Peak-period traffic congestion: A state-of-the-art analysis and evaluation of effective solutions

This paper reports on an analysis of a range of largely non-construction congestion reduction techniques which was funded by the U.S. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). A number of evaluations of the direct and indirect effec tiveness, costs, timing and feasibility of 22 major classes of promising techniques was performed. Based on this analysis, the study team evaluated 17 of these techniques as both effective and feasible in a U. S. institutional context.However, none of these 17 offered more than marginal reductions in peak-period traffic congestion when applied individually. Some techniques affected so small a percentage of travelers that reductions in congestion would not be discernible. Other techniques promised significant congestion reductions in theory but did not realize that promise in practice. It was concluded that many techniques could be implemented together with the potential for far greater combined effectiveness.An analysis was performed to determine how best to package or jointly implement promising techniques to optimize their combined effectiveness. It was found that all promising techniques could not be applied together because of conflicts in their impact. This analysis suggested eight sample packages or combinations of mutually supportive techniques. These eight packages were subjected to evaluations similar to those performed for individual techniques; while the packages are merely examples of potential combinations, the evaluation methodology employed should be of continuing use to local transportation planners.This paper was developed from NCHRP Report 169, Peak-Period Traffic Congestion, Options for Current Programs, and Peak-Period Traffic Congestion: State-of-the-Art and Recommended Research (NCHRP Agency Draft) By Robert Remak and Sandra Rosenbloom.This study was conducted under National Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 7/10. The opinions and findings expressed or implied in this paper are those of the author. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, The National Academy of Sciences, the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, nor of the individual states participating in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program.On Leave to the U. S. Department of Transportation, Washington