring the interchange up to a minimum acceptable level Annual Delay: 17,072,000 hours 2002 2025 of traffic flow (technically dubbed “level of service (estimated) D” by traffic engineers) in the year 2007. Vehicles Per Day 266,000 340,859 Level of service is a concept that traffic engineers Peak Period Delay 13.2 24.6 (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) have devised to describe how well highway Annual Traffic 1.08% facilities operate. Six levels of service categories Growth are used: A, B, C, D, E and F. In layman’s terms, they roughly correspond to the letter grades used corridor. In fact, the Georgia DOT is planning to in education. On freeways, level of service A is add HOV lanes on I-285 between I-75 and I-85. characterized by free-flow conditions with high vehicle speeds and wide spaces between vehicles. For the purposes of this analysis, we have not As level of service goes from B to D, speeds stay attempted to identify a specific combination of high, but vehicle spacing decreases. The physical improvements that would ease congestion at the capacity of the roadway is reached at level of interchange. Such decisions are properly made service E; at this level the highest traffic flows at the state and local levels, reflecting the wishes are observed and speeds start to fall off sharply. and concerns of the general public, budgetary Level of service F is stop-and-go traffic. Highway priorities, and applicable legal and regulatory designers typically set a goal of level of service C requirements. We have assumed that a or D for traffic in future years. combination of improvements could achieve level of service D operations, and we have analyzed the Better operations at this interchange might be benefits to be gained from such improvements. achieved through a combination of improvements including a redesigned interchange to alleviate Over the 20-year life of the improvements, there weaving caused by through traffic mixing with would be 4,178 fewer crashes (including 17 other traffic entering and exiting the highway; fewer fatalities and 2,051 fewer injuries), a 49 operational controls, such as traffic lights on entry percent decrease in smog-causing volatile organic compounds, and a 78 percent decrease in CO ramps, to smooth the flow of merging traffic; the 2 addition of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes; emissions than would otherwise occur at this site corridor access for bus or rail transit; and flexible without the improvements. In addition, motorists work hours at major employment centers in the and truckers traveling through the interchange

38 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 39 Benefits of Improvements during morning or evening rush hours would shave 2004-2026 15 minutes off their driving time each trip. For Allowing for a three-year construction period and a 20- commuters, who typically negotiate the interchange year project life, bringing the I-285 at the I-85 interchange once in the morning and once in the evening, 30 (“Spaghetti Junction”) up to level of service D would minutes of commuting time would be saved each significantly reduce congestion, thereby smoothing the day. In addition, 66.2 gallons of fuel per commuter flow of traffic and: would be saved over the life of the project. SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) These delay numbers include the effect of a No With Percentage three-year reconstruction phase during which Improvements Improvements Change

it is assumed that available highway capacity is Carbon 430,244 199,983 -53.5 reduced by 20 percent every day. In reality, state Monoxide Volatile Organic 47,732 24,208 -49.3 transportation departments endeavor to keep all Compounds lanes open through reconstruction zones as much Nitrogen Oxides 21,324 24,190 13.4* as possible. Carbon Dioxide 4,127,676 928,781 -77.5 Bottleneck Description SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip I-285 and I-85 intersect in De Kalb County about 15 (averaged over construction period and project life) miles northeast of downtown Atlanta. I-85 serves No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change both as a commuter route and as a major intercity Peak Period 19.6 4.8 -75.8 route for the southeastern United States. The area Delay around the interchange has undergone rapid growth during the past decade, and this trend is expected to SAVING FUEL continue. The Georgia DOT maintains an aggressive Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 328,091,755 traffic management program on Atlanta freeways, Percentage Reduction 77.5%

including surveillance, incident management and Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 66.2 traveler information. The numerous ramps and flyovers, along with lesser roads that connect at SAVING LIVES the interchange, have given rise to the nickname Fewer Total Crashes 4,178 “Spaghetti Junction,” and local traffic reporters and Fewer Fatalities 17 travelers refer to it by this nickname. Injury Reduction 2,051

Summary When needed improvements 64 64 64 34 20 41 to the Dan Ryan Expressway 290 Elmhurst 45 43 90/94 83 Maywood are implemented, Chicago Oak Park residents will realize 290 CHICAGO 38 Berwyn significant gains in safety, air 294 41 88 Cicero 34 quality and overall quality of 55

294 43 life. 34 55 90/94 20

Over the 20-year life of the 50

improvements, there will be 83

41 3,167 fewer crashes (including 294 13 fewer fatalities and 1,555 94 90 fewer injuries), a 46 percent decrease in smog-causing volatile organic compounds, and a 75 percent VITAL STATISTICS

decrease in CO2 emissions. In addition, motorists I-94 at the I-90 Split (South) and truckers traveling through the interchange Annual Delay: 16,713,000 hours during morning or evening rush hours will 2002 2025 shave 12 minutes off their driving time each (estimated) trip. For commuters, who typically negotiate the Vehicles Per Day 260,403 292,056 interchange twice each day, nearly 24 minutes of Peak Period Delay 13.2 18.6 (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) commuting time will be saved daily. In addition, Annual Traffic 0.50% 53.0 gallons of fuel will be saved over the life of Growth the project. These figures include the effect of a three-year Bottleneck Description reconstruction phase, during which it is assumed The Dan Ryan is currently the busiest expressway that available highway capacity is reduced by 20 in the Chicago area and also has the highest crash percent every day. In reality, state transportation rate. It was first designed and built from 1961- departments endeavor to keep all lanes open 1963. In 1963, just over 150,000 vehicles traveled through reconstruction zones as much as on this roadway each day. Today traffic has more possible. than doubled to 300,000 vehicles traveling the expressway daily (north of the interchange on the coincident I-90/94).

40 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 41 Benefits of Improvements 2004-2026 Proposed Improvements Allowing for a four-year construction period and a 20-year The Illinois Department of Transportation (ILDOT) project life, bringing the I-94 at the I-90 Skyway Split (south will be reconstructing the Dan Ryan Expressway of Chicago) up to level of service D will significantly reduce beginning in 2004 and continuing through 2007. congestion, thereby smoothing the flow of traffic and: Major improvements to the Dan Ryan include: n All lanes of traffic will be completely SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) reconstructed for improved travel conditions No With Percentage from 31st Street south to I-57. Improvements Improvements Change

n Additional local lane in each direction from Carbon 346,417 175,382 -49.4 Monoxide 47th - 63rd. Volatile Organic 39,040 21,288 -45.5 Compounds n Additional lane in each direction from Nitrogen Oxides 19,086 22,845 19.7* 67th - 95th. Carbon Dioxide 3,088,038 770,529 -75.0 n Full interchange created at 47th Street by adding northbound exit to 47th street and SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip (averaged over construction period and project life) southbound entrance from 47th. No With Percentage n Additional updated highway lighting and Improvements Improvements Change overhead message signs. Peak Period 16.4 4.2 -74.1 Delay n Enhanced sewers to correct drainage problems and reduce flooding on the expressway. SAVING FUEL n Ramps reconfigured to improve traffic Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 237,693,240 merges and reduce weaving in traffic, both Percentage Reduction 75.0% major causes of accidents on the roadway. Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 53.0 The Skyway Interchange (interchange with I- SAVING LIVES 90) has been identified by ILDOT as a major Fewer Total Crashes 3,167 contributor to congestion and crashes due to its Fewer Fatalities 13 outdated construction, and entry and exit lanes. Injury Reduction 1,555 The specific improvements to the interchange are: a) adding a northbound entrance ramp connecting * Emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds decrease as to the express lanes and b) relocating the Skyway’s speed increases up to 55 mph, and increase very slightly between 55 and 65 mph. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, however, decrease as speed increases up to southbound two-lane exit. approximately 20 mph, hold steady between 30 and 45 mph, and then increase sharply above 45 mph. Therefore, when a transportation improvement leads to increases in vehicle speeds, it is possible to decrease levels of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds while increasing emissions of nitrogen oxides. Transportation analysts have dubbed this phenomenon “The NOX Dilemma,” and it is evident in the improvements studied in this report. The relationship between levels of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the formation of ground-level ozone (also known as “smog”) is complex. However, because the improvements studied also show dramatic decreases in volatile organic compounds, overall smog levels are expected to improve.

Summary If needed improvements

to the Black Canyon PHOENIX Freeway (including the I-10)

interchange (“the Stack”) 17 60 51 were implemented, Phoenix 101 residents would realize significant gains in safety, air 10 10 quality and overall quality 202

of life. I-17 north of “the 85 202 Stack” recently underwent a 17 widening construction project (additional lanes were added.) There are also plans to add a viaduct along I-17, about 6 miles long north of the VITAL STATISTICS I-10 southern terminus, which will be decided by I-17 From I-10 to Cactus Road the Maricopa County voters in May 2004. Annual Delay: 16,310,000 hours Because no specific improvements to the 2002 2025 interchange have been designed at this time, (estimated) however, we analyzed the benefits to be gained Vehicles Per Day 208,000 233,283 if improvements were made to bring the Peak Period Delay 16.1 21.5 (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) interchange up to a minimum acceptable level of Annual Traffic 0.50% traffic flow (technically dubbed “level of service Growth D” by traffic engineers) in the year 2007. Level of service is a concept that traffic engineers made at the state and local level, reflecting have devised to describe how well highway the wishes and concerns of the general public, facilities operate. Six levels of service categories budgetary priorities, and applicable legal and are used: A, B, C, D, E and F. In layman’s terms, regulatory requirements. We have assumed that a they roughly correspond to the letter grades used combination of improvements could achieve level in education. On freeways, level of service A is of service D operations, and we have analyzed the characterized by free-flow conditions with high benefits to be gained from such improvements. vehicle speeds and wide spaces between vehicles. Over the 20-year life of the improvements, there As level of service goes from B to D, speeds stay would be 2,989 fewer crashes (including 12 high, but vehicle spacing decreases. The physical fewer fatalities and 1,468 fewer injuries), a 49 capacity of the roadway is reached at level of percent decrease in smog-causing volatile organic service E; at this level the highest traffic flows compounds, and a 77 percent decrease in CO2 are observed and speeds start to fall off sharply. emissions. In addition, motorists and truckers Level of service F is stop-and-go traffic. Highway traveling through the interchange during morning designers typically set a goal of level of service C or evening rush hours would shave 15 minutes or D for traffic in future years. off their driving time each trip. For commuters, For the purposes of this analysis, we have not who typically negotiate the interchange twice attempted to identify a specific combination each day, nearly 30 minutes of commuting time of improvements that would ease congestion would be saved daily. In addition, 63.8 gallons of at the interchange. Such decisions are properly fuel per commuter would be saved over the life of the project.

42 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 43 Phoenix, Arizona I-17 (Black Canyon Fwy) from I-10 Interchange (“the Stack”) to Cactus Rd.

Benefits of Improvements These figures include the effect of a three-year 2004-2026 reconstruction phase, during which it is assumed Allowing for a three-year construction period and a 20-year that available highway capacity is reduced by 20 project life, bringing the I-17 (Black Canyon Fwy) at the I- percent every day. In reality, state transportation 10 interchange (“the Stack”) up to level of service D would departments endeavor to keep all lanes open significantly reduce congestion, thereby smoothing the flow through reconstruction zones as much as possible. of traffic and:

Bottleneck Description SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) Completed in May 1990, “the Stack” consists of four No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change levels, eight ramps, and 347 supporting piers. It is Carbon 306,236 144,016 -53.0 Arizona’s first fully directional, multilevel freeway- Monoxide

to-freeway interchange, and Arizona Highways Volatile Organic 34,065 17,375 -49.0 called it “practical sculpture in concrete.” I-17 Compounds north of “the Stack” has numerous interchanges Nitrogen Oxides 15,404 18,270 18.6* with surface streets that compound the problem. In Carbon Dioxide 2,905,693 676,773 -76.7 fact, the merging problems from these interchanges SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip indicate that there are really a series of bottlenecks (averaged over construction period and project life) in this corridor, with “the Stack” being one of them No With Percentage – and our analysis shows that it is the worst of Improvements Improvements Change these. However, given the nature of the bottleneck Peak Period 19.3 4.7 -75.8 Delay “system,” corridor-wide strategies would probably be the best solution in this particular case. SAVING FUEL Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 228,607,138 Percentage Reduction 76.7%

Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 63.8

SAVING LIVES Fewer Total Crashes 2,989 Fewer Fatalities 12 Injury Reduction 1,468

42 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 43 Los Angeles, California 13 I-5 (Santa Ana Fwy) at the SR-22/SR-57 Interchange (“Orange Crush”)

Summary

La Palma If improvements to the Bingham 5 “Orange Crush” interchange 19 Anaheim were completed, the people 605 39 57 55 of Los Angeles would realize 405 gains in safety, air quality 5 Orange

Garden Grove 22 and overall quality of life. 22

22 The most recent federal 1 405 Westminster Transportation Improvement Santa Ana Program in Southern 5

California recognizes this 1 405 interchange as a congestion 55 area, but it does not identify specific improvements. As with many freeways in Los Angeles, it is VITAL STATISTICS difficult to distinguish a dominating physical US-101 (Ventura Fwy) at I-405 Interchange bottleneck. Long stretches of highway operate Annual Delay: 16,304,000 hours at similar levels of service (usually poor) during 2002 2025 peak periods. For that reason, corridor- or (estimated) area-wide strategies, including the addition of Vehicles Per Day 308,000 443,201 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, transit Peak Period Delay 10.9 28.1 (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) improvements, traffic lights on freeway entrance Annual Traffic 1.59% ramps, and real-time traveler information systems Growth are employed to address congestion. Such strategies, combined with the reconfiguration of high, but vehicle spacing decreases. The physical the “Orange Crush” interchange, may work to capacity of the roadway is reached at level of improve traffic flow at this site. service E; at this level the highest traffic flows However, for this report, no specific are observed and speeds start to fall off sharply. improvements to the interchange are assumed. Level of service F is stop-and-go traffic. Highway Instead we analyzed the benefits to be gained designers typically set a goal of level of service C if improvements were made to bring the or D for traffic in future years. interchange up to a minimum acceptable level of For the purposes of this analysis, we have not traffic flow (technically dubbed “level of service attempted to identify a specific combination of D” by traffic engineers) in the year 2007. improvements that would ease congestion at Level of service is a concept that traffic engineers the interchange. Those decisions are properly have devised to describe how well highway made at the state and local level, reflecting facilities operate. Six levels of service categories the wishes and concerns of the general public, are used: A, B, C, D, E and F. In layman’s terms, budgetary priorities, and applicable legal and they roughly correspond to the letter grades used regulatory requirements. We have assumed that a in education. On freeways, level of service A is combination of improvements could achieve level characterized by free-flow conditions with high of service D operations, and we have analyzed the vehicle speeds and wide spaces between vehicles. benefits to be gained from such improvements. As level of service goes from B to D, speeds stay

44 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 45 Benefits of Improvements 2004-2026 Allowing for a three-year construction period and a 20-year Over the 20-year life of the improvements, there project life, bringing the I-5 (Santa Ana Fwy) at the SR-22/ would be 5,244 fewer crashes (including 21 SR-57 interchange (“Orange Crush”) up to level of service D fewer fatalities and 2,575 fewer injuries), a 49 would significantly reduce congestion, thereby smoothing percent decrease in smog-causing volatile organic the flow of traffic and: compounds, and a 77 percent reduction in CO2 emissions. In addition, motorists and truckers SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) traveling through the interchange during morning No With Percentage or evening rush hours would shave 15 minutes off Improvements Improvements Change

their driving time each trip. For commuters, who Carbon 546,767 254,957 -53.4 typically negotiate the interchange twice a day, 30 Monoxide Volatile Organic 60,422 30,839 -49.0 minutes of commuting time would be saved each Compounds day. In addition, 68.5 gallons of fuel will be saved Nitrogen Oxides 26,490 28,953 9.3* per commuter of the life of the project. Carbon Dioxide 5,329,633 1,226,496 -77.0 These delay numbers include the effect of a SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip three-year reconstruction phase during which (averaged over construction period and project life) it is assumed that available highway capacity is No With Percentage reduced by 20 percent every day. In reality, state Improvements Improvements Change transportation departments endeavor to keep all Peak Period 20.2 5.1 -74.8 Delay lanes open through reconstruction zones as much as possible. SAVING FUEL Bottleneck Description Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 420,834,524 The “Orange Crush” is probably the most complex Percentage Reduction 77.0% interchange in the U.S. It spans two cities (Orange Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 68.5 and Santa Ana) and is 18 lanes at its peak. Despite its advanced design, the California Department of SAVING LIVES Transportation (Caltrans) estimates that congestion Fewer Total Crashes 5,244 occurs for five continuous hours every weekday Fewer Fatalities 21 afternoon. Injury Reduction 2,575

Summary When needed improvements 1 to the I-95/I-195 interchange are completed, Providence

residents will realize 95 Providence significant gains in safety, air 6 quality and overall quality of 195 life. 195A

6 Over the 20-year life ofOl ney theville

improvements, there would be 1 East Providence 3,645 fewer crashes (including

15 fewer fatalities and 1,790 1 fewer injuries), a 35 percent decrease in smog-causing 10 volatile organic compounds, and a 58 percent VITAL STATISTICS

decrease in CO2 emissions. In addition, motorists I-95 at I-195 Interchange and truckers traveling through the interchange Annual Delay: 15,340,000 hours during morning or evening rush hours would 2002 2025 shave nine minutes off their driving time each (estimated) trip. For commuters, who typically negotiate the Vehicles Per Day 256,000 287,117 interchange twice each day, nearly 18 minutes Peak Period Delay 12.3 17.8 (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) of commuting time would be saved daily. In Annual Traffic 0.500% addition, 40.2 gallons of fuel will be saved per Growth commuter over the life of the project. These figures include the effect of an eight-year of the original Washington Street Bridge (built to reconstruction phase, during which it is assumed pre-Interstate standards) in 1968. The current that available highway capacity is reduced by 20 interchange with I-95 was not completed until percent every day. In reality, state transportation the fall of 1964. The proposed improvement to departments endeavor to keep all lanes open I-195 and its interchange with I-95 was chosen to through reconstruction zones as much as minimize disruption to historic places and open space in Providence. It follows an old hurricane possible. barrier constructed in the 1950s. This alignment Bottleneck Description was selected to improve highway safety, reduce I-95 and I-195 currently interchange near impacts on historic districts, facilitate the downtown Providence. I-195 in the project area implementation of the city’s Old Harbor Plan (a is an antiquated freeway originally constructed redevelopment of the waterfront), preserve India in the late 1950s. It has several sharp curves and Point Park, provide improved access to Rhode short entrance/exit ramps, which significantly Island Hospital, and lessen traffic impact during hamper traffic flow and create numerous unsafe construction. traffic conflicts. Like many Interstates in older urban areas, it originally followed existing routes and alignments, which forced compromises in the original Interstate design. This led to replacement

46 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 47 Benefits of Improvements Proprosed Improvements 2004-2031 Allowing for a eight-year construction period and a 20-year The interchange of I-95 and I-195 is being physically project life, bringing the I-95 at the I-195 interchange up to moved to a new location. The proposed improvement level of service C would significantly reduce congestion, includes one mile of brand new highway (I-195) and thereby smoothing the flow of traffic and: 1.5 miles of resurfaced and realigned I-95. A total of 15 new bridges are to be built as part of the project, including numerous ramp bridges and a pedestrian SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) bridge. An Intermodal Transportation Center No With Percentage (bicycles, pedestrians, and commuter boat traffic) is Improvements Improvements Change

also being constructed as part of the project, which Carbon 415,281 257,776 -37.9 Monoxide is expected to be completed in 2011. Volatile Organic 46,863 30,293 -35.4 Compounds Nitrogen Oxides 23,111 29,005 25.5* Carbon Dioxide 3,676,113 1,542,325 -58.0

SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip (averaged over construction period and project life) No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change Peak Period 16.1 7.1 -55.8 Delay

SAVING FUEL Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 218,850,039 Percentage Reduction 58.0%

Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 40.2

SAVING LIVES Fewer Total Crashes 3,645 Fewer Fatalities 15 Injury Reduction 1,790

Summary If needed improvements North Bethesda to the northern I-95/I- 270 29 95 355 495 interchange were 193 implemented, residents of the 270 270 495 Washington, DC metropolitan 495 area would realize significant 495 355 gains in safety, air quality 410 1 and overall quality of life. Silver Spring 495 Bethesda 193 The Maryland State Highway 190 D College Park N A L C Administration has been Y D 410 R A studying the entire I-495 M corridor within Maryland. Part of the study determined that variable toll pricing should be considered. VITAL STATISTICS The project is in the early stages and would I-95 Interchange (MD) at I-495 convert one existing lane and an additional lane on I-495 into variable toll lanes. However, it is Annual Delay: 15,035,000 hours 2002 2025 currently unfunded. (estimated) For the purposes of this report, we analyzed Vehicles Per Day 185,125 285,798 the benefits to be gained if improvements were Peak Period Delay 16.7 48.2 (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) made to bring the interchange up to a minimum Annual Traffic 1.91% acceptable level of traffic flow (technically Growth dubbed “level of service D” by traffic engineers) in the year 2007. including a redesigned interchange to alleviate Level of service is a concept that traffic engineers weaving caused by through traffic mixing with have devised to describe how well highway other traffic entering and exiting the highway; facilities operate. Six levels of service categories operational controls, such as traffic lights on entry are used: A, B, C, D, E and F. In layman’s terms, ramps, to smooth the flow of merging traffic; they roughly correspond to the letter grades used the addition of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) in education. On freeways, level of service A is lanes; corridor access for bus or rail transit; and characterized by free-flow conditions with high flexible work hours at major employment centers vehicle speeds and wide spaces between vehicles. in the corridor. As level of service goes from B to D speeds stay We have not attempted to identify a specific high, but vehicle spacing decreases. The physical combination of improvements that would ease capacity of the roadway is reached at level of congestion at the interchange. Such decisions service E; at this level the highest traffic flows are properly made at the state and local levels, are observed and speeds start to fall off sharply. reflecting the wishes and concerns of the general Level of service F is stop-and-go traffic. Highway public, budgetary priorities, and applicable legal designers typically set a goal of level of service C and regulatory requirements. We have assumed or D for traffic in future years. that a combination of improvements could Better operations at this interchange might be achieve level of service D operations, and we achieved through a combination of improvements have analyzed the benefits to be gained from such improvements.

48 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 49 Benefits of Improvements Over the 20-year life of the improvements, there 2005-2026 would be 4,525 fewer crashes (including 18 Allowing for a three-year construction period and a 20- fewer fatalities and 2,222 fewer injuries), a 59 year project life, bringing the I-495 at the I-95 interchange percent decrease in smog-causing volatile organic (MD) up to level of service D would significantly reduce compounds, and an overwhelming 82 percent congestion, thereby smoothing the flow of traffic and:

decrease in CO2 emissions. In addition, motorists and truckers traveling through the interchange during morning or evening rush hours would shave SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) an enormous 26 minutes off their driving time No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change each trip. For commuters, who typically negotiate Carbon 483,125 175,960 -63.6 the interchange twice a day, over 50 minutes of Monoxide commuting time would be saved daily. In addition, Volatile Organic 50,984 20,928 -59.0 121.7 gallons of fuel will be saved per commuter Compounds over the life of the project. Nitrogen Oxides 17,431 17,878 2.6* Carbon Dioxide 5,575,292 1,005,743 -82.0 These figures include the effect of a three-year reconstruction phase during which it is assumed SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip that available highway capacity is reduced by 20 (averaged over construction period and project life) percent every day. In reality, state transportation No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change departments endeavor to keep all lanes open Peak Period 33.2 6.8 -79.6 through reconstruction zones as much as possible. Delay Bottleneck Description SAVING FUEL I-95 meets the Capital Beltway (I-495) in Virginia Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 468,671,773 and tracks with it eastward into Maryland. At a Percentage Reduction 82.0%

point roughly 180 degrees from where it entered the Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 121.7 beltway, I-95 veers off northward to Baltimore. The coincident section of I-95 and I-495 carries a high- SAVING LIVES volume mix of interstate and commuter traffic. At a Fewer Total Crashes 4,525 point just before I-95 veers off northward, the total Fewer Fatalities 18 number of lanes on the coincident section is reduced Injury Reduction 2,222 from eight to five, leading to extensive congestion. * Emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds decrease as speed increases up to 55 mph, and increase very slightly between 55 and 65 mph. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, however, decrease as speed increases up to approximately 20 mph, hold steady between 30 and 45 mph, and then increase sharply above 45 mph. Therefore, when a transportation improvement leads to increases in vehicle speeds, it is possible to decrease levels of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds while increasing emissions of nitrogen oxides. Transportation analysts have dubbed this phenomenon “The NOX Dilemma,” and it is evident in the improvements studied in this report. The relationship between levels of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the formation of ground-level ozone (also known as “smog”) is complex. However, because the improvements studied also show dramatic decreases in volatile organic compounds, overall smog levels are expected to improve.

Summary When needed improvements to the I-275/I-4 interchange are completed, Tampa residents 574 574 will realize significant gains in 275 TAMPA safety, air quality and overall 685 quality of life. 4 Over the 20-year life of the Ybor City improvements, there will be 569 41 5,264 fewer crashes (including Gary 21 fewer fatalities and 2,585 fewer injuries), a 60 percent 685 decrease in smog-causing Palm River volatile organic compounds, VITAL STATISTICS and an 87 percent decrease in CO2 emissions. In addition, motorists and truckers traveling through I-275 at I-4 Interchange the interchange during morning or evening rush Annual Delay: 14,371,000 hours hours will shave 21 minutes off their driving time 2002 2025 each trip. For commuters, who typically negotiate (estimated) the interchange twice each day, 42 minutes of Vehicles Per Day 201,500 290,736 commuting time will be saved daily. In addition, Peak Period Delay 14.7 39.1 (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) 98.5 gallons of fuel will be saved per commuter Annual Traffic 1.61% over the life of the project. Growth These figures include the effect of a four-year reconstruction phase, during which it is assumed Bottleneck Description that available highway capacity is reduced by 20 The southern terminus of I-4 is at the interchange percent every day. In reality, state transportation with I-275 near downtown Tampa. In 1964, departments endeavor to keep all lanes open the western terminus of I-4 was tentatively set through reconstruction zones as much as at South Pasadena on the Gulf of Mexico after possible. In fact, this is the stated policy of the following an old rail corridor. This routing was Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for rejected. In 1967, the interchange with I-75 (now this project; all existing lanes will be kept open I-275) was constructed, commonly known now during daylight. as “Malfunction Junction.” In 1969, I-75 was extended west along I-4 into St. Petersburg. In 1971, the beginning of I-4 was truncated to “Malfunction Junction” in Tampa. Aside from the widening/rebuilding project in the late 1990’s, I-4 has not changed since.

50 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 51 Benefits of Improvements Proprosed Improvements 2004-2026 Allowing for a three-year construction period and a 20- FDOT is making capacity and safety improvements year project life, bringing the I-275 at the I-4 interchange to the I-275/I-4 interchange. As a result of these (“Malfunction Junction”) up to level of service C will operational improvements, eight new bridges will significantly reduce congestion, thereby smoothing the be constructed, 18 existing bridges will be widened, flow of traffic and: and four lanes in each direction will tie into future projects on each side of this project. The work began SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) in October 2002 and will be completed in Spring No With Percentage 2006. Improvement highlights for the interchange Improvements Improvements Change include: Carbon 419,195 149,443 -64.3 Monoxide n An increase to four-lanes in each direction. Volatile Organic 45,376 18,192 -59.9 Compounds n The Ashley Drive entrance ramp will be Nitrogen Oxides 17,717 22,338 26.1* extended continuing along I-275 to eastbound Carbon Dioxide 4,437,264 573,356 -87.1 I-4. SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip n Downtown trips will be physically separated (averaged over construction period and project life) from through trips by a local auxiliary exit No With Percentage ramp system. Improvements Improvements Change Peak Period 25.6 3.9 -84.6 n The flyover ramp from southbound I-275 to Delay eastbound I-4 will be relocated from the left to the right side of the highway to reduce SAVING FUEL weave movements. Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 396,298,267 All existing travel lanes are being maintained during Percentage Reduction 87.1% the day. Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 98.5 SAVING LIVES Fewer Total Crashes 5,264 Fewer Fatalities 21 Injury Reduction 2,585

Summary

When needed improvements Bethesda 285 85 to the I-285 and I-75 360 75 285 Chamblee

interchange are completed, Smyrna 141 29 5 North Atlanta 280 Atlanta residents will realize 285 19 significant gains in safety, air 75 Buckhead 85 quality, and overall quality of 236 140 78 13 Stone Mountain life. The Georgia Department 278 280 139 10 6 42 285 of Transportation (DOT) 75/85 Decatur 20 recognizes the severity of ATLANTA 155 139 traffic congestion problems on 154 154 260 20 these two major freeways. 154 278 42 154 75/85 Over the 20-year life of the planned improvements, there will be 4,559 fewer crashes (including 18 VITAL STATISTICS fewer fatalities and 2,238 fewer injuries), a 51 I-285 at I-75 Interchange (Northside) percent decrease in smog-causing volatile organic Annual Delay: 14,333,000 hours compounds, and a 78 percent reduction in CO2 2002 2025 emissions. In addition, motorists and truckers (estimated) traveling through the interchange during morning Vehicles Per Day 239,193 348,595 or evening rush hours will shave 17 minutes off Peak Period Delay 12.3 32.1 (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) their driving time each trip. For commuters, who Annual Traffic 1.65% typically negotiate the interchange twice a day, 34 Growth minutes of commuting time will be saved each day. In addition, 78.3 gallons of fuel will be saved Bottleneck Description per commuter over the life of the project. I-285 serves as the beltway for the Atlanta These delay numbers include the effect of a region. It intersects with I-75 about 10 miles three-year reconstruction phase, during which from downtown Atlanta. The I-75 corridor north it is assumed that available highway capacity is of the interchange is heavily developed and reduced by 20 percent every day. In reality, state is expected to continue growing rapidly. The transportation departments endeavor to keep all Georgia DOT maintains an aggressive traffic lanes open through reconstruction zones as much management program on Atlanta freeways, as possible. including surveillance, incident management and traveler information. The roadways are heavily instrumented with traffic sensors and cameras.

52 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 53 Benefits of Improvements Proprosed Improvements 2004-2026 Allowing for a three-year construction period and a 20-year Several near-term and long-term projects are project life, bringing the I-285 at the I-75 interchange up planned for this highly congested corridor. In the to level of service D will significantly reduce congestion, near-term, new flyover ramps from I-75 north and thereby smoothing the flow of traffic and: south to I-285 west are being constructed and are analyzed as part of this study. SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) In the long-term, the following improvements are No With Percentage being planned, but funding is not yet available: Improvements Improvements Change

Carbon 461,267 203,299 -55.9 n I-75: High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes Monoxide from I-285 to Wade Green Road Volatile Organic 50,475 24,509 -51.4 Compounds n I-75: Collector/Distributor system from I-285 Nitrogen Oxides 20,935 22,591 7.9* to Delk Road Carbon Dioxide 4,683,438 1,015,021 -78.3 n I-75/I-285 Interchange: HOV ramps SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip In addition, a fixed guideway system (light rail) (averaged over construction period and project life) is being planned for the corridor. It will run from No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change midtown Atlanta to the Cumberland Mall area in Peak Period 22.6 5.4 -76.1 Cobb County. Delay For this study, we have estimated the benefits of only the near-term improvement projects. SAVING FUEL Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 376,247,834 Percentage Reduction 78.3%

Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 78.3

SAVING LIVES Fewer Total Crashes 4,559 Fewer Fatalities 18 Injury Reduction 2,238

Summary

If traffic operations at the 5 I-5/I-90 interchange or in the corridor were improved, 520 Seattle residents would 513 undoubtedly realize benefits 405 99 in terms of safety, air quality, SEATTLE Bellevue and time savings. Currently,

the Washington State 900 Department of Transportation 90 (WSDOT) doesn’t have any

formal plans for the I-5/I- Mercer Island Newport 90 interchange. However, WSDOT conducted an I-5 Operations Study in July 2003 which identified a VITAL STATISTICS potential operational improvement – concluding I-5 at I-90 Interchange that it needs further study. The study identified two operational improvement concepts for the I- Annual Delay: 14,306,000 hours 2002 2025 5/I-90 interchange area: (estimated) n Provide a westbound I-90 connection to Vehicles Per Day: 301,112 502,135 northbound I-5 on the right side of the Peak Period Delay: 9.8 48.2 (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) mainline Annual Traffic 2.25% n Modify the westbound I-90 to northbound Growth I-5 connection to the left side of the frontage roadway. decreases. The physical capacity of the roadway is reached at level of service E; at this level the WSDOT will be conducting an environmental highest traffic flows are observed and speeds start impact study looking at I-5 improvements through to fall off sharply. Level of service F is stop-and-go the Seattle area over the next couple of years traffic. Highway designers typically set a goal of (to be completed in June 2007). The operational level of service C or D for traffic in future years. improvements in the 2003 I-5 Operations Study will be considered. Better operations at this interchange might be achieved through a combination of improvements For the purposes of this report, we analyzed including a redesigned interchange to alleviate the benefits to be gained if improvements were weaving caused by through traffic mixing with made to bring the interchange up to a minimum other traffic entering and exiting the highway; acceptable level of traffic flow (technically operational controls, such as traffic lights on entry dubbed “level of service D” by traffic engineers) ramps, to smooth the flow of merging traffic; in the year 2007. Level of service is a concept the addition of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) that traffic engineers have devised to describe lanes; corridor access for bus or rail transit; and how well highway facilities operate. Six levels flexible work hours at major employment centers of service categories are used: A, B, C, D, E and in the corridor. F. In layman’s terms, they roughly correspond to the letter grades used in education. On freeways, We have not attempted to identify a specific level of service A is characterized by free-flow combination of improvements that would ease conditions with high vehicle speeds and wide congestion at the interchange. Such decisions spaces between vehicles. As level of service goes are properly made at the state and local levels, from B to D, speeds stay high, but vehicle spacing reflecting the wishes and concerns of the general public, budgetary priorities, and applicable legal

54 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 55 Benefits of Improvements and regulatory requirements. We have assumed that 2004-2026 a combination of improvements could achieve level Allowing for a three-year construction period and a 20- of service D operations, and we have analyzed the year project life, bringing the I-5 at the I-90 interchange in benefits to be gained from such improvements. Seattle up to level of service D would significantly reduce congestion, thereby smoothing the flow of traffic and: Over the 20-year life of the improvements, there would be 6,278 fewer crashes (including 25

fewer fatalities and 3,082 fewer injuries), a 53 SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) percent decrease in smog-causing volatile organic No With Percentage compounds, and an overwhelming 78 percent Improvements Improvements Change Carbon decrease in CO2 emissions. In addition, motorists 690,560 295,228 -57.2 and truckers traveling through the interchange Monoxide Volatile Organic 74,477 35,397 -52.5 during morning or evening rush hours would shave Compounds an enormous 19 minutes off their driving time Nitrogen Oxides 28,916 29,840 3.2* each trip. For commuters, who typically negotiate Carbon Dioxide 7,390,287 1,604,222 -78.3 the interchange twice a day, almost 40 minutes of commuting time would be saved daily. In addition, SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip 90.4 gallons of fuel will be saved per commuter over (averaged over construction period and project life) the life of the project. No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change These figures include the effect of a three-year Peak Period 25.4 6.1 -75.9 Delay reconstruction phase during which it is assumed that available highway capacity is reduced by 20 percent every day. In reality, state transportation SAVING FUEL departments endeavor to keep all lanes open Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 593,442,582 through reconstruction zones as much as possible. Percentage Reduction 78.3% Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 90.4 Bottleneck Description I-5 and I-90 intersect less than two miles from SAVING LIVES downtown Seattle. The junction is the western Fewer Total Crashes 6,278 terminus of I-90, one of the nation’s major east- Fewer Fatalities 25 west Interstates. Lake Washington limits access to Injury Reduction 3,082 downtown Seattle from the eastern suburbs, and I- * Emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds decrease as 90 is one of only two crossings providing this access. speed increases up to 55 mph, and increase very slightly between 55 and 65 (SR-520 is the other crossing.) The entire I-5 corridor mph. Emissions of nitrogen oxides, however, decrease as speed increases up to south of downtown Seattle is routinely congested approximately 20 mph, hold steady between 30 and 45 mph, and then increase sharply above 45 mph. Therefore, when a transportation improvement leads to in morning and afternoon peak hours. Potential increases in vehicle speeds, it is possible to decrease levels of carbon monoxide improvements at the I-5/I-90 interchange and in and volatile organic compounds while increasing emissions of nitrogen oxides. Transportation analysts have dubbed this phenomenon “The NOX Dilemma,” the I-5 corridor on either side are constrained by and it is evident in the improvements studied in this report. The relationship physical and topographic limitations. between levels of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the formation of ground-level ozone (also known as “smog”) is complex. However, The interchange is elevated, and physical because the improvements studied also show dramatic decreases in volatile expansion of the ramps and through lanes would organic compounds, overall smog levels are expected to improve. be very expensive. To deal with this dysfunctional interchange and with the rest of the corridor, WSDOT has already instituted aggressive transportation system management techniques in the corridor, including HOV lanes, ramp metering, and incident management.

Summary If needed improvements to 64 64 64 34 the Eisenhower Expressway 20 41 Elmhurst 290 45 43 90/94 were implemented, Chicago 83 Maywood Oak Park residents would realize 290 CHICAGO 38 Berwyn significant gains in safety, air 294 41 88 Cicero 34 quality, and overall quality 55

of life. 294 43 34 55 90/94 Like many freeways in very 20 50 large metropolitan areas, 83

it is difficult to distinguish 41 294

a dominating physical 94 90 bottleneck. Long stretches of highway operate at similar levels of service (usually poorly) during VITAL STATISTICS peak periods. For that reason, corridor- or I-290 Between Exits 17b and 23a area-wide strategies, including the addition of Annual Delay: 14,009,000 hours High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, transit 2002 2025 improvements, traffic lights on freeway entrance (estimated) ramps, and real-time traveler information Vehicles Per Day 200,411 224,805 systems are employed to address congestion. Peak Period Delay 14.4 19.2 (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) Such strategies, combined with the physical Annual Traffic 0.500% reconstruction of the roadway and interchanges, Growth may improve traffic flow at this site. Because no specific improvements to the Level of service F is stop-and-go traffic. Highway interchange have been designed at this time, designers typically set a goal of level of service C however, we analyzed the benefits to be gained or D for traffic in future years. if improvements were made to bring the For the purposes of this analysis, we have not interchange up to a minimum acceptable level of attempted to identify a specific combination of traffic flow (technically dubbed “level of service improvements that would ease congestion at D” by traffic engineers) in the year 2007. the interchange. Such decisions are properly Level of service is a concept that traffic engineers made at the state and local level, reflecting have devised to describe how well highway the wishes and concerns of the general public, facilities operate. Six levels of service categories budgetary priorities, and applicable legal and are used: A, B, C, D, E and F. In layman’s terms, regulatory requirements. We have assumed that a they roughly correspond to the letter grades used combination of improvements could achieve level in education. On freeways, level of service A is of service D operations, and we have analyzed the characterized by free-flow conditions with high benefits to be gained from such improvements. vehicle speeds and wide spaces between vehicles. Over the 20-year life of the improvements, As level of service goes from B to D, speeds stay there would be 2,614 fewer crashes (including high, but vehicle spacing decreases. The physical 10 fewer fatalities and 1,283 fewer injuries), a capacity of the roadway is reached at level of 47 percent decrease in smog-causing volatile service E; at this level the highest traffic flows organic compounds, and a 76 percent decrease in are observed and speeds start to fall off sharply.

56 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 57 Benefits of Improvements 2004-2026 CO2 emissions. In addition, motorists and truckers traveling through the interchange during morning Allowing for a three-year construction period and a 20- or evening rush hours would shave 13 minutes off year project life, bringing the I-290 (Eisenhower Expwy) their driving time each trip. For commuters, who between Exits 17b and 23a up to level of service D would typically negotiate the interchange twice each day, significantly reduce congestion, thereby smoothing the flow 26 minutes of commuting time would be saved of traffic and: daily. In addition, 57.4 gallons of fuel will be saved per commuter over the life of the project. SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) No With Percentage These figures include the effect of a three-year Improvements Improvements Change

reconstruction phase, during which it is assumed Carbon 278,345 136,407 -51.0 that available highway capacity is reduced by 20 Monoxide Volatile Organic 31,196 16,520 -47.0 percent every day. In reality, state transportation Compounds departments endeavor to keep all lanes open Nitrogen Oxides 14,753 17,593 19.2* through reconstruction zones as much as possible. Carbon Dioxide 2,549,849 614,987 -75.9 Bottleneck Description SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip Unlike the remainder of the top 24 worst bottlenecks (averaged over construction period and project life) in the country, the cause of traffic problems on No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change the Eisenhower Expressway cannot be traced to Peak Period 17.6 4.4 -74.9 a single, dominant interchange. Rather, a series Delay of interchanges with surface streets combined with extremely heavy and consistent traffic SAVING FUEL volumes through the corridor make for a series Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 198,447,356 of moderate bottlenecks rather than a single large Percentage Reduction 75.9%

one. Compounding the problem is the location of Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 57.4 the infamous “Hillside Strangler” (I-88/I-290/I-294 interchange) about two miles west of the section. For SAVING LIVES the purpose of analysis, we have picked the worst Fewer Total Crashes 2,614 of the roadway sections between the interchanges, Fewer Fatalities 10 which is at about the midway point. Injury Reduction 1,283

Summary 261

If needed improvements 290 to the Gulf Freeway/ 45

US-59 interchange were 610 610 90 implemented, Houston residents would realize 59 10 significant gains in safety, air 10 10 quality and overall quality Jacinto City of life. However, other 610 than a planning study, no Galena Park improvements are currently 45 planned at the interchange. 59 90 The Houston-Galveston Area HOUSTON 225 610 Council (H-GAC), the Texas Bellaire Department of Transportation (TxDOT), and the VITAL STATISTICS Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County I-45 (Gulf Fwy) at US-59 Interchange (METRO) have joined together to conduct a Planning Study to determine future mobility Annual Delay: 13,944,000 hours 2002 2025 improvements for the North-Hardy Corridor. The (estimated) North-Hardy Corridor stretches approximately 30 Vehicles Per Day 250,299 418,801 miles from downtown Houston to the Woodlands Peak Period Delay 11.4 48.2 in Montgomery County, along and between I-45 (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) north and the Hardy Toll Road. Annual Traffic 2.26% Growth Because no specific improvements to the interchange have been designed at this time, Level of service F is stop-and-go traffic. Highway however, we analyzed the benefits to be gained designers typically set a goal of level of service C if improvements were made to bring the or D for traffic in future years. interchange up to a minimum acceptable level of traffic flow (technically dubbed “level of service For the purposes of this analysis, we have not D” by traffic engineers) in the year 2007. attempted to identify a specific combination of improvements that would ease congestion at Level of service is a concept that traffic engineers the interchange. Such decisions are properly have devised to describe how well highway made at the state and local level, reflecting facilities operate. Six levels of service categories the wishes and concerns of the general public, are used: A, B, C, D, E and F. Inlay man’s terms, budgetary priorities, and applicable legal and they roughly correspond to the letter grades used regulatory requirements. We have assumed that a in education. On freeways, level of service A is combination of improvements could achieve level characterized by free-flow conditions with high of service D operations, and we have analyzed the vehicle speeds and wide spaces between vehicles. benefits to be gained from such improvements. As level of service goes from B to D, speeds stay high, but vehicle spacing decreases. The physical Over the 20-year life of the improvements, capacity of the roadway is reached at level of there would be 5,615 fewer crashes (including service E; at this level the highest traffic flows 22 fewer fatalities and 2,757 fewer injuries), a are observed and speeds start to fall off sharply. 55 percent decrease in smog-causing volatile

58 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 59 Benefits of Improvements organic compounds, and an 80 percent decrease in 2004-2026 Allowing for a three-year construction period and a 20-year CO2 emissions. In addition, motorists and truckers traveling through the interchange during morning project life, bringing the I-45 (Gulf Freeway) at the US-59 or evening rush hours would shave 22 minutes off interchange up to level of service D would significantly their driving time each trip. For commuters, who reduce congestion, thereby smoothing the flow of traffic typically negotiate the interchange twice each day, and: nearly 45 minutes of commuting time would be saved daily. In addition, 103.2 gallons of fuel will be SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) saved per commuter over the life of the project. No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change

These figures include the effect of a three-year Carbon 620,968 249,262 -59.9 reconstruction phase, during which it is assumed Monoxide Volatile Organic 66,305 29,808 -55.0 that available highway capacity is reduced by 20 Compounds percent every day. In reality, state transportation Nitrogen Oxides 24,370 24,854 2.0* departments endeavor to keep all lanes open Carbon Dioxide 6,885,572 1,386,776 -79.9 through reconstruction zones as much as possible. SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip Bottleneck Description (averaged over construction period and project life) The I-45/US-59 interchange is located near the No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change heart of downtown Houston. The Gulf Freeway Peak Period 28.4 6.4 -77.5 was Houston’s first freeway and was built in 1948 Delay prior to the inception of the Interstate system. The interchange is not “fully directional” in that it has SAVING FUEL several left-hand exits that handle both left and Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 563,979,075 right turning movements. I-45 runs northwest to Percentage Reduction 79.9%

Dallas and southeast to the port of Galveston. US-59 Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 103.2 runs southwest to Laredo; it also runs through the southwest suburbs of Houston, a rapidly growing SAVING LIVES part of the region. Fewer Total Crashes 5,615 Fewer Fatalities 22 Injury Reduction 2,757

Summary

If needed improvements to 101 880 the US-101/I-880 interchange were implemented, San 680 Jose residents would realize 130 101 significant gains in safety, Santa Clara

air quality, and overall 82 87 quality of life. No specific 880 improvement has been identified for this interchange. 82 San Jose However, corridor- or area- 280 wide strategies, including the addition of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, transit improvements, traffic lights on freeway entrance VITAL STATISTICS ramps, and real-time traveler information systems US-101 at I-880 Interchange could be employed to address congestion. Such strategies, combined with the reconfiguration Annual Delay: 12,249,000 hours 2002 2025 of the US-101/I-880 interchange, may improve (estimated) traffic flow at this site. Vehicles Per Day 244,000 481,555 Because no specific improvements to the Peak Period Delay 10.3 48.2 (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) interchange have been designed at this time, Annual Traffic 3.00% however, we analyzed the benefits to be gained Growth if improvements were made to bring the interchange up to a minimum acceptable level of For the purposes of this analysis, we have not traffic flow (technically dubbed “level of service attempted to identify a specific combination of D” by traffic engineers) in the year 2007. improvements that would ease congestion at Level of service is a concept that traffic engineers the interchange. Such decisions are properly have devised to describe how well highway made at the state and local level, reflecting facilities operate. Six levels of service categories the wishes and concerns of the general public, are used: A, B, C, D, E and F. In layman’s terms, budgetary priorities, and applicable legal and they roughly correspond to the letter grades used regulatory requirements. We have assumed that a in education. On freeways, level of service A is combination of improvements could achieve level characterized by free-flow conditions with high of service D operations, and we have analyzed the vehicle speeds and wide spaces between vehicles. benefits to be gained from such improvements. As level of service goes from B to D, speeds stay Over the 20-year life of the improvements, there high, but vehicle spacing decreases. The physical would be 6,019 fewer crashes (including 24 capacity of the roadway is reached at level of fewer fatalities and 2,955 fewer injuries), a 55 service E; at this level the highest traffic flows percent decrease in smog-causing volatile organic are observed and speeds start to fall off sharply. compounds, and a 77 percent decrease in CO2 Level of service F is stop-and-go traffic. Highway emissions. In addition, motorists and truckers designers typically set a goal of level of service C traveling through the interchange during morning or D for traffic in future years. or evening rush hours would shave 24 minutes

60 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 61 off their driving time each trip. For commuters, Benefits of Improvements who typically negotiate the interchange twice each 2004-2026 day, nearly 50 minutes of commuting time would be Allowing for a three-year construction period and a 20-year saved daily. In addition, 117.7 gallons of fuel will be project life, bringing the US-101 at the I-880 Interchange up saved per commuter over the life of the project. to level of service D would significantly reduce congestion, These figures include the effect of a three-year thereby smoothing the flow of traffic and: reconstruction phase, during which it is assumed that available highway capacity is reduced by 20 SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) percent every day. In reality, state transportation departments endeavor to keep all lanes open No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change through reconstruction zones as much as possible. Carbon 749,373 303,151 -59.5 Monoxide Bottleneck Description Volatile Organic 78,833 35,730 -54.7 The US-101/I-880 interchange is located immediately Compounds southeast of the San Jose International Airport. The Nitrogen Oxides 26,762 26,171 2.2* California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Carbon Dioxide 8,723,496 1,955,791 -77.6 estimates traffic is congested in this area for two and SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip a half hours every weekday morning and four hours (averaged over construction period and project life) every weekday afternoon. No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change Peak Period 32.7 8.0 -75.6 Delay

SAVING FUEL Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 694,123,645 Percentage Reduction 77.6%

Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 117.7

SAVING LIVES Fewer Total Crashes 6,019 Fewer Fatalities 24 Injury Reduction 2,955

Summary

When needed improvements Apex to the US-95/I-15 157 interchange are completed, 15 Las Vegas residents will realize significant gains in safety, air quality and 95 93 overall quality of life. LAS VEGAS 147

Over the 20-year life of the 159 improvements, there will be 3,524 fewer crashes (including 515 14 fewer fatalities and 1,730 fewer injuries), a 54 percent decrease in smog-causing volatile organic VITAL STATISTICS compounds, and an 88 percent decrease in CO 2 US-95 at I-15 Interchange emissions. In addition, motorists and truckers traveling through the interchange during morning Annual Delay: 11,152,000 hours 2002 2025 or evening rush hours will shave 16 minutes off (estimated) their driving time each trip. For commuters, who Vehicles Per Day 190,600 242,442 typically negotiate the interchange twice each Peak Period Delay 12.0 23.2 day, more than 30 minutes of commuting time (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) would be saved daily. In addition, 68.9 gallons Annual Traffic 1.050% of fuel will be saved per commuter over the life Growth of the project. Bottleneck Description These figures include the effect of a two-year reconstruction phase, during which it is assumed US-95 and I-15 intersect just north of the famous that available highway capacity is reduced by 20 Las Vegas “Strip”. The “Spaghetti Bowl” percent every day. In reality, state transportation interchange itself was reconstructed from 1997- departments endeavor to keep all lanes open 2000 at a cost of $92 million. Attention has now through reconstruction zones as much as shifted to the immediate west of the interchange on possible. US-95, which accesses some of the fastest growing neighborhoods in Las Vegas. (Southern Nevada is the fastest growing region in the Nation.) As with many major interchange bottlenecks discussed in this study, traffic operation is heavily influenced by nearby surface street interchanges. In this case, the interchange with Martin Luther King Boulevard and the Rancho Drive interchanges are both close enough to provide interference. Both of these interchanges are slated for improvements.

62 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 63 Benefits of Improvements Proposed Improvements 2003-2025 Allowing for a two-year construction period and a 20-year The “Spaghetti Bowl” interchange is currently project life, bringing the US-95 at the I-15 interchange undergoing a $100 million project to construct (“Spaghetti Bowl”) up to level of service C will significantly ramps and add ramp lanes. Within three years, reduce congestion, thereby smoothing the flow of traffic a second phase is planned to add more lanes at and: the interchange. In addition, there is a five-stage improvement project on I-95 just west of the SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) bottleneck. These improvements include: No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change n Installing a freeway management system Carbon 276,689 114,009 -58.8 Monoxide n Widening US-95 to ten lanes from Rainbow Volatile Organic 30,911 14,125 -54.3 Boulevard to I-15 Compounds n Widening US-95 to six lanes from Craig Road Nitrogen Oxides 14,390 18,765 30.4* to Rainbow Boulevard Carbon Dioxide 2,571,399 312,765 -87.8

n Widening Summerlin Parkway to six lanes SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip from Rampart Boulevard to Rainbow (averaged over construction period and project life) Boulevard No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change n Constructing High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Peak Period 18.0 2.4 -86.5 Delay lanes on US-95 and Summerlin Parkway

SAVING FUEL Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 231,654,731 Percentage Reduction 87.8%

Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 68.9

SAVING LIVES Fewer Total Crashes 3,524 Fewer Fatalities 14 Injury Reduction 1,730

Summary If needed improvements to the I-805/I-15 interchange 8 were implemented, San 163 Diego residents would realize 5 significant gains in safety, air 8 15 quality and overall quality of

life. SAN DIEGO 805 Because no specific improvements to the 94 interchange have been designed at this time, however,209 805 we analyzed the benefits to be 15

gained if improvements were 5 made to bring the interchange up to a minimum VITAL STATISTICS acceptable level of traffic flow (technically I-805 at I-15 Interchange dubbed “level of service D” by traffic engineers) Annual Delay: 10,992,000 hours in the year 2007. 2002 2025 (estimated) Level of service is a concept that traffic engineers Vehicles Per Day 238,000 315,787 have devised to describe how well highway Peak Period Delay 9.5 22.2 facilities operate. Six levels of service categories (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) are used: A, B, C, D, E and F. In layman’s terms, Annual Traffic 1.24% they roughly correspond to the letter grades used Growth in education. On freeways, level of service A is characterized by free-flow conditions with high of service D operations, and we have analyzed the vehicle speeds and wide spaces between vehicles. benefits to be gained from such improvements. As level of service goes from B to D, speeds stay Over the 20-year life of the improvements, there high, but vehicle spacing decreases. The physical would be 3,150 fewer crashes (including 13 capacity of the roadway is reached at level of fewer fatalities and 1,547 fewer injuries), a 45 service E; at this level the highest traffic flows percent decrease in smog-causing volatile organic are observed and speeds start to fall off sharply. compounds, and a 75 percent decrease in CO2 Level of service F is stop-and-go traffic. Highway emissions. In addition, motorists and truckers designers typically set a goal of level of service C traveling through the interchange during morning or D for traffic in future years. or evening rush hours would shave 12 minutes off For the purposes of this analysis, we have not their driving time each trip. For commuters, who attempted to identify a specific combination of typically negotiate the interchange twice each day, improvements that would ease congestion at nearly 25 minutes of commuting time would be the interchange. Such decisions are properly saved daily. In addition, 54.1 gallons of fuel will made at the state and local level, reflecting be saved per commuter over the life of the project. the wishes and concerns of the general public, budgetary priorities, and applicable legal and regulatory requirements. We have assumed that a combination of improvements could achieve level

64 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 65 Bottleneck Description Benefits of Improvements 2004-2026 I-805 and I-15 meet just east of the San Diego Zoo. Allowing for a three-year construction period and a 20-year I-805 continues south to the Mexican border and project life, bringing the I-805 at the I-15 interchange up to north to connect with I-5, which continues on to level of service D would significantly reduce congestion, Los Angeles. Technically, the actual interstate thereby smoothing the flow of traffic and: designation for I-15 begins a few miles north at I-8; it is known as State Route 15 at this bottleneck location, though it is a natural extension of I-15. SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change

Carbon 352,853 179,076 -49.2 Monoxide

Volatile Organic 39,675 21,799 -45.1 Compounds Nitrogen Oxides 19,166 21,823 13.9* Carbon Dioxide 3,175,212 787,250 -75.2

SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip (averaged over construction period and project life) No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change Peak Period 16.4 4.4 -73.2 Delay

SAVING FUEL Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 244,919,209 Percentage Reduction 75.2%

Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 54.1

SAVING LIVES Fewer Total Crashes 3,150 Fewer Fatalities 13 Injury Reduction 1,547

Summary

562

If needed improvements to I- Cheviot 42 75 in the vicinity of the Ohio River Bridge (Brent Spence 71 561 Bridge) were implemented, 75 CINCINNATI 50 Cincinnati residents would Covedale 52 realize significant gains in 264

K O E safety, air quality and overall 8 N H T I O U

C quality of life. Serious K Y

consideration is being given to Delhi Hills 52 r 75 Rive 8 replacing the bridge – which Ohio 471 Anderson Fer5r0y connects Ohio and Kentucky. 8 The Kentucky Transportation Villa Hills Cabinet recently presented six potential concepts for replacing and/or VITAL STATISTICS augmenting the Brent Spence Bridge, but work I-75, Ohio River Bridge to I-71 Interchange is still in the planning stages. Therefore, we have not assumed any specific improvement at this Annual Delay: 10,088,000 hours 2002 2025 location. Instead, we analyzed the benefits to be (estimated) gained if improvements were made to bring the Vehicles Per Day 136,013 152,546 interchange up to a minimum acceptable level of Peak Period Delay 15.2 20.8 traffic flow (technically dubbed “level of service (minutes per vehicle per trip) (without improvements) D” by traffic engineers) in the year 2007. Annual Traffic 0.500% Growth Level of service is a concept that traffic engineers have devised to describe how well highway budgetary priorities, and applicable legal and facilities operate. Six levels of service categories regulatory requirements. We have assumed that a are used: A, B, C, D, E and F. In layman’s terms, combination of improvements could achieve level they roughly correspond to the letter grades used of service D operations, and we have analyzed the in education. On freeways, level of service A is benefits to be gained from such improvements. characterized by free-flow conditions with high vehicle speeds and wide spaces between vehicles. Over the 20-year life of the improvements, there As level of service goes from B to D, speeds stay would be 1,864 fewer crashes (including 7 fewer high, but vehicle spacing decreases. The physical fatalities and 915 fewer injuries), a 48 percent capacity of the roadway is reached at level of decrease in smog-causing volatile organic service E; at this level the highest traffic flows compounds, and a 76 percent decrease in CO2 are observed and speeds start to fall off sharply. emissions. In addition, motorists and truckers Level of service F is stop-and-go traffic. Highway traveling through the interchange during morning designers typically set a goal of level of service C or evening rush hours would shave 14 minutes or D for traffic in future years. off their driving time each trip. For commuters, who typically negotiate the interchange twice For the purposes of this analysis, we have not each day, nearly 30 minutes of commuting time attempted to identify a specific combination of would be saved daily. In addition, 60.7 gallons improvements that would ease congestion at of fuel will be saved per commuter over the life the interchange. Such decisions are properly of the project. made at the state and local level, reflecting the wishes and concerns of the general public, These figures include the effect of a three-year

66 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 67 Benefits of Improvements reconstruction phase, during which it is assumed 2004-2026 that available highway capacity is reduced by 20 Allowing for a three-year construction period and a 20-year percent every day. In reality, state transportation project life, bringing the I-805 at the I-15 interchange up to departments endeavor to keep all lanes open level of service D would significantly reduce congestion, through reconstruction zones as much as possible. thereby smoothing the flow of traffic and: Bottleneck Description The Brent Spence Bridge is typical of the cantilever SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) truss design, with a main span of 830.5 feet and No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change approach spans measuring 453 feet each. It opened Carbon 194,648 93,328 -52.1 with six lanes divided between two three-lane Monoxide decks. However the emergency shoulders were Volatile Organic 21,731 11,282 -48.1 eliminated in 1986 and the decks restriped with four Compounds lanes each. Entrance and exit ramps are located at Nitrogen Oxides 10,042 11,942 18.9* the immediate ends of the bridge, and their visibility Carbon Dioxide 1,816,177 429,285 -76.4 is poor, especially on the lower deck. The bridge’s SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip replacement will be built no earlier than 2008, and, (averaged over construction period and project life) including associated approaches and interchanges, No With Percentage is currently estimated to cost $750 million. Since Improvements Improvements Change 1970, I-71 has been routed over the bridge as well. Peak Period 18.4 4.5 -75.4 Delay

SAVING FUEL Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 142,245,332 Percentage Reduction 76.4%

Savings Per Commuter (gallons over the life of the project) 60.7

SAVING LIVES Fewer Total Crashes 1,864 Fewer Fatalities 7 Injury Reduction 915

Summary In addition to the 24 bottlenecks profiled above, there are many other bottlenecks clogging freeways throughout the country. The 2002 Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) data were used to identify these sites, although we have not updated and verified the data with state transportation agencies. The HPMS data, including information on the traffic and physical characteristics of the nation’s highways, are collected by state transportation agencies and reported to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) annually. The data are a basic monitoring tool for FHWA. They are used to produce the annual trend analyses for FHWA’s publication Highway Statistics and serve as the basis for the biennial Highway Conditions and Performance report to Congress. Because the data for these additional locations were not independently verified by state transportation agencies, conservative assumptions and data checks were used to avoid overestimating delay and other impacts. Appendix A has a full discussion of the assumptions and methodology used. In total, 209 other freeway locations – in addition to the top 24 bottlenecks – were identified as major chokepoints across the country and are listed in Appendix B. These are locations where motorists experience more than 700,000 annual hours of vehicle delay. Note that by comparison, our 1999 study found 167 total bottlenecks compared to 233 identified in this updated report – a 40 percent increase over the past five years.

Urban Areas with a Top 24 Bottleneck

Urban Area with Major Bottlenecks

68 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 69 Benefits of Improvements

When the effects of improving these 209 additional locations listed in Appendix B, along with the 24 profiled bottlenecks, are considered, the following results are obtained for the 20-year benefits period plus the associated reconstruction periods:

SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT emissions (in tons) No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change

Carbon 49,751,611 22,652,269 -54.4 Monoxide

Volatile Organic 5,435,316 2,725,232 -49.8 Compounds Nitrogen Oxides 2,296,621 2,518,013 9.7* Carbon Dioxide 505,572,217 115,457,509 -77.2

SAVING TIME minutes per vehicle per trip (averaged over construction period and project life) No With Percentage Improvements Improvements Change Peak Period 21.6 5.5 -74.5 Delay Total Delay 62,719 14,656 -76.6 (Million vehicle-hours)

SAVING FUEL Total Fuel Savings (gallons) 40,011,766,000 Percentage Reduction 77.2%

SAVING LIVES Fewer Total Crashes 449,606 Fewer Fatalities 1,787 Injury Reduction 220,760

hrough a combination of soliciting state Department of Transportation opinions and data analysis, T this study has identified the most severe traffic bottlenecks in the country. The study then estimated the impacts of improving traffic flow in these locations using a methodology that is based on the latest available delay estimation techniques used in planning analyses, along with available information on improvements at sites where these are currently planned. The scale of the analysis focused on individual bottleneck locations and did not consider systemwide impacts. Based on the assumptions and methodology, the study finds that enormous benefits can be derived from improvements designed to unclog major freeway bottlenecks. If delay is reduced and the flow of traffic is made smooth at these specific locations, tailpipe emissions of criteria pollutants can be reduced substantially, and the number and severity of vehicle crashes can be lessened, saving lives and preventing injuries.

The study also indicates large reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions at sites where traffic constrictions are eliminated—an important consideration for those concerned about possible global climate change. In addition, the potential time savings for motorists and commercial shippers gained by improving bottlenecks can be substantial, adding—at some of the sites studied—as much as an hour each day for activities other than sitting in traffic.

chieving these gains would be valuable but, in many cases, costly. Indeed, for purposes of this study, A we have noted the cost of improvements only in those cases where construction is already under way or where construction plans are advanced enough that reliable traffic flow estimates and scheduling can be obtained. In numerous cases, no specific improvements have been identified at the bottlenecks for the near-term, but nearly all of the worst bottlenecks have long-range improvement plans associated with them. In these cases we have made a modest assumption about the potential improvements in order to analyze the effects. What this study does, however, is identify the benefits to be realized if the bottlenecks are eliminated and, conversely, the price to be paid if nothing is done. For each bottleneck in each metropolitan area, the state and local officials must weigh the cost of improvements against the benefits to be gained once the project is complete. The study used the same methodology and data source as our 1999 study so that trends could be assessed. Chief among these trends is that congestion has clearly increased in the intervening five years. Delay at the worst bottlenecks has grown and the number of locations meeting our criteria for a bottleneck has increased by 40 percent. After revisiting some of the 1999 However, after revisiting some of the 1999 bottlenecks, it is clear that success bottlenecks, it is clear that success can be can be achieved. Seven of the top 18 achieved. Seven of the top 18 bottlenecks identified in 1999 are no longer among the bottlenecks identified in 1999 are worst traffic locations in the nation because no longer among the worst traffic of improvements that have been made or locations in the nation because of gotten underway in the last five years. The problem is that these successes have been improvements that have been made overwhelmed by the growth in bottlenecks or gotten underway in the last five elsewhere. Transportation agencies are still playing catch-up when it comes to years. congestion. This study helps to illuminate the significant benefits that can be obtained by opening bottlenecks on our most congested freeways. Another key finding of the study is that for onerous bottlenecks, the benefits of implementing improvements are not negated by the temporary additional delays caused by reconstruction, based on the assumptions used in this analysis. The study clearly indicates that the positive effects realized over the life of the completed project outweigh the reduced highway capacity during the construction phase. The reason for this is clear: These bottlenecks already experience high IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY IV.

70 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 71 congestion delays, and delay increases exponentially with traffic volume. As a result, smoothing the flow of traffic through these chokepoints produces more dramatic, delay-sensitive benefits than one might achieve by improvements to other, less congested locations. The effects are even more significant in areas that are expected to experience rapid traffic growth. Eliminating the bottlenecks that cause a large portion of delay is the starting point for an effective congestion management program. Indeed, many other “nonexpansion” strategies—such as improved operations, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes—must have a functioning highway system as a base. Therefore, when combined with other improvement tactics, strategic targeting of key bottleneck locations can be a highly effective component of a region’s overall transportation improvement program. Operations strategies in particular are targeted to improving the reliability of travel – consistent and predictable travel times. Sources of congestion such as incidents, weather and work zones contribute to unreliable travel times and to total delay. This study did not account for the positive effects that operation strategies can have – we focused on the part of congestion due to limited physical capacity. However, it must be pointed out that increases in physical capacity will also reduce the amount of delay due to other sources of congestion. Events such as incidents, weather, and work zones basically reduce the carrying capacity of a highway. If the base capacity is higher initially, the effect of this capacity loss will be minimized. Although we have not included this effect in our assessments, it is definitely present.

he study found that many transportation agencies have already adopted this philosophy of T combining highway capital expansion with other strategies to alleviate congestion. Particularly in the geographically larger metropolitan areas, it is difficult to identify a single “controlling” bottleneck in a corridor. For example, most of the freeway locations studied in Los Angeles are characterized by high flows throughout their lengths with no dominant bottleneck area. In these cases, strategies that target the entire corridor, such as HOV and ITS treatments, have been identified. Long-range plans in the I-75 and I-85 corridors in Atlanta call for extensive transit service (including fixed guideway), additional ITS technologies, HOV lanes and selected roadway expansions. In Houston in the I-610/I- 10 western corridors, highway expansion is coupled with variable-priced tolls to help manage demand for highway space more efficiently. (Consideration for variable-priced tolls is also being given in the Washington, DC are are on the Maryland portion of the Capital Beltway [I-495], which has two of the top 24 worst bottlenecks.) Even in cases where a dominant bottleneck exists, remediation almost always includes improvements to the local street system in the vicinity of the bottleneck because improving the bottleneck will increase traffic through these areas. Also, adjacent interchanges are often key elements of an effort to alleviate congestion in particular corridors. Transportation agencies realize that congestion is a complex problem with systemwide implications, and comprehensive mitigation strategies must be developed to deal with it.

Bottleneck Identification Interstate highways and other freeways (multi-lane, access-controlled facilities) were the focus of this report. We limited our consideration to these highways because their traffic volumes are far higher than those of signalized highways. They are, therefore, locations where the longest delays are likely to occur. The study used an inclusive approach to identifying potential bottleneck locations. With the cooperation of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO),16 a brief questionnaire was sent to all 50 state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) soliciting basic information about the worst traffic bottlenecks in each state. The following 24 states submitted responses to the requests for bottleneck information:

ALABAMA MINNESOTA ARIZONA NEBRASKA CALIFORNIA NEVADA CONNECTICUT NEW MEXICO DELAWARE OHIO FLORIDA OREGON GEORGIA RHODE ISLAND IDAHO SOUTH CAROLINA ILLINOIS TEXAS LOUISIANA VIRGINIA MARYLAND WASHINGTON MICHIGAN WISCONSIN

he responding states represent most of the heavily urbanized states except several in the Northeast T (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Pennsylvania) and Michigan. To identify potential bottlenecks in these and other states, we relied on the results from the previous study conducted in 199917 as well as a scan of the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) Universe data. HPMS data are compiled by state DOTs and submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) annually. The data report highway and traffic conditions for every mile of major road in the United States. The data are broken out by small highway segments, usually defined by significant changes in highway or traffic conditions. (The average segment length for urban freeways is 0.7 mile.) Sections that had high ratios of traffic volume to available highway capacity were identified in the data as a preliminary list of candidate bottleneck sites. Preliminary Ranking From these three sources, candidate bottlenecks were listed in a preliminary ranking, exact locations were identified from the HPMS data, and a delay estimation was produced by applying a method developed for FHWA.18 This method has been incorporated into FHWA’s Surface Transportation Efficiency Analysis Model (STEAM) and Highway Economic Requirements System (HERS) models. The delay estimation method was developed by running microscopic traffic simulation models to determine basic traffic parameters, especially for congested traffic flow. These results were then incorporated into a macroscopic queuing model (QSIM) developed specifically for studying the effects of varying traffic conditions on delay. QSIM keeps track of traffic queues as they build and dissipate over time. It calculates delay on a hypothetical highway segment from this queue tracking. It also allows for traffic levels to vary from day to day. From QSIM runs, a series of equations were developed that predict delay (in terms of hours of delay per vehicle-mile traveled) as a function of average annual daily traffic (AADT, the average number of vehicles on a road per day) and highway capacity. Because delay—not speed—is the predicted value,

16 AASHTO is a nonprofit, nonpartisan association representing highway and transportation departments in the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. It represents all five transportation modes: air, highways, public transportation, rail and water. Its primary goal is to foster the development, operation and maintenance of an integrated national transportation system. This study could not have been conducted without AASHTO’s assistance in coordinating state responses to requests for information. APPENDIX A APPENDIX 17 American Highway Users Alliance, Unclogging America’s Arteries: Prescriptions for Healthier Highways, November 1999. 18 Margiotta, Richard, and Cohen, Harry, Improved Speed Estimation Procedures For Use In STEAM and Air Quality Planning, Metropolitan Planning Division, Federal Highway Administration, June 1998. 72 American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 73 delay does not change with assumptions about what the free-flow speed is. Rather, the predicted delay value is combined with a free flow speed (i.e., speed on the facility under very light traffic conditions; the ideal speed) to estimate actual speed. Therefore, changing assumptions about what the free-flow speed is on a facility does not affect the delay estimates or the actual speed estimates. The method is similar in concept to the one used by TTI in developing national congestion trends, but its development is more detailed, particularly with regard to queuing.

his method provides a consistent basis for comparing locations and doing the rankings. It is not T as detailed as performing traffic simulation at each of the locations or measuring existing delay, but both of those methods have drawbacks, too. Simulation requires extensive data and testing; it was deemed impractical for the scope of this study. Measuring delay is extremely costly because of field data collection and is usually based on a limited number of samples. Separating out the effect of incidents in field collected delay measurements is highly problematic. Also, many transportation agencies do not routinely collect field-measured delay, and those that do use varying methods. On the other hand, the selected method is more sophisticated than the impact analyses traditionally conducted by transportation planners in long-range planning activities. Therefore, the delay equations discussed above were felt to be the most appropriate method for this study. The candidate bottleneck locations were ranked on the basis of total hours of delay by applying the delay equations assuming that each traffic lane at the location had a capacity of 2,100 vehicles per hour. (Capacity values were refined in the detailed analysis using the HPMS sample data.) Then, the total hours of delay were computed by multiplying the equations results by the vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) for the segment. From the resulting list, the top 30 locations were identified for further analysis. Note that by emphasizing the total hours of delay, the selection of bottlenecks is directed toward high volume locations. That is, two bottlenecks may have the same geometric characteristics (number of lanes, merging areas, etc.), but the one with the higher traffic volume will be ranked higher in our methodology, simply because more vehicles are exposed to bottleneck conditions. To the individual traveler stuck in traffic, however, the delay they experience would be the same. However, by focusing on total delay, we identify locations where potential improvements will have the maximum effect, since more travelers will benefit from the improvement. Data Verification The equations for computing delay depend on the quality of the data used for input. Therefore, for the top 30 preliminary locations, the appropriate state DOTs were contacted to verify the available data, verify that the location was indeed a bottleneck, obtain any existing information on the location (a schematic diagram, traffic analysis reports), and identify planned improvements (including design and impact studies). Infrequently, states will revise the data after they are submitted, primarily the traffic counts. The reasons for this include discovery of faulty equipment, discovery of unusual events during the counting period, and replacing estimated traffic counts in a previous year with better estimates based on current year data. (Not all locations are measured every year in every state.) This explains why a few locations from the 1999 study have lower traffic volumes in 2002. Such data blips are unavoidable in an analysis such as presented here, but we believe we have obtained the best information currently available. Final Ranking Impact Assessments Based on input from the state DOTs, the final rankings were produced using the methods discussed above with one refinement. Instead of using the assumed capacity of 2,100 vehicles per lane, the actual capacity computed from HPMS Sample data for each location was used. From the rankings, the top bottlenecks were identified for detailed impact assessments, based on a cutoff point of 10 million hours of delay per year.

72 American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 73 Impact Assessments The effect of improving the bottleneck locations was determined using the following procedures and assumptions: n Delay Estimation. The same method for estimating the current delay at the bottleneck locations was used to estimate delay impacts caused by improvements. Most of the bottleneck locations identified were freeway-to-freeway interchanges. In all cases, the data identified the problem occurring on one of the “legs” of the interchange (i.e., the highway referred to as the “Major Route” in the Chapter 2 analyses). Therefore, it was assumed that this “critical leg” was the cause of the delay at the location, even though this simplifies the actual situation where complex weaving movements may produce even higher delays. Since the volumes on the “critical leg” are a function of traffic merging from various ramps, many of the queues may not actually form on the route specified. It is therefore an indicator that a queuing problem exists in the interchange, but doesn’t specify where the problem occurs. For design purposes, a more stringent type of analysis is usually undertaken by transportation agencies. However, a more detailed traffic analysis would require information on traffic volumes and design criteria for each leg and ramp in the interchange, for both current and forecast years. Such information is usually developed by transportation agencies only when redesign is being considered. Most of the locations did not have this level of detail available for this study, particularly in cases for which design analysis had not been undertaken. Therefore, by focusing on the conditions on the “critical leg” of the interchange, a consistent method is used for comparing bottlenecks in different states. In addition, no estimation of incident related delay was made, although it is a major component of total delay and can be reduced by many of the same improvement types used to alleviate physical bottlenecks. The net result of these assumptions is to avoid overestimating delay and the other impact categories. n Traffic Growth. The HPMS Sample data were used to identify traffic growth rates on each section. Data checks were performed and growth rates were not allowed to drop below 0.5 percent per year or above 3.0 percent per year. (The average growth rate for all urban freeways in the HPMS data is about 2 percent per year.) The same traffic growth rate is applied for both the “no improvement” and “with improvement” cases. While congestion in the “no improvement” case worsens considerably in future years, which would tend to suppress traffic growth, no attempt was made to correct for this influence. Rather, it was assumed that even if the amount of traffic would not materialize on the particular facility, projected traffic growth still represents demand for transportation in the region and would have to be accommodated elsewhere.19 Also, traffic was not suppressed during the reconstruction period, when increased delays would dampen traffic growth or outright reduce it. Finally, the HPMS growth rates in urban areas are typically based on growth rates developed from MPO travel demand forecasting models, which do include “elasticity of demand” effects. Because a system-level network analysis was not performed, it is not possible to say what the net effect of these diverted trips would be on areawide congestion and travel patterns. However, for high congestion cases, the use of a maximum delay value and five-mile project length (discussed below) help to offset the problems caused by assuming a constant growth rate. n VMT Estimation. In order to capture adequately the full effect of queuing caused by bottlenecks, a total highway length must be established over which the impacts are measured. For detailed analysis of the top ranked bottlenecks, all of which are currently characterized by extensive queuing in the peak period, a length of five miles was chosen. (A length of five miles was chosen to produce the initial rankings as well.) In reality, queues at these high volume locations often exceed this distance, especially as traffic continues to grow. When queuing is present, it is extremely important to select a constant highway distance over which delay is calculated to capture the full effects on travelers. The implications of using this five-mile length are to overestimate delays when queues are shorter

19 Increased congestion could also lead to lower economic growth because of increased costs for transportation.

74 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 75 than five miles and to underestimate delays when queues are longer. For the purpose of the rankings, as long as a constant length is used, the order of the bottlenecks would not be changed. In addition to the delay calculations, VMT is used to scale the various impact categories, which are usually computed on a per VMT basis (e.g., accidents per VMT, grams of pollutants per VMT). An abnormally high VMT will produce high estimates of these impacts. However, the focus of this study is on the relative impacts of improving bottleneck locations and these will not be affected. n Criteria Emissions. Generalized relationships between speeds and emission factors for carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and nitrogen oxides from the MOBILE5a model were used.20 Although MOBILE5a has now been replaced by MOBILE6, generalized relationships were not available for this study. Speeds were calculated by combining delay estimates with an assumed free-flow speed of 60 mph.

n Fuel Consumption and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). A fuel consumption relationship from HPMS was 21 used to estimate gallons of fuel as a function of delay ; a factor of 19.5 pounds of CO2 per gallon of fuel was then applied.22 n Safety. The total number of crashes was estimated with a relationship that predicts accident rate as a function of average annual daily traffic (AADT) and capacity.23 Fatalities were estimated by applying a factor of 0.004 fatalities per crash, and injuries were estimated by applying a factor of 0.491 injuries per crash.24 n Project Improvements. Many of the bottleneck locations are under reconstruction or have specific design plans. Where the design is known, an estimate of the capacity increase is made; the revised capacity is then used to estimate delay. Where no specific improvements have been identified, a hypothetical improvement is assumed—the scale of this improvement is to increase capacity to the level at which the facility would be operating at level of service D beginning in the year 2007. Level of service is a concept that traffic engineers have devised to describe how well highway facilities operate. Six level-of-service categories are used: A, B, C, D, E, and F. In layman’s terms, they roughly correspond to the letter grades used in education. On freeways, level of service A is free-flow conditions characterized by high speeds and wide spaces between vehicles. As level of service goes from B to D, speeds stay high but vehicle spacing decreases. The physical capacity of the roadway is reached at level of service E; the highest traffic flows are observed and speeds start to fall off sharply. Level of service F is stop-and-go traffic. The hypothetical improvement is nonspecific. Better operations might be achieved through a combination of improvements (e.g., a redesigned interchange to alleviate weaving caused by through traffic mixing with other traffic entering and exiting the highway; operational controls, such as traffic lights on entry ramps to smooth the flow of merging traffic; the addition of HOV (high-occupancy vehicle) lanes; corridor access for bus or rail transit; or flexible work hours at major employment centers in the corridor). For the purposes of this analysis, we have not attempted to identify a specific combination of improvements that would result in improved operations at bottleneck locations. Such decisions are properly made at the state and local level, reflecting the wishes and concerns of the general public,

20 Science Applications International Corporation, Vehicle Emission Procedures for the Highway Performance Monitoring System, prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, July 2, 1995. 21 Science Applications International Corporation, Speed Determination Models for the Highway Performance Monitoring System, prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, October 1993. 22 Transportation Research Board, Toward a Sustainable Future: Addressing the Long-Term Effects of Motor Vehicle Transportation on Climate and Ecology, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1997. 23 Cambridge Systematics, New Safety Analysis Procedures for HERS, prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, September 28, 1998. 24 Ibid.

74 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 75 budgetary priorities, and applicable legal and regulatory requirements. The level of service D condition in the year 2007 is considered to be a conservative assumption, because level of service D or better at a date 10 to 20 years in the future is usually the operational target for highway redesign. n Reconstruction Impacts. If a specific improvement has been identified at a location, then the actual estimated project length is used as the reconstruction period. If no specific improvement was identified, then a reconstruction period of three years was used (2004 through 2006). Unless otherwise specified by a state DOT, it was assumed that 20 percent of highway capacity would be lost for the entire reconstruction period. During the course of the study, we found many cases where state DOTs require that all existing traffic lanes remain open during peak periods (and sometimes throughout the day). However, so as not to overstate benefits, we assumed a 20 percent capacity reduction for all location studied. n Peak Period. In addition to daily numbers, delay is also reported by peak period, which is defined as three hours in the morning (7 to 10 AM) and three hours in the afternoon (4 to 7 PM). It is important to select multiple hours to capture the effects of queuing. Delays—in terms of minutes of delay per vehicle—are reported for the entire six-hour peak period. For example, if the peak period delay is found to be 10 minutes per vehicle, this means that every vehicle traveling through the bottleneck during these six hours experiences 10 minutes of delay. For the five mile project length, the 10 minutes of delay translates to an average peak period speed of around 20 mph. In terms of daily trips by commuters, assuming they must go through the bottleneck both morning and evening and with an average of 1.2 persons per vehicle, each commuter trip would experience 10 minutes x 2 trips x 1.2 persons per vehicle, or 24 minutes of delay per vehicle. To make estimates conservative, it is assumed in the reporting that vehicle occupancy is 1.0. In other words, all delay is reported strictly on a vehicle basis rather than a person basis. n Analysis Period. The impact analyses begin in year 2004. (Adjustments are made to account for locations that are currently under construction or not expected to be under construction until sometime beyond 2004.) First, impacts are accumulated for the reconstruction period. When that is completed, a 20-year project life is used. Therefore, the forecast period for each project is different depending on the length of the reconstruction period. For the total period, impacts with and without the improvement are calculated year-by-year. Each year, traffic is incremented by the growth rate. It should be noted that in high-growth areas this produces very high values for the AADT-to-capacity ratio in the delay equations for the “do nothing” base case. The ratio was capped at a value of 24, ignoring any additional delay beyond that point. This value implies that speeds on the five-mile segment do not drop below five mph. The final reported statistics are the net impacts, considering that there will be a degradation in performance during the reconstruction period. n System-Level Effects. The impact assessment was focused on the specific facilities and system effects were not assessed. A comprehensive analysis of all the impacts of these types of major projects would involve using each metropolitan area’s network level travel demand models and network level transportation economic analysis models, such as STEAM. National-Level Analysis An additional number of freeway bottleneck locations were identified in the HPMS data by selecting locations that had 700,000 or more annual hours of delay, based on applying the delay model discussed above. The same procedures as used for the individual bottleneck locations were applied to estimate impacts. Because the data had not been verified by transportation agencies, four assumptions were used in the analysis to avoid overestimating delay and other impacts: 1. The AADT-to-capacity ratio was capped at 16. This number was based on the fact that the highest ratio for the top ranked bottlenecks was 18.

76 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 77 2. An assumed project length of two miles was used as opposed to a five-mile length for the top ranked bottlenecks. In addition to producing lower estimates of delay, these locations are not as severe bottlenecks as the top ranked locations. Therefore, queue lengths are expected to be shorter, justifying the shorter segment length. 3. Only one location was selected for each highway in a county within an urban area to avoid double counting with the HPMS data. The selection was based on taking the highway section with the highest AADT-to-capacity ratio. 4. The hypothetical three-year level of service D in year 2007 improvement was used to estimate impacts, which were accrued over the three-year reconstruction period (2004 through 2006) plus a 20-year project life. Discussion Two limitations of the methodology are the lack of system-level analysis of impacts and the use of a constant traffic growth rate for the “no-improvement” and “with-improvement” cases. Because proper assessment of these two items would require a detailed system analysis using network models and economic analysis tools, this could not be done within the scope of the study. In light of these limitations, care was taken not to overstate expected benefits in the analysis by: n Not allowing delay to grow beyond a maximum level for the “no-improvement” case. n Focusing the analysis on the “critical leg” of the bottleneck for interchanges, recognizing that traffic on other parts of the interchange are not subjected to the delay in the analysis. n Measuring delay over a constant five-mile highway segment for all cases, acknowledging that much longer queues can result, particularly for future years under the “no-improvement” case. n Focusing solely on congestion due to the characteristics of traffic flow through the physical bottleneck (“recurring delay”), rather than adding in the delay due to incidents, which would also be likely to be reduced with improvements. For the analysis, traffic growth was assumed to be constant for both the “with-improvement” and “no-improvement” cases. For severe existing bottlenecks, future traffic growth will tend to be suppressed if no improvements are made. However, given the difficulties of determining this effect without a detailed system-level network analysis, a constant growth rate was used. The points made above at least partially compensate for this effect, particularly the delay cap. In addition, if congestion does indeed suppress traffic growth, then it would also be suppressed for the “with-improvement” case during the reconstruction period as existing travelers adjust their schedules, routes, and modes; this was also not addressed. Finally, in the case where expected growth of traffic on a facility is suppressed by congestion on that facility, trips will be diverted elsewhere. It is not possible to determine this effect without a system-level network analysis, which was beyond the resources available for this project. Depending on the characteristics of the transportation network in individual cases, these diverted trips may be subjected to congestion elsewhere and/or make circuitous routes to their destinations. The analysis also considered the increased delay, emissions, and crashes during a construction period. During this period, a capacity decrease of 20 percent for the entire period was used. This number was determined by considering that construction effects will vary from minimal to significant on a “critical leg” and that agencies implementing major reconstruction projects try to maximize the number of lanes kept open to traffic. In practice, if agencies do not design projects and traffic mitigation plans so as to minimize disruptions, construction period impacts could be greater.

Arizona

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

I-17 (Black Canyon Fwy) between I-10 and Phoenix Maricopa, AZ Interstate 17 208,000 16,310 Cactus Rd.

I-10 at SR-51/SR-202 Interchange (“Mini- Phoenix Maricopa, AZ Interstate 10 280,800 22,805 Stack”)

Phoenix Maricopa, AZ Interstate 10 I-10 at I-17 Interchange West (the “Stack”) 228,800 2,671

US-60 (Superstition Fwy) Loop-101 to I Phoenix Maricopa, AZ US–60 166,400 1,711 - 10

Phoenix Maricopa, AZ State Route 101 Loop-101 Agua Fria at 67th Ave to I - 17 112,320 1,232

Phoenix Maricopa, AZ State Route 202 Loop-202: Dobson to I - 10 218,400 2,099

California

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Antioch- Contra Costa, CA State Route 4 SR-4 at Willow Pass Rd 124,000 1,987 Pittsburgh

Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA US–101 US-101 (Ventura Fwy) at I-405 Interchange 318,000 27,114

Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA Interstate 405 I-405 (San Diego Fwy) at I-10 Interchange 296,000 22,792

Los Angeles Orange, CA Interstate 405 I-405 (San Diego Fwy) at I-605 Interchange 318,000 18,606

Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA Interstate 10 I-10 (Santa Monica Fwy) at I-5 Interchange 318,500 18,606

I-5 (Santa Ana Fwy) at SR-22/57 Los Angeles Orange, CA Interstate 5 308,000 16,304 Interchange (“Orange Crush”)

Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA State Route 60 I-710 at Whittier Blvd 245,000 3,748

Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA State Route 60 SR-60 at I-605 interchange 223,000 2,370

Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA State Route 91 San Gabriel River Frwy 283,000 3,204

Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA Interstate 105 I-105 at US-107 Interchange 230,000 2,767

Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA Interstate 110 I-110 at Saulson Ave 320,000 5,585

Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA State Route 134 SR-134 at SR-2 Interchange 238,000 3,293

Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA Interstate 710 Long Beach Frwy 237,000 3,193

I-5 (San Diego Fwy) at I-405 Interchange Los Angeles Orange, CA Interstate 5 356,000 6,460 (“El Toro”)

Los Angeles Orange, CA State Route 57 US-57 at US-91 279,000 2,965

Los Angeles Orange, CA State Route 91 Orange Frwy 234,000 4,632

Los Angeles San Bernardino, CA Interstate 10 San Bernardino Frwy 258,000 4,682

Riverside-San Riverside, CA State Route 91 SR-91 at I-215 Interchange 264,000 2,198 Bernardino

Riverside-San Riverside, CA Interstate 215 Pomona Frwy: SR-91 Interchange 168,000 1,785 Bernardino

Sacramento Sacramento, CA State Route 99 SR-99 at Stockton Blvd 172,000 2,069

San Diego San Diego, CA Interstate 805 I-805 at I-15 Interchange 238,000 10,992

San Diego San Diego, CA Interstate 5 I-5 at SR-56 Interchange 225,000 2,469

San Diego San Diego, CA Interstate 8 Mission Valley Frwy 248,000 2,467

San Diego San Diego, CA Interstate 15 I-15 at SR-78 Interchange (Escondido) 202,000 1,325

San Francisco- Alameda, CA Interstate 80 I-80 at Central St 259,000 4,700 Oakland

San Francisco- Alameda, CA Interstate 238 I-238 at I-550 119,000 1,647 Oakland APPENDIX B; Major Bottlenecks State-by-State Bottlenecks Major B; APPENDIX

78 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 79 San Francisco- Alameda, CA Interstate 580 I-580 MP 17-19 189,000 906 Oakland

San Francisco- Alameda, CA Interstate 880 I-880 at I-238 271,000 5,449 Oakland

San Francisco- Contra Costa, CA Interstate 680 I-680 at US-13 170,000 1,925 Oakland

San Francisco- San Francisco, CA State Route 80 SR–80 at US-101 Interchange 218,000 2,096 Oakland

San Francisco- San Francisco, CA US–101 US-101 at I-280 Interchange 251,000 4,113 Oakland

San Francisco- San Mateo, CA US–101 US-101 at SR-92 Interchange 253,000 4,326 Oakland

San Francisco- San Mateo, CA Interstate 280 I-280 at US-1 Interchange 221,000 2,273 Oakland

San Francisco- Santa Clara, CA Interstate 880 I-880 at SR-237 Interchange 184,000 2,815 Oakland

San Jose Santa Clara, CA US–101 US-101 at I-880 Interchange 244,000 12,249

Santa Cruz Santa Cruz, CA State Route 1 SR-1 at SR-17 Interchange 110,000 1,094 Colorado

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Denver Adams, CO Interstate 25 US-87 at US-36 237,839 4,782

Denver Arapahoe, CO Interstate 225 I-225 at Leetsdale Dr 112,202 1,231

Denver Denver, CO Interstate 70 I-70 at I-25 Interchange (“Mousetrap”) 151,030 3,037

Denver Denver, CO Interstate 225 I-225 at US-87 Interchange 112,202 1,231

Denver Adams, CO Interstate 25 US-87 at US-36 237,839 4,782

Denver Arapahoe, CO Interstate 225 I-225 at Leetsdale Dr 112,202 1,231

Denver Denver, CO Interstate 70 I-70 at I-25 Interchange (“Mousetrap”) 151,030 3,037

Denver Denver, CO Interstate 225 I-225 at US-87 Interchange 112,202 1,231 Connecticut

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Hartford- I-84 at SR-2 Interchange (“Mixmaster Hartford, CT Interstate 84 140,500 2,825 Middletown East”)

New Haven- Fairfield, CT Interstate 95 I-95 at US-7 Interchange 146,300 806 Meriden

New Haven- New Haven, CT Interstate 91 I-91 at US-1 Interchange 93,900 1,539 Meriden

New Haven- New Haven, CT Interstate 95 I-95 at US-7 Interchange 139,600 1,484 Meriden

Hartford- I-84 at SR-2 Interchange (“Mixmaster Hartford, CT Interstate 84 140,500 2,825 Middletown East”)

New Haven- Fairfield, CT Interstate 95 I-95 at US-7 Interchange 146,300 806 Meriden

New Haven- New Haven, CT Interstate 91 I-91 at US-1 Interchange 93,900 1,539 Meriden

New Haven- New Haven, CT Interstate 95 I-95 at US-7 Interchange 139,600 1,484 Meriden Delaware

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Philadelphia (PA-NJ) New Castle, DE Interstate 95 I-95 at US-1 Interchange 199,677 1,256

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Washington (DC- District of Columbia Interstate 695 I-695 at S. Capitol St 111,030 1,142 MD-VA)

Washington (DC- District of Columbia Interstate 95 I-95 at Mt. Vernon Memorial 170,000 1,925 MD-VA) Florida

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Jacksonville Duval, FL Interstate 10 I-10 at US-17A Interchange 135,500 2,725

Jacksonville Duval, FL Interstate 95 I-95 at US-90 Interchange 168,000 3,378

Miami-Hialeah Broward, FL State Route 112 (MP 0.000) 95,735 1,671

Miami-Hialeah Broward, FL State Route 821 SR-821 near SR-817 144,300 2,901

Miami-Hialeah Broward, FL State Route 826 SR-826 at I-95 Interchange 154,000 3,097

Miami-Hialeah Broward, FL State Route 836 SR-836 between I-95 and I-395 137,500 2,765

Miami-Hialeah Broward, FL State Route 874 SR-874 near SR-821 111,500 1,185

Miami-Hialeah Broward, FL US–441 US-441 near SR-383 78,500 1,578

Miami-Hialeah Broward, FL Interstate 95 I-95 at I-595 Interchange 296,000 5,952

Miami-Hialeah Broward, FL Interstate 595 Florida Tpke at I-595 179,500 2,484

Miami-Hialeah Palm Beach, FL Interstate 95 I-95 at Golden Glades Interchange 179,500 2,484

I-4 at SR-408 Interchange (East/West Orlando Orange, FL Interstate 4 183,000 2,733 Toll)

Orlando Osceola, FL Interstate 4 US-192 at I-4 109,423 1,052

I-275 at I-4 Interchange (“Malfunction Tampa Hillsborough Interstate 275 201,500 14,371 Junction”) Georgia

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Atlanta Fulton, GA Interstate 75 I-75 at I-85 Interchange 259,128 21,045

I-285 at I-85 Interchange (“Spaghetti Atlanta DeKalb, GA Interstate 285 266,000 17,072 Junction”)

Atlanta Cobb, GA Interstate 285 I-285 at I-75 239,193 14,333

Atlanta De Kalb, GA Interstate 20 I-20 at I-285 Interchange 179,300 2,481

Atlanta De Kalb, GA State Route 14100 Peachtree Indtrl Blvd at I-285 151,600 3,048

Atlanta Fulton, GA Interstate 20 I-20 at Fulton St 199,000 3,876

Atlanta Fulton, GA State Route 40000 SR-400 at I-285 Interchange 214,400 4,311

Atlanta Gwinnett, GA State Route 86400 Near jct. with US-29 59,600 825 Hawaii

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Honolulu Honolulu, HI Interstate 1 Kalanianaole Hwy-Wailae Ave 171,775 2,005 Illinois

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

I-90/94 at I-290 Interchange Chicago-Northwestern IN Cook, IL Interstate 90/94 293,671 25,068 (“Circle Interchange”)

I-94 (Dan Ryan Expwy) at I-90 Chicago-Northwestern IN Cook, IL Interstate 94 260,403 16,713 Skyway Split (South)

80 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 81 I-290 (Eisenhower Expwy) Chicago-Northwestern IN Cook, IL Interstate 290 200,441 14,009 Between Exits 17b and 23a

Chicago-Northwestern IN Cook, IL Interstate 55 Pulaski Rd at I-55 188,825 3,162

Chicago-Northwestern IN Cook, IL Interstate 57 I-57 at 12th St 166,931 1,717

Chicago-Northwestern IN Cook, IL Interstate 80 I-80/I-94 split (southside) 132,496 2,581

I-90 at I-94 Interchange (“Edens Chicago-Northwestern IN Cook, IL Interstate 90 182,054 2,652 Interchange”)

Chicago-Northwestern IN DuPage, IL Interstate 55 I-55 at I-294 Interchnage 165,903 1,706

Chicago-Northwestern IN DuPage, IL Interstate 290 I-290 at I-355 213,906 4,301

Chicago-Northwestern IN DuPage, IL Interstate 355 Roosevelt Rd at I-355 125,095 2,050

Chicago-Northwestern IN Lake, IL Interstate 294 I-294 at Lake Cook Rd 109,512 2,202

I-55 from Naperville to I-80 Chicago-Northwestern IN Will, IL Interstate 55 104,537 806 (“Crossroads of America”)

Chicago-Northwestern IN Will, IL Interstate 355 I-355 at I-55 87,166 1,753

Kentucky

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Cincinnati (OH-KY) Kenton, KY Interstate 75 I-75 at I-275 Interchange 167,000 1,775

I-64 at I-65/I-71 Interchange Louisville (KY-IN) Jefferson, KY Interstate 64 119,000 1,647 (“Spaghetti Junction”)

Louisville (KY-IN) Jefferson, KY Interstate 264 I-264 at I-64 Interchange 174,287 2,159

Louisiana

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Baton Rouge East Baton Rouge, LA Interstate 10 I - 10 at I - 110 Interchange 144,200 725

New Orleans Orleans, LA Interstate 10 I-10 at I-610 Interchange 152,900 3,074

Maryland

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Baltimore Baltimore city, MD Interstate 95 I - 95 Between I - 895 and SR - 43 189,175 3,168

Baltimore Baltimore, MD Interstate 83 I-83 at I-695 Interchange 152,675 3,070

Baltimore Baltimore, MD Interstate 695 I-695 at I-70 Interchange 219,350 4,411

Baltimore Baltimore, MD Interstate 695 I - 695 between I - 70 and I - 95 173,529 2,150

Baltimore Baltimore, MD Interstate 795 I-795 at I-695 Interchange 116,075 1,438

Baltimore Howard, MD State Route 100 SR-100 at US-29 66,650 1,319

Washington (DC- Montgomery, MD Interstate 495 I-495 (Capital Beltway) at I-270 243,425 19,492 MD-VA)

Washington (DC- Prince Georges, MD Interstate 495 I-495 at I-95 Interchange 185,125 15,035 MD-VA)

Washington (DC- Balt/Wash Pkwyat I - 495/I - 95 Prince Georges, MD State Route 295 105,875 881 MD-VA) Interchange

Washington (DC- Balt/Wash Pkwy at Powder Mill Prince Georges, MD State Route 295 110,675 1,138 MD-VA) Rd.

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Boston Norfolk, MA Interstate 93 I-93 at I-95 Interchange 180,594 2,565

Boston Norfolk, MA Interstate 95 Worcester Rd at I-95 166,564 1,713

Boston Suffolk, MA Interstate 93 Columbia Rd at I-93 181,560 2,645

Michigan

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Detroit Oakland, MI Interstate 75 I-75 at I-696 Interchange 176,896 2,319

Detroit Oakland, MI Interstate 696 I-696 at I-75 Interchange 213,800 1,847

Detroit Wayne, MI State Route 39 M-39 at M-5 Interchange 177,000 2,320

Detroit Wayne, MI Interstate 75 7 Mile Rd at I-75 172,000 2,069

Detroit Wayne, MI Interstate 94 I-94 at I-75 Interchange 160,289 1,385

Detroit Wayne, MI Interstate 96 I-96 at I-275 Interchange 193,700 1,020 Minnesota

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Minneapolis-St Hennepin, MN Interstate 94 I-94 at I-35W Interchange 159,000 1,324 Paul

Minneapolis-St Hennepin, MN Interstate 35W I - 35W at SR-62 Interchange 175,603 2,239 Paul

Minneapolis-St Hennepin, MN Interstate 394 I - 394 at TH 100 Interchange 150,000 943 Paul

Minneapolis-St Hennepin, MN Interstate 494 I - 494 at I-35W Interchange 154,391 1,145 Paul

Minneapolis-St I - 94 at I-35E Interchange (“Spaghetti Ramsey, MN Interstate 94 160,000 1,382 Paul Bowl”)

Missouri

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Kansas City (MO- Jackson, MO Interstate 70 I-70 at I-435 Interchange 111,874 1,189 KS)

St Louis (MO-IL) St. Louis, MO Interstate 70 I-70 at US-67 Interchange 170,360 1,929 Nebraska

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Omaha (NE-IA) Douglas, NE Interstate 80 I-80 at I-480 Interchange 166,965 3,305

Nevada

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

US-95 at I-15 Interchange (“Spaghetti Las Vegas Clark, NV US–95 190,600 11,152 Bowl”)

I-15 at I-215 Interchange (the Las Vegas Clark, NV Interstate 15 159,670 1,380 “Fishbowl”)

Las Vegas Clark, NV Interstate 515 I-515 at Eastern Ave 175,300 2,235

82 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 83 New Jersey

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

New York- Bergen, NJ Interstate 80 I-80 at Garden State Pkwy 120,539 1,712 Northeastern NJ

New York- Bergen, NJ Interstate 95 I-95 at SR-3 292,872 3,734 Northeastern NJ

New York- Essex, NJ Garden State Pkwy Garden State Pkwy at I-78 193,161 3,439 Northeastern NJ

New York- Morris, NJ State Route 24 I-287 at SR-24 98,587 1,982 Northeastern NJ

New York- Ocean, NJ Garden State Pkwy SR-549 at Garden State Pkwy 115,274 1,387 Northeastern NJ

New York- Passaic, NJ Garden State Pkwy Garden State Pkwy at SR-3 182,647 2,728 Northeastern NJ New Mexico

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

I - 25 and Paseo Del Norte, Albuquerque Bernalillo, NM Interstate 25 162,816 1,512 Albuquerque

Albuquerque Bernalillo, NM Interstate 40 Between I-25 and Paseo Del Norte 150,736 3,031

New York

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Albany-Schenectady-Troy Albany, NY Interstate 90I I-90 at I-87 Interchange 113,085 1,280

Buffalo-Niagara Falls Erie, NY Interstate 90I I-90 at I-290 131,054 2,467

New York-Northeastern NJ Bronx, NY Interstate 95I I-95 at I-87 Interchange 173,976 2,155

I-278 (Bruckner Expwy) at I-87 New York-Northeastern NJ Bronx, NY Interstate 278I 117,626 1,542 Interchange

New York-Northeastern NJ Kings, NY Interstate 278I I-278 (BQE) at I-495 Interchange 201,262 4,047

I-495 (Long Island Expwy) at Exit New York-Northeastern NJ Nassau, NY Interstate 495I 203,218 4,086 33

New York-Northeastern NJ Nassau, NY State Route 908G Northern State Parkway at Exit 36A 112,527 1,235

New York-Northeastern NJ Nassau, NY State Route 908M Southern State Parkway at Exit 25A 196,227 3,694

New York-Northeastern NJ New York, NY Interstate 95I I-95 at SR-9A (Westside Hwy) 298,278 5,998

FDR Drive south of Triborough New York-Northeastern NJ New York, NY State Route 907L 166,006 1,707 Bridge

New York-Northeastern NJ Queens, NY Interstate 278I I-278 at Exit 36 201,262 4,047

I-495 (Long Island Expwy) at New York-Northeastern NJ Queens, NY State Route 495I 222,948 4,483 Grand Ave.

New York-Northeastern NJ Queens, NY Interstate 678I I-678 at SR-27 Interchange (JFK) 135,062 2,716

New York-Northeastern NJ Queens, NY State Route 907M Grand Central Parkway at Exit 5 172,858 2,079

I-278 (Staten Island Expwy) before New York-Northeastern NJ Richmond, NY Interstate 278I 196,042 3,690 Verrazano Br

New York-Northeastern NJ Suffolk, NY State Route 908M Southern State Parkway at Exit 32 171,806 2,006

I-590 at I-490/SR-590 Interchange Rochester Monroe, NY State Route 5900 109,594 1,053 (“Can of Worms”)

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Charlotte Mecklenburg, NC Interstate 77 I-77 at Tryon Rd 164,000 1,576

Gastonia Gaston, NC Interstate 85 I-85 at SR-7 110,000 1,094

Ohio

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Akron Summit, OH Interstate 76 I-76 at SR-77 Interchange+J179 117,068 1,492

Akron Summit, OH Interstate 77 I-77 at SR-8 Interchange 125,539 2,057

Akron Summit, OH Interstate 277 I-277 at I-77 Interchange 58,428 745

Cincinnati (OH-KY) Hamilton, OH Interstate 75 I-75 from Ohio River Bridge to I-71 136,013 10,088

Cincinnati (OH-KY) Hamilton, OH US–50 US-50 at I-75 Interchange 90,274 1,815

Cincinnati (OH-KY) Hamilton, OH Interstate 71 I - 71 at I-75 Interchange 133,728 2,647

Cincinnati (OH-KY) Hamilton, OH Interstate 75 I-75 at I-74 Interchange 185,136 2,900

Cincinnati (OH-KY) Hamilton, OH Interstate 275 I-275 between I-74 and SR-126 112,851 1,238

Cincinnati (OH-KY) Hamilton, OH State Route 562 SR-562 at I-75 Interchange 68,914 1,386

Cleveland Cuyahoga, OH Interstate 77 Woodland Ave at I-77 72,083 1,449

SR-176 between Snow Rd and Cleveland Cuyahoga, OH State Route 176 63,515 1,086 Broadview Rd

Cleveland Cuyahoga, OH Interstate 271 I-271 at I-480 Interchange 138,072 1,373

Columbus Franklin, OH Interstate 70 I-70 at US-23 Interchange 157,640 3,170

Columbus Franklin, OH Interstate 71 I-71 at I-70 Interchange 107,722 2,166

Columbus Franklin, OH Interstate 270 I-270 at I-70 Interchange (West) 117,782 1,544

Columbus Franklin, OH State Route 315 SR-315 at I-70 Interchange 61,354 939

Dayton Montgomery, OH Interstate 75 I-75 at US-35 Interchange 122,271 1,871

Toledo (OH-MI) Lucas, OH Interstate 75 I-75 at I-280 Interchange 87,016 1,750

Toledo (OH-MI) Lucas, OH Interstate 475 I-475 at Monroe St 111,797 2,248

Oklahoma

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Tulsa Tulsa, OK US–169 Mingo Valley Exwy at S 21st 111,000 1,142

Oregon

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Portland-Vancouver I-5 Interstate Bridge and bridge Multnomah, OR Interstate 5 105,200 843 (OR-WA) influence area

Portland-Vancouver Multnomah, OR Interstate 84 I-84 at US-30 Interchange 177,000 2,320 (OR-WA)

Portland-Vancouver Multnomah, OR Interstate 205 I-205 at Powell Blvd 168,100 1,786 (OR-WA)

Portland-Vancouver Washington, OR US–26 Sunset Hwy at Murray Blvd 120,200 1,707 (OR-WA)

Portland-Vancouver Washington, OR State Route 217 SR-217 at Canyon Rd 121,900 1,820 (OR-WA)

84 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 85 Pennsylvania

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Philadelphia (PA-NJ) Chester, PA US–202 Darby Paoli Rd at US-202 109,377 1,051

Philadelphia (PA-NJ) Delaware, PA Interstate 95 I-95 at I-476 Interchange 147,290 1,931

Philadelphia (PA-NJ) Montgomery, PA Interstate 76 I-76 at Walnut La 125,114 2,050

Philadelphia (PA-NJ) Montgomery, PA US–202 US-202 at US-422 118,798 1,601

Philadelphia (PA-NJ) Philadelphia, PA Interstate 76 I-76 at Girard Av 192,487 3,427

Philadelphia (PA-NJ) Philadelphia, PA Interstate 95 I-95 at Chestnut St 168,569 1,850

Pittsburgh Allegheny, PA Interstate 376 I-376 at Centreville Rd 111,396 1,184

Rhode Island

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Providence Providence, RI Interstate 95 I-95 at I-195 Interchange 256,000 15,340

Providence Kent, RI Interstate 95 I-95 at Route 4 Interchange 173,700 719

Tennessee

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Chattanooga (TN- Hamilton, TN Interstate 24 I-24 at I-440N Interchange 113,250 1,282 GA)

Nashville Davidson, TN Interstate 24 Harding Pl at I-24 132,930 2,589

Nashville Davidson, TN Interstate 40 I-40 at I-24 Interchange 141,520 2,846

Nashville Davidson, TN Interstate 440 I-440S at US-431 111,010 1,142

Texas

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Austin Travis, TX Interstate 35 I-35 at Martin Luther King Jr 217,372 4,371

Austin Travis, TX State Route 1 MOPAC Expy-Capital of Texas 124,570 1,996

Dallas-Fort Worth Collin, TX US–75 US-75 to SR-190 F 234,791 3,078

Dallas-Fort Worth Dallas, TX Interstate 35E I - 35E at I - 30 interchange (“Mixmaster”) 182,094 2,719

Dallas-Fort Worth Dallas, TX Interstate 635 I-635 at N. Dallas Tollway 259,930 4,806

Dallas-Fort Worth Dallas, TX State Route 183 SR-183 at International Pkwy 164,770 1,639

Dallas-Fort Worth Dallas, TX US–75 US-75 at Lemmon Av 186,379 2,987

Dallas-Fort Worth Tarrant, TX Interstate 35W I - 35W at SH - 121 Interchange 102,159 728

Dallas-Fort Worth Tarrant, TX Interstate 820 SR-121 at I-820 153,691 3,090

Dallas-Fort Worth Tarrant, TX State Route 121 Central at SR-121 189,380 3,808

Dallas-Fort Worth Tarrant, TX State Route 360 SR-183 at SR-360 144,822 2,912

El Paso (TX-NM) El Paso, TX Interstate 10 I-10 at I-110/US-54 Interchange 200,680 2,414

Houston Harris, TX Interstate 45 I-45 (Gulf Freeway) at US-59 Interchange 250,299 13,944

Houston Harris, TX Interstate 610 I-610 at I-10 Interchange (West) 295,000 25,181

Houston Fort Bend, TX US–59 US-59 at SR-6 Interchange 147,668 2,969

Houston Harris, TX Interstate 45 I-45 at I-610 Interchange 266,990 5,368

Houston Harris, TX State Route 288 SR-288 at US-59 157,551 3,168

Houston Harris, TX US–290 Spencer Rd at US-290 237,676 4,779

San Antonio Bexar, TX Interstate 10 I-10 at I-410 Loop North Interchange 158,400 3,185

San Antonio Bexar, TX Interstate 35 I - 35 at Loop 410 Interchange 160,461 1,386

San Antonio Bexar, TX Interstate 410 Loop 410 at US - 281 interchange 167,325 1,778 Utah

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Salt Lake City Davis, UT Interstate 15 I-15 at I-215 Interchange 179,510 2,484

Salt Lake City Salt Lake, UT Interstate 15 I-15 at I-80 Interchange 194,661 3,533 Virginia

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Norfolk Virginia Beach-Newport Chesapeake, VA Interstate 664 I-664 at US-13 Interchange 124,874 2,046 News

Richmond Chesterfield, VA State Route 150 US-1 at Chippenham Pkwy 53,713 1,080

Richmond Richmond, VA Interstate 64 I-64 at I-95 Interchange 97,358 1,958

Richmond Richmond, VA Interstate 195 I-195 at SR-76 Interchange 88,636 1,194

Washington (DC- I-66 at US-29 Interchange (E. Falls Arlington, VA Interstate 66 113,696 1,287 MD-VA) Church)

Washington (DC- Arlington, VA US–50 Arlington Blvd-Washington Blvd 60,711 907 MD-VA)

Washington (DC- Fairfax, VA Interstate 66 Centreville Rd at I-66 188,115 3,082 MD-VA)

Washington (DC- I-66 at I-495 (Capitol Beltway) Fairfax, VA Interstate 66 180,922 2,048 MD-VA) Interchange

Washington (DC- Fairfax, VA Interstate 495 I-95 - Woodrow Wilson Bridge 197,112 2,163 MD-VA)

Washington (DC- Norfolk, VA Interstate 64 I-64 at I-264 Interchange 143,768 1,730 MD-VA)

Washington (DC- Norfolk, VA Interstate 264 I-264 at Downtown Tunnel 113,690 1,287 MD-VA) Washington

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Bremerton Kitsap, WA State Route 16 SR-16 at SR-3 63,263 1,082

Seattle King, WA Interstate 5 I-5 at I-90 Interchange 301,112 14,306

Seattle King, WA Interstate 405 I-405 in Downtown Bellevue 200,590 1,262

Seattle King, WA State Route 520 SR-520 Floating Bridge 100,280 804

Seattle Pierce, WA State Route 16 SR-16 at Sprague Av 116,428 1,484

Seattle Snohomish, WA Interstate 5 I-5 NB at SR 526 in Everett 147,095 848 Wisconsin

Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous. Hours)

Appleton-Neenah Winnebago, WI US–10E US-10 at US-441 Interchange 59,426 801

Milwaukee Milwaukee, WI Interstate 94 I-94 W. of Marquette Interchange 155,374 1,152

US-45 at I-94/I-894 Interchange (the Milwaukee Milwaukee, WI US–45N 143,108 2,878 “Zoo”)

Rank Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous Hrs) US-101 (Ventura Fwy) at 1 Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA US–101 318,000 27,144 I-405 Interchange

I-610 at I-10 Interchange 2 Houston Harris, TX Interstate 610 295,000 25,181 (West)

Chicago- I-90/94 at I-290 Interchange 3 Cook, IL Interstate 90/94 293,671 25,068 Northwestern IN (“Circle Interchange”)

I-10 at SR-51/SR-202 4 Phoenix Maricopa, AZ Interstate 10 280,800 22,805 Interchange (“Mini-Stack”)

I-405 (San Diego Fwy) at 5 Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA Interstate 405 296,000 22,792 I-10 Interchange

6 Atlanta Fulton, GA Interstate 75 I-75 at I-85 Interchange 259,128 21,045

Washington (DC- I-495 (Capital Beltway) at 7 Montgomery, MD Interstate 495 243,425 19,492 MD-VA) I-270

I-10 (Santa Monica Fwy) at 8 Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA Interstate 10 318,500 18,606 I-5 Interchange

I-405 (San Diego Fwy) at 9 Los Angeles Orange, CA Interstate 405 318,000 18,606 I-605 Interchange

I-285 at I-85 Interchange 10 Atlanta DeKalb, Ga Interstate 285 266,000 17,072 (“Spaghetti Junction”)

Chicago- I-94 (Dan Ryan Expwy) at 11 Cook, IL Interstate 94 260,403 16,713 Northwestern IN I-90 Skyway Split (South)

I-17 (Black Canyon Fwy) 12 Phoenix Maricopa, IL Interstate 17 208,000 16,310 between I-10 and Cactus Rd.

I-5 (Santa Anna Fwy) at SR- 13 Los Angeles Orange, CA Interstate 5 22/57 Interchange (“Orange 308,000 16,304 Crush”)

14 Providence Providence, RI Interstate 95 I-95 at I-195 Interchange 256,000 15,340

Washington (DC- 15 Prince Georges, MD Interstate 495 I-495 at I- 95 Interchange 185,125 15,035 MD-VA)

I-275 at I-4 Interchange 16 Tampa Hillsborough, FL Interstate 275 201,500 14,371 (“Malfunction Junction”)

17 Atlanta Cobb, GA Interstate 285 I-285 at I-75 239,193 14,333

18 Seattle King, WA Interstate 5 I-5 at I-90 Interchange 301,112 14,306

Chicago- I-290 (Eisenhower Expwy) 19 Cook, IL Interstate 290 200,411 14,009 Northwestern IN between Exits 17b and 23a

I-45 (Gulf Freeway) at US-59 20 Houston Harris, TX Interstate 45 250,299 13,944 Interchange

21 San Jose Santa Clara, CA US–101 US-101 at 1-880 Interchange 244,000 12,249

US-95 at I-15 Interchange 22 Las Vegas Clark, NV US–95 190,600 11,152 (“Spaghetti Bowl”)

23 San Diego San Diego, CA Interstate 805 I-805 at I-15 Interchange 238,000 10,992

I-75 from Ohio River Bridge 24 Cincinnati (OH-KY) Hamilton, OH Interstate 75 136,013 10,088 to I-71

I-5 (San Diego Fwy) at I-405 25 Los Angeles Orange, CA Interstate 5 356,000 6,460 Interchange (“El Toro”)

New York- I-95 at SR-9A (Westside 26 New York, NY Interstate 95I 298,278 5,998 Northeastern NJ Hwy)

27 Miami-Hialeah Broward, FL Interstate 95 I-95 at I-595 Interchange 296,000 5,952

28 Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA Interstate 110 I-110 at Saulson Ave 320,000 5,585

San Francisco- 29 Alameda, CA Interstate 880 I-880 at I-238 271,000 5,449 Oakland

30 Houston Harris, TX Interstate 45 I-45 at I-610 Interchange 266,990 5,368 APPENDIX C; Major Bottlenecks Ranked 1 to 234 to 1 Ranked Bottlenecks Major C; APPENDIX

86 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 87 Rank Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous Hrs) 31 Dallas-Fort Worth Dallas, TX Interstate 635 I-635 at N. Dallas Tollway 259,930 4,806

32 Denver Adams, CO Interstate 25 US-87 at US-36 237,839 4,782

33 Houston Harris, TX US–290 Spencer Rd at US-290 237,676 4,779

San Francisco- 34 Alameda, CA Interstate 80 I-80 at Central St 259,000 4,700 Oakland

35 Los Angeles San Bernardino, CA Interstate 10 San Bernardino Frwy 258,000 4,682

36 Los Angeles Orange, CA State Route 91 Orange Frwy 234,000 4,632

New York- I-495 (Long Island Expwy) 37 Queens, NY State Route 495I 222,948 4,483 Northeastern NJ at Grand Ave.

38 Baltimore Baltimore, MD Interstate 695 I-695 at I-70 Interchange 219,350 4,411

39 Austin Travis, TX Interstate 35 I-35 at Martin Luther King Jr 217,372 4,371

San Francisco- 40 San Mateo, CA US–101 US-101 at SR-92 Interchange 253,000 4,326 Oakland

41 Atlanta Fulton, GA State Route 40000 SR-400 at I-285 Interchange 214,400 4,311

Chicago- 42 DuPage, IL Interstate 290 I-290 at I-355 213,906 4,301 Northwestern IN

San Francisco- 43 San Francisco, CA US–101 US-101 at I-280 Interchange 251,000 4,113 Oakland

New York- I-495 (Long Island Expwy) 44 Nassau, NY Interstate 495I 203,218 4,086 Northeastern NJ at Exit 33

New York- I-278 (BQE) at I-495 45 Kings, NY Interstate 278I 201,262 4,047 Northeastern NJ Interchange

New York- 46 Queens, NY Interstate 278I I-278 at Exit 36 201,262 4,047 Northeastern NJ

47 Atlanta Fulton, GA Interstate 20 I-20 at Fulton St 199,000 3,876

48 Dallas-Fort Worth Tarrant, TX State Route 121 Central at SR-121 189,380 3,808

49 Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA State Route 60 I-710 at Whittier Blvd 245,000 3,748

New York- 50 Bergen, NJ Interstate 95 I-95 at SR-3 292,872 3,734 Northeastern NJ

New York- Southern State Parkway at 51 Nassau, NY State Route 908M 196,227 3,694 Northeastern NJ Exit 25A

New York- I-278 (Staten Island Expwy) 52 Richmond, NY Interstate 278I 196,042 3,690 Northeastern NJ before Verrazano Br

53 Salt Lake City Salt Lake, UT Interstate 15 I-15 at I-80 Interchange 194,661 3,533

New York- 54 Essex, NJ Garden State Pkwy Garden State Pkwy at I-78 193,161 3,439 Northeastern NJ

Philadelphia (PA- 55 Philadelphia, PA Interstate 76 I-76 at Girard Av 192,487 3,427 NJ)

56 Jacksonville Duval, FL Interstate 95 I-95 at US-90 Interchange 168,000 3,378

57 Omaha (NE-IA) Douglas, NE Interstate 80 I-80 at I-480 Interchange 166,965 3,305

58 Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA State Route 134 SR-134 at SR-2 Interchange 238,000 3,293

59 Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA State Route 91 San Gabriel River Frwy 283,000 3,204

60 Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA Interstate 710 Long Beach Frwy 237,000 3,193

88 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 89 Rank Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous Hrs) I-10 at I-410 Loop North 61 San Antonio Bexar, TX Interstate 10 158,400 3,185 Interchange

62 Columbus Franklin, OH Interstate 70 I-70 at US-23 Interchange 157,640 3,170

63 Houston Harris, TX State Route 288 SR-288 at US-59 157,551 3,168

I - 95 between I - 895 and 64 Baltimore Baltimore city, MD Interstate 95 189,175 3,168 SR - 43

Chicago- 65 Cook, IL Interstate 55 Pulaski Rd at I-55 188,825 3,162 Northwestern IN

66 Miami-Hialeah Broward, FL State Route 826 SR-826 at I-95 Interchange 154,000 3,097

67 Dallas-Fort Worth Tarrant, TX Interstate 820 SR-121 at I-820 153,691 3,090

Washington (DC- 68 Fairfax, VA Interstate 66 Centreville Rd at I-66 188,115 3,082 MD-VA)

69 Dallas-Fort Worth Collin, TX US–75 US-75 to SR-190 F 234,791 3,078

70 New Orleans Orleans, LA Interstate 10 I-10 at I-610 Interchange 152,900 3,074

71 Baltimore Baltimore, MD Interstate 83 I-83 at I-695 Interchange 152,675 3,070

Peachtree Indtrl Blvd at 72 Atlanta De Kalb, GA State Route 14100 151,600 3,048 I-285

I-70 at I-25 Interchange 73 Denver Denver, CO Interstate 70 151,030 3,037 (“Mousetrap”)

Between I-25 and Paseo Del 74 Albuquerque Bernalillo, NM Interstate 40 150,736 3,031 Norte

75 Dallas-Fort Worth Dallas, TX US–75 US-75 at Lemmon Av 186,379 2,987

76 Houston Fort Bend, TX US–59 US-59 at SR-6 Interchange 147,668 2,969

77 Los Angeles Orange, CA State Route 57 US-57 at US-91 279,000 2,965

78 Dallas-Fort Worth Tarrant, TX State Route 360 SR-183 at SR-360 144,822 2,912

79 Miami-Hialeah Broward, FL State Route 821 SR-821 near SR-817 144,300 2,901

80 Cincinnati (OH-KY) Hamilton, OH Interstate 75 I-75 at I-74 Interchange 185,136 2,900

US-45 at I-94/I-894 81 Milwaukee Milwaukee, WI US–45N 143,108 2,878 Interchange (the “Zoo”)

82 Nashville Davidson, TN Interstate 40 I-40 at I-24 Interchange 141,520 2,846

Hartford- I-84 at SR-2 Interchange 83 Hartford, CT Interstate 84 140,500 2,825 Middletown (“Mixmaster East”)

San Francisco- 84 Santa Clara, CA Interstate 880 I-880 at SR-237 Interchange 184,000 2,815 Oakland

85 Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA Interstate 105 I-105 at US-107 Interchange 230,000 2,767

SR-836 between I-95 and 86 Miami-Hialeah Broward, FL State Route 836 137,500 2,765 I-395

I-4 at SR-408 Interchange 87 Orlando Orange, FL Interstate 4 183,000 2,733 (East/West Toll)

New York- 88 Passaic, NJ Garden State Pkwy Garden State Pkwy at SR-3 182,647 2,728 Northeastern NJ

89 Jacksonville Duval, FL Interstate 10 I-10 at US-17A Interchange 135,500 2,725

I - 35E at I - 30 Interchange 90 Dallas-Fort Worth Dallas, TX Interstate 35E 182,094 2,719 (“Mixmaster”)

88 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 89 Rank Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous Hrs) New York- I-678 at SR-27 Interchange 91 Queens, NY Interstate 678I 135,062 2,716 Northeastern NJ (JFK)

I-10 at I-17 Interchange West 92 Phoenix Maricopa, AZ Interstate 10 228,800 2,671 (the “Stack”)

Chicago- I-90 at I-94 Interchange 93 Cook, IL Interstate 90 182,054 2,652 Northwestern IN (“Edens Interchange”)

94 Cincinnati (OH-KY) Hamilton, OH Interstate 71 I - 71 at I-75 Interchange 133,728 2,647

95 Boston Suffolk, MA Interstate 93 Columbia Rd at I-93 181,560 2,645

96 Nashville Davidson, TN Interstate 24 Harding Pl at I-24 132,930 2,589

Chicago- 97 Cook, IL Interstate 80 I-80/I-94 split (southside) 132,496 2,581 Northwestern IN

98 Boston Norfolk, MA Interstate 93 I-93 at I-95 Interchange 180,594 2,565

99 Salt Lake City Davis, UT Interstate 15 I-15 at I-215 Interchange 179,510 2,484

100 Miami-Hialeah Broward, FL Interstate 595 Florida Tpke at I-595 179,500 2,484

I-95 at Golden Glades 101 Miami-Hialeah Palm Beach, FL Interstate 95 179,500 2,484 Interchange

102 Atlanta De Kalb, GA Interstate 20 I-20 at I-285 Interchange 179,300 2,481

103 San Diego San Diego, CA Interstate 5 I-5 at SR-56 Interchange 225,000 2,469

Buffalo-Niagara 104 Erie, NY Interstate 90I I-90 at I-290 131,054 2,467 Falls

105 San Diego San Diego, CA Interstate 8 Mission Valley Frwy 248,000 2,467

I-10 at I-110/US-54 106 El Paso (TX-NM) El Paso, TX Interstate 10 200,680 2,414 Interchange

107 Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA State Route 60 SR-60 at I-605 interchange 223,000 2,370

108 Detroit Wayne, MI State Route 39 M-39 at M-5 Interchange 177,000 2,320

Portland- 109 Vancouver (OR- Multnomah, OR Interstate 84 I-84 at US-30 Interchange 177,000 2,320 WA)

110 Detroit Oakland, MI Interstate 75 I-75 at I-696 Interchange 176,896 2,319

San Francisco- 111 San Mateo, CA Interstate 280 I-280 at US-1 Interchange 221,000 2,273 Oakland

112 Toledo (OH-MI) Lucas, OH Interstate 475 I-475 at Monroe St 111,797 2,248

Minneapolis-St 113 Hennepin, MN Interstate 35W I - 35W at SR-62 Interchange 175,603 2,239 Paul

114 Las Vegas Clark, NV Interstate 515 I-515 at Eastern Ave 175,300 2,235

Chicago- 115 Lake, IL Interstate 294 I-294 at Lake Cook Rd 109,512 2,202 Northwestern IN

Riverside-San 116 Riverside, CA State Route 91 SR-91 at I-215 Interchange 264,000 2,198 Bernardino

117 Columbus Franklin, OH Interstate 71 I-71 at I-70 Interchange 107,722 2,166

Washington (DC- I-95 - Woodrow Wilson 118 Fairfax, VA Interstate 495 197,112 2,163 MD-VA) Bridge

119 Louisville (KY-IN) Jefferson, KY Interstate 264 I-264 at I-64 Interchange 174,287 2,159

New York- 120 Bronx, NY Interstate 95I I-95 at I-87 Interchange 173,976 2,155 Northeastern NJ

90 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 91 Rank Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous Hrs) I - 695 between I - 70 and 121 Baltimore Baltimore, MD Interstate 695 173,529 2,150 I - 95

122 Phoenix Maricopa, AZ State Route 202 Loop-202: Dobson to I - 10 218,400 2,099

San Francisco- 123 San Francisco, CA State Route 80 SR80 at US-101 Interchange 218,000 2,096 Oakland

New York- Grand Central Parkway at 124 Queens, NY State Route 907M 172,858 2,079 Northeastern NJ Exit 5

125 Sacramento Sacramento, CA State Route 99 SR-99 at Stockton Blvd 172,000 2,069

126 Detroit Wayne, MI Interstate 75 7 Mile Rd at I-75 172,000 2,069

127 Akron Summit, OH Interstate 77 I-77 at SR-8 Interchange 125,539 2,057

Philadelphia (PA- 128 Montgomery, PA Interstate 76 I-76 at Walnut La 125,114 2,050 NJ)

Chicago- 129 DuPage, IL Interstate 355 Roosevelt Rd at I-355 125,095 2,050 Northwestern IN

Washington (DC- I-66 at I-495 (Capitol 130 Fairfax, VA Interstate 66 180,922 2,048 MD-VA) Beltway) Interchange

NorfolkVirginia 131 Beach-Newport Chesapeake, VA Interstate 664 I-664 at US-13 Interchange 124,874 2,046 News

New York- Southern State Parkway at 132 Suffolk, NY State Route 908M 171,806 2,006 Northeastern NJ Exit 32

Kalanianaole Hwy-Wailae 133 Honolulu Honolulu, HI Interstate 1 171,775 2,005 Ave

MOPAC Expy-Capital of 134 Austin Travis, TX State Route 1 124,570 1,996 Texas

135 Antioch-Pittsburgh Contra Costa, CA State Route 4 SR-4 at Willow Pass Rd 124,000 1,987

New York- 136 Morris, NJ State Route 24 I-287 at SR-24 98,587 1,982 Northeastern NJ

137 Richmond Richmond, VA Interstate 64 I-64 at I-95 Interchange 97,358 1,958

Philadelphia (PA- 138 Delaware, PA Interstate 95 I-95 at I-476 Interchange 147,290 1,931 NJ)

139 St Louis (MO-IL) St. Louis, MO Interstate 70 I-70 at US-67 Interchange 170,360 1,929

San Francisco- 140 Contra Costa, CA Interstate 680 I-680 at US-13 170,000 1,925 Oakland

Washington (DC- 141 District of Columbia Interstate 95 I-95 at Mt. Vernon Memorial 170,000 1,925 MD-VA)

142 Dayton Montgomery, OH Interstate 75 I-75 at US-35 Interchange 122,271 1,871

Philadelphia (PA- 143 Philadelphia, PA Interstate 95 I-95 at Chestnut St 168,569 1,850 NJ)

144 Detroit Oakland, MI Interstate 696 I-696 at I-75 Interchange 213,800 1,847

Portland- 145 Vancouver (OR- Washington, OR State Route 217 SR-217 at Canyon Rd 121,900 1,820 WA)

146 Cincinnati (OH-KY) Hamilton, OH US–50 US-50 at I-75 Interchange 90,274 1,815

Portland- 147 Vancouver (OR- Multnomah, OR Interstate 205 I-205 at Powell Blvd 168,100 1,786 WA)

Riverside-San Pomona Frwy at SR-91 148 Riverside, CA Interstate 215 168,000 1,785 Bernardino Interchange

Loop 410 at US - 281 149 San Antonio Bexar, TX Interstate 410 167,325 1,778 interchange

150 Cincinnati (OH-KY) Kenton, KY Interstate 75 I-75 at I-275 Interchange 167,000 1,775

90 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 91 Rank Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous Hrs) Chicago- 151 Will, IL Interstate 355 I-355 at I-55 87,166 1,753 Northwestern IN

152 Toledo (OH-MI) Lucas, OH Interstate 75 I-75 at I-280 Interchange 87,016 1,750

Washington (DC- 153 Norfolk, VA Interstate 64 I-64 at I-264 Interchange 143,768 1,730 MD-VA)

Chicago- 154 Cook, IL Interstate 57 I-57 at 12th St 166,931 1,717 Northwestern IN

155 Boston Norfolk, MA Interstate 95 Worcester Rd at I-95 166,564 1,713

New York- 156 Bergen, NJ Interstate 80 I-80 at Garden State Pkwy 120,539 1,712 Northeastern NJ

US-60 (Superstition Fwy) at 157 Phoenix Maricopa, AZ US–60 166,400 1,711 Loop-101 to I - 10

New York- FDR Drive south of 158 New York, NY State Route 907L 166,006 1,707 Northeastern NJ Triborough Bridge

Portland- 159 Vancouver (OR- Washington, OR US–26 Sunset Hwy at Murray Blvd 120,200 1,707 WA)

Chicago- 160 DuPage, IL Interstate 55 I-55 at I-294 Interchnage 165,903 1,706 Northwestern IN

161 Miami-Hialeah Broward, FL State Route 112 (MP 0.000) 95,735 1,671

San Francisco- 162 Alameda, CA Interstate 238 I-238 at I-550 119,000 1,647 Oakland

I-64 at I-65/I-71 Interchange 163 Louisville (KY-IN) Jefferson, KY Interstate 64 119,000 1,647 (“Spaghetti Junction”)

SR-183 at International 164 Dallas-Fort Worth Dallas, TX State Route 183 164,770 1,639 Pkwy

Philadelphia (PA- 165 Montgomery, PA US–202 US-202 at US-422 118,798 1,601 NJ)

166 Miami-Hialeah Broward, FL US–441 US-441 near SR-383 78,500 1,578

167 Charlotte Mecklenburg, NC Interstate 77 I-77 at Tryon Rd 164,000 1,576

I-270 at I-70 Interchange 168 Columbus Franklin, OH Interstate 270 117,782 1,544 (West)

New York- I-278 (Bruckner Expwy) at 169 Bronx, NY Interstate 278I 117,626 1,542 Northeastern NJ I-87 Interchange

New Haven(064)- 170 New Haven, CT Interstate 91 I-91 at US-1 Interchange 93,900 1,539 Meriden (212)

I - 25 and Paseo Del Norte, 171 Albuquerque Bernalillo, NM Interstate 25 162,816 1,512 Albuquerque

I-76 at SR-77 172 Akron Summit, OH Interstate 76 117,068 1,492 Interchange+J179

173 Seattle Pierce, WA State Route 16 SR-16 at Sprague Av 116,428 1,484

New Haven(064)- 174 New Haven, CT Interstate 95 I-95 at US-7 Interchange 139,600 1,484 Meriden (212)

175 Cleveland Cuyahoga, OH Interstate 77 Woodland Av at I-77 72,083 1,449

176 Baltimore Baltimore, MD Interstate 795 I-795 at I-695 Interchange 116,075 1,438

New York- SR-549 at Garden State 177 Ocean, NJ Garden State Pkwy 115,274 1,387 Northeastern NJ Pkwy

I - 35 at Loop 410 178 San Antonio Bexar, TX Interstate 35 160,461 1,386 Interchange

179 Cincinnati (OH-KY) Hamilton, OH State Route 562 SR-562 at I-75 Interchange 68,914 1,386

180 Detroit Wayne, MI Interstate 94 I-94 at I-75 Interchange 160,289 1,385

92 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 93 Rank Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous Hrs) Minneapolis-St I - 94 at I-35E Interchange 181 Ramsey, MN Interstate 94 160,000 1,382 Paul (“Spaghetti Bowl”)

I-15 at I-215 Interchange (the 182 Las Vegas Clark, NV Interstate 15 159,670 1,380 “Fishbowl”)

183 Cleveland Cuyahoga, OH Interstate 271 I-271 at I-480 Interchange 138,072 1,373

I-15 at SR-78 Interchange 184 San Diego San Diego, CA Interstate 15 202,000 1,325 (Escondido)

Minneapolis-St 185 Hennepin, MN Interstate 94 I-94 at I-35W Interchange 159,000 1,324 Paul

186 Baltimore Howard, MD State Route 100 SR-100 at US-29 66,650 1,319

Washington (DC- I-66 at US-29 Interchange (E. 187 Arlington, VA Interstate 66 113,696 1,287 MD-VA) Falls Church)

Washington (DC- 188 Norfolk, VA Interstate 264 I-264 at Downtown Tunnel 113,690 1,287 MD-VA)

Chattanooga (TN- 189 Hamilton, TN Interstate 24 I-24 at I-440N Interchange 113,250 1,282 GA)

Albany- 190 Albany, NY Interstate 90I I-90 at I-87 Interchange 113,085 1,280 Schenectady-Troy

191 Seattle King, WA Interstate 405 I-405 in Downtown Bellevue 200,590 1,262

Philadelphia (PA- 192 New Castle, DE Interstate 95 I-95 at US-1 Interchange 199,677 1,256 NJ)

I-275 Between I-74 and 193 Cincinnati (OH-KY) Hamilton, OH Interstate 275 112,851 1,238 SR-126

New York- Northern State Parkway at 194 Nassau, NY State Route 908G 112,527 1,235 Northeastern NJ Exit 36A

195 Houston Harris, TX State Route 146 SR-146 at La Porte Frwy 65,560 1,234

Loop-101 Agua Fria at 67th 196 Phoenix Maricopa, AZ State Route 101 112,320 1,232 Ave to I - 17

197 Denver Arapahoe, CO Interstate 225 I-225 at Leetsdale Dr 112,202 1,231

198 Denver Denver, CO Interstate 225 I-225 at US-87 Interchange 112,202 1,231

199 Richmond Richmond, VA Interstate 195 I-195 at SR-76 Interchange 88,636 1,194

Kansas City (MO- 200 Jackson, MO Interstate 70 I-70 at I-435 Interchange 111,874 1,189 KS)

201 Miami-Hialeah Broward, FL State Route 874 SR-874 near SR-821 111,500 1,185

202 Pittsburgh Allegheny, PA Interstate 376 I-376 at Centreville Rd 111,396 1,184

I-94 W. of Marquette 203 Milwaukee Milwaukee, WI Interstate 94 155,374 1,152 Interchange

Minneapolis-St 204 Hennepin, MN Interstate 494 I - 494 at I-35W Interchange 154,391 1,145 Paul

Washington (DC- 205 District of Columbia Interstate 695 I-695 at S. Capitol St 111,030 1,142 MD-VA)

206 Nashville Davidson, TN Interstate 440 I-440S at US-431 111,010 1,142

207 Tulsa Tulsa, OK US–169 Mingo Valley Exwy at S 21st 111,000 1,142

Washington (DC- Balt/Wash Pkwy at Powder 208 Prince Georges, MD State Route 295 110,675 1,138 MD-VA) Mill Rd.

209 Santa Cruz Santa Cruz, CA State Route 1 SR-1 at SR-17 Interchange 110,000 1,094

210 Gastonia Gaston, NC Interstate 85 I-85 at SR-7 110,000 1,094

92 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance • Effective Relief for Highway Bottlenecks • www.highways.org 93 Rank Urban Area County Route Location Vehicles/Day 2002 Delay (Thous Hrs) SR-176 between Snow Rd 211 Cleveland Cuyahoga, OH State Route 176 63,515 1,086 and Broadview Rd

212 Bremerton Kitsap, WA State Route 16 SR-16 at SR-3 63,263 1,082

213 Richmond Chesterfield, VA State Route 150 US-1 at Chippenham Pkwy 53,713 1,080

I-590 at I-490/SR-590 214 Rochester Monroe, NY State Route 5900 Interchange (“Can of 109,594 1,053 Worms”)

215 Orlando Osceola, FL Interstate 4 US-192 at I-4 109,423 1,052

Philadelphia (PA- 216 Chester, PA US–202 Darby Paoli Rd at US-202 109,377 1,051 NJ)

217 Detroit Wayne, MI Interstate 96 I-96 at I-275 Interchange 193,700 1,020

Minneapolis-St 218 Hennepin, MN Interstate 394 I - 394 at TH 100 Interchange 150,000 943 Paul

219 Columbus Franklin, OH State Route 315 SR-315 at I-70 Interchange 61,354 939

Washington (DC- Arlington Blvd-Washington 220 Arlington, VA US–50 60,711 907 MD-VA) Blvd

San Francisco- 221 Alameda, CA Interstate 580 I-580 MP 17-19 189,000 906 Oakland

Washington (DC- Balt/Wash Pkwy at I - 495/I 222 Prince Georges, MD State Route 295 105,875 881 MD-VA) - 95 Interchange

223 Seattle Snohomish, WA Interstate 5 I-5 NB at SR 526 in Everett 147,095 848

Portland- I - 5 Interstate Bridge and 224 Vancouver (OR- Multnomah, OR Interstate 5 105,200 843 bridge influence area WA)

225 Atlanta Gwinnett, GA State Route 86400 Near jct. with US-29 59,600 825

New Haven(064)- 226 Fairfield, CT Interstate 95 I-95 at US-7 Interchange 146,300 806 Meriden (212)

Chicago- I-55 from Naperville to I-80 227 Will, IL Interstate 55 104,537 806 Northwestern IN (“Crossroads of America”)

228 Seattle King, WA State Route 520 SR-520 Floating Bridge 100,280 804

229 Appleton-Neenah Winnebago, WI US–10E US-10 at US-441 Interchange 59,426 801

230 Akron Summit, OH Interstate 277 I-277 at I-77 Interchange 58,428 745

I - 35W at SH - 121 231 Dallas-Fort Worth Tarrant, TX Interstate 35W 102,159 728 Interchange

232 Baton Rouge East Baton Rouge, LA Interstate 10 I - 10 at I - 110 Interchange 144,200 725

233 Providence Kent, RI Interstate 95 I-95 at Route 4 Interchange 173,700 719

94 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org 94 American Highway Users Alliance • Unclogging America’s Arteries 1999-2004 • www.highways.org American Highway Users Alliance One Thomas Circle, NW 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005 www.highways.org