What's going on at DOT?
Posted by Amber Gunn - April 23, 2008Yesterday's GMAP session with the Department of Transportation raised some serious questions--some the governor touched on and some she didn't.
Secretary Paula Hammond displayed a trend graph of the last 25 years, which showed population, licensed drivers, employment, and vehicle miles traveled rising between 50% and 100%, while new lane miles barely increased 10%. The slide containing the graph also asked the question "Why do we have congestion?" and answered with "Washington's growing economy and population put increasing demands on the system while there was little growth in supply."
So why do we have congestion? Because lots of people moved here but DOT didn't build lanes to match the demand. Now the department is trying to balance that by building new lanes in key areas, as Secretary Hammond put it.
And what conclusion did the governor draw after she saw this slide?
"We cannot pave our way out of this problem, even if we want to," she said. "We have got to look at other innovative, cost-effective ways to address this problem."
Ummm...actually this problem wouldn't exist if the department had done some paving to begin with. DOT officials didn't because the legislature told them not to, starting in the 1970's. Lawmakers didn't like the policy of building new lanes, so they stopped. If the growth in supply had matched the growth in demand, we wouldn't have a shortage. If we didn't have a shortage, we wouldn�t have congestion. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge illustrates this perfectly, as average speeds rose from 20mph to 60mph during peak periods after the new bridge opened. Building new lanes works! Imagine that. Then again, when you've got a department whose revenue system is based on gas taxes, and congestion causes people to burn more gas, then congestion is actually good for the system right? The whole mess is quite problematic.
The next eyebrow-raising part of the forum focused on predictable vs. unpredictable congestion. By DOT's assessment, predictable congestion is caused by things like poor signal timing and a short supply of roads (duh). Unpredictable congestion includes accidents, bad weather and work zones. DOT then went on to explain how highway ramp meters reduce accidents by 30%.
Did you follow that? If congestion is caused by accidents, but the accident rate goes down if we install ramp meters, then many accidents are NOT unpredictable but predictable, and we can expect more accidents and therefore more road congestion in areas where ramp meters are not in use on busy freeways. Ack!
The GMAP forum moved on to a puzzling discussion on I-5 reconstruction. To quote DOT, "Replacing the I-5 pavement through Seattle offers a unique opportunity to fix long-standing traffic chokepoints,and will preserve the most important route in Washington state and improve traffic flow and safety" (emphasis mine). Again, not following their logic here. If this section of I-5 is indeed the most important route in Washington (and I am not disagreeing), then why the heck haven't these problems been fixed before?! Why have our leaders allowed our state's life-giving artery to clog?
But the most precious gift of the forum came at the end, when DOT discussed their next steps for moving Washington. Top two highlights are:
--Establishing priorities and goals
--Developing a two, six, and ten year phased approach for congestion strategies
So DOT doesn't HAVE priorities and goals? And they mean to tell us that they don't have a plan to implement their "three-legged something" congestion strategy? Oh wait, that makes sense since DOT didn't even have a congestion strategy until last October's performance audit told them they ought to get one. Well at least congestion is back on the radar screen. It only took them a couple decades.
All in all, DOT gets an A for improved reporting (their dashboard was really nifty) but when it comes to action, they're just not there. We've got a bunch of process lovers involved in transportation in our state, and very few people focused on outcomes. We've got to turn this ship around. A good place to start is Governor Gregoire's own question to DOT: "What benefits will the driver see as a result of your transportation plan?" Great question!
Hop to it red-tapers!
Thoughts? Add Comment -
us grant said on Apr 23 2008 at 7:59pm
Amber,
Your most recent post clearly demonstrates that (1) you have not read the SAO’s performance audit on congestion (2) you do not understand the roles of the legislature vs. agencies (3) your logic is as sloppy as your writing.
If you had read the audit, you would have noted that WSDOT is recognized as a national leader in congestion management. This is highlighted in the audit, and also in the most recent Texas Transportation Institute Urban Mobility Report. However, I suspect that you have not read either document, and have instead opted to cherry pick quotes from the audit’s executive summary.
The failure to build more lane miles is not that of WSDOT, but of the legislature for not funding them. Are you suggesting that WSDOT should have taken action independent of elected leaders and built roads and bridges? Where would the money to do so have come from?
Your assertion that ramp meters make accidents more predictable is nonsense. Ramp meters reduce accidents, but do not make those that do occur any more predictable.
NWconservative said on Apr 23 2008 at 9:39pm
Come on, US Grant...your namesake had more problem solving abilities than you are offering. At least he won a war! And probably didn't get stuck in traffic.
It seems to me that Ms. Gunn was quoting the geniuses running the state right now. They need a plan? Well, go figure. And if you want to blame the legislature for it's failures,I'm good with that. Those people couldn't negotiate their way out of a paper bag (20 cents for paper or plastic.)
Amber Gunn said on Apr 24 2008 at 3:02pm
Us grant,
1) I clearly wrote that DOT did not build more lanes because the legislature told them not to. I also asked why our leaders (not DOT officials) would allow the I-5 corridor to bottleneck. The audit had recommendations for both the legislature and DOT.
Recommendation 1a: We recommend the Washington State Legislature choose/identify projects based on congestion reduction rather than other agendas.
Recommendation 1b: We recommend WSDOT commit to congestion management and reduction as a primary goal.
DOT doesn’t get a pass, and that’s not the point of auditing an agency. As the audit states, DOT is responsible “for providing project prioritization information to the Washington Legislature.” (49) Additionally, “While WSDOT does not control the level of highway taxes available for transportation, WSDOT does influence whether or not available funds are used to add additional capacity.” (82) And on that issue, we have a culture problem.
2) The audit notes that, “Many urban areas measure congestion and track historical trends. WSDOT is a national leader in this field.” (51) What do I say? Yay?
On a more positive note though, the audit recognizes that “WSDOT is among the nation’s leaders in implementing programs to reduce travel demand on the highway system during the most congested times.” (57) That means DOT is good at getting people out of their cars, which does impact congestion. However, the audit points out that “The demand management philosophy also has weaknesses. Limits exist in regard to how far governments can convince travelers to change their behavior. As the population and economy grow and facilities become more congested, individuals may be forced to shift where and how they live and travel.” (72)
The whole point of the audit was to help DOT move beyond demand management and take congestion head on. How do we know a new strategy is needed? Because the outcomes of the current strategy are bad.
“Congestion in the Puget Sound Region and in the City of Seattle in particular, is bad and getting worse.” (7)
“The Region’s highway system is not performing well in terms of traffic congestion.” (19)
“…some portions of the [Puget Sound] region already approach the worst examples in the nation.” (16)
“The 2007 Urban Mobility Report…identifies Seattle as 16th nationally in terms of hours of delay per peak traveler with 46 hours of delay per peak traveler. The Report estimates that the total annual cost of that delay in the Seattle area is $1.43 billion ($877 per peak traveler, including 33 gallons of wasted fuel per year for the estimated 1.6 million peak period travelers in the region).” (17)
These outcomes are unacceptable. “We’re doing our best” just doesn’t cut it. Passing the buck to the legislature alone just doesn’t cut it. All parties have a responsibility to make congestion a priority. Washingtonians pay about $3 billion a year to the government to make sure we can get from one place to another. The Legislature and DOT are stewards of those funds and it’s their job to ensure that every dollar spent benefits the driver.
us grant said on Apr 24 2008 at 7:15pm
Amber,
The audit does not describe the Department’s approach as demand management-centered. Please see: “The Department has been a national leader in many aspects of congestion management (1)” or “WSDOT is currently recognized among its peers as a leader in transportation operations (70).” The latter is most significant, as Washingtonians are largely stuck with design and building decisions made in the 1950’s – 60’s. As you note, the Department is a leader in demand management, so that leaves building roads as the other option to address congestion. Where would you propose building these roads? It is pretty well documented that there are not a lot of options to build capacity through Seattle (see pp.77 - 78, p. 143). Would you support the enormous tax burden a tunnel underneath Seattle would pose? Additionally, those cities that have relied on extensive road building as the primary means to address congestion fare far worse than Seattle in delay and reliability (see Atlanta , Houston , or Dallas , for example).
Elaine said on Apr 25 2008 at 11:41am
The truth is the governor and Democrat-controlled legislature want increased congestion and people spending more money on gas. That way they can realize their true intent on transportation issues which is to:
1. Raise gas prices enough so that people cannot afford to drive alone. They want people to pay for mass transit so they have more control over people and create more cushy government employee jobs.
2. Ensure traffic congestion increases so eventually they can charge drivers a tax for miles driven.
3. Force Washingtonians to pay for their global-warming hysteria policies that are designed to raise taxes so much most people will not be able to afford a car.
Amber Gunn said on Apr 25 2008 at 2:44pm
us grant
The audit pointed out that:
-DOT is a leader in congestion reporting NOT congestion relief.
- DOT did not have congestion relief as a priority;
-15-20% of existing congestion could be reduced within existing resources by prioritizing the budget based on safety and congestion relief.
"A clear commitment to reducing congestion — after meeting safety requirements — would likely shift investment decisions."
No, I would not support a tunnel. I would support the performance audit recommendations:
• Commit to congestion management and reduction as a primary goal.
• Use all tools at its disposal to mitigate the growth in traffic congestion, recognizing
the relative contributions each tool can make, its benefits and associated costs
with a focus on generating maximum congestion relief.
• Reduce weaving and other traffic conflicts across the Puget Sound freeway
network.
• Accelerate design and construction of new lanes and additional capacity to
address the previous 20-year deficit.
• Apply congestion-related goals, objectives and benchmarks to all highway and
transit-related investments.
• Elevate congestion reduction benefits in all decision-making processes.
etc. etc.