NOACA Technical Memorandum

Congestion Pricing Evaluation

August 2012 The Northeast Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA) is a public organization serving the counties of and municipalities and townships within Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain and Medina (covering an area with 2.1 million people). NOACA is the agency designated or recognized to perform the following functions:

• Serve as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), with responsibility for comprehensive, cooperative and continuous planning for highways, public transit, and bikeways, as defined in the current transportation law. • Perform continuous water quality, transportation-related air quality and other environmental planning functions. • Administer the area clearinghouse function, which includes providing local government with the opportunity to review a wide variety of local or state applications for federal funds. • Conduct transportation and environmental planning and related demographic, economic and land use research. • Serve as an information center for transportation and environmental and related planning. • At NOACA Governing Board direction, provide transportation and environmental planning assistance to the 172 units of local, general purpose government.

MADISON TWP. NORTH PERRY The NOACA Governing Board is composed of 44 local public officials. LAKE

MADISON GRAND RIVER VILLAGE TWP. PAINESVILLE PERRY The Board convenes monthly to provide a forum for members to present, FAIRPORT HARBOR VILLAGE. PAINESVILLE PERRY TWP. TWP. 90

MENTOR ON PAINESVILLE discuss and develop solutions to local and areawide issues and make THE LAKE TWP.

LEROY MENTOR PAINESVILLE TWP. THOMPSON recommendations regarding implementation strategies. As the area CONCORD TWP. TWP. TIMBERLAKE 2 LAKELINE 90

EASTLAKE clearinghouse for the region, the Board makes comments and LAKE KIRTLAND WILLOWICK GEAUGA HILLS GEAUGA WILLOUGHBY

WICKLIFFE MONTVILLE WAITE CHARDON HAMBDEN recommendations on applications for state and federal grants, HILL TWP. TWP. TWP. EUCLID KIRTLAND WILLOUGHBY CHARDON HILLS with the purpose of enhancing the region’s social, physical, 90 LAKE

BRATENAHL HIGHLAND RICHMOND HTS. HTS. MAYFIELD AQUILLA VILLAGE HUNTSBURG TWP. CHESTERLAND MUNSON CLARIDON environmental and land use/transportation fabric. EAST TWP. TWP. TWP. SOUTH MAYFIELD GATES EUCLID HTS. MILLS CLEVELAND NOACA invites you to take part in HTS. LYNDHURST 271 SHEFFIELD LAKE AVON LAKE UNIVERSITY 77 HTS. MIDDLEFIELD LAKEWOOD PEPPER HUNTING TWP. BAY VILLAGE PIKE ROCKY 490 SHAKER VALLEY RUSSELL RIVER HTS. TWP. BURTON SHEFFIELD 90 90 BEACHWOOD NEWBURY its planning process. Feel CLEVELAND TWP. MIDDLEFIELD WOODMERE WESTLAKE BURTON 71 TWP. LORAIN LINNDALE CHAGRIN FALLS TWP. FAIRVIEW HIGHLAND ORANGE AVON CUYAHOGA WARRENSVILLEHILLS PARK HTS. MORELANDCHAGRIN N. BROOKLYN RANDALL HILLSFALLS

HTS. LORAIN CUYAHOGA S. RUSSELL free to participate, SHEFFIELD BROOKLYN GARFIELD TWP. N. OLMSTED 480 HTS. HTS. MAPLE ELYRIA BENTLEYVILLE

HTS. HTS. TWP. 480 2 AMHERST NORTH RIDGEVILLE BROOKPARK BEDFORD 77 AUBURN TROY PARKMAN to ask questions BEDFORD SOLON BAINBRIDGE PARMA VALLEY TWP. TWP. TWP. OLMSTED PARMA TWP. 80 TWP. MIDDLEBURGH HTS. VIEW OLMSTED HTS. SEVEN BROWNHELM ELYRIA FALLS HILLS 271 AMHERST BEREA 480 TWP. TWP. WALTON 422

HILLS CUYAHOGA INDEPENDENCE GLEN GEAUGA and to learn more OAKWOOD WILLOW GEAUGA 90 S. AMHERST 80 PORTAGE BROADVIEW N. ROYALTON HTS. about areawide HENRIETTA NEW RUSSIA COLUMBIA 480 TWP. TWP. CARLISLE EATON TWP. STRONGSVILLE TWP. TWP. 80 BRECKSVILLE OBERLIN 71 planning. LORAIN GRAFTON CUYAHOGA SUMMIT KIPTON MEDINA 80

BRUNSWICK 80 PITTSFIELD GRAFTON LIVERPOOL HINCKLEY CAMDEN TWP. La GRANGE TWP. TWP. TWP. TWP.

La GRANGE TWP. BRUNSWICK

TWP. SUMMIT 271 PORTAGE WELLINGTON TWP. BRIGHTON MEDINA LITCHFIELD YORK TWP. TWP. PENFIELD TWP. TWP. WELLINGTON TWP. GRANGER TWP. MEDINA LORAIN SUMMIT MEDINA MEDINA ROCHESTER 77 HUNTINGTON CHATHAM LAFAYETTE MONTVILLE SHARON For more ROCHESTER SPENCER TWP. TWP. TWP. TWP. TWP. TWP.

SPENCER Briarwood Beach TWP. information, call: Chippewa on the Lake WADSWORTH WESTFIELD TWP. TWP. GUILFORD TWP. LODI 76 (216) 241-2414 HOMER WESTFIELD TWP. CENTER HARRISVILLE WADSWORTH TWP. SEVILLE 71

or log on at: RITTMAN http:\\www.noaca.org 2012 NOACA BOARD BOARD OFFICERS

President: Edward Jerse, Director of Regional Collaboration, Treasurer: James R. Gills, P.E., P.S., Lake County Engineer Cuyahoga County Assistant Treasurer: Julius Ciaccia, Jr., Executive Director, First Vice President: Frank G. Jackson, Mayor, City of Cleveland Regional Sewer District Second Vice President: Mary E. Samide, President, Geauga County Assistant Treasurer: Robert E. Aufuldish, Lake County Board of Commissioners Commissioner Secretary: Ted Kalo, Lorain County Commissioner Immediate Past President: Stephen D. Hambley, President, Medina Assistant Secretary: Robert C. Downey, City Manager, City of County Board of Commissioners Cleveland Heights Assistant Secretary: Michael J. Salay, P.E., P.S., Medina County Engineer

BOARD MEMBERS

CUYAHOGA COUNTY CITY OF CLEVELAND MEDINA COUNTY Robert G. Blomquist, Mayor, City of Anthony Brancatelli, Councilman James M. Lukas, City Manager/Safety Director, City Olmsted Falls Robert N. Brown, Director of Planning of Brunswick William R. Cervenik, Mayor, City of Euclid Frank G. Jackson, Mayor Stephen D. Hambley, President, Medina County Board Scott E. Coleman, Mayor, Highland Heights Martin J. Keane, Councilman of Commissioners Timothy J. DeGeeter, Mayor, City of Parma Mamie J. Mitchell, Councilwoman Michael J. Salay, P.E., P.S., Medina County Engineer Robert C. Downey, City Manager, City of Jomarie Wasik, Director of Capital Projects Kathleen Scheutzow, Trustee, Brunswick Hills Cleveland Heights Township Edward O. FitzGerald, Executive, Cuyahoga GEAUGA COUNTY County Tracy A. Jemison, Geauga County Commissioner NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER Charles M. Germana, Councilman, Cuyahoga Mary E. Samide, President, Geauga County Board DISTRICT (NEORSD) County Council of Commissioners Julius Ciaccia, Jr., Executive Director Edward S. Jerse, Director of Regional William S. Young, Geauga County Commissioner REGIONAL TRANSIT Collaboration, Cuyahoga County LAKE COUNTY AUTHORITY (GCRTA) Gary Norton, Jr., Mayor, City of East Cleveland Robert E. Aufuldish, Lake County Commissioner George M. Dixon, Board President Michael S. Procuk, Mayor, Village of James R. Gills, P.E., P.S., Lake County Engineer Brooklyn Heights CLEVELAND-CUYAHOGA COUNTY PORT Raymond E. Sines, President, Lake County Board AUTHORITY: William D. Friedman, President/CEO Leonard A. Spremulli, Mayor, Village of of Commissioners Bentleyville Daniel P. Troy, Lake County Commissioner OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Robert A. Stefanik, Mayor, City of Mark A. Tyler, Mayor, City of Kirtland (ODOT): Myron S. Pakush, Deputy Director, North Royalton District 12 Michael P. Summers, Mayor, City of Lakewood LORAIN COUNTY Deborah L. Sutherland, Mayor, City of Bay Holly Brinda, Mayor, City of Elyria Ex offi cio Member: Village Kenneth P. Carney, Sr., P.E., P.S., Lorain County Kurt Princic, Chief, Northeast District Offi ce, Ohio Bonita G. Teeuwen, P.E., Director, Public Engineer Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Works, Cuyahoga County Ted Kalo, Lorain County Commissioner Dick Heidecker, Trustee, Lorain County Township Association John D. Hunter, Mayor, Village of Sheffi eld Chase M. Ritenauer, Mayor, City of Lorain Tom Williams, Lorain County Commissioner

NOACA DIRECTORS Grace Gallucci, Executive Director Planning and Programs Division Directors: Cheryl A. Kurkowski, CPA, Director of Finance Ronald T. Eckner, P. E., Director of Planning & Operations Jonathan Giblin, Director of Programs William Davis, Associate Director of Planning

2) NOACA Report No.

1) Title & Subtitle TM-12-02

Congestion Pricing Evaluation

3) Author(s) 4) Report Date

Mona Aziz August 2012

5) Performing Organization Name & Address 6) Project Task No. 6055-02 Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency 1299 Superior , Cleveland, OH 44114-3204 Phone: (216) 241-2414 Fax: (216) 621-3024 website: www.noaca.org 7) NOACA Contract/Grant No. ODOT/FHWA

8) Sponsoring Agency Name & Address 9) Type of Report & Period Covered Ohio Department of Transportation 1980 W. Broad St., Box 899 Columbus, OH 43216-0899 10) Sponsoring Agency Code

11) Supplementary Notes

Federal funding for this project was provided by the Federal Administration and administered by the Ohio Department of Transportation.

12) Abstracts

This memorandum is a broad overview to explore the feasibility of implementing congestion pricing within the region of the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA).

13) Key Words & Document Analysis

Congestion Management Process (CMP), Congestion Pricing

A. Descriptors

B. Identifiers/Open Ended Terms

14) Availability Statement 15) No. Pages NOACA 34

16) Price

Congestion Pricing Evaluation

August 2012

Prepared by

NORTHEAST OHIO AREAWIDE COORDINATING AGENCY

Principal Author: Mona Aziz

Edward Jerse Grace Gallucci BOARD PRESIDENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

The preparation of this publication was financed through grants received from the Federal Highway Administration and the Ohio Department of Transportation and appropriations from the counties of and municipalities within Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain and Medina. The contents do not necessarily reflect official views or policies of the U.S. Department of Transportation or the Ohio Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard or regulation.

This page is intentionally left blank

Abstract

This memorandum is a broad overview to explore the feasibility of implementing congestion pricing within the region of the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA).

Conditions in the NOACA region may or may not be suitable for implementing congestion pricing. For such an unfamiliar new policy, implementing congestion pricing projects is a complex process. Currently, the NOACA region does not experience a high level of congestion. The peak period is relatively short in duration. Recognizing that congestion pricing must be part of an integrated transportation strategy, this work represents the beginning to further research and dialog regarding pricing measures to manage travel demand in the NOACA region.

This document includes an extensive review of a broad range of congestion pricing concepts, techniques, and information obtained from other congestion pricing studies and roadway projects completed in metropolitan planning areas nationwide.

Project Initiation

The congestion pricing implementation feasibility overview is undertaken in response to the Federal Certification review in August 2009 of NOACA’s transportation planning process. The recommendation, made under the Congestion Management Process (CMP) concerning congestion pricing, states: “NOACA should expand the discussion of congestion pricing in the CMP/MOP. This could consist of an in-depth examination of the pricing alternatives, costs/benefits of each, implementation feasibility and challenges. The analysis could be expanded from the focus on congestion to pricing that reduces transportation subsidies and SOV travel while improving modal balance. The FHWA recommendation does not suggest that NOACA implement congestion pricing within its region. It suggests that NOACA document how it has considered (and rejected) congestion pricing as a demand management measure.”

Congestion Pricing Definition

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) publication, titled “Congestion Pricing, A Primer”, describes congestion pricing, known also as value pricing, as a way of harnessing the power of the market to reduce the waste associated with traffic congestion. Congestion pricing works by shifting discretionary rush hour highway travel to other transportation modes or to off- peak periods. By removing a fraction (even as small as five percent) of the vehicles from a congested roadway by pricing enables the system to perform much more efficiently. Similar variable charges have been successfully utilized in other industries – for example, airline tickets, cell phone rates, and electricity rates. There is a consensus among economists that congestion pricing represents the single most viable and sustainable approach to reducing traffic congestion. Fees are typically assessed electronically to eliminate delays associated with manual toll collection facilities.

This concept of assessing relatively higher prices for travel during peak periods varying with the level of congestion provides incentives to shift some trips to off-peak times, less congested

1 routes, or alternative modes, or to cause some trips to be combined with other trips, or to be eliminated.

There are four main types of pricing strategies:

 Variably priced : this type of pricing involves variable tolls on separated lanes within a highway, such as Express Toll Lanes or HOT (High Occupancy Toll Lanes). For these lanes, single or low-occupancy vehicles are charged a variably-priced toll to access the facility, while high-occupancy vehicles enjoy free access or reduced rates. Underutilized carpool lanes are often converted to HOT lanes. Express lanes function in a similar manner, although they generally do not provide free access for high-occupancy vehicles.  Variable tolls on entire roadways: both on toll and , as well as on existing toll-free facilities during rush hours. In Lee County, Florida, tolls vary based on the level of congestion.  Cordon pricing: refers to variable or fixed charges to drive within or into a congested area within a city, such as a city’s central business district. Examples of cordon pricing include London, Stockholm, and Singapore. No examples exist within the United States. However, a congestion pricing plan proposed for downtown San Francisco area is being advanced by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) after it was approved in 2010 of their Mobility Access and Pricing Study. If implemented, it would be the first cordon pricing project in North America.  Area-wide pricing: per-mile charges on all roads within an area that may vary by level of congestion. To date, area-wide pricing has only been studied, not implemented, in the United States.

Experience with Congestion Pricing

Congestion pricing exists in the United States and abroad. International examples tend to demonstrate the cordon pricing approach, while variably-priced lanes are popular in the United States. The most common form of congestion pricing in the United States has been high- occupancy toll lanes (HOT lanes), where high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes are opened for use by vehicles with lower occupancy for a fee, or express toll lanes where new lanes are built adjacent to existing freeways where the use of these new lanes is subject to a toll.

Congestion pricing is new in the United States and not well understood by the general public and elected officials. No cordon tolls have been implemented in the United States but several have been implemented in other parts of the world. The most publicized cordon toll systems are in Singapore, London, and Stockholm. Cordon tolls have been proposed in the United States. The most well-known example is in part of Manhattan, in . In April 2008, after passing in the city, this proposal did not gain approval in the state legislature.

Currently, there are twenty-four variably-priced lanes facilities in twelve U.S. states as shown in Table 1 and Figure 1. Eight of these facilities are located in California. The rest are located in Florida, Minnesota, Texas, Colorado, Georgia, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey. The average length for a facility is about thirteen miles (except the New

2 Jersey Turnpike, I-15 in Utah, and SR-241 in California), and most facilities consist of two or four lanes. The tolls are typically in the range of $1 to $4 during the peak hours with the minimum of $0.25 and the maximum of $10 during highly congested periods. On all of the congestion-priced facilities in the United States, tolls are collected electronically. To use the tolled lanes, motorists must acquire a transponder for their vehicles and prepay a certain amount; the tolls are then debited electronically. Electronic toll collection has made it possible to collect congestion charges without compounding the problem by creating congestion at tollbooths.

Table 1: Operational Congestion Pricing Projects in the United States Name Location Length Description Pricing Began SR‐91 Orange County, California 10 miles HOT, variable pricing 1995

I‐15 San Diego, California 16 miles HOT, variable pricing 1996

SR‐73 Orange County, California 15 miles Highway, peak‐period pricing 2002

SR‐261 Orange County, California 6.6 miles Highway, peak‐period pricing 2002

SR‐241 Orange County, California 22.2 miles Highway, peak‐period pricing 2002

SR‐133 Orange County, California 4.1 miles Highway, peak‐period pricing 2002

Bay San Francisco‐Oakland, California 8 miles Bridge, peak‐period pricing 2010

I‐680 Alameda/S. Clara, CA 14 miles HOT , dynamic pricing 2010

I‐10 Houston, Texas 12 miles HOT lane, dynamic pricing 1998

US‐290 Houston, Texas 15 miles HOT lane, peak‐period pricing 2000

Lee bridges Lee County, Florida 2 bridges Bridge, peak‐period pricing 1998

I‐95 Miami‐Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 7 miles HOT lane, dynamic pricing 2008

New Jersey Turnpike New Jersey 148 miles Highway, peak‐period pricing 2000

Bridge/ New York & New Jersey 4 bridges/2 tunnels Bridge/, peak‐period pricing 2001

I‐394 Minneapolis‐St. Paul, Minnesota 11 miles HOT lane, dynamic pricing 2005

I‐35W Minneapolis‐St. Paul, Minnesota 16 miles HOT lane, dynamic pricing 2009

I‐25 Denver, Colorado 7 miles HOT, variable pricing 2006

I‐15 Salt Lake City, Utah 40 miles HOT lane, dynamic pricing 2006 9 miles Southbound / SR‐167 Seattle, Washington HOT lane, dynamic pricing 1998 11 miles Northbound SR‐520 Seattle, Washington Bridge Bridge, variable pricing 2011

Dulles Greenway Loodoun County, Virginia 14 miles Highway, peak‐period pricing 2009

Pocahontas Richmond, Virginia 8.8 miles Highway, peak‐period pricing 2011

I‐85 Atlanta, Georgia 15.5 miles HOT lane, dynamic pricing 2011

MD 200 Montgomery County, Maryland 18 miles Highway, peak‐period pricing 2011 Source: GAO Report "Traffic Congestion: Pricing can Help Reduce Congestion, but Equity Concerns May Grow", January 2012; Note: HOT = High-Occupancy Toll

3 Figure 1: U.S. Congestion Pricing Projects in Operation or Under Construction

This figure –is an excerpt from US Government Accountability Office (GAO) 2012 report titled “Road Pricing can Help Reduce Congestion but Equity Concerns May Grow”

The three operating projects reviewed in this document include the SR 91 Express Lane facility in southern California, the I-394 HOT lanes facility in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and the Lee County variable toll bridge in Lee County, Florida.

SR-91, California

The SR-91 Express Lanes freeway in Orange County, California, is a ten-mile four-lane facility built in the median of an eight-lane freeway (SR-91) which runs between Orange and Riverside Counties. They were the first congestion pricing facility in the United States. SR-91 was the world’s first fully automated facility when it opened in 1995. The SR-91 Express lanes are always operational, and tolls are adjusted hourly based on congestion. The express facility includes only one entrance and one exit. The toll ranges from $1.25 to $10 per trip by time of day (depending on traffic). All SR-91 users must have a transponder. Carpools of three or more are exempt from tolls, except during afternoon peak periods. FHWA analysis showed during the afternoon peak, the two express lanes carried almost the same number of drivers as the four “free” lanes because drivers were able to move faster. Those who choose the “free” lanes also benefit because the addition of four new lanes helped alleviate the traffic problems along the corridor. The toll lanes are separated from the general-purpose lanes by a painted buffer and plastic pylons, as illustrated in Figure 2.

4 The express lanes can offer up to a 20-minute travel time savings and provide drivers an alternative when time is of the essence. Although a commuter rail line and an express bus line both operate in the SR-91 corridor, there is little impact on public transportation operations from this variable pricing application. A 2006 evaluation found that the total public-transit ridership in the corridor amounts to less than one percent of the total traffic. 1

Figure 2: Plastic Pylons Separate Priced Lanes from Free Lanes on SR-91 Express Lanes Source: FHWA Congestion Pricing A Primer

I-394 Minneapolis, Minnesota

I-394 radial interstate runs east-west and provides commuters from the western suburbs of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area with access to downtown Minneapolis. In 2005, the HOV lanes on I-394 were converted to HOT lanes. Carpools of two or more passengers are exempt from tolls, and the HOT lanes are only in operation during peak periods. The Minnesota Department of Transportation employed this strategy to maximize the use of underutilized carpool lanes in the region. The most recent data shows that approximately 940,000 vehicles use I-394’s toll lanes every year. Tolls are adjusted hourly based on the level of congestion, and the average toll cost drivers $1 to $4 during rush hour. Income from tolls is used to pay for operation of the Express Lanes. Excess revenues are used to improve transit and other transportation needs on I-394. A November 2006 evaluation found that most public transportation providers reported negligible impact on operations as a direct result of the I-394 value-pricing deployment.1 Because of the success of I-394’s HOV conversion, officials opened a second HOT lanes facility along I-35W in 2010.

1 FHWA Transit and Congestion Pricing – A Primer – Pricing Strategies and Their Effect on Public Transportation

5 Figure 3: Photo of a Variable Message Sign above the I-394 HOT Lanes Showing Current Toll Rates Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation

The Lee County Variable Bridge Toll, Florida

Since 1998 variable pricing has been used on the Cape Coral and Midpoint Bridges in Lee County, Florida. Both bridges carry a large number of commuters during peak periods, although neither suffers from severe congestion. There was a five percent shift from peak to off-peak travel resulting from variable pricing.2 This change was due to economic factors and not to congestion. The objective of the variable pricing program was to provide travelers with an incentive to shift from peak to off-peak periods. This demonstration project was intended to be a proactive measure to examine the effects of pricing on existing congestion, as well as install the technical infrastructure needed for future congestion management projects. This project is supported by a federal Value Pricing grant that covers any revenue lost through toll discounts. The bridges have peak and off-peak rates. They have half price tolls during the off-peak period (see Figure 2) as an incentive for motorists to adjust their travel times (the standard toll is $$0.50 to $1.00). The Variable Pricing discount is only available to those motorists who are participating in Leeway prepaid toll account (the electronic toll system). However, there has been no apparent public transportation interest in this bridge-toll-pricing system. The success of this demonstration has led Lee County to explore other value pricing applications to improve overall traffic management.

2 FHWA Mitigating Traffic Congestion – The Role of Demand-Side Strategies: Lee County Florida

6

Figure 4: Sign Showing Time Periods when Discount Tolls are in Effect on the Two Bridges in Ft. Myers Source: FHWA Congestion Pricing A Primer

Based on recent experience, FHWA publication, titled “Transit and Congestion Pricing – A Primer”, stated that the effect of congestion pricing on public transportation depends on the pricing strategy implemented. As it was mentioned in the above examples, at present, variably priced lanes have had limited effect on public transportation. However, in many cases, some of the revenues generated by the lanes are dedicated to public transportation. All the congestion pricing schemes deployed in the U.S. have had the primary goal of congestion reduction followed by revenue enhancements. Insufficient development of park-and-ride facilities and the absence of a reliable and viable transit alternative have greatly limited transit usage.

On the other hand, the impact of cordon or area-wide pricing has significant effect on public transportation. International cordon pricing could not have been successful without public transportation involvement. In both London and Stockholm, new and enhanced public transportation was launched in advance as early as one year before the advent of charging. This meant significant increases in bus services. In London, careful planning changes to public transportation ensured that sufficient buses were provided to keep occupancy rates relatively constant. Stockholm emphasized on express bus services from the suburbs to the inner city with accessible locations and limited stops. Stockholm increased park-n-ride spaces in close proximity to public transportation options and heavily publicized the parking options.

7 Lessons Learned

In summary, there are relatively few examples of congestion pricing, despite the strong theoretical and empirical case in favor of the policy. International examples tend to take the cordon-based approach, whereas American examples tend to favor variably priced lanes.

Express and HOT lanes projects appear to be the most popular form of congestion pricing in the United States. They can either be new-build toll lanes or toll lanes converted from existing underutilized or over utilized high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Currently no facilities have been converted from existing general purpose lanes.

Congestion pricing may represent many barriers to public acceptance. The question of social equity is a major issue to be taken into consideration when considering congestion pricing. People usually complain when they have to pay for something they previously received it to be free of charge. Where congestion pricing has been implemented successfully in the United States, it has been applied to new highways or new lanes of existing highways. That strategy has given motorists a choice between sitting in traffic on existing roads or paying to use new, free- flowing lanes.

Current active projects in California, Minnesota, and Florida have shown that congestion pricing can be an effective technique for managing congestion and raising revenue on highway facilities. Based on the experiences of each of these projects and studies, several key benefits and barriers have emerged as lessons for future studies. A number of important lessons were learned about the process of conducting a congestion pricing study.3

 A project’s prospects for success can be enhanced by forming a task force that allows broad representation of major groups interested in the study, and provides for information exchange between these groups, the study team, policy makers, and sources of technical support.

 Finding a lead person/champion who is respected by the community at large and is willing to serve as a representative of the project is a critical element of success. The public tends to be more receptive to messages coming from nongovernment task force members.

 Integrating the concept of congestion pricing and managed lanes into the metropolitan planning process by selecting and applying pricing strategies to transportation projects in the region is a good approach.

3 References: 1. A Domestic Scan of Congestion Pricing and Managed Lanes, prepared by DKS Associates for FHWA in 2009 (Publication Number: FHWA-HEP-09-044) 2. Congestion Pricing a Primer, 2011: Metropolitan Planning Organizations Case Studies (Publication Number: FHWA HOP-11- 030) 3. Regional Value Pricing Corridor Evaluation and Feasibility Study for the Dallas Fort Worth Region, prepared by URS for the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) in 2005 4. 2003 Minnesota Value Pricing Report, published by Minnesota Department of Transportation

8  In all regions, individual project proposals introduced the metropolitan areas to the congestion pricing mechanism. As projects were successfully implemented, transportation officials saw a growing need to include policies on congestion pricing in their long range transportation plans.

 A full evaluation of the impact of pricing requires the use of sophisticated modeling tools that can address responses to pricing related to mode, time of day, destination and route, with responses differentiated by income group. All regions found that the basic four-step travel demand model is not well suited to the complex changes that extensive road pricing can bring about. Detailed modeling results can add greatly to public understanding of the options and their potential benefits and costs.

 Focused workshops reaching out to particular groups of interested citizens (e.g., freight industry) can be very effective communication tool, and can help make these groups a productive part of the study process.

 A strong media program can be a very useful element of any congestion pricing study. Briefings should be scheduled, press materials should be concise and current, and staff and non-staff contacts should be available to provide information to the press. It is very important to develop a clear, concise project message early in the process. Task Force members need to be available and sufficiently briefed to respond to media inquiries.

NOACA Region’s Experience with Congestion Pricing and Managed Lanes

Managed lanes are defined as highway facilities that increase the freeway efficiency by packaging various operational strategies that are proactively managed in response to changing conditions. Managed lanes include HOV lanes, bus-only lanes, truck lanes, toll highways, priced lanes, express lanes, or any combination of these strategies.

There are currently no congestion pricing or managed lanes projects in operation in the NOACA region. The (I-80) is the only in the NOACA area. Congestion pricing and managed lanes are strategies in the NOACA "Congestion Management Planning Toolbox," used in the project planning review process for regional projects.

The only experience with managed lanes is a study undertaken in 1999 by Parsons-Brinkerhoff Consultant for ODOT to determine whether there was a need for HOV lanes along the I-71 and I-90 corridors, with additional alternatives along I-480 and SR-176 (Jennings Freeway). The consultant team evaluated various HOV alternatives to concentrate on the locations where HOV lanes would be most viable. This study has determined that the congestion along I-90 and I-71 does not justify an HOV except at the I-71/I-90/Jennings freeway area where traffic converges at the I-90 approaching the Central Business District (CBD). Two alternatives were developed at this location: an HOV alternative and a general purpose-lane. Both alternatives suggest adding a fifth lane in each direction to the Innerbelt Bridge. The final study conclusions were:

9  An HOV lane along I-90 west of I-71 is not justified.  Periodic monitoring of I-71 between SR-303 and I-480 is needed, along with further study through the NOACA CMP.  An HOV alternative through the I-71/I-90/SR-176 should be incorporated into the design of the Innerbelt Bridge construction. This recommended segment has been reviewed again under the Cleveland Innerbelt Improvement Alternatives Study.

The I-90 is one of downtown’s main transportation arteries where I-71 and I-77 end at I-90. It provides for the collection and distribution of traffic between the radial freeway system (I-71, I-90, I-77, SR-2, I-490, and SR-176) and the local system, and it also moves traffic between each of the radial freeways, within the city of Cleveland CBD area.

ODOT’s Cleveland Innerbelt Reconstruction project is currently underway. It includes rebuilding portions of I-71, I-77, and I-90 through downtown Cleveland. The Innerbelt Bridge will be replaced and a fifth lane in each direction will be added. This should improve the operational performance, safety, and accessibility along these corridors. It should also mitigate the chronic traffic congestion. But, the development of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes has been eliminated from consideration.

Mobility in the NOACA Region

In many metropolitan areas across the country, portions of the Interstate Highway System are showing signs of significant congestion exceeding several hours.

The NOACA region has congestion hotspots on the freeways in bottleneck areas during the peak periods (duration is less than one hour). Most of the congested hotspots are away from the CBD area. It is not fair to assume that all the slower speeds are due to increased traffic volumes. The fluctuation in travel speeds could be due to peak-period travel characteristics, local roadway conditions, or construction on adjacent roads that divert traffic to the freeway system.

According to recently published data by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) 2011 Urban th Mobility Report, the NOACA region ranked 64 out of 101 urban areas in the nation for traffic congestion levels based on annual delay per peak traveler (person-hours). The NOACA region is in the top four least congested urban areas among 32 urban areas of similar size (population of one to three million). The NOACA region experienced much less congestion between 2000 and 2010 based on performance measures such as total delay and travel time index.

Annual delay per auto commuter is the extra travel time during the year divided by the number of people who commute in private vehicles in the urban area. Travel time index is a measure of congestion that focuses on each trip and each mile of travel. It is the ratio of travel time in the peak period to travel time in free-flow.

Based on the data published by the Texas Transportation Institute, population, and traffic volumes in the NOACA region have also decreased over the past six years. From 2004 to 2010, the area’s population decreased by almost five percent.

10 Table 2 shows Cleveland’s travel characteristics compared to Portland, Los Angeles and . City of Cleveland had the highest speed during the peak period (25 percent above the minimum speed). Los Angeles and Chicago had approximately 24 times and 17 times respectively more annual person-hours of delay than Cleveland. City of Portland which had just about the same number of peak travelers experienced about twice as much as the annual delay in Cleveland.

Table 2: Travel Characteristics Inventory

Cleveland Portland Los Angeles Chicago

Urban Area Population 1,706,000 1,900,000 13,124,000 8,519,000

Peak Travelers 955,000 990,000 7,205,000 4,678,000

Freeway Daily VMT 16,961,000 13,121,000 132,195,000 54,959,000

Arterial Daily VMT 11,816,000 13,293,000 117,286,000 49,326,000

Peak Period Freeway Speed 56.1 48.6 47.3 49.4

Percent above the Minimum 25% 8% 5% 10% Freeway Speed

Peak Period Arterial Speed 38.8 36.2 29.9 29.0 Inventory Measures Inventory

Annual Delay (person-hours) 21,380,000 41,743,000 521,449,000 367,122,000

Travel Time Index 1.10 1.25 1.38 1.24

Source: 2011 Urban Mobility Report

In contrast, the NOACA Future Traffic Congestion Technical Memo, published in 2010, reveals the following observations based on 2030 “Build” conditions:

 Cuyahoga County has the highest number of congested roadway segments.  Freeway congested segments are on I-480 and I-271 in Cuyahoga County.  Some congested segments along the Innerbelt in Cuyahoga County remain despite improvements.  I-77 corridor in Cuyahoga County shows improvement after the widening of I-77 south of I-480.

11  In urban areas, freeways will have the highest percentage (eight percent) of congested roadway miles of any category by functional class. Arterials will have about two percent of congested miles traveled, and collectors will have three percent.

Appendix I provides an overview of major highways in the NOACA region. It also contains a description of the NOACA travel demand model. Potential Congestion Pricing Strategies in the NOACA Region

In the context of the NOACA transportation network, congestion pricing projects could be developed with the following strategies provided that alternative methods or modes of transportation are available:

 Pricing on existing toll-free facilities (all lanes of a specific highway section) during rush hours;  Pricing a bridge (on a highway) during rush hours; and  Pricing freeway ramps.

Congestion pricing is a policy tool that is designed to reduce driving during the peak periods and encourage the use of transit in congested areas (i.e. a CBD area, or a particular roadway). Potential impact of congestion pricing on travel on a freeway corridor and surrounding arterials may include:

 A change in the time of travel (peak traffic may shift to off-peak with a consequent reduction of peak period traffic).  A shift in mode to alternative travel modes such as transit, carpooling, or bicycling.  A shift to other routes.  Combining more activities into a single trip or eliminating unnecessary trips.

Consideration could be given to the top ten peak-period congested locations in the NOACA region, shown in Table 3, for potential facilities on which congestion pricing may be applied. These locations were identified in the NOACA Congestion Management Process (CMP). The peak period pricing option is the desirable tool to manage congestion at these locations since these locations are congested during the peak periods.

As shown in Table 3, most of the congested segments are located in Cuyahoga County, outside the Cleveland CBD area. Only two segments are located outside Cuyahoga County, SR-18 in Medina County, and SR-306 in Geauga County. Most of the heavily congested locations are non-state highways in the vicinity of freeway interchanges.

Implementing road pricing on these congested segments could divert traffic to other parallel routes which have less capacity than the congested arterials. For example, by tolling the ramps on I-71 South to improve SR-18 in Medina County, traffic may use SR-3 as an alternate route to avoid tolling. SR-3 is a 2-lane road except between the I-71 ramps where it is a 4-lane road. It is classified as an urban minor arterial. This shift in traffic could cause an increase in congestion, crashes and road wear-and-tear. More in-depth corridor analysis will be needed to examine the

12 Table 3: Congestion Pricing at the Top 10 Congested Locations during Peak Periods Route/ Location of County Location Description Length Possible Impact Name Tolling I-71 Southbound West Traffic may use SR-3, which is a 2-lane road Medina SR 18 River Styx Rd (T-49) to Rustic Hills Dr 0.44 Ramps to SR-18 classified as an urban minor arterial Traffic may use Bainbridge Road via SR-91 US-422 Eastbound Geauga SR 306 Stoneybrook Dr to Bainbridge Rd South of US-422 0.60 interchange; Bainbridge Road is a 2- lane road South Ramps to SR-306 classified as an urban minor arterial Traffic may use Wallings Road, and Brecksville I-77 Southbound West Cuyahoga SR 82 0.25 mi W of Avery Rd to 0.07 mi E of Ken Mar Industial Pkwy 1.26 Road, which are 2-lane roads classified as urban Ramps to SR-82 minor arterials Howe Road is an urban collector, which does not Cuyahoga Howe Rd Drake Rd to South Entrance to South Park Mall 1.23 Unknown have direct freeway access

I-480 Westbound Exit Traffic may use Brookpark Road via Grayton Road Cuyahoga Clague Rd I-480 N Ramp to Westwood Rd 1.94 Ramp to Clague Rd interchange Traffic may use Brookpark Road via West 150th Street interchange. According to NOACA's CMP Cuyahoga IR 480 SR-237 to I-71 0.59 Facility Pricing West 150th Street is congested. This road is classified as an urban minor arterial Traffic may use adjacent such as SR-87 I-271 Northbound East Cuyahoga Cedar Rd Richmond Rd to I-271 SB On-Ramp 0.77 (Chagrin ) & US-322 (Mayfield Road). Ramps to Cedar Rd According to NOACA's CMP SR-87 is congested Traffic may use adjacent streets such as Cuyahoga IR 271 Forbes Rd to Rockside Rd 2.57 Facility Pricing Broadway/Forbes and Rockside Roads

I-480 Valley View Traffic may use adjacent streets in specific SR-17 Cuyahoga IR 480 I-77 to I-480N 1.27 Bridge in both directions and SR-14 Traffic may use Brainard Road via Harvard Road I-271Northbound East Cuyahoga SR 87 Beachwood/Orange C.L (I-271 E. Ramps) to Brainard Rd 0.41 interchange. Brainard Road is a 2-lane road Ramps to SR-87 classified as an urban minor arterial

impact of implementing congestion pricing on these roads. Only three of the congested segments have transit service. These roads are: Howe Road, Cedar Road and SR-87.

Only two freeways (I-480 and I-271) are among the most congested locations in the NOACA region. There is a project to widen I-271 in Cuyahoga County from Columbus Road to I-480 at the Summit County Line. This should improve the operational performance, safety, and accessibility along this corridor. However, there is no project to improve I-480 which has the longest continuous segment of congestion. Over the years through several CMP analyses using performance measures such as volume-to-capacity ratio, level-of-service, speed and delay, congestion on I-480 between I-71 and I-480N does exist and seems persistent under existing, and future year 2030 traffic conditions. Widening I-480 is not feasible. Recommendations from the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority’s (GCRTA) Blue Line corridor project, located in southeast Cuyahoga County, should reduce congestion on I-480 whether or not congestion pricing is implemented. The Blue Line is an alternative for motorists to avoid I-480 if peak- period pricing is considered. The project includes an extension of the Blue Line, transit improvements, and construction of two park-n-ride lots near the interchanges of Northfield Road and I-480, and Harvard Road and I-271. I-480 could be a good candidate corridor for a congestion pricing demonstration project for which NOACA can seek financial support by federal grants through the FHWA Value Pricing Pilot Program. Many of the current congestion pricing projects such as the I-15 HOT Express Lanes and SR-91 in California, Katy Freeway HOT lane project in Texas, and I-394 in Minnesota were supported by this program.

13 Table 4 presents potential peak period congestion pricing strategies that could be applied on the I-480 corridor provided that alternative modes of transportation are available. If there are no transit routes, bike lanes or paths, then congestion pricing in the peak period will result in inducing drivers to travel on a parallel streets.

Table 4:Potential Congestion Pricing Strategies on I-480 Possible Peak- Tolling Period Possible Impact Needed Studies Location Pricing Strategy Conduct a traffic study to examine the feasibility of implementing congestion pricing on I-480 that will include:  Convert one lane in each direction to an HOT Lane  Capacity evaluation for SR-17 Convert one  Traffic may use adjacent streets in specific and SR-14 will be needed to Variably general-purpose SR-17 and SR-14 examine the impact of congestion Priced lane to an HOT  more congestion is expected on the general- pricing on these roads HOT Lane lane between I-71 purpose lanes  Add park-n-ride lots at major and I-480N  More crashes on I-480, SR-17 and SR-14 intersections  Enhance transit service  Involve Express buses as a primary transit mode

Conduct a traffic study to examine the feasibility of implementing congestion pricing on I-480 that will include: Variable  Traffic may use adjacent streets in specific  Corridor studies for SR-17 and The Valley View Tolls on a SR-17 and SR-14 SR-14 Bridge bridge  More crashes on SR-17 and SR-14  Add park-n-ride lots at major intersections  Enhance transit service  Involve Express buses as a primary transit mode Conduct a traffic study to examine the feasibility of implementing congestion pricing on I-480 On-Ramp that will include: Variable  Traffic may use adjacent streets in specific I-480 On-Ramp  Corridor studies for SR-17 and Pricing on SR-17 and SR-14 to I-77 North SR-14 the Ramp  More crashes on SR-17 and SR-14  Add park-n-ride lots  Enhance transit service  Involve Express buses as a primary transit mode

14

Table 5 presents potential locations for peak-period ramp pricing. Park-n-ride lots near freeway interchanges provide commuters an alternative to use transit when considering ramp pricing. From the locations, in the table, Warrensville Center Road/I-480 interchange is a good location for considering ramp pricing. It will help reduce congestion on I-480.

Table 5:Potential Locations for Peak Period On-Ramp Congestion Pricing

Tolling Location Location of Park-and-Ride Lots for Possible Transit Use Alternative

US-42 Ramps to/from  Located on US-42 (Pearl Road) at I-80; City of Strongsville – Cuyahoga I-71 North County SR-82 Ramps to/from  Located on US-42 (Pearl Road) at I-80; City of Strongsville – Cuyahoga I-71 North County SR-252 Ramps  Located on SR-252 (Great Northern Boulevard); City of North Olmsted – to/from I-480 East Cuyahoga County SR-252 (Columbia  Located on Sperry Road; City of Westlake – Cuyahoga County Road) Ramps to/from I-90 East SR-82 Ramps to/from  Located on Brecksville Road (Municipal Parking Lot); City of Brecksville – I-77 North Cuyahoga County. Motorists need to obtain parking permit at this location Babbitt Road Ramps  Located on St. Clair Avenue near Babbitt Road; City of Euclid – Cuyahoga to/from I-90 West County Warrensville Center  Located on Warrensville Center Road; City of Maple Heights – Cuyahoga Road Ramps to/from County I-480 West SR-306 Ramps  Lakeland Community College Park-n-Ride Lot Located at SR-306 and I-90; to/from I-90 West City of Mentor – Lake County

Parking Pricing and Other Travel Demand Management (TDM) Strategies

TDM strategies are intended to reduce or shift the demand for travel, and include alternative work schedule programs, programs to encourage transit use, bicycle use or ridesharing, telecommunications and congestion pricing. These strategies have been addressed in the NOACA region except for congestion pricing. NOACA, through the OhioRideshare program, encourages and helps people to carpool, vanpool and take public transportation as ways to help reduce traffic congestion and improve the region’s air quality. Other transportation management strategies include intelligent transportation system (ITS) techniques such as motorist information systems. ODOT recently deployed a freeway management system in northeast Ohio providing motorists with information on road conditions and travel times on message boards and ODOT's Buckeye Traffic website. NOACA participates in the ongoing monitoring and maintenance of northeast Ohio’s ITS architecture.

15

Parking pricing does not involve tolls. Parking pricing includes variable pricing of curbside parking, commuter parking taxes, and parking “cash out” programs where cash is offered to employees in lieu of using the parking space provided by the employer. Adopting a policy to control and increase the prices for parking may be implemented as a TDM strategy to reduce traffic congestion in downtown Cleveland. However, the city of Cleveland cannot control parking prices because it is mostly outside municipal control. Increasing on-street parking pricing is the only thing that the city can control. Parking control is likely to be seen as a threat to the commercial viability of businesses that are dependent on convenient customer parking.

Currently, the cost of parking in downtown Cleveland ranges from $1 to $25 a day. Recently, due to the opening of the Horseshoe Casino in downtown Cleveland, some operators of parking lots near the casino increased their maximum rates. Some places, like the Galleria and Tower City offer special rates for shoppers. For example, Tower City’s self‐parking program with purchase is free on weekends and at a low rate on weekdays. In a Plain Dealer Article, published September 29, 2010, Cleveland ranked as second poorest city in the nation behind the city of . The poverty rate was estimated at 35 percent of the population in 2009. As shown in Table 6, the city of Cleveland lost about twenty percent of its population in the last decade and approximately nine percent were unemployed in 2010. City officials would probably not be in favor of increasing parking prices. Besides, most of the congested locations are outside the CBD area.

Table 6: Cleveland Demographic Characteristics

Percent City of Cleveland 2000 2010 Change

Total Population (Census) 478,403 396,815 -20.6%

Unemployed (American Community Survey -ACS) 22,847 34,268 33.3%

Median Household Income (ACS) $25,928 $27,349 5.2%

16 Impact of new Developments

 Impact of the Opening of the Horseshoe Casino

The Horseshoe Casino has opened in downtown Cleveland in May 2012. Wilbur Smith Associates prepared a traffic impact study in July 2009 for Rock Ohio Caesars, LLC and submitted to the city of Cleveland. Based on the results of the study, it is determined that the addition of the phase I casino in the existing historic Higbee building located at the northwest corner of Ontario Street and Prospect Avenue will have a minimal effect on the roadway network.

As a general note, when observing the hourly casino traffic volumes, the peak traffic generated entering the facility occurs at approximately 6 p.m. on weekdays and 8 p.m. on Saturdays. Peak exiting volumes at the facility occur at approximately 10 p.m. on weekdays and 11p.m. on Saturdays. The data demonstrates that the casino peak volumes occur after the weekly evening rush hour and the largest peaks occur on Saturday evenings. Also, based on the phase I casino’s location, much of the traffic entering the casino is traveling in the opposite direction to daily commuters.

 Impact of the Opening of the Cleveland Medical Mart

The Cleveland Medical Mart/Convention Center will be located at the intersection of East 6th Street and St. Clair Avenue (the Mall site) in downtown Cleveland, adjacent to Cleveland City Hall and the Cuyahoga County Courthouse. It is scheduled to open in the summer of 2013. URS Corporation prepared a traffic impact study for Cuyahoga County in September 2009.

Based on the results of the study, the intersections in the study area currently operate at acceptable levels, and have the capacity to absorb the traffic. The number of motorists expected to arrive or depart the site during the peak hours is relatively low due to the nature of the events. Only 375 vehicles are expected to be added to the traffic during the peak hours. These trips are not expected to have a significant impact on the roadway network.

17

Conclusion

Conditions in the NOACA region may not be suitable for implementing congestion pricing. For an unfamiliar new policy like congestion pricing, implementing congestion pricing projects is a complex process. It is still in its infancy due to the following conditions:

 The duration of congestion is short and is on limited locations along the roadway system  Traffic may use parallel arterials  A new, activity-based travel demand model will be available in 2014  Possible public acceptance barriers  Possible political obstacles  Equity and environmental justice issues  Technical and legal enforcement issues  Lack of mention in the NOACA Long Range Plan  No existing or clear policy by ODOT

The NOACA region does not currently experience a high level of congestion, and the rush hour is relatively short in duration. Recognizing that congestion pricing must be part of an integrated transportation strategy, this work is the beginning of further research and dialog regarding pricing measures to manage travel demand in the NOACA region. The transportation plan supports ongoing evaluation of strategies as well as promotional activities to encourage changes in travel behavior that reduce peak congestion.

Moreover, the NOACA regional travel demand model is not capable of simulating variable pricing. Therefore, time and resources should be set aside to collect the data needed to enhance the travel demand model to handle managed lanes projects. NOACA will participate in the statewide effort proposed by ODOT to create a new, activity-based travel demand model for use by the MPOs of the four largest urbanized areas in Ohio. This would facilitate more accurate network modeling and data analysis.

As congestion levels increase in the future, congestion pricing strategies to maximize traffic flow and shift traffic out of the peak period will become more important. The FHWA Value Pricing Program has played an important, supportive, and catalytic role. It provides education and outreach through webinars and local workshops, and distributes relatively modest seed grants to initiate congestion pricing projects. Initiating early coordination with ODOT and FHWA and obtaining FHWA grant funds for a pilot demonstration project would be most appropriate, and would have a significant influence on the consideration of congestion pricing projects in the NOACA region.

18 Appendix I

- Overview of Major Highways in the NOACA Region (Primary Routes) - Status of Current NOACA Travel Demand Model

19 Overview of Major Highways in the NOACA Region (Primary Routes)

The information below provides an overview of the major highways serving the NOACA region. These highways are shown on Map 1.

 I-90 is a major east-west radial highway providing access to the Cleveland Central Business District (CBD) area serving communities in Lorain, Cuyahoga, and Lake Counties. In Cleveland, serves as the Innerbelt. It crosses the via the Innerbelt Bridge into downtown Cleveland. Most of I-90 is an eight-lane, limited access interstate extending from the Ohio Turnpike (I-80) in Lorain County to the Lake County-Ashtabula County line. There are four lanes in Lorain County between I-80 and SR-611 and six lanes up to Hilliard Boulevard/US-20 in western Cuyahoga County. In Lake County, I-90 mainline changes from six lanes to four lanes east of SR-615.

Average daily traffic (2010 ADT) ranges from a low of 35,200 vehicles per day (vpd) at SR-528 in Lake County to a high of 146,070 vpd between I-77 and East 22nd Street in Cuyahoga County.

Based on the results of the NOACA Freeway Travel Time Study, completed in 2011, the lowest travel speeds on the I-90 corridor were during the morning peak, in the eastbound direction between Lorain Avenue and the Innerbelt Bridge. The longest delays occur westbound along the Innerbelt during the afternoon peak. ODOT’s Cleveland Innerbelt Reconstruction project will improve I-90 except for the segment between I-77 and East 22nd Street which will remain congested.

 I-77 is a major north-south radial highway traversing central Cuyahoga County and providing access to the Cleveland CBD. It extends from I-90 in Cleveland to the Cuyahoga-Summit County Line. In Independence, I-77 connects with I-480 providing good access to the CBD from the far west and east communities.

Average daily traffic (2010 ADT) ranges from a low of 49,300 vpd at Miller Road to a high of 98,200 vpd between Fleet and Pershing Avenues. The road section varies from four to six lanes. There are four lanes between the Cuyahoga/Summit County line and Oakes Road. All other segments have six lanes except in two bottleneck areas where I-77 mainline is reduced to four lane sections between Rockside Road and I-480 and in the vicinity of I-77/I-490 junction.

Based on the results of the NOACA Freeway Travel Time Study, I-77 corridor experienced severe congestion northbound between I-480 and I-90 during the morning peak.

 I-71 is a major north-south radial highway providing access to the Cleveland CBD and serving communities in Cuyahoga and Medina Counties. It extends from the Medina/Wayne County line and ends at I-90 on the Innerbelt in Cleveland. Beginning its path heading north to downtown Cleveland, it meets the terminus of I-271 in Medina County The freeway continues into urban Cuyahoga County , intersecting I-80

20 Map 1

Major Highways in the NOACA Region Lake County ¨¦§90 I-71, I-90, I-490, I-77, SR-176 (Jennings Freeway), I-480,

I-271 Local & Express Lanes, SR-2 and US-422 44 2

¨¦§90 ² 2 ¨¦§90 Cuyahoga ¨¦§271 Geauga 490 2 ¨¦§ County County ¨¦§90

¨¦§480 ¨¦§480 2 ut422 ¨¦§71 ¨¦§480 ¨¦§80 10 ¨¦§77 ¨¦§80

Lorain County ¨¦§271

Medina County

¨¦§71

¨¦§76

21 This page is intentionally left blank

22 (the Ohio Turnpike), it meets I-480 and enters Cleveland’s west side, continuing on to downtown. It junctions with State Route 176, and terminates at I-90. There are eight lanes between I-480 and Fulton Road. All other segments have six lanes, except in the vicinity of I-480/SR-237 where I-71 mainline narrows to four lanes.

In Medina County, 2010 average daily traffic (ADT) ranges from 41,000 vpd to 61,100 vpd. The highest traffic volume is on the segment between SR-303 and the Medina/Cuyahoga County line.

In Cuyahoga County, 2010 average daily traffic (ADT) ranges from 61,300 vpd to 114,100 vpd. The highest traffic volume is on the segment between Snow Road and I-480.

Based on the results of the NOACA Freeway Travel Time Study, this corridor experiences its lowest speeds and longest delay in the northbound direction during the morning peak. Speeds are lowest on I-71 mainline in the vicinity of I-480/SR-237, and I-90/I-490 approaching the Cleveland CBD area. The mainline at these locations narrows to two lanes in each direction due to lane drops. ODOT’s Cleveland Innerbelt Reconstruction project will improve I-71 in the vicinity of I-90/I-490.

 I-490 is a 2.43-mile interstate highway in Cleveland. The western terminus is a junction with I-90 and I-71 on Cleveland's west side. The eastern terminus is a junction with East 55th Street, just east of I-77. To some extent, it provides an alternative route to the Innerbelt.

I-490 is mainly eight lanes, with six lanes between SR-14 (Broadway Avenue) and I-77 east junction. Average daily traffic (2010 ADT) ranges from 32,100 vpd to 61,900 vpd. The highest traffic volume is on the segment between West 7th Street and SR-14.

Based on the results of the Freeway Travel Time Study, I-490 corridor experienced moderate congestion eastbound in the bottleneck area of I-490 at I-90/I-71during all peak periods. During the course of the travel time survey, heavy trucks were restricted from using the I-90 Innerbelt Bridge because of ODOT’s Innerbelt Bridge Safety Plan. Heavy truck traffic was detoured to I-490. Therefore, more traffic merged into I-490 from I-90/I-71.

 SR-176 (Jennings Freeway) is a six-lane, limited access highway that extends north from I-480 to I-71 in Cleveland. To some extent, it provides an alternative route to I-77.

Average daily traffic (2010 ADT) ranges from 68,300 vpd to 77,900 vpd. The highest traffic volume is on the segment between Jennings Road and the end of the freeway at I-71.

Based on the results of the Freeway Travel Time Study, SR-176 experienced severe congestion in the northbound direction in the lane reduction area where SR-176 traffic

23 merges with I-71 during the morning peak. ODOT’s Cleveland Innerbelt Reconstruction project should help alleviate the traffic problems in the congested area.

 The Cleveland Memorial Shoreway (SR-2/US-6) is an east-west limited access highway through the city of Cleveland connecting the east and west sides of the city via the Main Avenue Bridge. It starts at Lake Avenue and Clifton Boulevard in western Cleveland, and continues eastward to join I-90 east of the Innerbelt curve. The freeway provides direct access to the CBD via West 3rd Street, Lakeside Avenue/West 6th Street and East 9th Street.

The road section varies from four to six lanes, with most of the roadway containing six lanes. Average daily traffic (2010 ADT) ranges from 29,700 vpd to 38,800 vpd. The highest traffic volume is on the segment between Herman Avenue and SR-2 Ramp/US-6 approach to Superior Avenue.

Currently there is a project listed in NOACA’s Transportation Plan, Connections 2030 to convert the Shoreway from a 50 mph highway to a boulevard with a 35 mph speed limit. This project is identified as the Lakefront West Project (PID 86482). The study corridor of this project resides entirely in the city of Cleveland and runs along the existing alignment of from Clifton Boulevard on the west to the Main Avenue Bridge on the east.

 I-271 is a major outer-belt partially encircling Cleveland to the east and south. It is mostly a four to six lane limited-access facility south of I-480 and eight to twelve lanes north of I-480; it is divided into express and local lanes. The local-express lanes begin at the southern interchange of US-422 and continue northward slightly beyond the end of I- 271.

Based on the results of the Freeway Travel Time Study, I-271 Local Lanes experienced congestion northbound during the morning peak between the I-480 Bridge at the Cuyahoga-Summit County Line and Rockside Road and southbound between Richmond Road and Forbes Road during the afternoon peak.

Currently there is a widening project (PID 40418) listed in NOACA’s 2012-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to add one lane in each direction along I-271 from I-480 at the Summit County Line to I-480 at Columbus Road. This should improve the operational performance, safety, and accessibility along this corridor.

I-271 Express Lanes do not have congestion problems, except southbound during the afternoon peak along the segment between Chagrin Boulevard and the End of the Express Lanes.

 I-480/I-480N is the major east-west highway that begins at I-80 in Lorain Cuyahoga County. The freeway continues east through the central part of Cuyahoga County to Bedford Heights where it joins I-271. I-480 then shares designation with I-271 from I-480N/US-422 junction to the Cuyahoga/Summit County Line. This corridor has

24 freeway to freeway junctions with I-71 and I-77 providing access to Cleveland and the southern suburbs of Cuyahoga County. I-480N is the portion of freeway connecting I-480 to I-271 and US-422. It also provides direct access to Cleveland Hopkins International Airport via SR-237.

Most of I-480 has eight lanes, but there are segments of six lane sections and short stretches of four lane segments as well. Average daily traffic (2010 ADT) ranges from a low of 45,100 vpd at SR-10 in Lorain County to a high of 145,900 vpd between Lee and Warrensville Center Roads in Cuyahoga County.

The highest average daily traffic on I-480N is 92,500 vpd between I-480 and Miles Road. There are mostly six lanes on I-480N, with seven lanes between I-480 and Miles Road.

Based on the results of the 2011 Freeway Travel Time Study, I-480 corridor experienced severe congestion in the westbound direction on the section between I-480N and Transportation Boulevard, and in the bottleneck area of I-480 at I-71/SR-237 during the afternoon peak. In the eastbound direction, low average travel speed and long delay occurred between I-77 and I-480N during the morning peak and between Brecksville Road and Camden Road during the afternoon peak.

 SR-2 is an east-west urban radial highway along . There are two sections of SR-2. The first section of SR-2 starts in Lorain County at the Erie/Lorain County line, and continues eastward to I-90. The second section starts at I-90 in eastern Cuyahoga County, just before the Lake County line and ends at US-20. In Lake County, SR-2 runs parallel to I-90. SR-2 runs concurrently with I-90 and US-6/US-20 between the two segments just described.

In Lorain County, 2011 ADT range from 27,900 vpd to 54,200 vpd. The highest traffic volume is on the segment between Middle Ridge Road and I-90/SR-2 junction. All segments of SR-2 in Lorain County consist of four lanes.

Based on the results of the Freeway Travel Time Study, SR-2 in Lorain County does not have congestion problems under existing conditions.

In Lake County, 2011 ADT ranges from 19,900 vpd to 70,500 vpd. The highest traffic volume is on the segment between the Cuyahoga/Lake County line and SR-633 (LIoyd Road). SR-2 has six lanes up to SR-640 (Vine Street), where it drops to four lanes.

Based on the results of the NOACA Freeway Travel Time Study completed in 2006, SR- 2 in Lake County experienced congestion during the afternoon peak in the eastbound direction in the vicinity of the existing bottleneck at SR-640 between SR-91 and Lost Nation Road.

25 The SR-2 corridor TRAC project (PID 13486/79545), currently under construction, will widen SR-2 from East 361st Street to SR-283 (Richmond Street), improving this area. This project is expected to be completed in October 2012.

 US-422 is a freeway running east-west from the I-480/I-271 junction to east of SR-44 in Geauga County. It provides access to the southeast corner of Cuyahoga County and the southwest corner Geauga County. US-422 connects with I-271 and I-480 meeting I-77 for access to Cleveland CBD.

US-422 mainline has four lanes. Average daily traffic (2010 ADT) ranges from a low of 14,800 vpd at SR-44 in Geauga County to a high of 62,800 vpd from just east of SR-175 to Harper Road in Cuyahoga County.

Based on the results of the Freeway Travel Time Study, this corridor does not have congestion problems under existing conditions. One exception is the segment between I-480N and the ramp from I-271 North. It showed an average travel speed lower than the posted speed.

 The Ohio Turnpike (I-80) is a toll road providing east-west service within the NOACA region. The collected tolls pay for the operation and improvements of the turnpike. This limited access freeway is owned by the state. It is operated and maintained by the Ohio Turnpike Commission.

The state of Ohio is considering a long-term lease of the Ohio Turnpike, or possibly giving it to the Ohio Department of Transportation. The revenue produced would be spent on transportation projects in northern Ohio. This strategy is being considered to address the funding shortfall in the state’s transportation budget. There are some organizations opposing the lease option and some are supportive of the concept. On May 13th, 2011 the NOACA Governing Board adopted Resolution 2011-024 opposing the sale or lease of the Ohio Turnpike until such time as evidence is produced or significant long term benefits. Details concerning the future of the turnpike are uncertain.

Figures 5a, 5b, and 5c show snapshots of real traffic maps from SIGALERT website (www.Sigalert.com) of the region’s freeway during the AM, PM, and off-peak periods respectively.

26

Figure 5a: AM Peak Real Traffic Map for the NOACA Region taken on June 5, 2012 at 8:48 am

27

Figure 5b: PM Peak Real Traffic Map for the NOACA Region taken on April 12, 2012 at 4:23 pm

28 Figure 5c: Off-Peak Real Traffic Map for the NOACA Region taken on May 1, 2012 at 2:42 pm

29 Status of Current NOACA Travel Demand Model

NOACA Travel Demand Forecasting Model is a four-step trip based model. It is operated under Cube software package. The four steps comprising the traditional process are:

 Trip generation estimates the number of trips  Trip distribution estimates where people will travel  Mode choice estimates how people will travel  Trip assignment allocates vehicular traffic to the highway network and person-trips to the transit network

Congestion pricing is the most commonly used example for showing the model’s inherent limitation. NOACA’s current four-step model includes, however, a toll modeling feature that can test fixed rate tolls in a limited manner, such as the turnpikes. It cannot be used to apply variable tolls during the peak period to predict “peak spreading” which is defined as an expansion of peak period traffic. As traffic congestion increases, the duration of the peak period also increases. Peak spreading is a phenomena related to a behavioral response. Some motorists, for instance, may shift their travel departure times to slightly before or after the peak period in response to increasing traffic congestion.

The model cannot predict trip rescheduling, or trip chaining. It, therefore, cannot predict the impact of congestion pricing on the overall transportation system. In February 2012, ODOT proposed a partnership effort to develop an activity model for use by the four largest urbanized areas in Ohio. It is expected to be completed in December 2014. NOACA will participate in the statewide effort to create a new, activity-based travel demand model. It is expected that this type of model can predict congestion pricing, changes in fuel cost or parking policy, and considers non-work trip types and trip chaining.

30