Freeway Bottleneck Removals Workshop

8/8/2019 Freeway Bottleneck Removals Workshop

1/46

Scott A. Cooner, Carol H. Walters,

Poonam B. Wiles, and Yatin K. Rathod

DOT Grant No. DTRT06-G-0044

Freeway Bottleneck Removals: Workshop

Enhancement and Technology Transfer

Final Report

Performing OrganizationUniversity Transportation Center for Mobility

Texas Transportation Institute

The Texas A&M University System

College Station, TX

Sponsoring AgencyDepartment of Transportation

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

Washington, DC

Improving the Quality of Life

by Enhancing Mobility

University Transportation Center for Mobility

UTCM Project #08-37-16

December 2009


2/46

TechnicalReportDocumentationPage1. ReportNo.

UTCM0837162. GovernmentAccessionNo. 3. Recipient'sCatalogNo.

4. TitleandSubtitle

FreewayBottleneckRemovals:WorkshopEnhancementandTechnology

Transfer

5. ReportDate

December2009

6. PerformingOrganizationCode

TexasTransportationInstitute

7. Author(s)

ScottA.Cooner,CarolH.Walters,PoonamB.Wiles,andYatinK.Rathod8. PerformingOrganizationReportNo.

UTCM083716

9.

PerformingOrganization

Name

and

Address

UniversityTransportationCenterforMobility


TheTexasA&MUniversitySystem

3135TAMU

CollegeStation,Texas778433135

10.

WorkUnit

No.

(TRAIS)

11. ContractorGrantNo.

DTRT06G0044

12. SponsoringAgencyNameandAddress

UniversityTransportationCenterforMobility


TheTexasA&MUniversitySystem,3135TAMU

CollegeStation,TX778433135

13. TypeofReportandPeriodCovered

FinalReport

9/1/0810/31/09

14. SponsoringAgencyCode

15. SupplementaryNotes

SupportedbyagrantfromtheUSDepartmentofTransportation,UniversityTransportationCentersProgram

16. Abstract

Astransportationimprovementprojectsbecomeincreasinglycostlyandcomplexandasfundingsourcesarenot

keepingpacewithneedsinhighlyurbanizedareas,itbecomescriticalthatexistingfreewaysystemsbefinetunedto

maximizecapacity.Oneofthemostcosteffectivesolutionsisimplementationoflowercostimprovementsto

improvemobilitywherebottlenecksoccurduringpeakperiodsonfreeways.Thissubjectisgainingnationalattention,

partlybecausebottlenecklocationsarehighlyvisible;failuretofixthemhaspoliticalaswellascongestioncosts.The

FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)isadvancingonthisfrontbothinresearchandoutreachefforts.

Thisproject

enhanced

and

improved

an

existing

Freeway

Bottleneck

Workshop

by:

(1)

gathering

further

data

on

implementedbottleneckremovalsbothinTexasandthroughouttheUnitedStates(U.S.)toaddtothecasestudy

database;and(2)improvingthecommunicationsaspectoftheworkshopthroughbettergraphics,video,andoverall

professionalappearance.FouroftheenhancedFreewayBottleneckWorkshopswerepresentedtoenthusiastic

participantsinAtlanta(Georgia),Austin,Houston,andSanAntonio.Eachhalfdayworkshopallowedparticipants

fromvariousdisciplines(design,operations,andplanning)andagencies(city,county,state,andfederal)tolearn

aboutbottleneckidentification,causes,lowcostsolutions,analysisandevaluation,casestudies,andguidelinesfor

successfulprojects.Workshopparticipantsalsohadtheopportunitytoworkinteamstoanalyzearealworldfreeway

bottleneckandtodiscussopportunitiesforbottleneckremovalintheirmetropolitanarea.Thefinalcomponentofthe

projectdevelopedawebsiteandeducationalmoduleforuniversitystudentsandprofessorsthatwillcontinuethe

technologytransfercomponent.Thelongtermimplicationsofthisworkareelevatedawarenessoftheextremely

highbenefits

relative

to

costs

and

development

of

professional

capacity

to

recognize

opportunities

and

to

analyze

andselectappropriatemeasuresforsuccessfulbottleneckremovalprojects.

17. KeyWords

Bottleneck,LowCost,Freeway,Congestion18. DistributionStatement

Publicdistribution

19. SecurityClassif.(ofthisreport)

Unclassified20. SecurityClassif.(ofthispage)

Unclassified21. No.ofPages

4222. Price

n/a

FormDOTF1700.7(872) Reproductionofcompletedpageauthorized


3/46

FreewayBottleneckRemovals:WorkshopEnhancementand

TechnologyTransfer

ScottA.Cooner

ResearchEngineer/ProgramManager


CarolH.Walters

SeniorResearchEngineer


PoonamB.Wiles

ResearchEngineer


YatinK.Rathod

AssociateTransportationResearcher


Sponsoredbythe

UniversityTransportation

Center

for

Mobility

December2009


4/46

Page 2

DisclaimerThecontentsofthisreportreflecttheviewsoftheauthors,whoareresponsibleforthefacts

andtheaccuracyoftheinformationpresentedherein.Thisdocumentisdisseminatedunder

thesponsorshipoftheDepartmentofTransportation,UniversityTransportationCenters

Programintheinterestofinformationexchange.TheU.S.Governmentassumesnoliabilityfor

thecontents

or

use

thereof.

AcknowledgmentsSupportforthisresearchwasprovidedbyagrantfromtheU.S.DepartmentofTransportation,

UniversityTransportationCentersProgramtotheUniversityTransportationCenterfor

Mobility(DTRT06G0044).TheauthorsthankChristyHarris,administrativecoordinatorwith

theTexasTransportationInstitute(TTI),fororganizationandproductionofworkshopmaterials.

Theteamisalsothankfultotheindividualswhowereinstrumentalinhostingworkshopsand

invitingenthusiasticparticipants:

Atlanta,

Georgia:

o MarshaAndersonBomar,presidentandCEO,StreetSmarts,Inc.

o BrendaFarmer,marketingassociate,StreetSmarts,Inc.

Austin,Texas:

o CarlosLopez,districtengineer,TexasDepartmentofTransportation(TxDOT)

o RobertStuard,deputydistrictengineer,TxDOT

o AngieHernandez,humanresourcesspecialist,TxDOT

Houston,Texas:

o DelvinDennis,districtengineer,TxDOT

o StuartCorder,directoroftransportationoperations,TxDOT

SanAntonio,Texas:

o MarioMedina,

district

engineer,

TxDOT

o JulieBrown,deputydistrictengineer,TxDOT

o RicardoCastaneda,directoroftransportationoperations,TxDOT

TheauthorsalsorecognizethemanyTxDOTstaffforchampioningandimplementinglowcost

bottleneckremovalprojectsinthedistrictsofDallas,FortWorth,andElPaso.Specialthanksgo

toJohnBlain,SonnyLoper,StanHall,JayNelson,BillHale,TerrySams,AndyOberlander,and

KellySelmanofDallas;WallaceEwell,MarkSchluter,RoyParikh,andBurtonCliftonofFort

Worth;andMaryMeyland,CarlosChavez,MannyAguilera,EdgarFino,andChuckBerry.A

numberofTTIresearchershavealsocontributedtothevariousbottleneckprojectsovertime,

includingStephen

Ranft,

Don

Szczesny,

Ed

Pultorak,

Doug

Skowronek,

Mark

Middleton,

ChristopherPoe,AngelaStoddard,andKentCollins.

TheauthorsacknowledgethevaluablesupportandassistanceofDr.MelissaTooley,directorof

theUniversityTransportationCenterforMobility,andMarthaRaneyTaylor,business

managerwiththeUniversityTransportationCenterforMobility.Finally,theauthors

appreciateDr.JimWilliamsoftheUniversityofTexasatArlingtonforhisassistancewiththe

educationalmoduledevelopmentandforagreeingtogivethepilotdeliveryinspring2010.


5/46

Page 3

Table of Contents

ListofFiguresandTables................................................................................................................ 4

ExecutiveSummary......................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction:OverviewofProblem................................................................................................ 7

SummaryofTexasTransportationInstituteBottleneckResearch.....................................7

ProjectApproach:Objectives........................................................................................... 10

ProjectMethodology:Tasks............................................................................................. 11

StateofthePracticeLiteratureReview:SummaryofFindings...................................................11

OverviewofKeyFederalInitiatives.................................................................................. 11

OverviewofKeyStateandLocalInitiatives...................................................................... 14

Project

Website:

Summary

of

Findings

.........................................................................................

24

InformationRepository..................................................................................................... 24

InformationExchange....................................................................................................... 25

FreewayBottleneckWorkshopEnhancement:SummaryofFindings.........................................25

AdditionofNationalBottleneckRemovalExperiences....................................................25

UpgradedParticipantNotebook....................................................................................... 27

AdditionofInteractiveElements...................................................................................... 28

PilotWorkshops:SummaryofFindings........................................................................................ 30

SanAntonioWorkshop..................................................................................................... 31

HoustonWorkshop

...........................................................................................................

33

AtlantaWorkshop............................................................................................................. 34

AustinWorkshop............................................................................................................... 36

NationalWorkshopDeliveryPlan:SummaryofFindings.............................................................37

TargetSponsors................................................................................................................ 37

PotentialforWebBasedDelivery.................................................................................... 38

EducationalModule:SummaryofFindings.................................................................................. 39

ModuleDevelopment....................................................................................................... 39

UniversityDelivery

............................................................................................................

39

ProjectSummary:ConclusionsandRecommendations...............................................................40

Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 40

Recommendations............................................................................................................ 40

References.................................................................................................................................... 41


6/46

Page 4

List of Figures and Tables

Figure1.PhotographofPreviousFreewayBottleneckWorkshop(Dallas,May2007)................12

Figure2.SourcesofTrafficCongestion........................................................................................ 15

Figure3.TypesofFreewayBottlenecks....................................................................................... 16

Table1.

Descriptions

of

Minneapolis

Area

Bottleneck

Removal

Projects

...................................

17

Figure4.MapofMinneapolisAreaBottleneckRemovalProjects...............................................18

Table2.CostandTravelTimeBenefitofMinnesotaBottleneckRemovalProjects....................18

Table3.OtherBenefitsofMinnesotaBottleneckRemovalProjects...........................................18

Table4.SummaryofSevenBottleneckRemovalProjectsinAustin,Texas.................................20

Figure5.NBSH360atDivision(SH180):BeforeandAfterDiagrams.........................................21

Figure6.EBI10atUS54inElPaso:BeforeandAfterDiagrams................................................23

Table5.OperationalEvaluationSummaryof13BottleneckProjectsinTexas............................24

Table6.SafetyEvaluationSummaryof13BottleneckProjectsinTexas.....................................25

Figure7.ScreenCaptureofHomepageforProjectWebsite.......................................................26

Table

7.

Enhanced

Freeway

Bottleneck

Workshop

Course

Design

..............................................

28

Table8.ExampleLearningOutcomesandReviewQuestionsfromModule2............................28

Figure8.ExampleofParticipantNotebookCover....................................................................... 29

Figure9.ExampleofModuleSlidesinParticipantWorkbook.....................................................30

Figure10.ExampleSiteLayoutforGroupProblemSolvingExercise..........................................31

Figure11.InteractiveGroupProblemSolvingoverLunch...........................................................31

Figure12.ExampleofFreewayMapUsedtoFacilitateDiscussionofLocalBottlenecks............32

Figure13.ReviewofBottleneckCaseStudyatSanAntonioWorkshop......................................34

Table9.SummaryEvaluationforSanAntonioWorkshop...........................................................34

Figure14.ParticipantsLearnaboutTypicalLowCostSolutionsatHoustonWorkshop.............35

Table10.SummaryEvaluationforHoustonWorkshop...............................................................36

Figure15.

Participants

in

Atlanta

Workshop

Discuss

National

Bottleneck

Case

Studies

.............

37

Table11.SummaryEvaluationforAtlantaWorkshop................................................................. 37

Figure16.InstructorsfortheAtlantaWorkshop.......................................................................... 38

Table12.SummaryEvaluationforAustinWorkshop................................................................... 39

Figure17.VideoFeedforFlexibleDesignWorkshopAllowingRemoteSpeakerParticipation...40

Figure18.ScreenCaptureofPowerPointSlidesDisplayedtoMinneapolisParticipants............41


7/46

Page 5

Executive SummaryThisreportsummarizestheenhancementandpilotdeliveryofaFreewayBottleneckWorkshop

designedtoteachparticipantshowtodeveloplowcostsolutionstoimprovebottleneckson

freewayfacilities.Studieshaveshownthatimplementingrelativelyminorimprovementson

existingfreeways

to

remove

bottlenecks

produces

significant

operational

benefits

(typical

benefitcostratiosfrom3:1to400:1)andsafetybenefits(averagecrashreductionof

approximately35percent). Thisprojectenhancedandimprovedanexistingworkshopby:(1)

gatheringfurtherdataonimplementedbottleneckremovalsbothinTexasandthroughoutthe

U.S.toaddtothecasestudydatabase;and(2)improvingthecommunicationsaspectofthe

workshopthroughbettergraphics,video,andoverallprofessionalappearance.

TheenhancedFreewayBottleneckWorkshopwaspresentedtoenthusiasticparticipantsin

Atlanta(Georgia),Austin,Houston,andSanAntonio.Eachhalfdayworkshopallowed

participants

from

various

disciplines

(design,

operations,

and

planning)

and

agencies

(city,

county,state,andfederal)tolearnaboutbottleneckidentification,causes,lowcostsolutions,

analysisandevaluation,casestudies,andguidelinesforsuccessfulprojects.Workshop

participantsalsohadtheopportunitytoworkinteamstoanalyzearealworldfreeway

bottleneckandtodiscussopportunitiesforbottleneckremovalintheirmetropolitanarea.The

workshopevaluationshowedthatalmost91percentofparticipantsratedallworkshop

elements(e.g.,modules,instructors,workbooks,etc.)aseitherexcellentorverygood.

Thefinalcomponentoftheprojectdevelopedawebsite(http://www.bottleneckworkshop.org)

and

educational

module

for

university

students

and

professors

that

will

continue

the

technologytransferaspectofthiswork.Thelongtermimplicationsofthisprojectareelevated

awarenessoftheextremelyhighbenefitsrelativetocostsanddevelopmentofprofessional

capacitytorecognizeopportunitiesandtoanalyzeandselectappropriatemeasuresfor

successfulfreewaybottleneckremovalprojects.

Thetransportationprofessionneedsaboostofconfidenceamidsttheeverpresentfunding

challenges.Foryears,transportationleadershavebeensayingwellneverbuildourwayoutof

congestion,whichmakestheprofessionirrelevantintheeyesofthetravelingpublic.Infact,

somecongestionisunnecessary,andrelievingitwithlowcostimprovementscanenhanceour

imageasnecessaryprofessionals.Implementingminorimprovementsonexistingfreewaysin

ordertoremovebottleneckstypicallyachieveshighbenefitsyetisnotroutinelydonebymany

agencies.TheenhancedFreewayBottleneckWorkshopisnowaresourcethatcanbeusedto

trainandenergizetransportationagenciesandtheirpartnerstomakelowcostbottleneck

removalapartoftheirnormalroutineforimplementingprojectsthatsafelyandreliably

mitigatetrafficcongestiononfreeways.


8/46

Page 6


9/46

Page 7

Introduction: Overview of ProblemProvidingsafeandefficientroadwaysaretwoofthekeyobjectivesofanytransportation

agency.Manyagenciesarecurrentlystrugglingwithfundingshortfallsandareunableto

improvetheroadwaysysteminordertokeepupwiththepaceofgrowthanddevelopment.

Projectsthat

can

improve

both

the

safety

and

efficiency

of

the

roadway

system

without

expenditureofmajorresourcesshouldbehighlydesirable.Onetypeofprojectthatisgetting

moreattentionnationwideislowcostfreewaybottleneckremovalprojectsthatcanbequickly

implemented.Theseprojectsmitigatecongestionandimprovetravelreliabilityandsafetyby

reducingcrashrates.Bottleneckimprovementstypicallyinvolvesolutionssuchas:

restripingmerge/divergeareastobetterservedemand,

convertingashortsectionofshouldertotravellanes,

modifyingweavingareasorramps,and

addingauxiliary

lanes.

TheTexasTransportationInstitute(TTI)hasalonghistoryofresearchandevaluationofthe

effectsofrelativelysmall,lowcostgeometricandoperationalimprovementsatfreeway

bottlenecklocationsinTexas.Bottleneckevaluationshaveprimarilybeenperformedunder

interagencycontractswiththeTexasDepartmentofTransportation(TxDOT)inDallas,Fort

Worth,andElPasodatingbackto1986.OtherTTIurbanoffices(Austin,Houston,andSan

Antonio)haveperformedsimilarevaluationsofbottleneckremovalprojects.Thiswealthof

realworldprojectexperienceledtothedevelopmentofabasictrainingworkshopin2003.This

currentproject,

funded

by

the

University

Transportation

Center

for

Mobility

at

Texas

A&M

University,tookthisbasicworkshopandperformedaseriesofenhancements.Thisfinalreport

summarizesthepilotdeliveryofanenhancedFreewayBottleneckWorkshopdesignedtoteach

participantshowtodeveloplowcostsolutionstoimprovebottlenecksonfreeways.

Summary of Texas Transportation Institute Bottleneck Research

Thissectionprovidesasummaryofthemorethan20yearsofexperiencebyTTIonthesubject

oflowcostfreewaybottlenecks.In1992,Waltersetal.producedaresearchreportforTxDOT

entitledMethodologyforAssessingtheFeasibilityofBottleneckRemoval(1).Thisresearchwas

one

of

the

first

to

advocate

that

the

constriction

to

traffic

flow

at

bottlenecks

can

often

be

removedthrougharelativelylowcostimprovementtoashortsectionoffreeway,within

existingrightofway(ROW),perhapsrequiringonlyaconversionofashouldertoadrivinglane

and/oraslightnarrowingoflanes.InadditiontotheTxDOTreport,theresultsofthisstudy

werealsopublishedinTransportationResearchRecord1360(2)andthecompendiumof

technicalpapersfromthe1992InstituteofTransportationEngineers(ITE)annualmeetingin

Washington,D.C.(3).Asfarbackas1978,theTTIHoustonofficeperformedresearchtotestthe


10/46

Page 8

conceptofincreasingroadwaycapacityonurbanfreewaysbyrestripingthemainlinepavement

tocreatenarrowerlanewidthsandencroachingontheshouldertocreateadditionallanesfor

travel(4).Thisresearch,andasubsequent1983study(5),foundthatlowcostshoulder

conversionsandlanerestripingcanproducemajortrafficoperationsbenefitswithsignificantly

improved

crash

rates.

In1996,Waltersetal.addressedtheenergyandairqualitybenefitsoffreewaybottleneck

improvements(6).Thisresearchinvestigatedtherelationshipsbetweentrafficoperating

characteristicsandenvironmentalfactorssuchasfuelconsumptionandemissions.Thetotal

reductioninfuelusagerangedfrom0to5.2percentforbottleneckremovalprojectsincluded

inthestudy,withanaveragereductionof2.2percent.Attemptstoquantifyairqualitybenefits

werelesssuccessful,andfurtherresearchwasrequired.

In1997,Waltersetal.focusedtheirresearchonenhancingtheunderstandingandapproachto

bottleneckimprovementsinthreedistincttasks:

1. observationofdrivingbehaviorsincongestion,

2. refinementoftheanalyticalmethodologytoevaluatebottlenecks,and

3. improvementofthemethodologyusedtoestimatetheirbenefits(7,8).

Drivingbehaviorsincongestion(e.g.,queuejumping,weavingincongestion,andshoulder

driving)wereobservedandvideotapedatseveralsitesonfreewaysinDallas.These

observationsfurtheredtheunderstandingoffreewayoperationsincongestedurbanareasand

helpedtorefinefuturebottleneckimprovements.Thestudyalsofoundthattraditionaltools

haveproveninadequateforanalyzinghighlycongestedtrafficflow.Severaladaptationstothe

useofFRESIMwereidentifiedandtested,andtheserefinementsallowforbetteranalysisof

congestionandbottleneckimprovements.Thefinalfindingofthestudywasthattheabilityto

fullyassessthebenefitbottleneckremovalprovidestothemotoristsremainsincomplete.In

somecases,benefitsduetothereductionindelaycanbeestimatedasanincreaseinspeed.

However,incaseswheresignificantlatentdemandispresentinthesystem,thebenefitsto

motoristsarenotaseasilymeasured.Speedsmaynotincrease,buthighervolumesindicate

thatdiversionfromlessattractiveroutesisoccurring.

In1999,CoonerandMiddletonconductedfurtherresearchtoevaluatetheuseofsimulation

modelsforcongestedDallasfreeways(9).TheCORSIM,FREQ,andIntegrationmodelswere

selectedforevaluationbasedonthestateofthepracticereview.Threedifferentfreeway

sectionswithbottlenecksthatcausedrecurrentcongestionwereselectedfortestingand

evaluationofmodelperformance.Beforeandafteroperationaldata(i.e.,speedsandvolumes)


11/46

Page 9

ateachofthesiteswereusedinanattempttocalibrateandvalidatethechosenmodels.

CoonerandMiddletondeterminedthatallmodelsperformedrelativelywellforuncongested

conditions;however,performancebecamesporadicandmostlyunreliableforcongested

conditions.Noneofthemodelswassuccessfullycalibratedandvalidatedforallofthetestsites;

however,

CORSIM

had

the

best

overall

performance.

In2000,Waltersetal.performedresearchtogainabetterunderstandingofroadwayfactors

andcharacteristicsofthedrivingenvironmentthatinduceirritationandcontributeto

aggressivedrivingandroadrage(10).Basedonresultsofaliteraturereview,focusgroups,and

telephonesurvey,WaltersandCooneridentifiedthreepromisingmitigationmeasuresand

performedanevaluationofeach:

1. freewaybottleneckimprovements,

2. useofphotogrammetrytoexpediteincidentclearance,and

3. thelatemergeworkzonetrafficcontrol(11).

Theevaluationofbenefitsofbottleneckimprovementsproducedthefollowingresults:

1. Feedbackfromcommutersrevealedthatamajorityrecognizedreducedaggressive

behaviors(e.g.,preventingmerge,cuttingacrosssolidlines,tailgating,etc.)and

commutetimeafterimprovementsweremadeatabottlenecklocationinDallas.

2. Almost50percentofthecommutersalsoindicatedanimprovementintheirpersonal

stresslevelaftertheimplementationofimprovements.

3. Operationaldatacollectedatthebottlenecksitesuchasincreasedvolumes,increased

speeds,anddecreasedqueuelengthssupportedthefeedbackfromcommutersurveys.

AnotherimportantaspectofbottlenecksonfreewayshasalsobeenaddressedbyTTI:screening

forpotentialbottleneckswhilefreewayimprovementsarebeingplannedanddesigned.This

aspecthasbeenaddressedinlongtermresearchprojectsandalsoviaparticipationinthe

MajorInvestmentStudy(MIS)processonnumerousfreewaycorridors.

Walterset.al.performedresearchinthemid1990stodevelopasystemplanningmethodology

inconjunctionwithTxDOT,NorthCentralTexasCouncilofGovernments,andDallasAreaRapid

Transit(12).Furtherresearchenhancedthemethodologyandproducedaspreadsheetbased

toolcalledtheSystemPlan(13).TheSystemPlanisacorridorandsystemanalysistoolthat

bridgesthegapbetweenregionalplanninganddetaileddesign.Itallowsfortheexaminationof

peakhourpersonmovementfordifferentfacilitytypes(e.g.,generalpurposeversushigh

occupancyvehicle[HOV]lanes)withinacorridorandestimatesassociatedpubliccostssuchas


12/46

Page 10

ROW,construction,operation,congestion,andenvironmentalcosts.Theobjectiveofthe

SystemPlanistofindthelowesttotalpubliccostalternative.Thepeakhourcapabilityis

importantforscreeningpotentialbottlenecks.

TTI

has

worked

closely

with

TxDOT

during

the

MIS

process

on

numerous

freeways

to

ensure

thatadequateinformationisavailabletothedesignteamregardingexistingandprojected

futurepeakhourdemandvolumesbydirection.Useofthestandard24hourprojectionsand

genericKfactorsanddirectionalsplitstoarriveatpeakhourvolumescanleadtounder

designedmergesandweavingareas(14).

Previous TxDOT Freeway Bottleneck Workshop

TTIstafftookallofthebottleneckresearchandprojectcasestudiesanddevelopedabasic

workshoptoteachtotransportationprofessionalsintheDallasFortWorthmetropolitanarea

inTexas(Figure1).Theworkshopwastaughtonthreedifferentoccasionsandreceivedpositive

evaluationsfromtheapproximately70participants.Eventhoughtheevaluationswere

primarilypositive,therewasareasonableamountoffeedbackindicatingthatthecourse

materialsneededtobepolishedandenhancedtomaketheworkshopmoreprofessionaland

successful.

Figure1.PhotographofPreviousFreewayBottleneckWorkshop(Dallas,May2007).

Project Approach: Objectives

Theresearchteamdevelopedthreeprimaryobjectivestoguidetheproject:


13/46

Page 11

1. expandthestateofthepracticeonimplementationofsuccessfulfreewaybottleneck

removalprojectsbysynthesizingavailabledataandanecdotalinformationfrom

agenciesacrossthenation,

2. developanenhancedfreewaybottleneckworkshopthatisrelevantandappealing,and

3. educate

and

increase

awareness

of

existing

and

future

transportation

professionals

on

thebenefitsofbottleneckremovalprojects.

Project Methodology: Tasks

Theresearchteamdevelopedtheprojectworkplantofulfilltheprimaryobjectiveslistedinthe

previoussection.Theworkplanconsistedofninetasks:

1. performingastateofthepracticeliteraturereviewonfreewaybottleneckremovals,

2. developingaprojectwebsite,

3. planningforpilotworkshops,

4. enhancingtheexistingfreewaybottleneckworkshop,

5. conductingpilotworkshopsinTexas,

6. conductingapilotworkshopinanationalvenue,

7. developingafundingplanandsupportfornationalworkshopdelivery,

8. producingafreewaybottleneckeducationalmoduleforuniversityprofessors,and

9. preparingthefinalreportdocumentingtheprojectresults.

State-of-the-Practice Literature Review: Summary of FindingsThesubjectoffreewaybottleneckanalysisandremovalhasnotreceivedasignificantamount

ofpublishedattention,outsideofstudiesconcentratingontheoreticalaspectsofbottleneck

formation,flowrates,andshockwaveanalysis.Inthelast10years,thefocushasshiftedfrom

thetheoretical/academicanalysissidetothemorepracticalsidefocusedonlowcostremoval

strategiesforfreewaybottlenecks.

Theresearchteamperformedastateofthepracticeliteraturereviewtogatherandsynthesize

availablefreewaybottleneckremovalexperiencesandcasestudiestopotentiallyaddtothe

enhancedworkshopmaterials.Researchersusedavarietyofmethodstogatherthis

information,includingtelephoneinterviews,emailandwebbasedsurveys,andInternet

searches.

Overview of Key Federal Initiatives

Thissectionhighlightsseveralofthekeynationalprogramsandreportswiththepractical,low

costfreewaybottleneckremovalfocus.


14/46

Page 12

Localized Bottleneck Removal ProgramInMay2006,theU.S.DepartmentofTransportation(USDOT)announcedtheNationalStrategy

toReduceCongestionofAmericasTransportationNetwork(a.k.a.,theCongestionInitiative).

Thegoalistomakemeaningfulandneartermreductionsincongestion.Workingthroughthe

federalaidapportionmentandSafe,Accountable,Flexible,EfficientTransportationEquityAct:

ALegacyforUsers(SAFETEALU)processes,theFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)andits

statepartnersareengagedinmanyprogramsrelatedtocongestionimpact.Afewofthemany

mitigationeffortsthatFHWAisengagedininclude:

tollingandpricing;

HOVlegislationandenablement;

urbanpartnerships;

freightspecificanalysis;

special

events;

workzonecongestionmitigation;

trafficincidentdelaymitigation;and

otherdriverbehaviorsolutionssuchasridesharingincentives,carsharing,and

telecommuting.

WithintheOfficeofOperations,theLocalizedBottleneckReduction(LBR)Programservesto

bringattentiontotherootcauses,impacts,andpotentialsolutionstotrafficchokepointsthat

arerecurringevents,onesthatarewhollytheresultofoperationalinfluences(15).TheLBR

website

(http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/bn/index.htm)

contains

a

wealth

of

good

information

includingaBottleneckImpactMatrixtableandasamplingofsuccessfuleffortsnationwideasto

howtheyhaveattackedabottleneckproblem.

Bottleneck PrimerInJune2009,FHWApublishedasecondeditionofadocument,TrafficBottlenecks:APrimer

FocusonLowCostOperationalImprovements,whichexplorestheopportunityfornearterm

operationalandlowcostconstructionopportunitiestocorrectbottlenecks(16).Theprimeris

intendedtobeaworkinprogressthatisupdatedbasedonfeedbackreceivedviatheLBR

Programwebsite.Itprovidesanexcellentoverviewofthesubjectofbottlenecksbyaddressing

thefollowingtopics:

understandingbottlenecks,

whatFHWAisdoing,

identifyingandassessingbottlenecks,

howbottlenecksdisperse,


15/46

Page 13

understandingmergingatrecurringbottlenecks,

mergeprinciples,

lowcostbottleneckimprovementstrategies,

evaluatingbottleneckimprovementeffectiveness,

potentialissues

with

bottleneck

treatments,

examplesofhowagenciesaredealingwithbottlenecks,and

planningandprogrammingbottleneckimprovements.

AccordingtotheFHWAestimatesofthesourcesoftrafficcongestion,40percentofcongestion

iscausedbyinadequatephysicalcapacityalsocommonlyknownasbottlenecks.Bottlenecks

arethebiggestsourceaccordingtoFigure2.

Figure2.SourcesofTrafficCongestion(16).Source:http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion/describing_problem.htm.

Oneoftheotherexcellentgraphicsprovidedintheprimerisaflowchartthatliststhevarious

typesoffreewaybottleneckcauses(seeFigure3).Thisgraphicindicatesthatfreeway

bottlenecksareeitherprimarilycapacityrelatedordemandrelated,withspecificcausesunder

thosetwobroadcategories.


16/46

Page 14

Figure3.TypesofFreewayBottlenecks(16).

NCHRP 3-83 ProjectTheNationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram(NCHRP)hasrecentlysponsoredaproject

concentratingonthesubjectoffreewaybottlenecksentitledLowCostImprovementsfor

RecurringFreewayBottlenecks.Thisprojectisstillongoing;however,aninterimreport

publishedinDecember2006isavailableonloanfromNCHRP(17).Theprimaryproductofthis

nationalresearcheffortwillbeatechnicalguidethatoutlinesthebottleneckprojectprocess,

illustratesitsusethroughcasestudies,andaidsintheselectionofanalysistools.Thetechnical

guideshouldalsodiscussthecompositionoftheprojectdevelopmentteam,theproper

documentationofdesignexceptions,andotherinstitutionalissuesassociatedwith

implementingthebottleneckprojectprocess.

Overview of Key State and Local Initiatives

Thissectionhighlightsseveralofthekeystateandlocalprogramsandreportswiththe

practical,lowcostfreewaybottleneckremovalfocus.

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota

TheMinnesotaDepartmentofTransportation(MnDOT)monitorstrafficcongestiononthe

Minneapolis/St.Paulfreewaysystem,producinganannualreport(18).MnDOTrecently

conductedaCongestionManagementPlanningStudytosetthegroundworkforthe

developmentofacomprehensiveCongestionManagementPlanandrecommendalistof

specificcongestionmitigationprojectsforimplementationinthenext10yearprojectcycle


17/46

Page 15

(19).Amongtheseprojectsweresmallerscaleinvestmentsintargetedareaswherecapacity

improvementswouldhavesignificantbenefits.Threeofthesebottleneckremovalprojectshave

beenrecentlycompleted,andtheyhavesuccessfullyreducedcongestiononover19milesof

freeway(seeTable1,Figure4,Table2,andTable3)(19,20).Additionally,MnDOTestimates

that

the

projects

resulted

in

an

annual

reduction

of

over

1.2

million

hours

of

congestion,

worth

about$16millioninyearlytraveltimebenefits.Overtheestimatedprojectservicelives,the

combinedtraveltimebenefitexceeds$148million.Whencomparedtothe$20.2millionoutlay

forthethreeprojects,thebenefitsgreatlyoutweighthecosts(7.4benefitcostratio).

Table1.DescriptionsofMinneapolisAreaBottleneckRemovalProjects(15).

Project ProblemStatement ActionTaken DesiredOutcome

#1

I394

Thesectionofwestbound(WB)I394from

eastofMN100exittoUS169hasbeen

congestedsinceopeningin1994.The

mergingandweavingtrafficreducedthe

functionalityof

this

segment

to

asingle

lanefreeway,withPMcongestionbeinga

persistentproblem.Theroadwayhasbeen

studiedextensively,andanauxiliarylane

hasbeenconsideredforanumberofyears.

Recentchangesinthedevelopmentofthe

HOV/highoccupancytoll(HOT)lanemade

itimperativetoaddanauxiliarylane.

MetroDistrictagreedtoaddition

ofanauxiliarylanestartingatthe

LouisianaBridgeandendingatthe

US169exit.Thisadditionallane

providedthe

capacity

necessary

toallowformergingandweaving

trafficinthenewlaneopeningup

thecenterlaneforthroughtraffic.

Theadditionaltraffichadenough

throughputcapacitytoeliminate

congestion,reducingcrashes.

Therationalebehindthe

projectwasreducing

congestioninthe

LouisianaAvenuearea,

whichin

turn

would

reducecrashes.Amodest

increaseof1,0001,500

additionalvehiclesduring

thefourhourpeakperiod

wasexpected.

#2

I94

WBI94inthevicinityofCenturyAvenue

andMcKnightRoadnear3MCorporation

headquartershasbeenplaguedwith

congestionformanyyears.Thissectionof

I94wasafourlanedividedsectionof

interstate

freeway

in

between

two

six

lane

dividedsections.Themorningcommute

intoSt.Paulwasstalledatthislocationasa

resultofseverecongestion.Theroadway

alsohadacongestioninducedcrashissue.

MetroDistrictconvertedthefour

lanetoasixlanesectionto

increasetheexistingcapacityand

throughputandtoreduce

crashes.Further,theMcKnight

Road

interchanges

were

reconfiguredtocorrect

substandardrampentrances.

Constructionwascompletedin

thefallof2005.

Theoutcomeofthe

projectwastoreduce

congestioninthe

immediatearea,thus

reducingcrashes.The

localized

outcome

was

not

expectedtohaveamajor

increaseintraffic

throughputbecauseof

downstreambottlenecks.

#3

TH100

ThesectionofTrunkHighway(TH)100

from36thStreettoI394wasthelast

remainingsegmentoftheoriginal1937

construction.Theroadsegment,afour

lanesectionoffreeway,issandwiched

betweentwosixlanesegments.Theolder

portionoftheroadwaycausedcongestion

duringboththeAMandPMpeakperiodsin

bothnorthbound(NB)andsouthbound(SB)

directions.ArecentMnDOTstudystatesthatthispartofTH100iscongestedforthe

longestamountoftimeperday.Also,

recentstudiesindicateseveralsubstandard

rampscauseanunacceptablenumberof

correctablecrashes.

MetroDistrictconverted

shouldersofthisroadsegmentto

generalpurposelanes.These

laneswereusedtoincrease

existingcapacityandthroughput

untilthefuturefullbuildproject

canbeaccomplished.Theexisting

interchangeswouldthenbe

reconfiguredtocorrect

substandardrampentrances.Constructionwascompletedin

thefallof2006.

Itwasexpectedthatthis

temporaryimprovement

wouldincrease

throughputto3,0004,500

additionalvehiclesduring

thepeakperiodand

substantiallyreducethe

intensityanddurationof

congestion.Twoother

benefitswerelikely:bypassreliefforthe

I35W/TH62

reconstructionand

reducedtrafficonthe

localroadsystemwith

improvedoverallsafety.


18/46

Page 16

Figure4.MapofMinneapolisAreaBottleneckRemovalProjects(20).Table2.CostandTravelTimeBenefitofMinnesotaBottleneckRemovalProjects(19).

Project

Project

Cost

(Millions)

Reductionin

AnnualHours

ofDelay

Estimated

AnnualTravel

TimeBenefit

(Millions)

Project

ServiceLife

(Years)

EstimatedTravel

TimeBenefit

overProject

ServiceLife

(Millions)

Estimated

TravelTime

BenefitCost

Ratio

I394 $2.6 87,000 $1.1 20 $21.6 8:1

I94 $10.5 139,000 $1.7 20 $34.6 3:1

TH100 $7.1 1,063,000 $13.2 7 $92.3 13:1

TOTAL $20.2 1,289,000 $16.0 $148.5

Table3.OtherBenefitsofMinnesotaBottleneckRemovalProjects(19).

ProjectPeakPeriod

FlowIncrease

Decreasein

Milesof

Congestion

Increasein

PeakPeriod

Speeds

PreliminarySafetyImpacts

I394 4,650 6.0 30mphinPM60%reductionofpropertydamage

crashes,nochangeininjurycrashrate

I94 3,200 2.540mphinAM

25mphinPM

Modestreductioninnumberof

mainlinecrashes

TH100 14,450 10.7545mphinAM

30mphinPM

30%reductionofpropertydamage

crashes,70%reductionininjurycrashes


19/46

Page 17

Phoenix, Arizona

TheArizonaDepartmentofTransportation(ADOT)andtheMaricopaAssociationof

Governments(MAG)haveteamedtogethertoimplementlowcostbottleneckprojectsin

Phoenix.MAGsponsoredafreewaybottleneckstudyusingdataobtainedfromanaerialsurvey

ofregionalfreeways(21).Thestudypurposewastoidentifyandanalyzebottlenecks,to

evaluatefreewaylevelofservice(LOS),andtorankimprovementprojects.AccordingtoADOT,

mostofthebottleneckremovalprojectsinthePhoenixmetropolitanareahavebeeninthe

formof(22):

auxiliarylanesbetweencloselyspacedinterchangesthroughrestripingandlowcost

widening;

wideningofexitsfromsingletoduallanetoimprovestorageapproachingthecross

street;

implementationofintelligenttransportationsystems(ITS)(rampmetersanddynamic

messagesigns)toimprovetrafficflow;

eliminationofmainlinefreewaylanedropswherepossiblevialaneextensionsto

providebetterlanebalancingthroughrestripingandmainlinewidening;and

HOVlaneimplementationtoimprovecorridorcapacity,therebyeasinggeneralpurpose

lanecapacity.

ADOTdidnotcollectbeforeandafterdataorcalculateanybenefitcostratiotoevaluatethe

performanceofthesebottleneckremovalprojects.However,anecdotalinformationindicates

thatmanyoftheseprojectshaveyieldedgoodresults,particularlytheauxiliarylaneprojects

thathavesmoothedoutmainlinefreewayflowsinmanysegments.

Austin, Texas

TheTxDOTAustinDistrictusedacollaborativeapproachtoidentify,analyze,andevaluate

bottleneckremovalprojectsintheirjurisdiction(23).Abottleneckcommitteeconsistingof

engineersandplannersfromthedepartmentoftransportation,universityresearchcenters,

FHWA,city,andmetropolitanplanningorganization(MPO)helpedtoimplement10bottleneck

removalprojectsonI35,eightonLoop1(MOPAC),andtwoonUS183.Table4providesbasic

descriptionsforsevenprojectsincludingtheirlocationandimplementedimprovements.

Dallas-Fort Worth and El Paso, Texas

TheTxDOTdistrictsinDallas,FortWorth,andElPasoallutilizedinteragencycontractsto

identify,analyze,andevaluatebottleneckremovalprojectsintheirjurisdiction.Thefollowing

subsectionsprovidedetaileddescriptionsoftwocasestudybottleneckremovalprojectsand

summarytablesshowingoperationalandsafetybenefitsforanadditional11projects.


20/46

Page 18

Table4.SummaryofSevenBottleneckRemovalProjectsinAustin,Texas.

ProjectLocation ImplementedImprovements

I35NBat

ParmerLane

AddedsupplementallanefromtheParmerLaneentrancetotheDessauexitand

thenextendedtoWellsBranch.

I35SBat

WellsBranch

ClosedDessauRoadentrancetoSBI35andaddedauxiliarylanefromtheWells

Branchentrance

to

the

Parmer

Lane

exit.

I35NBat

US183

AddedauxiliarylanefromUS183toBrakerLaneexitramp.

I35SBat

US183

BeganafourthmainlaneforSBI35attheRundbergentrance(ratherthanthe

US183directconnector)andextendedtheauxiliarylanefromtheUS183frontage

entrancetotheUS290exitupstreamsothatitbeganattheUS183direct

connector.TheUS183entrancefromtheSBI35frontageroadwasclosedinorder

tofacilitateflowalongtheauxiliarylane.

I35SBat

Riverside

AddedauxiliarylanefromRiversideentrancetoOltorfexit.

Loop1SBatFar

West

AddedanauxiliarylanefromFarWestBoulevardentrancetotheRM2222

(Northland)exit

ramp.

Loop1atLoop

360

RealignedtheSBLoop1mainlanessothatalanedropwouldoccurattheLoop360

East(lefthand)exitratherthanattheLoop360West(righthand)exitramp.

UpstreamofthislanedroparethehighvolumeBeeCavesentrancerampandthe

relativelylowvolumeBartonSkywayentranceramptoSBLoop1.

CaseStudyNumber1

ThelocationofthiscasestudyisintheTxDOTFortWorthDistrict,inArlington,onNBSH360,a

sixlanefreewaywithintermittentauxiliarylanes.MorningNBtrafficishighapproachingI30,

wheresignificantvolumesinterchange.Justoveramilesouthofthisinterchangetherewasa

shortweave

(1,000

feet)

on

an

auxiliary

lane

between

Abram

and

Division

(SH

180),

afour

lane

highwaywithsignals.TrafficvolumeontheNBentrancerampatAbramwasveryheavy,andit

wasunderconsiderationforrampmetering,alongwithfourotherNBentranceramps

upstreamonSH360.TheexittoDivisionhadsharpcurvatureandasignalthatfrequently

blockedtheramp.Trafficqueuedbadlyhere,andTxDOTfearedthatanyrampmetering

schemewasduetobeunpopularandoflimitedusefulness,meteringtrafficintoabottleneck.

ThetophalfofFigure5showsthelayoutinthebeforecase,alongwithAMpeakhourvolumes.

NotshownisthattheRandolMillexitwaspartofanXrampconfigurationsothattrafficexiting

therecouldgetbacktothefreewaywithoutgoingthroughasignal,andtheentrancerampat

thatpoint

enjoyed

alane

addition

that

lasted

until

the

I30

exit.

Thus

the

bottleneck

was

clearly

definedatthelanedroptoDivision.TxDOTelectedtoextendtheauxiliarylanetotheRandol

Millexit,thuseffectivelyaddingtheuseofafourthlanetothisbottleneckedsection.This

requireduseoftheoutsideshoulderunderDivisionbecausetherewasnoinsideshoulder.

Despitesomesafetyconcerns,TxDOTdecidedtoimplementthe700footauxiliarylaneona

trialbasis;thecostwasonly$150,000;acontractorwasalreadyworkinginthearea,installing

fiberopticcablefortheITSsystem,knownasTransVISION.


21/46

Page 19

Before Study Lane Layouts and Volumes

ABRAM ENTRANCE

DIVISION

EXIT

RANDOL MILL

EXIT

(AM Peak Hour)

60661827

340

7553

766

6787

7893

After Study Lane Layout and Volumes

ABRAM ENTRANCE

DIVISION

EXIT

RANDOL MILL

EXIT

(AM Peak Hour)

6632

(+350)8243

1611

340

7903

9256978

Figure5.NBSH360atDivision(SH180):BeforeandAfterDiagrams.


22/46

Page 20

Thisimprovementwascompletedintwomonths,andinitialsummertimedatacollection

showedanextremelyhighbenefit.Datawerecollectedagainafterschoolstartedagaininthe

fall,asshowninthebottomhalfofFigure5,alongwiththenewlanelayout.Inthiscase,the

improvedspeedswereonlyobservedupstreamasfarasthetopofthebridgeoverAbram,

which

creates

a

blind

vertical

curve

with

drivers

slowing

down

expecting

congestion

on

the

otherside.However,speedsthroughthebottleneckimprovedsignificantly,andvolumes

increasedaswell.Theoveralldelaybenefitswerecalculatedas$200,000peryear,meaning

thattheimprovementagainpaidforitselfinayear.However,anothersignificantbenefitwas

improvedsafety.Comparingtwoyearsofbeforedatawithtwoyearsofafterdata,aninjury

crashreductionof76percentwassustainedinthissectionaftertheimprovement.Inthiscase,

lossoftheoutsideshoulderovertheshortsectionwasoverbalancedbytheimprovedtraffic

operations.

CaseStudyNumber2

ThelastcasestudytobeexaminedwasinElPaso,Texas,withintheinterchangebetweenI10

andUS54,whichaccessestheborderofMexico,atJuarez.AsshowninFigure6,therampfrom

SBUS54joinedwiththerampfromNBUS54,andthetwoenjoyedalaneadditiononto

eastbound(EB)I10.Althoughbuiltasatwolaneramp,theUS54SBtoEBrampwasstriped

foronelane,andtrafficqueuingwasextensiveontheSBmainlanesduringboththemorning

andtheeveningpeakperiods.Inaddition,EBI10wasexperiencingslowdownsthatseemed

worsethanthevolumesbeinghandledwouldsuggestshouldbethecase.Queuejumpingwas

occurringupstreamofthelowvolumeexittoRaynolds,withtrafficcuttingintoI10atthelast

minuteatthelanedrop.

TxDOTimplementedtwoimprovements:first,thelaneadditionattheEBUS54entrancewas

expandedtoallowittobeatwolaneaddition,withtheauxiliarylaneexitingatthePaisano

exit.ThisrequiredconvertingtheinsideshoulderonI10toatravellaneforashortdistance.

Thetwolaneentrancethenallowedthetwolanerampfromthenorthtoberestripedtothe

originallyintendedtwolanes.Thesecondimprovementwastostripeouttheoutsidelaneon

I10attheUS54exit,forcingalanedroptoservethetwolaneramptothenorth.Thisallowed

alaneadditionattheCopiaentrance,withthatlanedroppingattheRaynoldsexit.

TherehadbeensomeconcernthataweavingproblemmightbesetupbetweenEBI10traffic

exitingtoPaisanoandtheentrancerampfromUS54.However,sincemicrosimulation

indicateditcouldworkadequately,TxDOTdecidedtoproceedwithimplementation,andifa

problemdeveloped,trafficwishingtoaccessPaisanofromthewestwouldbesignedtotakethe

Raynoldsexit.


23/46

Page 21

COPIA ENT

PAISANO EXIT

TO NB US 54

TO SB US 54 FROM NB US 54

FROM SB US 54

RAYNOLDS

EXIT

4001 (5564)4059 (5045)

280 (880) 338 (361)

300 (364)

6330 (7523)

AM Peak Hour

(PM Peak Hour)

1873 (1450)

456 (509)

4339 (5925)

Before Study Lane Layout and Volumes

After Study Lane Layout and Volumes

COPIA ENTRANCE

PAISANO EXIT

TO NB US 54

TO SB US 54 FROM NB US 54FROM SB US 54

RAYNOLDS EXIT

+1447(+619)

2062 (1386)

609 (618)

AM Peak Hour Traffic

(PM Peak Hour Traffic)

5106 (6138)5033 (5500)

485 (987) 412 (349)

328 (357)

5518 (6487) 7777 (8142)

+1179(+562)

+974(+455)

+189(-64)

+1105

(+574)

Figure6.EBI10atUS54inElPaso:BeforeandAfterDiagrams.


24/46

Page 22

Thecostfortheimprovementwas$530,000,accomplishedin1997.Figure6showsthe

improvedlaneconfigurationandtheresultingvolumes,bothmorningandeveningpeakhours.

Subsequentevaluationdeterminedtheresultingoperationswereclearlybeneficial.Queuing

disappearedontheSBUS54approach,andspeedspickeduponI10aswell,duringbothpeak

periods.

As

shown

in

Figure

6,

main

lane

volumes

increased

on

I

10,

even

though

a

main

lane

wasstripedout,sinceithadmainlybeenusedasaqueuejumpinglane,tothegreatirritation

ofmotoristsinterviewed.Additionally,injurycrashratesdeclinedsubstantiallyonUS54and

wereslightlyreducedonI10.Overallannualbenefitswereestimatedat$1.3million.

SummaryTablesforDallasFortWorthandElPasoBottleneckRemovalProjectEvaluations

Table5showstheoperationalevaluationof13bottleneckremovalprojectsimplementedinthe

DallasFortWorthandElPasoareaswithbenefitsinrecurrentdelayreductionandtheresulting

benefitcost(BC)ratios.Table6showscomparisonsofbeforeandaftercrashratesby

movementforthesesameprojects.Site5lackscrashstatisticsbecauseitwasthelastone

implemented,andinsufficientaftercrashdatawereavailableforaworthwhilecomparison.

Table5.OperationalEvaluationSummaryof13BottleneckProjectsinTexas.

Site DistrictFreeway(s)

andLimits

Improvement

Type

Annual

BenefitCost

BC

Ratio**

1* FTWNBSH360@

Division(SH180)

Shoulderconversion(outside)+auxiliary

laneaddition$200,000 $150,000 10:1

2* ELPEBI10@

US54

Restriping+rampmodification+

auxiliarylaneaddition

$1.3

million$530,000 20:1

3 DALEBI30,

I35EtoI45

Rampreversal(exitconvertedto

entrance)+auxiliarylaneaddition$700,000 $660,000 9:1

4 DAL NBI35E,I30toDallasNorthTollway

Shoulderconversion

(inside)

+auxiliary

laneadditions$600,000 $130,000 37:1

5 DALEBSH190to

SBUS75Restriping+rampmodification $500,000 $11,000 374:1

6 DALNBI35Erampto

DallasNorthTollwayRestriping+rampmodification $300,000 $20,000 132:1

7 DALNBSBI35E,

Loop12toI635

Shoulderconversion(inside)+removalof

twoinsidemerges

$11.0

million

$1.9

million47:1

8 DALWBI30rampto

SBI35ERestriping+rampmodification $200,000 $5,000 324:1

9 FTWEBI20to

NBSH360

Restriping+rampmodification+removal

ofthroughlaneinsideinterchange$500,000 $10,000 400:1

10 FTWSBSH360to

WBI20

Restriping+rampmodification+removal

ofthrough

lane

inside

interchange

$30,000 $8,000 32:1

11 FTWSBSH360@

Division(SH180)Rampclosure+auxiliarylaneaddition

$1.0

million$440,000 18:1

12 DALEBI635to

NBUS75

Restripingandwideningleftsideramp

fromonetotwolanes

$3.6

million

See

#13See#13

13 DALSBUS75to

WBI635

Shoulderconversion(inside)onI635to

allowrampfromUS75itsownlane

$3.8

million

$2.45

million24:1

* Thesetwositesaredescribedindetailinthisfinalreport.

** TheBCratioisbasedon10yearprojectlifewitha4percentdiscountrate.


25/46

Page 23

Table6.SafetyEvaluationSummaryof13BottleneckProjectsinTexas.

Site DistrictFreeway(s)

andLimitsCrashRateChange(a)/100MVMT SafetyBenefit

1 FTWNBSH360@

Division(SH180)SH360(NB)72.8to17.7 NB(+76%)

2

ELP

EBI10@

US54

US 54(SB)61.9to28.4 SB(+54%)

I10

(EB)51.7

to

48.7 EB

(+6%)

3 DALEBI30,

I35EtoI45

I30(EB)93.0to64.5(b) EB(+31%)

I30(EB WEAVE)(c)36.2to20.7 EB(+43%)

I30(EB WEAVE)(d)

12.9to5.2 EB(+60%)

4 DALNBI35E,I30to

DallasNorthTollwayI35E(NB)112.1to72.2 NB(+36%)

5 DALEBSH190to

SBUS75Noafterdataforanalysis Notapplicable

6 DALNBI35Erampto

DallasNorthTollwayNotonstatesystem Notapplicable

7 DALNBSBI35E,

Loop12toI635

I35E(NB)84.0(e) to78.2(

f) NB(+7%)

I35E(SB)66.4(g) to43.8(

h) SB(+34%)

8

DAL

WBI30rampto

SBI35E I30(WB)84.1to68.3 WB(+19%)

9 FTWEBI20to

NBSH360I20(EB)51.2to45.0 EB(+12%)

10 FTWSBSH360to

WBI20

SH 360(SB)65.9to30.3 SB(+54%)

I20(WB)35.9to34.1 WB(+5%)

11 FTWSBSH360@

Division(SH180)SH360(SB)48.6to16.2 SB(+67%)

12 DALEBI635to

NBUS75I635(EB)19.5to25.6 EB(31%)

13 DALSBUS75to

WBI635I635(WB)78.6to30.8 WB(+61%)

NOTES:CrashRate=(numberofcrashes)/((vehiclemilesoftravel)/(100106)).

CrashRate

Change:

(a)The

construction

year(s)

may

consist

of

one

or

two

calendar

years

depending

on

whether

constructionoverlappedtwocalendaryears.(b)Dataincludeallvehicles.(c)Dataincludealltrucktypesinweavesectiononly.

(d)Dataincludeonlysemitrailertrucktypesinweavesectiononly.(e)Thefirstnumberistheaverageofthethreecalendaryearsbefore constructionimplementation.

(f)Thesecondnumberistheaverageofthethreecalendaryearsafterconstructioncompletion.(g)Thefirstnumberistheaverageofthetwocalendaryearsbefore constructionimplementation.Thisappliestoallotherlocationsinthetable.

(h)Thesecondnumberistheaverageofthetwocalendaryearsafterconstructioncompletion.Thisappliestoallotherlocationsinthetable.

CrashdatawereobtainedfromtheTexasAccidentDataFilesfortheyears1989to2001.

FTW=FortWorthDistrict,TxDOT

ELP=El

Paso

District,

TxDOT

DAL=DallasDistrict,TxDOT

MVMT=millionvehiclemilestraveled


26/46


27/46

Page 25

whatabottleneckis,

whybottlenecksareoutthere,

commonbottleneckcauses,

projectdescription,

typicallow

cost

solutions,

bottleneckanalysismethodology,and

bottleneckreferences.

Information Exchange

Theprojectteamalsoincludedseveralwebsitefeatureswherevisitorscaninteractwith

membersoftheprojectteam.Thefirstinteractivefeatureallowssitevisitorstosharetheir

experiencesaboutsuccessfullowcostfreewaybottlenecktreatments.Thesecondinteractive

featureletssitevisitorscontactthewebmasteriftheyhaveanyquestionsorcomments.

Freeway Bottleneck Workshop Enhancement: Summary of FindingsThisportionofthefinalreportdocumentsthedevelopmentofanenhancedfreewaybottleneck

workshop.Anexistingfreewaybottleneckworkshoputilizedahalfdayformatwitha

PowerPointslideshowandcorrespondingparticipantnotebook.Evaluationsofthisworkshop

showedgenerallygoodacceptanceofthetechnicalcontent;however,participantsdesiredthe

additionofmoreinteractiveelements.Theprojectteamdecidedtofocusonthreeprimary

enhancements:

1. additionof

national

freeway

bottleneck

removal

experiences

to

Texas

case

studies;

2. upgradingoftheparticipantnotebooks:

a. inclusionofkeyhandoutsand

b. inclusionofacompactdisc(CD)containingalloftheworkshopmaterials

(PowerPointslideshow,supportingreferencedocuments,andcasestudydata);and

3. additionofinteractiveelementsandbetterdesignofgroupexercises.

Inadditiontothesethreeprimaryenhancements,researchersformattedtheworkshoptobe

consistentwithadulttrainingguidelinesforworkshopssponsoredbytheNationalHighway

Institute(NHI).

NHI

typically

divides

workshops

into

distinct

modules

that

include

learning

outcomesandreviewstodeterminethattheoutcomeshavebeenadequatelycoveredandare

understoodbyparticipants.Table7providestheNHIstyledesignfortheenhancedFreeway

BottleneckWorkshop,whichincluded10modules.Table8showsanexampleofthelearning

outcomesandreviewquestionsforModule2,BottleneckIdentification.


28/46

Page 26

Table7.EnhancedFreewayBottleneckWorkshopCourseDesign.

Module Description Timeframe

Welcome ParticipantandInstructorIntroductions 9:009:20AM

1 CourseOverview 9:209:25AM

2 BottleneckIdentification 9:259:45AM

3

BottleneckCauses

9:45

9:55

AM

BREAK(10minutes)

4 LowCostSolutions 10:0510:20AM

5 BottleneckAnalysisandEvaluation 10:2010:35AM

BREAK(10minutes)

6 BottleneckCaseStudies 10:4511:30AM

7 WorkingLunch/GroupProblemSolving 11:3012:00PM

8 LocalBottlenecks 12:0012:15PM

9 GuidelinesforSuccessfulProjects 12:1512:45PM

10

Course

Review

12:45

12:50

PM

WrapUp CourseEvaluationandFeedback 12:501:00PM

Table8.ExampleLearningOutcomesandReviewQuestionsfromModule2.

LearningOutcomes:Atthecompletionofthisworkshopmodule,youwillbeableto:

1. Definewhatabottleneckis

2. Relatethetwotypesoftrafficcongestion

3. Understandthecontributionofbottleneckstotrafficdelays

ModuleReview

1. Listthetwotypesoftrafficcongestion:___________________and_______________________

2. Bottlenecksare

__________________

congestion

3. Whatpercentageofdelayisestimatedtobecausedbybottlenecks

Theprojectteamdesignedtheworkshopforahalfday,atotaloffourhours.Course

participantswereprovidedwithcertificatesofcompletionattheendoftheworkshop.Course

completionprovidestheparticipantswiththreeprofessionaldevelopmenthours,whichcanbe

usedtofulfillcontinuingeducationrequirements.

Addition of National Bottleneck Removal Experiences

Theproject

team

gathered

information

from

several

states

outside

of

Texas

regarding

experienceswithlowcostfreewaybottleneckremovalprojects.InformationfromtheFlorida

andMinnesotaDepartmentsofTransportationwassynthesizedforinclusionintheworkshop

materialsinordertocomplementtheexistingTexasbasedinformation.


29/46

Page 27

Upgraded Participant Notebook

Theprojectteamdevelopedanupgradedparticipantnotebookastheprimarydeliverablefor

workshopparticipants.Eachparticipantworkbookcontainedthefollowingitems:

1. cover(seeFigure8);

2. workshopagenda;

3. evaluationform;

4. freewaybottleneckanalysismethodologyhandout;

5. CDwithsupportingreferencematerials;and

6. workshopslides,printedtwoperpage(seeFigure9).

Theparticipantworkbookscontainedapproximately65colorpageswiththemoduleslides

presentedbythecourseinstructors.

Figure8.ExampleofParticipantNotebookCover.


30/46


31/46

Page 29

Figure10.ExampleSiteLayoutforGroupProblemSolvingExercise.

Theinstructorsprovidedparticipantswithlunchduringthegroupproblemsolvingexercise

moduleinordertofurtherstimulatediscussionandinteractionastheyweredeveloping

potentialsolutions(Figure11).Eachofthefourgroupsnominatedaspokespersonthat

presentedthegroupsfindingsandassessmentofpotentiallowcostbottleneckimprovements.

Figure11.InteractiveGroupProblemSolvingoverLunch.


32/46

Page 30

Local Bottleneck Module

Theprojectteamalsoaddedamoduletotheworkshoptoallowparticipantstodiscusslocal

freewaybottlenecksintheirmetropolitanregion.Thismodulewasdesignedforparticipantsto

beabletofirstdiscusswheretheyhadsuccessfullyimplementedlowcostimprovementsto

removefreewaybottlenecks.Secondly,thecourseinstructorsfacilitatedadiscussionofsites

wherebottlenecksstillexistthathavethepotentialforlowcostimprovements.Themodule

instructorusedamapofthelocalfreewaysystemseeFigure12foranexampletofacilitate

theparticipantinteractionduringthisworkshopmodule.

Figure12.ExampleofFreewayMapUsedtoFacilitateDiscussionofLocalBottlenecks.

Pilot Workshops: Summary of FindingsTheUniversityTransportationCenterforMobility(UTCM)atTexasA&MUniversitysponsored

thedeliveryoftheenhancedFreewayBottleneckWorkshop.Theprojectteampresentedthe

FreewayBottleneckWorkshoptoenthusiasticparticipantsinfourlocations:

1. SanAntonio,Texas;

2. Houston,Texas;

3. Atlanta,Georgia;and

4. Austin,Texas.


33/46

Page 31

Eachhalfdayworkshopallowedparticipantsfromvariousdisciplines(design,operations,and

planning)andagencies(city,county,state,andfederal)tolearnaboutbottleneckidentification,

causes,lowcostsolutions,analysisandevaluation,casestudies,andguidelinesforsuccessful

projects.ThefollowingsubsectionssummarizeeachofthefourFreewayBottleneckWorkshops

conducted

during

this

project.

San Antonio Workshop

TheprojectteamconductedthefirstpilotworkshopinSanAntonio,Texas,onAugust13,2009,

attheTxDOTTransGuideTransportationManagementCenter(seeFigure13).Twentysix

professionalsattendedthisworkshoprepresentingfourdifferentagencies.Table9summarizes

theevaluationoftheSanAntonioFreewayBottleneckWorkshopbasedonthe24completed

courseevaluationforms.Theevaluationformaskedparticipantstorateeachindividualcourse

module,theinstructors,workshoplength,interactivity,andtheparticipantworkbookbasedon

thefollowingscale:

excellent=5points,

verygood=4points,

average=3points,

fair=2points,and

poor=1point.

Theprojectteamusedthisratingscaletocalculateaverageratingsforeachindividual

workshop

element

and

a

total

for

the

overall

workshop

based

on

the

aggregate

of

all

elements.

TheSanAntonioFreewayBottleneckWorkshophadthefollowingperformancesummary:

highestratedmodule:tiebetweenModule6(BottleneckCaseStudies)andModule7

(WorkingLunch/GroupProblemSolving),

lowestratedmodule:Module1(CourseOverview),and

overallaveragerating=4.23

ThetwocourseinstructorsreceivedhighratingsfortheworkshopasindicatedinTable9.Over

90

percent

of

participant

ratings

for

this

workshop

were

either

in

the

excellent

or

very

good

categories.


34/46

Page 32

Figure13.ReviewofBottleneckCaseStudyatSanAntonioWorkshop.

Table9.SummaryEvaluationforSanAntonioWorkshop.

EVALUATIONFORMS(N=24)AVERAGE

RATINGWorkshopElementExcellent

(5points)

VeryGood

(4points)

Average

(3points)

Fair

(2points)

Poor

(1points)

Module1

3

15

5

1

0

3.83

Module2 5 16 3 0 0 4.08

Module3 8 13 3 0 0 4.21

Module4 8 12 4 0 0 4.17

Module5 7 15 2 0 0 4.21

Module6 9 13 2 0 0 4.29

Module7 9 13 2 0 0 4.29

Module8 2 17 5 0 0 3.88

Module9 7 15 2 0 0 4.21

Module10 4 16 4 0 0 4.00

Instructor1:CarolWalters 16 8 0 0 0 4.67

Instructor2:ScottCooner 16 8 0 0 0 4.67

Length 9 15 0 0 0 4.38

Interactivity 11 11 2 0 0 4.38

Participantworkbook 6 18 0 0 0 4.25

TOTAL 120 205 34 1 04.23

Percentage 33.3% 57.0% 9.4% 0.3% 0%


35/46

Page 33

Houston Workshop

TheprojectteamperformedthesecondpilotworkshopinHouston,Texas,onAugust19,2009,

attheTxDOTHoustonDistrictheadquarters(seeFigure14).Twentysixprofessionalsattended

thisworkshoprepresentingtwodifferentagencies.Table10summarizestheevaluationofthe

HoustonFreewayBottleneckWorkshopbasedonthe21completedcourseevaluationforms.

TheHoustonFreewayBottleneckWorkshophadthefollowingperformancesummary:

highestratedmodule:Module6(BottleneckCaseStudies),

lowestratedmodule:Module8(LocalBottlenecks),and

overallaveragerating=4.41.

ThetwocourseinstructorsreceivedhighratingsfortheworkshopasindicatedinTable10.

Almost93percentofparticipantratingsforthisworkshopwereeitherintheexcellentorvery

good

categories.

Figure14.ParticipantsLearnaboutTypicalLowCostSolutionsatHoustonWorkshop.


36/46

Page 34

Table10.SummaryEvaluationforHoustonWorkshop.



(5points)

VeryGood

(4points)

Average

(3points)

Fair

(2points)

Poor

(1points)

Module1 8 10 3 0 0 4.24

Module2 9 11 1 0 0 4.38

Module3 9 12 0 0 0 4.43

Module4 12 9 0 0 0 4.57

Module5 12 8 1 0 0 4.52

Module6 15 5 1 0 0 4.67

Module7 10 10 1 0 0 4.43

Module8 8 6 6 1 0 4.00

Module9 10 10 1 0 0 4.43

Module10 8 12 1 0 0 4.33


Instructor2:

Poonam

Wiles

1

3

8

1

0

0

4.17Length 7 12 2 0 0 4.24



TOTAL 147 137 21 1 04.41

Percentage 48% 44.8% 6.8% 0.3% 0%1Only12responseswerereceivedonevaluationformsforInstructor2.

Atlanta Workshop

TheprojectteamaccomplishedthethirdpilotworkshopinAtlanta,Georgia,onAugust25,

2009,at

the

StreetSmarts

corporate

headquarters

(see

Figure

15).

Thirty

eight

professionals

attendedthisworkshoprepresenting13differentagencies.Table11summarizestheevaluation

oftheAtlantaFreewayBottleneckWorkshopbasedonthe36completedcourseevaluation

forms.TheAtlantaFreewayBottleneckWorkshophadthefollowingperformancesummary:

highestratedmodule:Module7(WorkingLunch/GroupProblemSolving),

lowestratedmodule:Module5(BottleneckAnalysisandEvaluation),and


Thetwo

course

instructors

received

high

ratings

for

the

workshop

as

indicated

in

Table

11.

This

workshopalsofeaturedathirdguestinstructor,MarshaAndersonBomar,whotaughttheLocal

Bottlenecksmoduleandprovidedlocalinsightthroughouttheday(seeFigure16).Over90

percentofparticipantratingsforthisworkshopwereeitherintheexcellentorverygood

categories.


37/46

Page 35

Figure15.ParticipantsinAtlantaWorkshopDiscussNationalBottleneckCaseStudies.

Table11.SummaryEvaluationforAtlantaWorkshop.


RATING

WorkshopElement

Excellent

(5points) Very

Good

(4points) Average

(3points) Fair

(2points) Poor

(1points)

Module1 10 23 3 0 0 4.19

Module2 10 23 3 0 0 4.19

Module3 6 26 4 0 0 4.06

Module4 13 15 8 0 0 4.14

Module5 9 22 4 1 0 4.03

Module6 12 21 2 0 1 4.19

Module7 14 19 3 0 0 4.31

Module8 9 22 5 0 0 4.11

Module9 8 24 4 0 0 4.08

Module10

8

23

5

0

0

4.06Instructor1:CarolWalters 17 19 0 0 0 4.47


Length 8 22 5 1 0 4.03



TOTAL 151 336 50 2 14.17

Percentage 28.0% 62.2% 9.2% 0.4% 0.2%


38/46

Page 36

Figure16.InstructorsfortheAtlantaWorkshop.

Austin Workshop

TheprojectteampresentedthefinalpilotworkshopinAustin,Texas,onNovember12,2009,at

theTxDOTAustinDistrictheadquarters.Thirtyprofessionalsattendedthisworkshop

representingeightdifferentagencies.Table12summarizestheevaluationoftheAustin

FreewayBottleneckWorkshopbasedonthe25completedcourseevaluationforms.TheAustin

FreewayBottleneckWorkshophadthefollowingperformancesummary:

highestratedmodule:tieModule4(LowCostSolutions)andModule6(BottleneckCase

Studies),

lowestrated

module:

Module

3(Bottleneck

Causes),

and


ThecourseinstructorreceivedhighratingsfortheworkshopasindicatedinTable12.Almost91

percentofparticipantratingsforthisworkshopwereeitherintheexcellentorverygood

categories.


39/46

Page 37

Table12.SummaryEvaluationforAustinWorkshop.



(5points)

VeryGood

(4points)

Average

(3points)

Fair

(2points)

Poor

(1points)

Module1 13 8 3 0 1 4.28

Module2 12 11 2 0 0 4.40

Module3 11 13 1 0 0 4.00

Module4 13 11 1 0 0 4.48

Module5 13 10 2 0 0 4.44

Module6 13 11 1 0 0 4.48

Module7 10 9 5 0 1 4.08

Module8 8 11 6 0 0 4.08

Module9 12 11 2 0 0 4.40

Module10 10 12 2 0 1 4.20


Length

13

11

1

0

0

4.48Interactivity 10 14 1 0 0 4.36


TOTAL 167 151 29 0 34.37

Percentage 47.7% 43.1% 8.3% 0.0% 0.9%

National Workshop Delivery Plan: Summary of Findings

Oneofthefinalprojecttasksinvolvedthedevelopmentofadeliveryplanforofferingthe

enhancedFreewayBottleneckWorkshoponanationalscale.NeilSpillerparticipatedinthe

AtlantaworkshopandcurrentlyleadstheLocalizedBottleneckReductionProgramforFHWA.

FHWAsponsored

three

LBR

workshops

in

2008

to

bring

together

state

and

local

transportation

agencyrepresentativestodiscussprogramstoreducebottlenecks.Workshopswereheldin

Florida,Virginia,andWashingtonStateinAugustandSeptemberof2008.Thereispotential

synergybetweentheexistingLBRworkshopandtheenhancedFreewayBottleneckWorkshop

developedunderthisUTCMproject.

Target Sponsors

Theprojectteamdevelopedalistofpotentialsponsorstotargetforfundingoffuturedelivery

oftheenhancedFreewayBottleneckWorkshop.Targetsponsorsinclude:

1. FHWAOfficeofOperations,

2. AmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials(AASHTO),

3. NationalHighwayInstitute,

4. InstituteofTransportationEngineers,

5. individualstatedepartmentsoftransportation,and

6. MPOsinmediumtolargepopulationareas.


40/46

Page 38

Potential for Web-Based Delivery

TheprojectteamalsodiscussedthepotentialforwebbaseddeliveryoftheenhancedFreeway

BottleneckWorkshop.Webseminars/briefings,commonlyreferredtoaswebinars,are

becominganincreasinglypopularwayofdeliveringtrainingandtechnicalcontentto

transportationprofessionals.Webbaseddeliveryallowsformultiplejurisdictionstobe

involvedandreducestravelcosts.

TheprojectteampilotedanexecutivesummaryversionoftheenhancedFreewayBottleneck

WorkshopataFlexibleDesignWorkshopsponsoredbyMnDOTinJuly2009(24).Theobjective

oftheFlexibleDesignWorkshopwastoprovideparticipantswithanopportunitytolearnabout

experienceswithflexiblehighwaydesignpracticesformanagingcongestionfromnational

subjectmatterexperts.ThehourlongexecutivesummaryversionoftheenhancedFreeway

BottleneckWorkshopwasdeliveredusingwebbasedvideoconferencingsoftware.Workshop

participantsinMinneapolissawavideofeedwithcorrespondingPowerPointslidesandwere

allowedtointeractandaskquestions(seeFigure17andFigure18).Theprojectteambelieves

thesuccessfuldeliveryoftheexecutivesummaryversioninMinneapolisshowsthatwebbased

deliveryissomethingworthpursuing.Thesamepotentialsponsorslistedintheprevious

sectionwouldallstillbeapplicable.

Figure17.VideoFeedforFlexibleDesignWorkshopAllowingRemoteSpeakerParticipation.


41/46

Page 39

Figure18.ScreenCaptureofPowerPointSlidesDisplayedtoMinneapolisParticipants.

Educational Module: Summary of FindingsThefinaltaskinthisUTCMprojectinvolvedthedevelopmentofaneducationalmodulefor

universityprofessorstouseinundergraduate andgraduatelevelclassestoteachstudentson

freewaybottleneck

removal.

This

project

task

had

both

technology

transfer

and

educational

components,whichareimportanttotheoverallmissionoftheUTCMprogram.

Module Development

Severalmembersoftheprojectteamcollaboratedonthedevelopmentoftheeducational

module.Themodulewasdesignedtobeapproximatelyonehourinlengthandcontainone

casestudyexercisefromModule7oftheenhancedFreewayBottleneckWorkshop.

University Delivery

The

pilot

delivery

of

the

educational

module

is

planned

for

the

spring

2010

semester

at

the

UniversityofTexasatArlington.Thepilotdeliverywillbeevaluated,andthemoduleslides,

handouts,andscriptwillbemodifiedbasedonstudentandprofessorfeedback.Thefinal

versionoftheeducationalmodulewillbepostedonthebottleneckworkshop.orgwebsitefor

usebyprofessors.Initialpromotionoftheeducationalmodulewillbeaccomplishedbyane

mailtothefacultyadvisorsofthevariousInstituteofTransportationEngineers(ITE)student

chaptersintheU.S..


42/46

Page 40

Project Summary: Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

ThisreportsummarizestheenhancementandpilotdeliveryofaFreewayBottleneckWorkshop

designedtoteachparticipantshowtodeveloplowcostsolutionstoimprovebottleneckson

freewayfacilities.Studieshaveshownthatimplementingrelativelyminorimprovementson

existingfreewaystoremovebottlenecksproducessignificantoperational(typicalbenefitcost

ratiosfrom3:1to400:1)andsafetybenefits(averagecrashreductionofapproximately35

percent).Thisprojectenhancedandimprovedanexistingworkshopby:(1)gatheringfurther

dataonimplementedbottleneckremovalsbothinTexasandthroughouttheUnitedStatesto

addtothecasestudydatabase;and(2)improvingthecommunicationsaspectoftheworkshop

throughbettergraphics,video,andoverallprofessionalappearance.

TheenhancedFreewayBottleneckWorkshopwaspresentedtoenthusiasticparticipantsin

Atlanta(Georgia),

Austin,

Houston,

and

San

Antonio.

Each

half

day

workshop

allowed

participantsfromvariousdisciplines(design,operations,andplanning)andagencies(city,

county,state,andfederal)tolearnaboutbottleneckidentification,causes,lowcostsolutions,

analysisandevaluation,casestudies,andguidelinesforsuccessfulprojects.Workshop

participantsalsohadtheopportunitytoworkinteamstoanalyzearealworldfreeway

bottleneckandtodiscussopportunitiesforbottleneckremovalintheirmetropolitanarea.The

workshopevaluationshowedthatalmost91percentofparticipantsratedallworkshop

elements(e.g.,modules,instructors,workbooks,etc.)aseitherexcellentorverygood.Thefinal

componentoftheprojectdevelopedawebsiteandeducationalmoduleforuniversitystudents

andprofessors

that

will

continue

the

technology

transfer

aspect

of

this

work.

The

long

term

implicationsofthisprojectareelevatedawarenessoftheextremelyhighbenefitsrelativeto

costsanddevelopmentofprofessionalcapacitytorecognizeopportunitiesandtoanalyzeand

selectappropriatemeasuresforsuccessfulfreewaybottleneckremovalprojects.

Recommendations

Thetransportationprofessionneedsaboostofconfidenceamidsttheeverpresentfunding

challenges.Foryears,transportationleadershavebeensayingwellneverbuildourwayoutof

congestion,whichmakestheprofessionirrelevantintheeyesofthetravelingpublic.Infact,

somecongestion

is

unnecessary,

and

relieving

it

with

low

cost

improvements

can

enhance

our

imageasnecessaryprofessionals.Implementingminorimprovementsonexistingfreewaysin

ordertoremovebottleneckstypicallyachieveshighbenefitsyetisnotroutinelydonebymany

agencies.TheenhancedFreewayBottleneckWorkshopisnowaresourcethatcanbeusedto

trainandenergizetransportationagenciesandtheirpartnerstomakelowcostbottleneck

removalapartoftheirnormalroutineforimplementingprojectsthatsafelyandreliably

mitigatetrafficcongestiononfreeways.


43/46

Page 41

References

1Walters,C.H.,C.M.Poe,andD.A.Skowronek.MethodologyforAssessingtheFeasibilityofBottleneck

RemovalInterimReport.ResearchReportNumberFHWA/TX93/123217.TexasTransportation

Institute,TexasA&MUniversity,CollegeStation,TX,1992.[Online]:

http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/123217.pdf.

Site

Accessed

November

30,

2009.

2Walters,C.H.,C.M.Poe,andD.A.Skowronek.RecapturingCapacitybyRemovingFreewayBottlenecks

(Abridgement).InTransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,No.

1360,TRB,NationalResearchCouncil,Washington,D.C.,1992,pp.3841.3 Walters,C.H.,C.M.Poe,andD.A.Skowronek.ImprovingFreewayOperationsbyRemoving

Bottlenecks.1992CompendiumofTechnicalPapers,ITEAnnualMeeting,Washington,D.C.,August

1992.4 McCasland,W.R.UseofFreewayShoulderstoIncreaseCapacity.InTransportationResearchRecord:

JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,No.666,TRB,NationalResearchCouncil,Washington,

D.C.,1978,pp.4651.5McCasland,W.R.ImpactofUsingFreewayShouldersasTravelLanesonFuel.InTransportation

ResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoard,No.901,TRB,NationalResearchCouncil,

Washington,D.C.,

1983,

pp.

15.

6 Walters,C.H.,M.D.Middleton,andP.B.Wiles.EnergyandAirQualityBenefitsofFreewayBottleneck

Improvements.ReportNumberSWUTC/96/600391.SouthwestRegionUniversityTransportation

Center,TexasTransportationInstitute,TexasA&MUniversity,CollegeStation,TX,1996.[Online]:

http://swutc.tamu.edu/publications/technicalreports/600391.pdf.SiteAccessedNovember30,2009.7Walters,C.H.,J.C.Brunk,M.D.Middleton,andK.M.Collins.HighwayPlanningandOperationsforthe

DallasDistrict:FreewayOperationsunderCongestedConditions.ResearchReportNumberTX98/1994

11.TexasTransportationInstitute,TexasA&MUniversity,CollegeStation,TX,1997.[Online]:

http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/199411.pdf.SiteAccessedNovember30,2009.8Walters,C.H.,J.C.Brunk,M.D.Middleton,andK.M.Collins.HighwayPlanningandOperationsforthe

DallasDistrict:FreewayOperationsunderCongestedConditions.ProjectSummaryReportNumberTX

98/199412S.

Texas

Transportation

Institute,

Texas

A&M

University,

College

Station,

TX,

1997.

[Online]:

http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/199412S.pdf.SiteAccessedNovember30,2009.9 Cooner,S.A.,andM.D.Middleton.EvaluationofSimulationModelsforCongestedDallasFreeways.

ReportNumberTX00/39431.TexasTransportationInstitute,TexasA&MUniversity,CollegeStation,TX,

1999.[Online]:http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/39431.pdf.SiteAccessedNovember30,2009.10

Walters,C.H.,V.J.Pezoldt,K.N.Womack,S.A.Cooner,andB.T.Kuhn.UnderstandingRoadRage:

SummaryofFirstYearProjectActivities.ResearchReportNumberTX01/49451.TexasTransportation

Institute,TexasA&MUniversity,CollegeStation,TX,2000.[Online]:

http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/49451.pdf.SiteAccessedNovember30,2009.11

Walters,C.H.andS.A.Cooner.UnderstandingRoadRage:EvaluationofPromisingMitigation

Measures.ResearchReportNumberTX02/49452.TexasTransportationInstitute,TexasA&M

University,CollegeStation,TX,2001.[Online]:http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/49452.pdf.SiteAccessed

November30,2009.12

Walters,C.H.,T.J.Lomax,C.M.Poe,R.H.Henk,D.A.Skowronek,andM.D.Middleton.TheDallas

Freeway/HOVSystemPlanningStudy:Year2015.ResearchReportNumberTX95/19947.Texas

TransportationInstitute,TexasA&MUniversity,CollegeStation,TX,June1995.[Online]:


Brunk,J.C.,M.D.Middleton,andC.H.Walters.HighwayPlanningandOperationsfortheDallas

District:FreewaySystemPlanMethodology.ResearchReportNumberTX97/199415.Texas


44/46

Page 42

TransportationInstitute,TexasA&MUniversity,CollegeStation,TX,November1997.[Online]:


Brunk,J.C.,M.D.Middleton,K.K.Knapp,C.H.Walters,T.J.Lomax,andH.S.Oey.Planningfor

OptimalRoadwayOperationsintheDesignYear.ResearchReportNumberTX96/14834F.Texas

TransportationInstitute,TexasA&MUniversity,CollegeStation,TX,November1999.[Online]:

http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/14831F.pdf.

Site

Accessed

November

30,

2009.

15 U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,FederalHighwayAdministration,OfficeofOperations.Localized

BottleneckReductionProgram.[Online]:http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/bn/index.htm.SiteAccessed

November30,2009.16

Margiotta,R.A.,andN.C.Spiller.RecurringTrafficBottlenecks:APrimerFocusonLowCost

OperationalImprovements.ReportNumberFHWAHOP09037.U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,

FederalHighwayAdministration,Washington,D.C.,June2009.[Online]:

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop09037/fhwahop09037.pdf.SiteAccessed

November30,2009.17

Skabardonis,A.,etal.LowCostImprovementsforRecurringFreewayBottlenecks.Project383,

InterimReport.NationalCooperativeHighwayResearchProgram,Washington,D.C.,December2006.18

Minnesota

Department

of

Transportation,

Office

of

Traffic,

Safety

and

Operations,

Freeway

OperationsSection,Minneapolis,Minnesota.MetropolitanFreewaySystem2007CongestionReport.

March2008.[Online]:http://www.dot.state.mn.us/hottopics/CongestionReport2007.pdf.SiteAccessed

November30,2009.19

SRFConsultingGroup,Inc.CongestionManagementPlanningStudy:PhaseI.PreparedforMinnesota

DepartmentofTransportation,Minneapolis,Minnesota,May2007.[Online]:

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/otepubl/CongestionMgmt2007.pdf.SiteAccessedNovember30,

2009.20

Kary,B.TwinCitiesCongestionPlanningStudy.MississippiValley2007:People,Partnersand

ProgramsConference,Minneapolis,Minnesota,July911,2007.[Online]:

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/mississippivalley07/presentations/Brain_Kary/CMPS_MV_Presentation.ppt

.SiteAccessedNovember30,2009.21

MaricopaAssociationofGovernments.FreewayBottleneckStudyProjectPage.[Online]:http://www.mag.maricopa.gov/project.cms?item=480.SiteAccessedNovember30,2009.22

ElectronicMailCorrespondencewithDanLance,deputystateengineer,ArizonaDepartmentof

Transportation,November2004.23

TexasDepartmentofTransportation.AustinDistrictCongestionManagementProjectsHomepage.

[Online]:http://www.txdot.state.tx.us/aus/cngstmgt/bottlehm.htm.SiteAccessedNovember30,2009.24

FlexibleDesignWorkshopMinneapolis,MinnesotaJuly30,2009.[Online]:

http://cms.srfconsulting.com/congestion/WorkshopMaterials/tabid/300/Default.aspx.SiteAccessed

November30,2009.


45/46


46/46

University Transportation Center for Mobility

Texas Transportation Institute

The Texas A&M University System

College Station, TX 77843-3135

Tel: 979.845.2538 Fax: 979.845.9761

utcm.tamu.edu

Documents

Freeway Bottleneck Removals Workshop