Analysis & Editorial: Arizona's Vision 21 Task Force Keeps to the Basics But Misses the Vision
IVsource.net
3 February 2001

Founded by Arizona's Governor in 1999, the Vision 21 Task Force had a broad charter to examine the state's transportation needs and opportunities over the next 20 years. Their final report was released in CD format earlier this year, and addressed, appropriately, such broad issues as transportation revenues, project approval processes, and mobility for Arizona citizens. While they did their job in addressing the core issues, they failed to achieve a true long-term vision of how road transportation may evolve based on intelligent vehicle technology and the opportunities this offers to highway operators. IVsource takes an in-depth look.

Founded by Arizona's Governor Jane Dee Hull in 1999, the Vision 21 Task Force had a broad charter to examine the state's transportation needs and opportunities over the next 20 years. Their final report was released in CD format earlier this year, and addressed, appropriately, such broad issues as transportation revenues, project approval processes, and mobility. While they did their job in addressing the core issues, they failed to achieve a true long-term vision of how road transportation may evolve based on intelligent vehicle technology and the opportunities this offers to highway operators.

IVsource began it's focus on the activities of the Task Force when editor Richard Bishop was invited to testify at a Task Force meeting in June of 2000. As part of a larger event to acquaint Task Force members with Intelligent Transportation Systems, Mr. Bishop developed documents describing the opportunities for state DOTs provided by intelligent vehicle systems. Recommendations included procurement of currently available safety systems for the state vehicle fleet and also taking a serious look at cooperative vehicle-highway systems for direct control of vehicles improve traffic flows and reduce congestion. Of interest almost two years later: did such systems enter into Arizona's future equation?

Congestion Bad and Getting Worse

The task force focused strongly on methods for relieving congestion, which spanned the traditional gamut of constructing additional freeway lanes, expansion of the HOV-lane system, and enhanced transit services. The report states that a top priority for transportation revenues should be congestion relief, improving commuter services and reducing delays.

The report puts the problem this way: "Congestion on our major state highways is increasing toward unacceptable levels of service. For example, average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along some sections of Interstate 10 between Phoenix and Tucson have increased dramatically in recent years and will reach unacceptable levels by 2006. Traffic volumes along this stretch of interstate are expected to double over the next 20 years. Congestion in the metropolitan Phoenix area will reach severe levels, especially during peak commuter hours, without additional investment in the system." The report continues by noting that, in 1995, the average speed during the evening peak hours was 30 miles per hour - it is expected to drop drastically to 16 miles per hour without significant transportation system improvements, which require an increase in funding. The slower average speed will result in a 1,000% increase in total hours of delay during the evening rush hour. Within the metropolitan Tucson area, numerous major arterial streets have reached "unacceptable" congestion levels during the evening peak hours. Without additional investment, congestion in some areas will reach "catastrophic" levels. Vehicle trips per day are expected to reach 3.6 million in 2020, compared to 2.1 million vehicle trips per day in 1995. Over the next 20 years, congested conditions are expected to exist on 70% of metropolitan Tucson's roadways.

A recent study by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), cited by the Task Force, indicated that congestion in 68 metropolitan areas across the county in 1999 resulted in a $78 billion loss in job productivity, 4.5 billion hours of delay and 6.8 billion gallons of wasted fuel. The same study found that, on average, motorists in the Phoenix area spent 31 hours idling in traffic in 1999 and the average Tucson area motorist spent up to 23 hours in 1999 in traffic delays. The study found that congestion in the Phoenix area cost $540 per capita when considering lost time and increased gas expense. The study found that congestion in the Tucson area cost $395 per capita.

The TTI study also found that areas with significant freeway expansion (e.g. the Maricopa Regional Freeway System) experienced slower growth in congestion than metropolitan regions that did not undertake substantial roadway expansion programs.

Other national studies cited indicate that 50 to 60% of all traffic congestion is attributed to
incidents (e.g., minor accidents, stalled or abandoned vehicles on the freeway shoulder, large debris in roadway). These studies also indicate that formal incident management programs and freeway management systems are two effective strategies for reducing congestion. It is projected that by the year 2005, incident related congestion will cost the U.S. public over $75 billion in lost productivity and will result in over 8.4 billion gallons of wasted fuel.

Public Crystal Clear

Statistics aside, the report cites numerous sources, including public opinion polls throughout the State, which indicate that growing traffic congestion is one of the major concerns for citizens and that finding ways to ease congestion and reduce travel time is a top priority. Input was gained from the Task Force's statewide telephone survey, Modified Focus Groups, and the public Transportation Open Houses held throughout the state.

It is notable that the Task Force report does not address highway safety at all. This reflects the reality, rarely acknowledged at ITS gatherings, that the public does not clamor for more safety on their roads or in their vehicles. They want to see traffic flowing smoothly, and to be able to depend on smooth flow for their daily activities. Congestion touches most Americans almost daily - and while their exposure to a highway crash is constant while traveling, it is not the visceral experience that traffic jams are. Also, while drivers can limit their safety risks to a large degree by careful driving, they have much less power to reduce their "congestion risk."

Surveys such as this indicate that, while the American public will invest in increased safety when it is offered, what they want most is congestion relief.

What to Do?

The task force clearly has recognized the pervasive problems posed by congestion: "Existing and future congestion on state and local roadways will hinder Arizona's economy and threaten the quality of life for our citizens and visitors." Their strong recommendation is that a specific portion of state collected transportation revenues be dedicated to addressing existing and future commuter needs and congestion relief in all areas of the State. "Immediate and obvious improvements to the State's transportation system that should be immediately implemented. Most of these improvements can be most effectively implemented in the State's largest urban areas."

What might these improvements look like?
¨ The report estimates that completing the proposed Maricopa Regional HOV Lane Plan would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and would reduce delays during peak periods. By 2020, the proposed HOV Plan is estimated to reduce peak morning commuter VMT by nearly 22.5 million miles per day, which represents 23.6% of total projected VMT for the Maricopa region at that time. The proposed HOV Plan is expected to reduce 2020 morning peak-period delays by over 30,000 hours per day. The estimated total cost to build the additional HOV miles and supporting parking and ramps is approximately $750 million.
¨ Like HOV lanes, High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes increase the capacity of existing freeway corridors. HOT lane users pay a fee for use of the HOV lanes, without the multiple passenger requirements. In California, conversion of HOV lanes to HOT lanes has increased carpooling. The Interstate 15 HOT Lane Program near San Diego, California has been operational for the last six years. The average rush hour fare on the Interstate 15 HOT lanes is $2.25 per one-way trip. With value pricing systems, trip fares are increased as demand for the HOT lanes increases. California HOT lane facilities have improved traffic flows on adjacent general-purpose lanes. Average peak period speeds in the general purpose lanes have increased from 15 mph to 32 mph and morning peak period congestion has decreased by 25%. A recent study concluded that it would cost approximately $20 million to convert the existing or programmed HOV lanes along the Superstition Freeway and Interstate 10 to HOT lanes, between eastern Maricopa County and downtown Phoenix.

But Is It Enough?

While the report paints a vivid doomsday picture, is it realistic to expect that the recommended approaches will really solve the problem?

A common mantra in the ITS world is that "we can't build our way out of congestion." Yet, it appears that Arizona will be investing substantial monies in new construction. It is likely that this will help (as noted above for Maricopa County), but certainly not solve the problem. The projections for demand reduction via HOV lanes rely, of course, on traveler's choices regarding carpooling - the uptake rate for this option has not been strong nationwide.

Another prime approach recommended is incident management and freeway service patrols, both strongly endorsed by the Task Force report. Bravo -- these will help, as well. But these techniques, and indeed most of the ITS successes in the past ten years, focus only on the "edges" of the problem - that is, removing impediments to traffic flow.

Even with good results from these and other measures, the sheer volume of traffic attempting to use area roads will continue to overwhelm the capacity: as the report states, traffic will double by 2020.

"Smart Car" Technology Gets A Faint Nod, But No Follow-Through

While "pasted in" with no obvious reflection elsewhere, testimony regarding intelligent vehicle technology was included in the body of the report, noting that "smart car" technology should enhance traffic safety and increase roadway capacity over the next 20 years. The report notes that:
¨ "Several U.S. auto manufacturers are developing and testing intelligent vehicles that can drive themselves using on-board computers, radar technology and sensors that follow magnets embedded in a roadway. These "smart cars" are being sold and operated in some areas of Denmark and Japan."
¨ "Within the next few years, collision warning and crash avoidance systems will be standard equipment or optional features in new cars. These systems are an extension of cruise control systems that have been common in most vehicles for many years. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has estimated that over 500,000 crashes could be avoided annually and close to 10,000 lives saved, with the full deployment of these systems. "
¨ "Additionally, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has set a goal of a 50% reduction in fatalities from heavy truck crashes through the use of this intelligent vehicle technology."
¨ "ADOT is currently testing new snowplows that are guided by computer technology that reads magnets embedded in the roadway. Full deployment of this technology will significantly reduce the time to clear snow on state highways."

Boiling It All Down

So, when it's all said and done, what are we left with? A steadily increasing traffic demand and a set of transportation improvements that can at best "contain" existing congestion. While the report speaks to the potential of smart cars to enhance roadway capacity, this development never "bubbles up" to affect the overall picture or the suite of congestion countermeasures proposed.

Within a twenty year timeframe (the time horizon of the Task Force's charter), the time exists to perform development, testing, and implementation of systems which can enhance traffic flow via cooperative vehicle-highway systems (see related IVsource articles). That is, of course, if the relevant investments are made.

Meanwhile, IV systems can alleviate a portion of congestion just by reducing those fender-benders that the report says are responsible for up to 50% of congestion.

Arizona is not alone in boldly charting the future congestion problem and then limiting investment planning to improvements and innovations that are unlikely to do any better than maintain the status quo - a situation that erodes the quality of life of millions of Americans daily.

Attention to this topic area is increasing slowly, though, and it is hoped that with adoption of the ITS Ten Year Plan and new federal transportation legislation in 2004 that the serious investments that are needed will begin.

The complete Final Report and Appendices can be found on the Vision 21 Task Force web site, www.dot.state.az.us/vision21.

[Top]

For More Information ...

The complete Final Report and Appendices can be found on the Vision 21 Task Force web site, http://www.dot.state.az.us/vision21 

[Top]