Why it Wasnt Carmageddon The Behavioral Side of Adaptive Capacity in - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Why it Wasn’t Carmageddon The Behavioral Side of Adaptive Capacity in Transportation Networks Martin Wachs

Framing the Issue How did people respond to Carmageddon? Carmageddon 1 July 2012 What can we do to minimize congestion associated with future events? Carmageddon 2 How did behavioral September responses change in 2013 the second event?

Carmageddon I: Messaging • Caltrans posted electronic signs on dozens of surface streets • Changeable message signs alerting freeway drivers to the impending closure for weeks in advance of the event • Radio and TV broadcast from the California- • Oregon border to San Diego • Metro used Facebook, Twitter, and regular web sites leveraging star power of celebrities Ashton Kutcher and Kim Kardashian

Carmageddon I: Mixed Messages SCARE TACTICS • Supervisor Zev Yaroslovsky: “The best alternative route is to totally avoid the 405 area, completely avoid it, don't come anywhere near it, don't even think about coming to it. Stay the heck out of here” • Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa : “There’s gridlock on the 405 virtually any time of the day, particularly during the rush hour. And if you think it's bad now, let me just make something absolutely clear: On July 16th and 17th, it will be an absolute nightmare ” • Councilman Paul Koretz: “Avoid the area like the plague”

Carmageddon I: Mixed Messages Appeals to Civic Pride & Voluntary Participation • Doug Failing, METRO Executive Director of Highway Programs: “The idea of staying home and shopping locally isn't just for the Westside and San Fernando Valley. It's really going to take all of us Angelenos working together by staying home and shopping locally to keep our region moving. Some of us can't stay home but most of us can. We should.” • Michael Miles, Caltrans District 7 Director : "You're going to be surprised what you discover in your neighborhood if you take that opportunity"

Research Questions 1. Time shift: Did people travel before/after the closure period? 2. Mode shift: Did people take transit? 3. Route shift: Did people detour? 4. Region-wide effect: How did traffic change throughout the region? 5. Was the messaging effective & influential?

Research Method: Compare to Baseline Averaged traffic Established volume/ridership Compared baseline of on two weekends expectations to expected traffic before/after each actual travel volume/ridership closure

Time Shift Findings Mode Shift Route Shift Regional Effects

Time Shift: Weeks/Days Before/After Question : Did people defer trips to before or after the closure period? Findings: • Carmageddon I • People did not shift trips before/after closure • Carmageddon II • People did not shift trips before/after closure

Mode Shift: Did Travelers Take Transit? Question: Did people change their mode of travel during the closure period? Findings: • Carmageddon I • Large decreases in bus ridership despite increased service • Increases in Metrolink ridership • Carmageddon II • No clear pattern of ridership changes • Increases in Metrolink ridership

Metro Bus Routes, Northbound 100% Metro Buses 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40% -60% -80% 40 45 204 210 233 260 740 745 754 761 Metro Bus Routes, Southbound 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40% -60% -80% 40 45 204 210 233 260 740 745 754 761 Carmageddon I Carmageddon II

Metro Bus Routes, Eastbound Metro Buses 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40% -60% -80% 2 4 20 33 150 704 720 733 Metro Bus Routes, Westbound 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40% -60% -80% 2 4 20 33 150 704 720 733 Carmageddon I Carmageddon II

Percent Change in Metrolink Ridership, Metrolink Inbound 50% 40% 30% Carmageddon I 20% Carmageddon II 10% 0% -10% 2AV 3SB 5OC 6IE Percent Change in Metrolink Ridership, Outbound 50% 40% 30% Carmageddon I 20% Carmageddon II 10% 0% -10% 2AV 3SB 5OC 6IE

Route Shift: Did Travelers Detour? Question: Did people detour? Findings: • Carmageddon I • Decrease in travel along -Metro buses highway & arterial detour routes -Metrolink • Carmageddon II • Increase in travel along highway & arterial detour routes

Change in Traffic Volumes on Northbound Highway Detours Intersecting I-405 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% -15% Carmageddon I -20% Carmageddon II -25% -30% -35% I-105E at I-110N at SR-55N at I-5N Node Node 4 Node 7 Node 9 10

Change in Traffic Volumes on Southbound Highway Detours Intersecting I-405 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% -15% Carmageddon I -20% Carmageddon II -25% -30% -35% SR-118E at I-5S at Node Node 11 13

Change in Traffic Volumes on Northbound Highway Detours Not Intersecting I-405 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% -15% Carmageddon I -20% Carmageddon II -25% -30% -35% US-101N at SR-170N at US-101N at Node 3 Node 3 Node 6

Change in Traffic Volumes on Southbound Highway Detours Not Intersecting I-405 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% Carmageddon I -15% Carmageddon II -20% -25% -30% -35% US-101S at I-5S at Node I-210E at Node 3 12 Node 14

Route Shift: Arterial Analysis • Examined N/S/E/W traffic volumes in the San Fernando Valley and Westside near the closure

San Fernando Valley Northbound Southbound 90% 90% 70% 70% 50% 50% 30% 30% 10% 10% -10% -10% Carmageddon I Carmageddon I -30% -30% Carmageddon II Carmageddon II -50% -50% Sepulveda/Ventura Reseda/Burbank Sepulveda/Ventura Reseda/Burbank Eastbound Westbound 90% 90% 70% 70% 50% 50% 30% 30% 10% 10% -10% -10% Carmageddon I Carmageddon I -30% -30% Carmageddon II Carmageddon II -50% -50% Sepulveda/Ventura Reseda/Burbank Sepulveda/Ventura Reseda/Burbank

The Westside Northbound 150% Carmageddon I 130% 110% Carmageddon II 90% 70% 50% 30% 10% -10% -30% -50% Southbound 150% Carmageddon I 130% Carmageddon II 110% 90% 70% 50% 30% 10% -10% -30% -50%

The Westside Eastbound 150% 130% 110% Carmageddon I 90% 70% Carmageddon II 50% 30% 10% -10% -30% -50% Westbound 150% 130% Carmageddon I 110% 90% Carmageddon II 70% 50% 30% 10% -10% -30% -50%

Route Shift: Arterial Analysis Key Points • Sepulveda Blvd. and the Westside saw a larger increase in traffic the second than the first time, but still not enough to account for missing traffic. • Possibly more local trips

Regional Effects Question: How did travel throughout the region change? Findings: • Carmageddon I • Significant decreases on I-405, I-10, I-5 • Decreased traffic as far away as 50 miles from closure • Carmageddon II • Smaller regional effect than Carmageddon I

I-405 South

I-405 North

I-10 East

I-5 North

I-5 South

Conclusions Forecasts of extreme traffic congestion were completely unfulfilled By and large, advanced information strongly impacted travel behavior; and information continued to influence behavior in “real time” as the events unfolded Because the events were scheduled on weekends when a high proportion of trips are “discretionary,” the trips were largely cancelled and alternative modes, routes, & times were not dramatically overused in relation to their capacity Fewer trips were cancelled for the second closure than the first, again demonstrating that travelers learn & adapted.

Conclusions Fewer trips were cancelled the second time around. Mode Shift • Carmageddon I • Large decrease in bus ridership • Small increase in Metrolink ridership • Carmageddon II • No discernable pattern of bus ridership change • Small increase in Metrolink ridership

Conclusions Fewer trips were cancelled the second time around. Route Shift • Carmageddon I • Highway: decrease in traffic • Arterial: no consistent pattern • Carmageddon II • Highway: decreases and increases in traffic • Arterial: consistent increase on Sepulveda and Westside

Conclusions Fewer trips were cancelled the second time around. Regional Effects • Carmageddon I • Widespread regional decrease in traffic • Decrease persisted through weekend • Carmageddon II • Decreases near closure, less of effect felt region- wide • Sunday: normal traffic patterns observed

Take Home Points • Strong power of messaging for infrequent, extraordinary events • Effects of advanced messaging waned over time • Effects of “real time” information grew over time • Difficult to rely on threats of disaster in the face of this experience

Project Team – Thanks to all Anne Brown, Research Assistant Master of Urban and Regional Planning (2014) Tim Black, Research Assistant Master of Urban and Regional Planning (2014) Zodin del Rosario, Research Assistant Master of Urban and Regional Planning (2013) Earl Kaing, Research Assistant Master of Urban and Regional Planning (2013) Brian Taylor, Professor of Urban Planning University of California, Los Angeles Martin Wachs, Professor Emeritus of Urban Planning University of California, Los Angeles