Congestion Pricing - Links to Congestion Pricing Home
< Previous | Table of Contents | Next >

Seattle-Lake Washington Corridor Urban Partnership Agreement National Evaluation Plan

1.0 Introduction

The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) awarded grants in 2007 and 2008 to six metropolitan areas for implementation of congestion reduction strategies under the Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA) and Congestion Reduction Demonstration (CRD) programs. The Seattle/Lake Washington Corridor (LWC) UPA, focusing on the SR 520 corridor was one of the selected sites. Based on a competitive procurement process, the U.S. DOT also selected the Battelle team to conduct the national evaluations of the UPA projects. This document presents the Seattle/LWC UPA National Evaluation Plan developed by the Battelle team, in cooperation with the Seattle/LWC UPA partners and the U.S. DOT.

The evaluation plan identified in this document will be carried out in partnership between the Seattle/Lake Washington Corridor UPA local partners and a national evaluation team retained by the U.S. DOT. The national evaluation team is responsible for developing the evaluation plan in coordination with the local partners, including specifying required data, analyzing data, and reporting results. The local partners are responsible for coordinating with the national evaluation team on evaluation plans and for collecting the necessary evaluation data.

This introduction section describes U.S. DOT's congestion reduction programs and the strategies being implemented at the various sites. The organization of this report is also presented.

1.1 U.S. DOT Program to Reduce Congestion

Transportation system congestion is a significant threat to the economic prosperity and way of life in the U.S. Whether it takes the form of trucks stalled in traffic, cargo stuck at overwhelmed seaports, or airplanes stuck on the tarmac, congestion costs the nation an estimated $200 billion a year. Traffic congestion in major metropolitan areas is a key part of this problem. In 2007, congestion caused urban Americans to travel 4.2 billion hours more and to purchase an extra 2.8 billion gallons of fuel. The value of time spent and out of pocket fuel costs represented a total congestion cost of $87.2 billion—an increase of more than 50 percent over the previous decade2. Congestion affects the quality of life in America by robbing time that could be spent with families and friends, in participation in civic life, and in recreational activities. As indicated in Figure 1-1, which reflects conditions in 14 of the nation's largest urban areas representing 54 percent of the population, the total hours of traffic delay grew approximately 340 percent from 1982 to 2007 and the miles traveled under extreme congestion more than tripled, from 8 percent to 28 percent.

1.1.1 Urban Partnership Agreement/Congestion Reduction Demonstration Program Overview

U.S. DOT entered into UPAs with cities, pursuant to their commitment to implement "broad congestion pricing." In December 2006, the U.S. DOT issued a Federal Register Notice soliciting cities to apply for Urban Partnership status by April 30, 2007. For the cities that were selected, this Urban Partnership status would confer priority for available federal discretionary funds of approximately $1 billion across about a dozen programs. The applicants' proposals for congestion reduction were to be based on four complementary strategies known as the 4Ts: Tolling, Transit, Telecommuting, which includes additional travel demand management (TDM) strategies, and Technology.

Figure 1-1. Percentage of Vehicle Miles Traveled by Congestion Level in Very Large Urban Areas, 1982 versus 2007. Two pie charts in five segments provide a comparative breakdown of hours of delay. For 1982, uncongested accounts for 62 percent, moderate accounts for 11 percent, heavy accounts for 9 percent, severe accounts for 10 percent, and extreme accounts for 8 percent of the total 0.5 billion hours of delay. For 2007, uncongested accounts for 26 percent, moderate accounts for 13 percent, heavy accounts for 14 percent, severe accounts for 19 percent, and extreme accounts for 28 percent of the total 0.5 billion hours of delay. Urban Mobility Report 2009, Texas Transportation Institute.

Figure 1-1. Percentage of Vehicle Miles Traveled by Congestion Level in Very Large Urban Areas, 1982 versus 2007

In August 2007, the selection of five urban partners was announced—Miami, Minnesota, New York City, San Francisco, and Seattle—along with a total of $853 million in federal discretionary grants for these partners. On April 7, 2008, the New York State Assembly declined to take a formal vote to provide needed legislative authority to implement the proposed New York City congestion-pricing project. The U.S. DOT announced that the UPA funds previously targeted for New York would be made available to other areas for implementing congestion pricing and supporting strategies.

In 2007, the U.S. DOT announced a follow-up to the UPA Program, called the Congestion Reduction Demonstration Initiative. The November 13, 2007, Federal Register notice set a December 31, 2007, deadline for applications. Subsequently, the U.S. DOT announced a total of $263 million in federal discretionary grants for Los Angeles and Atlanta. Chicago had been awarded funds at one point but was later removed from the program when deadlines for pricing legislation were not met.

A wide range of strategies and projects are being implemented at the UPA/CRD sites using the 4Ts. Table 1-1 highlights the strategies being deployed at the various UPA/CRD sites. The Seattle/LWC UPA projects focus on the SR 520 corridor. Projects include congestion pricing in the form of variable tolling on all lanes of SR 520, Active Traffic Management (ATM) on SR 520 and the parallel Interstate 90, travel time signs, enhanced bus service, enhanced park-and-ride lots (including one that is a part of a transit oriented development), transit stop/station improvements including real-time traveler information, a range of travel demand management program strategies (e.g., employer-based programs), and regional ferry enhancements.

Table 1-1.? Summary of UPA/CRD Strategies by Site
UPA/CRD Strategies Site: MN Site: SF Site: Sea Site: Mia Site: LA
Convert HOV lanes to dynamically priced high-occupancy tolling (HOT) lanes and/or new HOT lanes X empty Cell empty Cell X X
Priced dynamic shoulder lanes X empty Cell empty Cell empty Cell empty Cell
Variably priced parking and/or loading zones empty Cell X empty Cell empty Cell X
Variably priced roadways or bridges (partial cordon) empty Cell empty Cell X empty Cell empty Cell
Increase park-and-ride capacity (expand existing or add new) X empty Cell X X X
Transit-oriented development empty Cell empty Cell X empty Cell empty Cell
Expand or enhance bus service X empty Cell X X X
Implement new, or expand existing, Bus Rapid Transit X empty Cell empty Cell X empty Cell
Transit on special runningways (e.g., contraflow lanes, shoulders) X empty Cell empty Cell X empty Cell
New and/or enhanced transit stops/stations X empty Cell X X X
Transit traveler information systems (bus arrival times, parking availability) X X X empty Cell empty Cell
Transit lane keeping/lane guidance X empty Cell empty Cell empty Cell empty Cell
Transit traffic signal priority X empty Cell empty Cell X X
Arterial street traffic signal improvements to improve transit travel times X empty Cell empty Cell empty Cell empty Cell
Ferry service improvements empty Cell X X empty Cell empty Cell
Improved transit travel forecasting techniques empty Cell X empty Cell empty Cell empty Cell
Pedestrian improvements empty Cell empty Cell empty Cell X X
"Results Only Work Environment" employer-based techniques X empty Cell empty Cell empty Cell empty Cell
Work to increase use of telecommuting X X X X empty Cell
Work to increase flexible scheduling X empty Cell X X empty Cell
Work to increase alternative commute programs, including car and van pools X X X X X
Vehicle infrastructure integration test bed empty Cell X empty Cell empty Cell empty Cell
Active traffic management X empty Cell X empty Cell empty Cell
Regional multi-modal traveler information (e.g., 511) X X X empty Cell empty Cell
Freeway management (ramp meters, travel time signs, enhanced monitoring) X empty Cell empty Cell X empty Cell
Enhanced traffic signal operations X empty Cell empty Cell empty Cell empty Cell
Parking management system empty Cell X empty Cell empty Cell X

The U.S. DOT selected a national evaluation contractor through a competitive procurement process to assess the effectiveness of the various UPA/CRD strategies. The Battelle team was selected to conduct the national evaluation. The team has been working with representatives from the U.S. DOT and the UPA/CRD sites to develop and conduct the evaluation process. This report was prepared by members of the Battelle team working in cooperation with the Seattle/LWC UPA partners and representatives from the U.S. DOT.

1.2 Organization of this Report

The remainder of this report is divided into four sections. Chapter 2.0 discusses the Seattle/LWC UPA. An overview of the transportation system in the Seattle metropolitan area is presented first, followed by a description of the Seattle/LWC UPA partners and the UPA projects, funding, and deployment schedule. Chapter 3.0 provides an overview of the national evaluation organizational structure, the national evaluation process and framework, the U.S. DOT guiding questions and evaluation analyses, and the Seattle/LWC UPA evaluation process. Chapter 4.0 presents the Seattle/LWC UPA evaluation plan. The chapter discusses the 10 evaluation analyses and describes the preliminary evaluation test plans. The report concludes with a discussion of the next steps in the Seattle/LWC UPA national evaluation process.

2David Schrank and Tim Lomax, "Urban Mobility Report 2009." Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System, July 2009.