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

The American Highway Users Alliance

Alan E. Pisarski

Alan E. Pisarski

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

“The real solution is not reducing traffic to fit capacity,” Mineta said.  “We must expand capacity to handle the growing traffic.”

US DOT press release Feb 27, 2006

Alan E. Pisarski

Oh OK! -

That was an aviation conference!

Don’t they know that if you build new airports and runways they just fill up again?

Maybe we could have FHWA do seminars at FAA?

Alan E. Pisarski

WE HAVE DRAMATIC NATIONAL GOALS FOR TRANSPORTATION !

Our Present National Transportation Goal:

MAKING THINGS GET WORSE ---- SLOWER!

Apply that to Education; Health?

Alan E. Pisarski

A thought on goals!

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

Alan E. Pisarski

MY GOAL FOR TRANSPORTATION

To reduce the effects of distance as an inhibiting

force in our society’s ability to realize its economic and

social aspirations

Alan E. Pisarski

The New Millennium World A STABLE “OLD” POPULATION THE GLOBALIZATION OF EVERYTHING

SKILLED WORKERS AT A PREMIUM WORKERS CAN LIVE, WORK ANYWHERE WHO, WHERE ARE THE IMMIGRANTS? MAINSTREAMING MINORITIES THE SCOURGE OF AFFLUENCE

A CHALLENGED AFFLUENT SOCIETY

Alan E. Pisarski

Work Force Issues

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

out Amenities-based employment

Alan E. Pisarski

1980-1990 NET CHANGE NATIONAL

-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000TO

TAL

WO

RKE

RS

DR

IVE

ALO

NE

CAR

POO

L

TRAN

SIT

WAL

KED

OTH

ER

WO

RK

ATH

OM

E

Alan E. Pisarski

90-00 NET CHANGE NATIONAL

-20000

2000400060008000

100001200014000

TOTA

LW

OR

KER

S

DR

IVE

ALO

NE

CAR

POO

L

TRAN

SIT

WAL

KED

OTH

ER

WO

RK

ATH

OM

E

Alan E. Pisarski

Back to the ’80’s?2000-2004 net trend ACS

-2,000,000

-1,000,000

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

Alan E. Pisarski

Non-Auto Trends in Mode Shares

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

1980 1990 2000

TRANSIT TAXI MOTORCYCLE

BICYCLE OTHER WALKED ONLY

WORK AT HOME

Alan E. Pisarski

Back to the ’80’s ?11.20% 10.70% 10.40% 10.40% 10.10%

5.00% 4.90% 4.80% 4.70% 4.60%

2.70% 2.60% 2.50% 2.30% 2.40%3.20% 3.40% 3.50% 3.50% 3.80%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

2000 2001 2002 20003 2004

carpooled Public transportation Walked

Other means Worked at home

Alan E. Pisarski

OR LOOK AT THE POVERTY POP!

63%15%

8%

6%

3% 5%

78%

10%

5%

2%

1%

4%

drove alone:

carpooled:

Public transportation

Walked:

Taxicab, motorcycle,bicycle, other

Worked at home:

Alan E. Pisarski

The Baby-Boomers are coming!

SHARES OF OVER 55 WORKERS BY AGE GROUP

49%

27%

12%

7%5%

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-74

75+

Alan E. Pisarski

OVER 55 MODE USAGE - DETAILMODES

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75+

Bus or trolley bus

Subway or elevated

Taxicab

Walked

Worked at home

Alan E. Pisarski

Immigrant mode trend

Mode Use by Years in US

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

< 5 yrs 5- <10yrs

10-<15yrs

15-<20yrs

>20 yrs BORNUS

other

Worked at home

Walked

Bicycle

transit

carpool

Drove alone

Alan E. Pisarski

Carpool Use by Years in US

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

< 5 yrs 5- <10yrs

10-<15yrs

15-<20yrs

>20 yrs BORNUS

carpool 3

carpool 4

carpool 5 or 6

carpool 7&+

Alan E. Pisarski

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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

5,000,000 ormore

2,500,000 to4,999,999

1,000,000 to2,499,999

500,000 to999,999

250,000 to499,999

100,000 to249,999

50,000 to99,999

% under 20

% over 60

Alan E. Pisarski

% HH without vehicles in central cities by metro area size

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

5 meg + 2.5-5 1-2.5 .5-1 .25-.5 .1-.25

WHITE NH cc

ASIAN cc

HISP cc

AF AM cc

Alan E. Pisarski

WE MUST CONFRONT THE FALLACIES DIRECTLY

“System is in place” Congest our way to the solution Induced Demand- “It just fills up

again” “Efficiency” The air quality goal; benefits of

free-flow travel dispersal in an affluent society

Alan E. Pisarski

Congestion is our friend!

Disinterest in congestion – bottom of the list of problems to solve

Congestion as a goal – if we can let things get bad enough behavior will change

The “Constituency for Congestion”

Alan E. Pisarski

The Present Policy Conflict Two Metro Visions

Neighborhood Shorter trips Walk/bike Land use solutions Design What’s freight? Accessibility Public Mass Change behavior Make it happen

Globally Integrated Longer trips Broad “community” Choices Market forces Major role for freight Mobility Private Personalized Technological fix Let it happen

Alan E. Pisarski

Own Metropolitan Area

Other Metropolitan area

suburbs

Central city

Central city

suburbs

24.5

7.5

16.6

40.8

.7

2.2

1.1

3.5

1.9

.5

24.4

1.6

2.9

Non-metropolitan Area

2000 METRO FLOW MAP

Alan E. Pisarski

The “Donut” Metro Jobs and workers centered in suburbs 46% of commutes; 64% of growth 90-00 7.5 million coming in to the subs from

exurbs and other metros each day 7.5 million going out to the subs from

central cities CC to subs > Subs to CC in share of

growth

Alan E. Pisarski

Counties exporting more than 25% of workers to work

Cnty_cnty_wrkrflow.shp0 - 2525 - 100

N

EW

S

County-to-County Worker Flow Percentage: 2000

Alan E. Pisarski

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

HOUSEHOLDS It’s the decline in the

number of jobs I could reach in ½ hr!

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

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

BUSINESSES It’s the decline in the

number of workers within ½ hr of my employment site!

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

It’s the decline in ship- ment reliability!

Alan E. Pisarski

The beginnings of a reaction

freight needs – a dose of reality Irate reactions to congestion 9/11 as a wakeup call It is no longer acceptable that

things are bad and our plans accept they will get worse

Alan E. Pisarski

THE LEAVENING POWER OF FREIGHT MOVEMENT

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

not a parlor game

Alan E. Pisarski

Community Reactions

Legislatures and business communities demand response to congestion Washington Georgia Texas Others

Texas – “federal program a program for the average state – we are not average.” What will it take to assure our competitiveness in

the future Georgia - “Can we get out of congestion?”

Alan E. Pisarski

Texas: Study Purpose

Led by Governor’s Business Council Goals set by needs and vision rather

than available resources-- CLRP to define minimum performance

standards and then seek resources to accomplish them

compare the benefits of solutions to the cost of solutions

Alan E. Pisarski

Texas: Study Recommendations

Focus on goal of TTI of 1.15 in major metros (15% difference in travel time from

peak to off-peak) Hold line where below 1.15 Evaluate projects based on:

Delay Reduction per $ Measure Progress and report

annually

Alan E. Pisarski

Texas’s Roadways – Texas’s Future Study Impacts:

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

congestion?” Deputy Director – Focus on urban issues TxDOT & metro MPOs -- joint process of identifying

costs to meet regional mobility goals H.B. 3588 (2003) require statewide strategic

transportation plan tied to: specific congestion indices mobility plans to meet

congestion relief goals provided short-term gap funding to help meet

goals August, 2004 MPOs and TxDOT produced:

Regional mobility goals Cost estimates to meet goals Process for continual updates (August 2006)

Alan E. Pisarski

GEORGIA: Focus on Atlanta

Atlanta fastest growth big metro 40% population increase in 10 years 30 counties Greatest growth in travel time

Private Sector Studies convinced Governor of need & opportunity

Alan E. Pisarski

GEORGIA: Focus on Atlanta

Charge To Agencies - CMTF GaDOT ARC GRTA SRTA

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

Alan E. Pisarski

GEORGIA: Focus on Atlanta

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

Alan E. Pisarski

GEORGIA: Focus on Atlanta

FINDINGS Congestion Relief Not a Goal

Given A Weight Of 10% in Plans Little in Common in Methods Severe Weaknesses in Process

Giving Congestion A 50-70% Weight Reduced Congestion -- & Safety & Air Quality

Alan E. Pisarski

GEORGIA: Focus on Atlanta

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS Set Congestion Goal TTI = 1.35 All Agencies Use Common Methods

Value Of Time Trucking Delay Reduction/$ Use B/C

Establish Annual Reporting Systems

Alan E. Pisarski

GEORGIA: Focus on Atlanta

ACTIONS CMTF Adopted Recommendations All 4 Agencies Adopted

Recommendations Individually Governor Accepted

Recommendations Next: An Action Plan

Alan E. Pisarski

Congress hears

Shifts in Planning goals and focus

Safety/Security Economic development Accountability Measures No teeth – parts per million for

congestion or any other goal?

Alan E. Pisarski

A New Plan for Planning for States And MPO’s

MEET SAFETY NEEDS SUPPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSURE SECURITY -- REDUNDANCY MAINTAIN MOBILITY/RELIABILITY SERVE AGING POPULATIONS SERVE LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS CLRP Plus WHERE DOES AIR QUALITY FIT IN THIS?

Alan E. Pisarski

The right next steps Accept public consumer sovereignty A real dedication to solving

congestion Adopt measurable performance

results Win public respect and support

OR, THE GOVT COULD ELECT NEW PEOPLE!

THANK YOU!

Alan E. Pisarski

PISARSKI@ALANPISARSKI.C0M