|









| |
Thirty Seconds Over
Portland
:
A Comment on the “Costs of
Congestion” Study
Joe Cortright, Impresa,
April 20, 2006
Is it worth spending an additional $6 billion on transportation to save an
average of 30 seconds on the typical trip 25 years from now?
The “Costs
of Congestion” report estimates the economic benefits from improving
Portland
’s transportation system over the next two decades that would result from
spending an additional $6 billion (that is, increasing projected transportation
spending from $4 billion to $10 billion). These
travel time savings account for nearly all the net economic benefit of the
project.
How much time will the typical traveler save?
The report itself doesn’t actually say, but it is possible to compute
the answer from the data contained in Table 4-4 of the report, reproduced below.
(The rows labeled “MPH” and “Miles Per Trip” are taken directly
from the report; I’ve calculated that values in the rows labeled “Minutes
per Trip” and “Savings/Trip” as explained below.)
Table
4-4. Improved System Scenario: Impact on Future Road Traffic
(Costs of Congestion Study, Page 38)
|
|
|
Type
of Trip
|
|
Indicator
|
Scenario
|
PM
Peak
|
Daily
Total
|
Cars
|
Trucks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MPH
|
2000 Current
|
29.2
|
30.7
|
30.5
|
39.3
|
|
2025 Planned
|
23.8
|
27.3
|
27.0
|
33.0
|
|
2025 "Improved"
|
25.7
|
28.8
|
28.5
|
34.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miles Per Trip
|
2000 Current
|
6.6
|
6.4
|
6.1
|
19.3
|
|
2025 Planned
|
6.5
|
6.3
|
6.0
|
19.3
|
|
2025 "Improved"
|
6.6
|
6.4
|
6.1
|
19.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minutes per Trip
|
2000 Current
|
13.6
|
12.5
|
12.0
|
29.5
|
|
2025 Planned
|
16.4
|
13.8
|
13.3
|
35.1
|
|
2025 "Improved"
|
15.4
|
13.3
|
12.8
|
33.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Savings/Trip
(Seconds)
|
2025 “Improved” Minus 2025 Planned
|
58.7
|
30.8
|
29.5
|
112.4
|
The three rows labeled “MPH” give the estimated average
travel speed in miles per hour for 2000, for the projected 2025 planned
improvements and the speed with an improved system in 2025.
The rows labeled “miles per trip” show the average number of miles
for each type of trip. The next
three rows—“minutes per trip” are calculated by dividing the number of
miles of each trip (6.1 for current car trips) by the average speed (30.5 miles
per hour) and multiplying the results by 60 to get the number of minutes for
each average trip. So the average
car trip in 2000 takes about 12 minutes.
The final row, savings per trip, is computed by subtracting the travel
time for the “planned scenario” from the travel time for the “improved
scenario” then multiplying the result by 60 to estimate the time savings in
seconds. So, for the car trip, the
planned scenario is 13.8 minutes and the improved scenario is 13.3 minutes for a
savings of .5 minutes, or a little less than 30 seconds.
In sum, Costs of Congestion
shows the following:
 | Congestion
will increase -- No matter what we do, travel times will increase from
current levels; today's average 12 and a half minute trip will to about 13
minutes and 48 seconds (with the “Planned” level of investment) or to
about 13 minutes 28 seconds (under the “Improved” scenario). |
 | $6
billion = 30 seconds -- Compared to the “planned” level of
investment, spending an additional $6 billion will reduce the average car
trip by about 30 seconds, reduce the peak hour trip by about a minute, and
will reduce the average 20 mile truck trip by about 2 minutes. |
 | Shorter
average trips would produce the same result -- It’s worth noting that
a reduction in average trip lengths of about one-quarter of a mile would
achieve exactly the same time savings. (At
an average system speed of 30 miles per hour, it takes about 30 seconds to
travel one-quarter mile). Changes
to land use patterns--including greater density, better jobs-housing
balance, more mixed use development and stronger town centers--or people
moving closer to where they work (or working closer to where they live)
could achieve the same time savings (and associated economic benefits). |
 | Alternative
investments might have greater benefits -- Before spending $6 billion on
additional transportation investments, we might want to consider what the
economic benefits of alternative investments, such as increasing the quality
of the region’s higher education or K-12 education. |
|