I was interviewed by Mary Lynn Smith of the Star Tribune for the annual INRIX congestion report article:
Minneapolis-St. Paul is No. 16 on the list of America’s worst traffic cities
Depending on the methodology, rankings put the Twin Cities between the 13th- and 16th-largest U.S. metro area, said David Levinson, a civil engineering professor at the University of Minnesota. “The fact that we’re ranked 16th in congestion seems about right,” he said.
Levinson said demographic trends are helping to mitigate road congestion.
“Travel times are declining in the U.S.,” he said. “People are aging. Old people don’t travel as much, and young people don’t travel as much as what young people used to. Fewer kids own cars. The big picture is that that the total amount of travel peaked in the U.S. a few years ago and it’s been declining ever since. We have some ups and downs during any given year depending on the price of the gas and whether the economy is doing a little bit better or not. Certainly [congestion is] more than in 2009 during the depths of the recession.”
Levinson and others are quick to point out that Twin Cities drivers could be dealing with much worse.
In Los Angeles, home to the nation’s most-congested roads, drivers spent 64 hours sitting in traffic, an increase of five hours from the previous year, according to the INRIX study. In Honolulu, the nation’s second-worst city for traffic, drivers sat behind the wheel 60 extra hours last year, while in No. 3 San Francisco it was 56 hours.
And, Levinson points out, there’s more good news for the Twin Cities. The average speed of travel in the metro area is the fifth-highest in the country.
“You sit in traffic at a particular bottleneck, but then when you’re moving on the freeway, you’re driving at 55 mph,’’ he said. “And when you’re driving on arterials, you’re driving at 45 mph, and that’s better than most metro cities.”
I am scheduled to appear at The Theater of Public Policy where they will be improv-ing Transit Revolution or a Streetcar to Heck?
The University of Minnesota’s resident civil engineering guru is known around the world as The Transportationist. Professor Levinson will join us to talk about the Twin Cities, traffic, streetcars, and why we don’t yet have hover bikes?
Doors at 6:00 – Show at 7:00
Tickets: $10 at the door OR $7 in advance, or $7 at the door with student I.D., kids under 12, or with a Fringe Button.
Buy Tickets here!
- Monday, April 7, 2014
- 7:00pm – 8:00pm
Bryant Lake Bowl (map)
810 W Lake St
Minneapolis, MN 55408
At streets.mn I write about “The Land of Make-Believe“
Minneapolis and St. Paul are considering a number of streetcar lines. Three have risen to the forefront. The Central/Nicollet Line in Minneapolis, the Midtown Greenway in Minneapolis, and the Seventh Street Streetcar in St. Paul. In part this is viewed as an economic development tool. In part this nostalgia for an earlier simpler time, when we were all children, growing up in Pittsburgh.
Caroline Cournoyer at Governing Magazine writes: Commuter Rail Ridership Declining Despite Increase in Lines:
“While the public may love the notion of commuter rail lines, they are perhaps the least popular form of transit for politicians. The subsidies for commuter rail are tremendous, says Michael Smart, a researcher with the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles. A study of the Minneapolis Northstar line concluded that taxpayers were paying a subsidy (which included capital costs) of $89 per passenger. Other studies showed subsidies of much lower rates, but still significantly higher than those for bus or subway riders.”
The study referred to is this 2011 blog post. Northstar Ridership is of course up since the fares were cut by 25%. (In 2013 it was 787,239, up 17% … so ~700,000 riders pay less so that ~87,000 pay at all) I don’t think revenue is up, though the cost per passenger is of course lower.
Main Street – Albert Lea
The fifth (and last?) of my Main Street series on streets.mn is up. Read them all:
Congratulations to Michael Janson for successfully completing and defending his Master’s Thesis HOT or Not: Driver Elasticity to Price and Alternative Pricing Strategies on the MnPASS HOT Lanes
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has added MnPASS High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes on two freeway corridors in the Twin Cities. While not the first HOT lanes in the country, the MnPASS lanes are the first implementation of road pricing in Minnesota and possess a dynamic pricing schedule. Tolls charged to single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) are adjusted every three minutes according to HOT lane vehicle density. Given the infancy of systems like MnPASS, questions remain about drivers responses to toll prices. Three field experiments were conducted on the corridors during which prices were changed. Data from the field experiments as well as two years of toll and traffic data were analyzed to measure driver responses to pricing changes. Driver elasticity to price was positive with magnitudes less than 1.0. This positive relationship between price and demand is in contrast with the previously held belief that raising the price would discourage demand. In addition, drivers consistently paid between approximately $60-120 per hour of travel time savings, much higher than MnDOT’s value of time (VOT) of $15/hr. Reasons for this include the value drivers place on reliability, a misperception about the actual time savings and that MnPASS users have a greater VOT than the average driver. Four alternative pricing strategies are then proposed. These pricing strategies were tested using a HOT lane choice model based on previous research. The share of transponder owning SOVs using the MnPASS lane was measured against price producing positive elasticity values at lower prices and negative elasticity values at higher prices. MnPASS lane usage rises with price at lower tolls due to the increased time savings benefit but is eventually outweighed by the price, causing the lane share to decrease at higher tolls.
Michael is now working at SRF.
Congratulations to Dr. Arthur Huang for successfully completing and defending his dissertation: Accessibility and non-work destination choice: A microscopic analysis of GPS travel data
The advancements of GPS and GIS technologies provide new opportunities for investigating vehicle trip generation and destination choice at the microscopic level. This research models how land use and road network structure influence non-work, non-home vehicle trip generation and non-work destination choice in the context of trip chains, using the in-vehicle GPS travel data in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area. This research includes three key parts: modeling non-work vehicle trip generation, modeling non-work, single-destination choice, and modeling non-work, two-destination choice. This research contributes to methodologies in modeling single-destination choice and multiple-destination choice and tests several hypotheses which were not investigated before.
In modeling non-work vehicle trip generation, this research identifies correlation of trips made by the same individual in the trip generation models. To control for this effect, five mixed-effects models are systematically applied: mixed-effects linear model, mixed-effects log-linear model, mixed-effects negative binomial model, and mixed-effects ordered logistic model. The mixed-effects ordered logistic model produces the highest goodness of fit for our data and therefore is recommended.
In modeling non-work, single-destination choice, this research proposes a new method to build choice sets which combines survival analysis and random sampling. A systematic comparison of the goodness of fit of models with various choice set sizes is also performed to determine an appropriate choice set size. In modeling non-work, multiple-destination choice, this research proposes and compare three new approaches to build choice sets for two-destination choice in the context of trip chains. The outcomes of these approaches are empirically compared and we recommend the major/minor-destination approach for modeling two-destination choice. The modeling procedure can be expanded to trip chains with more than two destinations.
Our empirical findings reveal that:
- Although accessibility around home is not found to have statistically significant effects on non-work vehicle trips, the diversity of services within 10 to 15 minutes and 15 and 20 minutes from home can help reduce the number of non-work vehicle trips.
- Accessibility and diversity of services at destinations influence destination choice but they do not exert the same level of impact. The major destination in a trip chain tends to influence the decision more than the minor destination.
- The more dissimilar the two destinations in a trip chain are, the more attractive the trip chain is.
- Route-specific network measures such as turn index, speed discontinuity, axis of travel, and trip chains’ travel time saving ratio display statistically significant effects on destination choice.
Our findings have implications on transportation planning for creating flourishing retail clusters and reducing the amount of vehicle travel.
After working at Valparaiso University last year, he is currently teaching at the University of Minnesota Duluth.
My student Jessica Schoner and colleague Jason Cao recently published:
Cao and Schoner (2014) The influence of light rail transit on transit use: An exploration of station area residents along the Hiawatha line in Minneapolis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice
Volume 59, January 2014, Pages 134–143
- We compare transit use of residents in LRT corridor and control corridors well served by bus transit.
- People moving into LRT corridor before its opening use transit more than those in control corridors.
- Transit use of people moving into LRT corridor after its opening is similar to that of urban controls.
- LRT-related land use and transportation policies are necessary for ridership growth.
Rail transit is often implemented in the corridors already with high transit demand. When evaluating their ridership benefits, previous studies often choose the city/county/region as control groups, rather than comparable corridors without rail, and hence overstate their impacts. In this study, we employ propensity score matching to explore the impact of Hiawatha light rail transit (LRT) on transit use. We find that compared to residents in similar urban corridors, the Hiawatha LRT promotes transit use of residents who have lived in the corridor before its opening, and that residents who moved to the corridor after its opening use transit as often as new residents in the comparable urban corridors without LRT. We conclude that besides LRT, land use and transportation policies are necessary for ridership growth.
Propensity score matching; Self-selection; Transit-oriented development; Travel behavior; Urban form
St. Cloud Times reports: No quick fix for busy I-94 through Central Minnesota : Is solution to congestion more lanes, user fees or improved transit?
. I am interviewed by Kirsti Marohn:
“Per capita, traffic levels are about where they were in the late 1990s, said David Levinson, a civil engineering professor at the University of Minnesota. And there’s no guarantee of growth in the next two decades, he said.
“It depends on where people want to live,” he said. Any population could be offset by the fact that people aren’t driving as much, Levinson said.
Levinson said there’s also research underway on mileage-based user fees, which charge people a fee for which roads they use according to the time of day. For example, a motorist might pay 10 cents a mile during peak hours, but 5 cents a mile during off-peak times.
Charging more during peak hours would mean people who didn’t have to travel during those times would find a different time to travel, Levinson said.
Internationally, a few large cities such as London and Stockholm have tried this approach. Many toll roads also have off-peak discounts to help spread out the demand, Levinson said.”
Lots of good graphics in the original article, worth the read.
This is a much more thorough article than one normally sees in the Star Tribune (which ran the abbreviated version from AP, without all the cool data visualizations).
Streets.MN, ITSO, and some other cool organizations are sponsoring The Minneapolis Mayoral Forum on the Future of Transportation (details at the link).
7:00pm on Tuesday, Oct. 15, in the Cowles Auditorium at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School