March 18, 2007

RALEIGH – Triangle cities need to shift their transportation priorities, unless they want future road congestion to threaten their economy. That’s the assessment in a new Policy Report from the John Locke Foundation and Reason Foundation.

Raleigh earned a C grade and Durham a C- for their congestion reduction plans. Raleigh’s C ranked the capital city 14th out of the 17 N.C. metropolitan areas. Durham ranked 16th, just ahead of last-place Charlotte’s D grade. In contrast, Asheville, Goldsboro, and Jacksonville topped the list with A- grades.

“Raleigh’s transportation plans have the potential, in total, to generate considerable savings in congestion delay that can offset the projected growth of the region,” said study author David Hartgen, Professor of Transportation Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. “However, in order for these savings to be realized, the plan must be rethought and be made more objective, projects must be implemented in a timely fashion, regional growth must take advantage of them, and savings must accrue.

“Given the likelihood of slowdowns in implementation, increasing costs of construction, and difficulties with environmental and other impacts, it is more likely that the potential of these projects to reduce projected growth in congestion will not be realized fully,” he added. “If that happens, then the ‘congestion’ future will be bleak.”

Hartgen also explains Durham’s slightly lower grade. “While the Durham long-range plan means well and is in some respects superior in analysis, it fails to achieve congestion reduction by: first, diverting funds from projected highway revenues to transit projects; and second, by hugely overspending on the transit side of the ledger,” he said. “At stake here is the economic competitiveness of the region. The critical transportation issue in the Durham region is good accessibility of its residents to high-quality jobs in Research Triangle Park and other employment centers. By spending $2 billion on a transit system that will not do that, the region is dooming itself to rising congestion and to weakened competitiveness against its neighbors.”

Congestion in North Carolina will more than double over the next 25 years, Hartgen said. “Raleigh’s delay will nearly double, to present-day Minneapolis levels, and Durham’s congestion will double, too,” he said. “Charlotte drivers will face the same level of traffic delays Chicago drivers face now. Even smaller cities like Rocky Mount will see a significant increase in traffic delays.”

State and local planners are not targeting enough transportation dollars toward reducing those delays, said Hartgen, a JLF adjunct policy analyst. “That increased congestion threatens the state’s economic future,” he said. “Yet many regions have ignored the problem and propose spending limited transportation funds on ineffective projects that will not likely affect congestion.”

The new study builds on a 2006 report Hartgen prepared for the Los Angeles-based Reason Foundation, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization founded in 1968 that advances a free society by developing, applying, and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law.

The Reason report showed traffic delays would increase by 65 percent across the United States by 2030. North Carolina needs to spend $12.4 billion to clear congested urban roads and prepare for traffic growth in the next 25 years, according to that report.

For his new report, Hartgen reviewed more than 1,300 specific transportation projects planned for each North Carolina region’s transportation plan. Hartgen evaluated each project based on its likely impact on congestion relief, then compared that impact to the congestion growth forecast for the region.

Some regions are devoting too little money to the congestion problem, Hartgen said. The state’s largest regions are spending significant chunks of transportation funding on transit instead.

“In the Charlotte region, 43 percent of available dollars are proposed for highway projects, and the road improvements proposed would alleviate only one-third of the predicted increase in congestion,” he said. “Raleigh and Durham are allocating 73 percent and 49 percent, respectively, of their dollars to effective projects. Does Durham really want to spend half of their transportation dollars on 3 percent of commuters? I think not”, he said.

North Carolina does not need new funding to address the congestion problem, Hartgen said. “The report recommends using existing planned funds for congestion relief,” he said. “In some cities, ‘balance’ in transportation funding needs to be redefined. Instead of saying that transit programs should get 20-50 percent of funds, modes of transportation should get funds in proportion to their demand.”

Hartgen’s report offers nearly 20 recommendations for the state and more targeted recommendations for the Raleigh and Durham regions. Raleigh recommendations include: finishing Interstate 540; developing a sensible widening plan for I-40; and reducing the focus on transit.

Durham recommendations include: immediately reviewing the long-range plan for realism; restructuring that plan to devote $750 million more to road projects in the next 25 years; and rethinking the proper role of transit.

The statewide proposals include: changing the highway distribution formulas to account for congestion; appointing “congestion tsars” and establishing congestion reduction programs for each region; using innovative highway and intersection designs; increasing the weight placed on congestion in selecting projects; implementing flex-time, ridesharing, and work-at-home programs; removing bottlenecks; improving intersection turns and signal systems; expanding incident management programs; using tolls and public-private partnerships; and planning land use and transportation capacity jointly.

The state cannot afford to ignore growing congestion problems, Hartgen said. “North Carolina is not generally recognized as one of the most congested states, but it is,” he said. “My recent national assessment ranked North Carolina 48th among the 50 states in urban interstate congestion.”

“Pulled by competing priorities, many communities appear to be focusing largely on other objectives and are de-emphasizing the congestion problem,” Hartgen added. “Refocusing efforts on relieving congestion could have a major economic impact by saving travel time. The report estimates the value of travel time saved at about $855 million annually.”

David Hartgen’s Policy Report, “Traffic Congestion in North Carolina: Status, Prospects, and Solutions,” is available at the JLF web site. For more information, please contact Hartgen at (704) 687-5917 or [email protected]. To arrange an interview, contact Mitch Kokai at (919) 306-8736 or [email protected].