FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

 U.S. Department of Transportation

 Federal Highway Administration

An Agency Guide on How to Establish Localized 

Congestion Mitigation Programs

FHWA’s Bottleneck Reduction Initiative Program

Office of Operations

March 2011
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government 

assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This 

report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers’ names may appear in this report only because they are considered 

essential to the objective of the document.

The publication of this document was sponsored by the U.S. Federal Highway 

Administration under contract DTFH61-06-00004, awarded to Cambridge 

Systematics, Inc.

QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to 

serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public 

understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, 

objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality 

issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality 

improvement.
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-HOP-11-009

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

An Agency Guide on How to Establish Localized Congestion

Mitigation Programs

5. Report Date

March 2011

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Richard Margiotta

Dena Snyder

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

4800 Hamden Lane

10. Work Unit No.

Bethesda, MD 20814

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-06-D-00004

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report

June 2009-December 2010

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

FHWA-HOP-11-009

15. Supplementary Notes

Neil Spiller (COTM), FHWA Office of Operations

16. Abstract

This document provides guidance to state and local transportation personnel who wish to develop a 

formal program for mitigating congestion using localized and low-cost bottleneck treatments. It 

presents several templates for developing a localized congestion mitigation program, including documenting alternative templates in use by state Departments of Transportation and Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations.

FHWA’s Localized Bottleneck Reduction Initiative (LBR) program has researched over the last five 

years the causes, impacts, and mitigations available to combat localized recurring congestion; that is, 

congestion that is primarily “point specific” as to cause, location, duration, and repetitiveness. This 

guidance document is intended to aid agencies in establishing either ad-hoc or annualized programs 

that address localized congestion, much in the same way that an annualized safety-spot program would 

address localized safety issues.

The main questions that this guidance helps an agency frame are:

1. Do we have a satisfactory agency methodology to specifically address localized congestion problems?

2. Within that program, do we have satisfactory justifications for project candidacy, selection, and solutions for said problems?

3. Are we executing these projects in a timely fashion and within budgets that are representative of the 

context of a “Localized Bottleneck Reduction” program?

17. Key Words

Bottleneck, chokepoint, recurring congestion, 

operations

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No of Pages

58

22. Price

N/A

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized

FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

7661.460 i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1

1.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Purpose of the Guidance Document........................................................1-1

1.2 How to Use this Document.......................................................................1-1

1.3 Background..................................................................................................1-2

1.4 The Localized Bottleneck Reduction Program .......................................1-7

2.0 How to Structure a Localized Bottleneck Reduction Improvement 

Program.................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Roles and Responsibilities .........................................................................2-1

2.2 Options for Structuring the LBR Program ..............................................2-1

2.3 Factors for Success: What Does an LBR Program Have to 

Consider? .....................................................................................................2-6

2.4 Bottleneck Self-Assessment.....................................................................2-17

2.5 Templates for Getting Started.................................................................2-19

2.6 Sustaining a Successful Program............................................................2-19

2.7 Signs of a Latent Program .......................................................................2-19

3.0 Additional Resources.........................................................................................3-1

3.1 Case Studies of Agency Programs............................................................3-1

A. Templates for Implementation .......................................................................A-1

A.1 Template #1. Public Outreach Identification Process..........................A-1

A.2 Template #2: Leverage Existing Non-Bottleneck-Related 

Processes .....................................................................................................A-4

A.3 Template #3: Internal Identification Processes.....................................A-7
List of Figures, continued

ii

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Inrix 2009 Annual Report Worst Traffic Bottlenecks ..........................1-5

Table 2.1 Bottleneck Programming Maturity Model Matrix ............................2-18

Table A.1 Cost and Travel Time Benefit of Completed Congestion 

Management Projectsa ..........................................................................A-13

Table A.2 Other Benefits of Completed Congestion Management Projects .......A-13

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Steps in the Congestion Management Process.....................................2-5
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

ES-1

Executive Summary

FHWA’s Localized Bottleneck Reduction Initiative (LBR) program has 

researched over the last five years the causes, impacts, and mitigations available 

to combat localized recurring congestion; that is, congestion that is primarily 

“point-specific” as to cause, location, duration, and repetitiveness. This guidance 

document is intended to aid agencies in establishing either ad hoc or annualized 

programs that address localized congestion, much in the same way that an 

annualized safety-spot program would address localized safety issues.

“Localized” recurring congestion differs from regional or corridor-sized 

congestion, in that the former is characterized by a relatively low-cost, usually 

correctable operational deficiency (e.g., lane drop, weave, merge, etc.), whereas 

the latter is often systemic, and may be sufficiently complex in cause and relief 

that funding and/or project duration are typically very high and very long, 

respectively.

An agency that does not have a stand-alone “localized” congestion program is 

missing an opportunity to address a specific subset of overall congestion.

The main questions that this guidance helps an agency frame are:

1. Do we have a satisfactory agency methodology to specifically address localized 

congestion problems?

2. Within that program, do we have satisfactory justifications for project candidacy, 

selection, and solutions for said problems?

3. Are we executing these projects in a timely fashion and within budgets that are 

representative of the context of a “Localized Bottleneck Reduction” program?

FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

1-1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT

This guidance document provides guidelines that can be used by state DOTs and 

local transportation agencies in developing a Localized Bottleneck Reduction 

(LBR) Program. It covers all aspects of designing and implementing an LBR 

program, from establishing the institutional structure required to support an LBR 

program to bottleneck identification, improvement, evaluation, and public 

outreach. The guidance document was developed based on best practices used 

by state and local agencies.

1.2 HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT

Target Audiences

This document is designed for state, regional, and local transportation agencies 

that are focused on mitigating operational causes of bottlenecks. These causes 

include a wide variety of issues from poorly functioning merges to poor signal 

progression throughout a corridor. This document targets planners as well as 

traffic, safety, and design engineers. Operations and Maintenance staff will also 

find this document as a useful way to begin addressing bottleneck issues in a 

comprehensive and coordinated way. The document includes a discussion on 

how best to start a LBR program in your agency. It includes case studies and a 

series of templates, which the reader can use in starting their own program.

Document Structure and Content

This guidance document includes the following sections:

• Section 1.0 – Introduction. This section provides background information on 

traffic bottlenecks and describes how FHWA is addressing bottlenecks 

through their LBR Program.

• Section 2.0 – How to Structure a Localized Bottleneck Reduction 

Improvement Program. This section provides guidance to state and local 

agencies in structuring a program to address localized bottleneck problems. 

It describes agency roles and responsibilities, options for structuring the 

program, and factors for success. A self-assessment tool is also provided to 

assist agencies in establishing where they currently stand with regard to 

implementing a bottleneck program.

• Section 3.0 – Resources. This section provides case study examples of 

successful bottleneck programs across the United States, including best 
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

1-2

practice examples in the areas of performance measurement, bottleneck 

analysis, and project prioritization.

1.3 BACKGROUND

Bottlenecks: A Definition

The FHWA estimates that 40 percent of all congestion nationwide can be 

attributed to recurring congestion; some of it “mega” – wherein, entire regions or 

large facilities (e.g., interchanges or corridors) are overwhelmed by seemingly 

unceasing traffic demand – and some of it “subordinate” – locations on the 

highway system where periodic volume surges temporarily overwhelm the 

physical capacity of the roadway. During off-peak hours, the subordinate 

locations operate sufficiently and safely for the conditions. These recurring

“localized” bottlenecks are those encountered in our everyday commutes, and 

are characterized as being relatively predictable in cause, location, time of day, 

and approximate duration. Nonrecurring bottlenecks, on the other hand, are 

caused by random events such as crashes, inclement weather, and even 

“planned” events such as work zones and special events.

This guidance document focuses on “localized” recurring bottlenecks (i.e., pointspecific or short corridors of congestion due to decision points such as on- and 

off-ramps, merge areas, weave areas, lane drops, tollbooth areas, and traffic 

areas); or design constraints such as curves, climbs, underpasses, and narrow or 

nonexistent shoulders. Mega-bottlenecks or those occurring due to systemic 

congestion are not meant to be covered by the scope of this guidance.

For a bottleneck to be “localized,” the factors causing the bottleneck ideally

should not influence upon, or be influenced by, any other part of the 

transportation system. As a practical measure, the LBR program recommends 

considering the closest upstream and downstream decision points as either 

impacting “to” or impacting “from” the subject location, respectively. Anything 

much beyond that reach might be considered more than “localized.” One 

exception might be collector-distributor lanes that would almost certainly run 

through two or more on- or off-ramps. Such a “system” can be considered as a 

larger, localized condition. Otherwise, recurring, localized bottlenecks generally 

occur at the following locations:

• A lane drop, particularly mid-segment where one or more traffic lanes ends. 

These typically occur at bridge crossings and in work zones. In large urban 

areas, a lane drop might occur at jurisdictional boundaries just outside the 

metropolitan area. Ideally, lane drops should be located at exit ramps where 

there is a large volume of exiting traffic.

• A weaving area, where traffic must merge across one or more lanes to access 

entry or exit ramps. Bottleneck conditions are worsened by complex or 

insufficient weaving design.
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

1-3

• Freeway on-ramps, where traffic from local streets merge onto a freeway. 

Bottleneck conditions are worsened on freeway on-ramps without auxiliary 

lanes, short acceleration ramps, or where there are multiple on-ramps in close 

proximity.

• Freeway exit ramps, which are diverging areas where traffic leaves a 

freeway. Bottleneck conditions are worsened on freeway exit ramps that 

have a short ramp length, traffic signal deficiencies at the ramp terminal 

intersection, or other conditions that may cause ramp queues to back up onto 

freeway main lanes. Bottlenecks could also occur when a freeway exit ramp 

shares an auxiliary lane with an upstream on-ramp, particularly when there 

are large volumes of entering and exiting traffic.

• Freeway-to-freeway interchanges, which are special cases on on-ramps 

where flow from one freeway is directed to another. These are typically the 

most severe form of physical bottlenecks because of the high traffic volumes 

involved.

• Abrupt changes in highway alignment, which occur at sharp curves and 

hills and cause drivers to slow down either because of safety concerns or 

because their vehicles cannot maintain speed on upgrades. Another example 

of this type of bottleneck is in work zones where lanes may be redirected or 

even slightly shifted during construction.

• Low clearance structures, such as tunnels and underpasses. Drivers slow to 

use extra caution, or overload bypass routes. Even sufficiently tall clearances 

could cause bottlenecks if optical illusion causes a structure to appear lower 

than it really is, causing drivers to slow down.

• Lane narrowing, caused by either narrow travel lanes or narrow or 

nonexistent shoulders.

• Intended interruptions to traffic flow that are necessary to manage overall 

system operations. Traffic signals, freeway ramp meters, and tollbooths can 

all contribute to disruptions in traffic flow.

A detailed discussion on bottleneck characteristics is provided in FHWA 

Publication FHWA-HOP-09-037, Recurring Traffic Bottlenecks: A Primer – Focus on 

Low-Cost Operational Improvements, available on FHWA’s web site at 

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/bn/index.htm.

Bottlenecks: A History

Timeline of National Bottleneck Activities

Over the past several years, transportation professionals have come to realize 

that highway bottlenecks demand special attention. Several national studies 

have highlighted bottlenecks as a major congestion problem in urban areas.

These studies have raised the level of awareness about bottlenecks as a problem, 

warranting that they be treated as a significant part of the congestion problem.
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

1-4

One of the LBR tenets is “a bottleneck is congestion, but congestion is not always 

just a bottleneck.” This means that a bottleneck (or chokepoint) is merely a 

subset of the larger congestion pie. However, that “subset” is now realized to be 

a uniquely impacting (and increasingly growing) genre of congestion; namely, 

that it is subordinate locations along a highway that need to be fixed, and not 

necessarily the knee-jerk expectation to rebuild the entire facility. Granted, in 

some cases, an aging or clearly capacity-deficient facility may need to be 

replaced. But in this age of budget constraints and economizing, one or two 

corrections to inefficient subordinate locations on a facility may be all that is 

needed to improve the condition.

The American Highway Users Alliance (AHUA) conducted studies of the 

nation’s urban bottlenecks in 1999 and 2004. The studies produced rankings of 

the worst bottlenecks in terms of total delay to travelers and discussed what was 

being done to fix the problems at locations where specific improvements had 

been scheduled. The studies found that nearly all of the worst bottlenecks are 

major freeway-to-freeway interchanges in large urban areas, but many smaller 

bottlenecks were surprisingly impacting as well. The 2004 study updated the 

1999 rankings and discussed three bottleneck improvement success stories –

bottlenecks identified in 1999 that were subsequently improved or well under 

construction; the clear message being that mitigations can be realized.

States and regions are beginning to recognize the significance of bottlenecks as 

well. The Ohio Department of Transportation completed a study of freight 

(trucking) bottlenecks, and the Interstate 95 Corridor Coalition is undertaking a 

study of all potential bottlenecks in Coalition states. The Atlanta Regional 

Commission has defined bottlenecks as a specific portion of their Congestion 

Management Process and is identifying regional and local bottlenecks in their 

network.

In 2002, the Texas Transportation Institute compiled a database of before/after 

measurements of selected Texas DOT initiatives to remove bottlenecks and 

improve operations on urban freeways. The benefit/cost ratios and reductions 

in crash rates observed at these locations provided valuable insight regarding the 

effectiveness of various bottleneck reduction strategies over time.

More recently, an effort by a private data provider, Inrix, also identified the 

nation’s worst bottlenecks (Table 1.1). Whereas previous bottleneck 

identification efforts were based on analytic procedures using traffic volumes 

and capacity data, Inrix’s approach uses data assembled by them from a variety 

of sources. As direct travel time measurements become more common and 

better refined, the science of bottleneck identification and performance will 

improve.
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

1-5

Table 1.1 Inrix 2009 Annual Report Worst Traffic Bottlenecks

Rank CBSA Length Hours of

Average 

Speed While 

2009 2008 (Pop Rank) Road/Direction Segment/Interchange County State (Miles) Congestion Congested

1 1 New York (1) Cross Bronx Expy WB/

I-95 SB

Bronx River Pkwy/

Exit 4B

Bronx NY 0.35 94 11.4

2 7 Chicago (3) Dan Ryan Expy/

I-90/I-94 WB

Canalport Avenue/

Cermak Road/Exit 53

Cook IL 0.4 83 11.1

3 5 New York (1) Cross Bronx Expy WB/

I-95 SB

I-895/Sheridan Expy/

Exit 4A

Bronx NY 0.51 95 12

4 2 New York (1) Cross Bronx Expy WB/

I-95 SB

White Plains Road/

Exit 5

Bronx NY 0.28 86 11.9

5 3 New York (1) Harlem River Drive SB 3rd New 

York

Avenue NY 0.16 77 9.6

6 62 New Haven (58) I-91 SB Hamilton Street/

Exit 2

New 

Haven

CT 0.22 76 12.8

7 13 Los Angeles (2) Hollywood Fwy/

U.S. 101 NB

Los Angeles Street Los 

Angeles

CA 0.1 85 14

8 24 Chicago (3) Dan Ryan Expy/

I-90/I-94 WB

18th Street/ Cook

Exit 52C

IL 0.41 83 13.7

9 11 New York (1) Cross Bronx Expy WB/

I-95 SB

Westchester Avenue/

Exit 5

Bronx NY 1.15 76 12.8

10 26 Chicago (3) Dan Ryan Expy/

I-90/I-94 WB

Ruble Street/

Exit 52B

Cook IL 0.12 86 14.7

11 10 Los Angeles (2) Hollywood Fwy/

U.S. 101 SB

Vermont Avenue Los 

Angeles

CA 0.62 82 15.4

12 16 Los Angeles (2) Hollywood Fwy/

U.S. 101 NB

Alameda Street Los 

Angeles

CA 0.27 82 14

13 29 Chicago (3) Dan Ryan Expy/

I-90/I-94 WB

Roosevelt Road Cook IL 0.22 86 16.2

14 9 New York (1) Harlem River Drive SB 2nd Avenue/125th New 

York

Street/

Exit 19

NY 0.22 75 11.1

15 6 New York (1) Van Wyck Expy/I-678 NB Liberty Avenue/Exit 4 Queens NY 0.52 61 11.7

16 36 Los Angeles (2) Pasadena Fwy/

CA 110 NB

Sunset Boulevard/

Exit 24A

Los 

Angeles

CA 0.21 45 10.4

17 12 New York (1) Van Wyck Expy/I-678 NB Hillside Avenue/Exit 6 Queens NY 0.12 71 14

18 8 Chicago (3) Eisenhower Expy/

I-290 EB

U.S. 20/U.S. 45/

U.S. 12/Exit 17

Cook IL 0.99 62 14.3

19 19 Los Angeles (2) Hollywood Fwy/

U.S. 101 NB

Spring Street Los 

Angeles

CA 0.14 82 16.1

20 17 New York (1) I-95 NB U.S. 9/U.S. 1/

U.S. 46/Exit 72

Bergen NJ 0.42 66 11.3
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

1-6

FHWA Involvement

FHWA’s first effort related to bottlenecks was in the freight (trucking) arena. In 

2005, using the AHUA studies as a starting point, FHWA conducted an 

assessment of the impacts that highway bottlenecks have on truck freight 

shipments. Bottlenecks outside of urban areas were also considered (e.g., steep 

grades). A major finding of this study was that in terms of total delay, the 

urban bottlenecks – typically thought of as a commuter-related problem – are 

also major sources of truck delay. In 2009, in partnership with the American 

Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), FHWA conducted an in-depth analysis 

to produce a congestion severity ranking for 100 freight significant highway 

interchanges. The rankings can be used by both public and private sector 

stakeholders to better identify transportation system deficiencies and to assist in 

logistics and routing decisions. ATRI and FHWA will continue to monitor these 

locations on an annual basis.

In preparing the FY 2006 Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP), the FHWA 

Operations Leadership Council discussed the need for a national strategy to 

address bottlenecks and requested each Division office to identify bottleneck 

locations in their state. The responses ranged from mega bottlenecks 

encompassing multi-interchange corridors to point-specific localized 

chokepoints. FHWA initiated the Localized Bottleneck Reduction (LBR) 

Program in 2007 to raise awareness of point-specific localized bottlenecks at the 

state level and promote low-cost, quick-to-implement geometric and operational 

improvements to address recurring chokepoints. One of the first activities of the 

LBR Program was a survey of FHWA Division office personnel to obtain state 

best practices in bottleneck identification, assessment, countermeasures, and 

evaluation, including examples of overcoming unique challenges such as 

strategies requiring a design exception, cooperation among several departments, 

creative funding, and public perceptions. A compendium of state best practices 

was developed from these responses. More details on the LBR Program are 

provided in Section 1.4.

Previous Similar Bottleneck Efforts

TOPICS

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 established the Traffic Operations 

Program to Improve Capacity and Safety (TOPICS). The program authorized 

$200M in Federal matching to fund projects designed to reduce traffic congestion 

and facilitate the flow of traffic in urban areas. Although candidate projects were 

not planned to the same scale as regional planning processes,1

 

1 Weiner, Edward, Urban Transportation Planning in the United States: An Historical

Overview. Revised and Expanded Edition. Praeger Publishers, Westport, Connecticut, 1999.

TOPICS was a 

landmark program in demonstrating the concepts and effectiveness of traffic 

management practices.
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

1-7

1.4 THE LOCALIZED BOTTLENECK REDUCTION 

PROGRAM

FHWA’s Localized Bottleneck Reduction (LBR) Program promotes operational 

and low-cost bottleneck mitigation strategies to improve mobility. Managed by 

the Office of Operations, the program serves to bring attention to the root causes, 

impacts, and potential solutions to traffic chokepoints that are recurring events; 

ones that are wholly the result of operational influences. This is “good and bad”

news in the sense that design influences can always be corrected, but some 

corrections may be cost-prohibitive in terms of direct construction costs or 

indirect right-of-way impacts. Regardless, a significant amount of locations can 

be corrected for relatively low-cost and/or low physical impact. In any case, the 

goal of the program is to raise awareness of bottlenecks at the state level and 

promote low-cost, quick-to-implement geometric and operational improvements 

to address recurring chokepoints. The LBR Program has several activities either 

completed or underway, including:

• This guidance document, which provides guiding principles and concepts 

common to low-cost operational improvement programs to assist states in 

adopting a programmatic approach to addressing traffic congestion at 

bottlenecks.

• Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume X: Localized Bottleneck Congestion Analysis –

Focusing on What Analysis Tools are Available, Necessary, and Productive for 

Localized Congestion Remediation. This document provides guidance on 

analysis tools and data inputs required to analyze the specific genre of 

localized congestion problems.

• Recurring Traffic Bottlenecks: A Primer – Focus on Low-Cost Operational 

Improvements. This Primer is the “face” of the program. It provides an 

overview of the wide range of operational and low-cost strategies available to 

reduce congestion at bottlenecks.

• A compendium of state best practices in bottleneck identification, assessment, 

countermeasures, and evaluation, including how bottlenecks are treated in 

the annual planning and programming processes.

• Localized Bottleneck Reduction Regional Workshops. Regional workshops 

for state and local agencies to learn and share information on localized 

bottleneck reduction strategies and how they can be incorporated into state 

and local planning processes.

• Many of the items listed above can be found at the FHWA bottleneck web

site, which can be found at the FHWA Office of Operations web site.

Additional guidance documents are forthcoming that are aimed at agencies and 

personnel who have first responsibility to address bottleneck congestion locations.

FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

2-1

2.0 How to Structure a Localized 

Bottleneck Reduction 

Improvement Program

2.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

There really are no set guidelines for roles and responsibilities of an LBR 

program. State DOTs, MPOs, or local transportation agencies could all lead an 

effective LBR effort. State DOTs and MPOs are traditionally the organizations 

who lead LBR efforts simply because they usually have larger missions, which

include bottleneck issues; as well as access to a variety of funding mechanisms. 

Many successful LBR programs actually depend on a high level of coordination 

between state DOTs and MPO. Many times, the state may identify bottlenecks 

and work closely with MPOs to integrate these projects into their TIP and other 

targeted funding sources such as CMAQ and safety. However the split or 

leadership role, any transportation agency can lead an effective program.

2.2 OPTIONS FOR STRUCTURING THE LBR PROGRAM

Those agencies that have been effective at dealing with bottlenecks have 

developed either special or ongoing programs specifically targeted at dealing 

with current bottleneck projects. The options for structuring an LBR program

vary widely, as described in this section.

Barriers to Establishing the LBR Program

States have cited a number of barriers to establishing bottleneck-specific or 

similar programs that target chokepoint congestion:

• A predisposition for large scale, long-term congestion mitigation projects. 

Traditional transportation planning and programming efforts are often 

predisposed toward major capital improvement projects to relieve congestion 

such as corridor-widening or massive reconstruction of an interchange. 

There is also no shortage of demand management strategies designed to fight 

the congestion battle, such as HOVs, tolling and pricing, transit alternatives, 

and ridesharing programs. But the onerous processes involved in many of 

these initiatives can squeeze out smaller programs.

• Lack of program identity. Unless there is a formal program identity, 

bottleneck remediation is usually relegated to a few projects completed as 
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

2-2

part of an annualized safety program, or as a subordinate part of larger, other

purposed projects.

• Lack of a champion. Many successful state or metropolitan planning 

organization programs are the result of one or more persons taking charge to 

either mandate or adopt a program. High-level administrators often set the 

policy direction and strategic initiatives for their agencies, while mid-level 

managers’ production reflects their priorities and skills in executing those 

initiatives.

• Lack of resources. Many state agencies are finding themselves overworked 

and understaffed. Although the return on investment for LBR projects are 

high, agencies often do not have the in-house resources necessary to conduct 

detailed analyses required to evaluate and prioritize the large number of 

potentially competing projects. With limited resources, agencies are 

relegated to hiring consultants and/or universities to conduct detailed 

project analysis.

• Lack of funding. With many state agencies experiencing major budget 

shortfalls, lack of funding continues to be an often cited barrier to 

implementing new programs.

• Responsibility has not been assigned. Not part of ongoing planning and 

programming processes. Localized bottleneck mitigation projects are not 

often included in the ongoing planning and programming processes for most 

agencies. Others struggle with how best to identify problem locations, assess 

existing conditions, and quantify the impacts of proposed remedies, as there 

is no structured process in place. For example, in developing their structured 

LBR program, Michigan DOT cited challenges regarding how best to justify 

and evaluate project impacts while creating a level playing field for 

application of LBR funding across each of their seven regions.

• A culture of historical practices. Many agencies face institutional challenges 

in changing their current business practices. For example, one agency 

dutifully executed an annualized “safety” program and looked only at crash 

rates in determining their annual top 10 list of projects. After instituting a 

congestion mapping process, they identified several significant stand-alone 

chokepoints that did not correlate with their high-crash mapping. Thereafter, 

high congestion hot spots competed with high accident hot spots on their 

unified top 10 list of projects.

The options for structuring an LBR program vary widely. One approach is to 

undertake a one-time special program or periodic special initiatives that focus on 

bottlenecks. Other approaches incorporate annualized reviews or ongoing

programs – similar to annualized safety-spot lists – that organized candidate 

locations and identify them for relatively short-term (e.g., two years or less) 

attention.
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

2-3

Periodic Special Program or Initiative

For example, in 2007, the Minnesota DOT was asked by the Legislature to 

develop a rapid turnaround plan to identify low-cost, quickly implementable 

projects that were not already identified by the traditional planning and 

programming processes. In a matter of months, this unique approach led by the 

Traffic Management Center engineers basically “brainstormed” low-cost, 

candidate projects that were nagging problems, but for whatever reasons, had 

never landed on traditional Capital Improvement Programs. In 2008, the Central 

Arkansas MPO undertook “Operation Bottleneck,” a campaign to openly solicit 

public input of candidate locations, but one that has a finite life span.

Due to resource limitations, some agencies are using research funds to sponsor 

special projects involving in-depth analysis of the causes and temporal variations

at key bottleneck locations. For example, in the Phoenix metropolitan region, 

Arizona DOT commissioned a special research study to identify freeway 

bottlenecks and provide a detailed assessment and recommendations of 

countermeasures. Wisconsin DOT partnered with a research agency to identify 

bottleneck reduction strategies and to develop a Paramics model to perform 

in-depth simulation of the proposed strategies. They plan to expand the project 

to include other bottleneck locations statewide.

Incorporating Bottlenecks into Other Programs

State DOT Level

At the state DOT level, low-cost bottlenecks can be addressed programmatically 

even without a special program or initiative. One approach is to conduct a 

review of existing plans and look for opportunities to include LBR improvements 

in them. For example, Caltrans, as part of their Corridor Management Process, 

includes the identification of bottlenecks and potential short-term fixes as part of 

an overall and long-term strategy for making corridor improvements. This often 

takes the form of an “LBR audit,” which is a review of traditional large-scale 

corridor studies to identify opportunities for using LBR improvements as part of 

the package of improvements. The concept here is similar to that of Road Safety 

Audits.

Another approach is to integrate bottleneck strategies as part of ongoing 

planning and processes, thereby incorporating them into an agency’s congestion 

mitigation toolbox. For example, the Ohio DOT added a congestion-based index 

ranking to their annual identification of spot safety problems for the Federal

Hazard Elimination Program (HEP). As a result, congestion hot spots now have 

a “voice” regardless of crash indices, and congestion-related projects compete for 

attention in the project selection and scheduling process.

Washington State DOT recognizes bottlenecks and chokepoints as an integral 

part of their project planning and development process. The recent Moving 

Washington initiative incorporates LBR concepts into a coordinated program to 
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

2-4

address congestion. In the Moving Washington program, WSDOT applies three 

balanced strategies to fight congestion – operate efficiently, manage demand, and 

add capacity strategically. By strategically adding capacity, WSDOT targets 

bottlenecks and chokepoints in the transportation system, and does so costefficiently. Recent funding shortfalls have made low-cost, strategic investments a 

high priority with WSDOT and LBR projects fill this role nicely. Performance

results show that Moving Washington strategies and projects are making a 

difference around the State to relieve congestion.

At the planning stage in their Highway System Plan, WSDOT considers 

bottlenecks together with traditional corridor improvements under the 

“Congestion Relief” category. Congestion relief projects are ranked using the 

benefit/cost ratio, contribution to performance goals, and other qualitative 

factors, and compete on these bases with projects in other categories in the 

Highway System Plan: Preservation, Safety, Environmental Retrofit, Economic 

Vitality, and Stewardship.

MPO Level

At the metropolitan planning organization level, the short-term nature of LBR 

projects meshes well with the Congestion Management Process (CMP) and 

“planning for operations,” which are new initiative areas for planners. As 

planners’ perspectives broaden to include these short-term views of the system 

(in addition to the traditional long-range view), an LBR program makes perfect 

sense. In fact, one idea may be to include consideration of an LBR program 

within one the CMP and/or “planning for operations” guidance being developed 

by FHWA. The idea is not to make an LBR program subordinate to these 

initiatives but rather to integrate it into the initiatives, noting that LBR is an 

effective way to address current congestion problems.

From a planner’s viewpoint, LBR improvements would be another aspect of the 

CMP process. Because an LBR program should be data- and performancedriven, it is a logical complement to a CMP; the same data should be used for 

both purposes. In fact, the steps required to implement an LBR program directly 

mimic the eight-step CMP process: problems are identified, countermeasures are 

developed to address the problems, funding is identified, and projects are 

implemented, and evaluation occurs. Figure 2.1 shows the eight-step CMP 

process, which bears remarkable similarity to the steps that need to occur within 

an LBR program. An LBR program is a natural extension of what planners are 

already doing. In fact, within the context of the CMP, it may useful to make the

two processes seamless, at least at the MPO level.

Therefore, there is a strong case for encouraging planners to be engaged in the 

development and operation of an LBR program.
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

2-5

Figure 2.1 Steps in the Congestion Management Process 

Develop Congestion Management Objectives

Identify Area of Application

Define System/Network of Interest

Develop Performance Measures

Institute System Performance Monitoring Plan

Identify/Evaluate Strategies

Implement Selected Strategies/Manage System

Monitor Strategy Effectiveness

Integrate with MTP, TIP, other Efforts

Apply at Scale of Region, Corridor, or Activity Area

Identified LBR Program

Another option is to establish a defined bottleneck program within the agency. 

For example, Virginia DOT has implemented the Strategically Targeted 

Affordable Roadway Solutions (STARS) Program, which is a safety and 

congestion program that partners state, planning district and local transportation 

planners, traffic engineers, safety engineers and operations staff to identify “hot 

spots” along roadways where safety and congestion problems overlap and are 

suitable for short-term operational improvements. In summary, the STARS 

program “road audits” are shelf-ready when budget and/or opportunity (e.g., 

proximity development plans) are available.

Some agencies were originally driven to explore low-cost congestion relief 

projects because of budgetary restrictions, but soon realized that these projects 

could be implemented very quickly and, as a bonus, were highly visible and 

popular with the public. Several DOTs have been able to create a defined 

bottleneck program area as a result of their success with special initiatives such 

as these. For example, as a result of their initial success, Minnesota DOT was 

able to develop a highly accelerated process for bottleneck identification and 

prioritization, which led to many effective projects in the following two years. 

Mn/DOT also found that because of lower costs, it could identify multiple 

locations throughout the region and “spread around” bottleneck reduction 

projects in a fair and equitable manner. Utah DOT initiated a Choke Point 

Program in 2006 to address safety, congestion, and bottleneck areas. It was so 
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

2-6

successful that the Utah Legislature put forth funding for additional chokepoint 

projects.

Other agencies are developing dedicated LBR Programs in response to FHWA 

Localized Bottleneck Reduction Workshops held around the United States in 

2009 and 2010. These include Indiana DOT and New York DOT.

2.3 FACTORS FOR SUCCESS: WHAT DOES AN LBR

PROGRAM HAVE TO CONSIDER?

The institutional or policy component of localized bottlenecks is extremely 

important because of the way that agencies and processes have been structured. 

This is similar to the situation that systems operations and management (O&M) 

faced 10 to 15 years ago: there was no organizational unit set up to deal with 

operations and management. As a result, O&M struggled to find an identity in 

most agencies, and development of O&M programs were hindered. Likewise, 

LBR programs face institutional and policy barriers. Therefore, one key aspect is 

to understand the challenges facing agencies in defining a programmatic 

structure for dealing with bottlenecks. Some of these issues include:

• Competition for funding with other traditional programs;

• Implementation issues such as meeting design standards and conformity 

requirements;

• Choosing between a temporary, permanent, or periodic (recurring every few 

years) program for an LBR program;

• Creating a new organization versus imbedding an LBR program within a 

current program area (e.g., planning or maintenance); and

• Developing management support for an LBR.

This section presents success factors for overcoming these challenges in order to 

implement a LBR program.

Setting Goals and Objectives for an LBR Program

Setting goals and objectives is an important part of framing the establishment of 

an LBR Program within an agency. The following success factors were identified 

from case study examples:

• Relate the goals of the LBR program to the operating objectives of the agency 

as a whole;

• Gain the public’s support in targeting and fixing smaller bottleneck issues in 

a timely manner;

• Utilize rapid methods to identify and evaluate bottlenecks; and
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

2-7

• Create separate funding mechanism for bottleneck mitigation or ensure 

bottleneck projects can compete equitably through traditional methods.

New York DOT’s Region 11 Planning Office (New York City) established their 

LBR Program with a mission to mitigate recurring congestion at selected 

chokepoints along the region’s highways, local streets, and intersections, and the 

operational influences that cause them. Their goal was to investigate the 

opportunities as well as develop measures for the application of operational and 

low-cost infrastructure improvements to address chokepoints and to identify 

cost-effective improvements either as stand-alone initiatives or as part of existing 

Capital Projects, with an overall objective of moving project recommendations 

into the capital program.

Championing an LBR Program

The need and urgency for establishing a LBR Program is not always shared 

across all levels of an agency. Nevertheless, a clear case must be established with 

upper management and elected officials to secure resources and commitment to 

proceed with LBR activities.

One way to accomplish this is to demonstrate the return on investment to the 

organization regarding the implementation of an LBR Program, as well as 

developing a sustainable approach for assessing the impacts of LBR 

improvements.

For example, in developing their structured Bottleneck Reduction Program, 

Michigan DOT’s Systems Operations and Management (SOM) Section sought to 

obtain leadership support by requesting a dedicated funding template 

specifically for bottleneck reduction projects. MDOT does not have any 

dedicated funding at this time, but it is being discussed. They have developed a 

systematic approach for demonstrating excellent benefit-to-cost ratios among 

Bottleneck Reduction projects, which helped to justify the creation of the 

statewide Bottleneck Reduction Program. MDOT is performing analysis on 

existing road improvement projects so recommendations can be implemented 

within the existing projects until dedicated funding is approved.

Other ways to raise visibility include:

• Appointing one element (person or office) within an organization that is the 

single point of contact and champion for the LBR program. Having a 

sustained champion can greatly enhance the effectiveness of the program 

within an organization.

• Involving the public in identifying bottlenecks is another way to raise the 

visibility of the program while at the same time building momentum within 

the organization.
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

2-8

Personnel/Unit Responsible for the LBR Program

The roles and responsibilities for planning and operations usually fall within 

separate and distinct departments within a typical state DOT. Coordination 

between departments can improve how an agency tackles bottleneck congestion. 

A review of state DOTs that have successfully implemented LBR programs 

within their organizations revealed that having an interdisciplinary team or 

committee responsible for administering the LBR program is a useful consensus 

building tool. These teams would facilitate activities of mutual interest such as:

• Identifying strategies to address bottlenecks;

• Developing bottleneck performance measures that are consistent across the 

agency;

• Coordinating data collection and developing tools for data analysis;

• Developing models to quantify the impacts of bottleneck strategies; and

• Overseeing implementation of bottleneck mitigation strategies and objectives 

through the TIP or LRTP.

For example, New York DOT’s Region 11 LBR Program is administered through 

an interdisciplinary project scoping team headed by the Planning Director, but 

whose members are comprised of staff from other functional groups within the 

agency. Such an approach is a useful tool for building consensus on the nature 

of transportation problems, the key issues, and best strategies to address 

bottlenecks. It also creates a forum for early buy-in of preferred alternatives and 

courses of action across each of the various functional groups.

Indiana DOT is establishing their LBR Program as part of an overall 

organizational change as they transition to a new funding system that is asset 

management based with multiple funding teams. As part of the new structure, 

they are establishing a Mobility Asset Team.

LBR Program Funding

This section presents success factors and examples of how states/MPOs have 

funded LBR projects. Options include:

• Developing a funding decision matrix where bottleneck countermeasures 

compete for funds alongside other mobility and congestion management 

projects based on benefit-to-cost ratio;

• Funding low-cost improvement projects as part of a dedicated signal timing 

program; and

• Implementing a dedicated program to provides funding for districts/regions 

to implement low-cost improvement projects.

For example, the Mobility Asset Team (described shortly above) at Indiana DOT

will fall under the LBR funding category. INDOT expects that bottleneck 
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

2-9

countermeasures will have a very good benefit-to-cost ratio and projects will be 

competitive in the funding decision matrix that is part of the new funding 

system.

In 2008, Ohio DOT initiated a new Systematic Signal Timing Program that 

provides district offices and local governments with technical assistance (task 

order consultants) to analyze, coordinate, and upgrade the timing and phasing of 

signal systems in high-crash areas. Funding can also be used to upgrade signal 

equipment as needed. Funding is targeted to those areas listed as a top crash 

priority by ODOT, MPOs, or local governments. Project sponsors must verify 

that the crash patterns are relevant to signal timing concerns. Funding requests 

are funneled through the appropriate ODOT district office, which typically must 

concur with the request for assistance.

Funded by the Utah Legislature, the Utah Department of Transportation

(UDOT) initiated a Choke Point Program in 2006 to address safety, congestion, 

and bottleneck areas. It was successful, so the Legislature put forth more 

funding for additional chokepoint projects. The UDOT has used the Choke Point 

Program to identify potential projects that could improve operations and safety 

with relatively low cost and in a short time period.

Pennsylvania has in place a Congestion Corridor Improvement Plan (CCIP) 

which provides funding for districts/regions to study low-cost improvements. 

However, this program has not been funded since 2008. It is hoped that the 

program will be resumed whenever funding is available.

The LBR Planning Process

Planning for localized bottleneck improvements includes a number of steps that 

could happen in a number of ways. But regardless of the approach, they can be 

loosely organized into the following five broad steps:

1. Bottleneck Identification;

2. Identify Bottleneck Improvement Strategies;

3. Prioritize Projects;

4. Programming and Implementation; and

5. Evaluate Bottleneck Improvement Projects.

The remainder of this section expands on each of these steps. Later in Section 2.0

of this document, the unique approaches an agency could take in starting their 

own LRB program are presented but they are all variations on these steps.

Bottleneck Identification

There is a variety of methods for bottleneck identification. One of the primary 

methods is a data-driven approach, where roadway characteristics data are used 

to identify chokepoint locations. Potential data sources include ITS data from 

traffic management centers, or roadway characteristics and traffic data from 
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

2-10

statewide traffic and HPMS monitoring locations. Traffic analysis tools can be 

used to systematically identify bottleneck locations by analyzing road segments 

for congestion or poor levels of service. For example, at Caltrans, system 

monitoring and evaluation using the Performance Monitoring System (PeMS) is 

seen as the foundation for the entire Corridor System Management Plan process 

because it cannot only identify congestion problems, but can also be used to 

evaluate and prioritize competing investments.

Bottleneck locations can also be identified anecdotally by tapping into local 

agency knowledge and personal experience (e.g., district-level), direct 

observation of local agency personnel, aerial photographs, or video surveillance 

data. For example, when Michigan DOT solicited potential bottleneck locations, 

they were sure to include problem descriptions from each of their seven region 

offices and not merely their headquarters’ analysis. More than 200 locations 

were identified, with about one-third being freeway interchanges.

There is a hybrid approach where anecdotal information and judgment is used to 

identify candidate locations but data are used to assess priorities objectively. For 

instance, the following conditions typically exist or help to identify a recurring 

bottleneck condition:

• A traffic queue upstream of the bottleneck, wherein speeds are below freeflow conditions elsewhere on the facility.

• A beginning point for a queue. There should be a definable point that 

separates upstream and downstream conditions. The geometry of that point 

is often coincidently the root cause of the operational deficiency.

• Free flow traffic conditions downstream of the bottleneck that have returned 

to nominal or design conditions.

• As it pertains to an operational deficiency, a predictable recurring cause.

• Traffic volumes that exceed the capacity of the confluence to process traffic. 

(Note: This applies to recurring events even more so than nonrecurring.)

Some metropolitan areas have even conducted public outreach efforts to solicit 

input from motorists on bottleneck locations. For example, Metroplan, the MPO 

for the Little Rock, Arkansas region, conducted Operation Bottleneck during the 

fall of 2008, a public outreach effort designed to identify traffic bottlenecks, as 

well as automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian safety issues throughout the region. 

The program received 3,000 responses within two months, with on-line 

submissions constituting the highest return. Several minor roadway 

improvements have already been completed or are planned as a result of the 

program.

Bottleneck Improvement Strategies

This section describes the types of LBR treatments, as well as a matrix on 

matching bottleneck treatments to needs. It also describes various barriers to 
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

2-11

implementing LBR treatments such as design standards/exceptions, air quality 

conformity, and consistency with long-range design concepts.

Types of LBR Treatments

The following is a sampling of short-term, low-cost operational and geometric 

improvements. All of these remedies address operational deficiencies, as 

opposed to other congestion mitigation efforts that address driver choice, travel 

demand, corridor-wide upgrades, or simply (but expensively) building our way 

out of congestion.

1. Shoulder conversions. This involves using a short section of traffic bearing 

shoulder as an additional travel lane. Shoulder conversions are appropriate 

between interchanges or to provide lane congruency with adjacent sections. 

The shoulder condition should be rated for use as a travel lane.

2. Restriping merge or diverge areas to provide additional lanes, provide an 

acceleration/deceleration lane, extend the merge/diverge area, or improve 

geometrics to better serve demand.

3. Lane width reductions. This involves reducing lane widths and restriping to 

add an additional travel and/or auxiliary lane.

4. Modify weaving areas by adding collector/distributor or through lanes.

5. Ramp modifications. These could include ramp metering; widening, 

extending, closing, or consolidating ramps; or reversing entrance and exit 

ramps to improve operations.

6. Speed harmonization (variable speed limits). This is the practice of 

adjusting speed limits when congestion thresholds have been exceeded and 

congestion and queue forming is imminent. Speed harmonization can also be 

used to promote safer driving during inclement weather conditions. This 

mostly European practice reduces the traffic “shock wave” that results

through congested corridors, thereby delaying the onset of a breakdown in 

traffic conditions. The result is decreased headways and more uniform 

driver behavior, which indirectly benefit bottlenecks and chokepoints.

7. “Zippering” or self-metering that promotes fair and smooth merges. A 

motorist who is 10th in line knows that he will be 20th

8. Improve traffic signal timing on arterials. Also, traffic signal timing 

improvements at ramp terminal intersections will prevent ramp queues from 

backing up onto freeway main lanes.

to merge into the single 

lane ahead. This helps to eliminate line jumpers that bull ahead, disrupt the 

queues, and often block adjacent lanes until they force their way in line. 

Usually this method of merging requires on-site enforcement, but often is 

exhibited by regulars who know the process and are willing to abide.

9. Access management principles to reduce vehicular conflicts (hence, delays) 

on arterial corridors
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

2-12

10. Continuous flow intersections. These are unconventional at-grade 

intersections, which eliminate one or more left-turn conflicts at a main 

intersection. This is achieved through dedicated left-turn bays located 

several hundred feet prior to the main intersection, which allow left-turning 

vehicles to move at the same time as through traffic. The left-turn traffic 

signal phase is eliminated, allowing more vehicles to move through the main 

intersection and thus reducing traffic congestion and delays. These at-grade 

intersections achieve traffic flow similar to grade-separated interchanges, but 

at a considerably lower cost.

11. High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) or reversible lanes.

12. Provide traveler information on traffic diversions.

13. Implement congestion pricing. Congestion pricing entails charging fees or 

tolls for road use that vary by level of vehicle demand on the facility. The 

objective is to bring supply and demand into alignment.

Matching Bottleneck Treatments to Needs

In 2006, as part of the research conducted for National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program Project 3-83 (“Low-Cost Improvements for Recurring Freeway 

Bottlenecks”), a series of interviews was conducted with state and local 

transportation agencies to assess the effectiveness of low-cost improvements 

used at bottleneck locations within their jurisdictions. The results showed that 

agencies are using a wide range of strategies to improve bottlenecks, many of 

them low-cost improvements that can be implemented quickly. The most 

frequently used operational improvements were ramp metering, auxiliary lanes, 

and HOV lanes.

Some of the key questions and considerations when selecting improvement 

alternatives for bottleneck removal include:

• Is there an inside shoulder that would create a usable traffic lane for a short 

section of freeway?

• If a shoulder is considered for conversion, is there right-of-way (ROW) to 

allow adding one back for part of the length of the project?

• If there are bridges, are they wide enough to accommodate the extra lane 

while allowing adequate clearance to barriers (2 feet) and an outside 

shoulder? If not, are they short enough that a loss of shoulder as a 

breakdown lane would not be critical (500 feet or less)?

• If changes to an entrance or exit ramp or weaving area are considered, will 

adjusting the position of ramp gores cause geometric problems which must 

be resolved?

• Are vertical clearance issues, grade-matching, and sight distance problems 

created?
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

2-13

• If the bottleneck movement itself cannot be fixed reasonably, can the other 

traffic which is affected by it be better accommodated?

• Finally, will the improvement invite enough new traffic to cause immediate 

breakdown again or is this truly the clearing up of a “kink” in the system, 

without being a capacity addition that will overload some other part of the 

facility?

Barriers to Implementing LBR Treatments

Because some bottleneck treatments involve innovative solutions that maximize 

effectiveness with a minimum of new construction, they are occasionally at odds 

with highway design standards. A design exception may be required. For 

example, the addition of slip ramp to a collector/distributor road or the use of a 

shoulder as a through lane at selected locations may not strictly follow allowable 

design standards. Such deviations have the potential to degrade safety if not 

properly implemented; the elimination of a shoulder may lead to more collisions 

with roadside features or may impede incident management activities. As it is 

FHWA’s intent to foster creative approaches for low-cost bottleneck 

improvements, agencies should not see the design standard issue as 

insurmountable. Rather, they should fully assess the potential safety impacts of 

strategies and devise ways of addressing them, if necessary. For example, in the 

case of a shoulder-to-lane conversion, review of crash data, and the specific 

roadway location (perhaps through a Roadway Safety Audit), it may be 

determined that a barrier is required to keep vehicles off of the roadside. It may 

also require a change in incident management policy that would allow 

emergency vehicles to access incidents from the opposite direction. Finally,

agencies should be in contact with the FHWA Division offices throughout the 

process as design review may be required, depending on circumstances.

The second potential issue relates to air quality conformity. Because they are 

short term in nature, localized bottleneck improvements may emerge as formal 

projects that have not been previously identified in Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Programs or MPO-generated Transportation Improvement 

Programs. Thus, they may not be part of those projects that have been approved 

to deal with air quality issues in the region or state. Such occurrences must be 

dealt with on a case-by-case basis by agencies wishing to undertake bottleneck 

improvements. One point worth noting: if air quality conformity in a location 

precludes or discourages major capital expansion (e.g., additional lane-miles), 

the type of improvements in a localized bottleneck program clearly do not fall in 

this category.

Finally, another potential barrier is that bottlenecks may not be seen as 

consistent with Long-Range Design Concepts. As discussed previously, most 

bottleneck mitigation strategies such as roadway widening, left-turn lengthening, 

auxiliary lanes on freeway, or improvement of weave/merge areas may all be 

seen as distracting resources from larger design solutions, which will be made 

anyway in a larger longer-term project already in a 20-year plan. Agencies must 
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

2-14

decide and weigh the benefits themselves whether the cost of doing a smaller 

bottleneck solutions in the short terms against the cost of waiting for a more 

complete solution.

Bottleneck Assessment/Analysis Methods

Once bottleneck locations have been identified, the root cause and severity must 

be determined. Special travel time runs, aerial photography, or video of 

suspected bottleneck areas can be used to pinpoint sources of operational 

deficiencies. On freeways equipped with detection technology, dynamic 

surveillance can be used to identify where and how often bottlenecks occur, and 

how severe they are. Archived traffic data can be used to measure whether the 

problem is growing or receding.

Sometimes, the operational cause of a bottleneck is evident, intuitive, or 

anecdotal. However, when multi-mile corridor congestion is prevalent, 

microsimulation modeling can assist in identifying, separating, and analyzing 

bottleneck dynamics within the corridor.

Bottleneck analysis is necessary to study not only the subject location, but also 

the impacts of potential bottleneck remediation on upstream and downstream

conditions. The analysis will justify action to correct bottlenecks, confirm the 

benefits of bottleneck remediation, or check for hidden bottlenecks along a 

corridor. When conducting bottleneck analysis, care should be taken to ensure 

that:

• Improving traffic flow at the bottleneck location does not just transfer the 

problem downstream. The existing bottleneck may be “metering” flow so 

that a downstream section currently functions acceptably, but the increased 

flow will cause it to become a new bottleneck.

• Future traffic projections and planned system improvements are inclusive in 

the analysis. Safety merits also should be strongly considered.

• “Hidden bottlenecks” are considered. Sometimes, the queue formed by a 

dominant bottleneck masks other problems upstream of it. Improving the 

dominant bottleneck may reveal these hidden locations. It is important to 

take into account the possibility of “hidden bottlenecks” during the analysis 

stage.

• Conditions not traditionally considered by models are accounted for. There 

are several bottleneck conditions, such as certain types of geometrics and 

abrupt changes in grade or curvature, that cannot be analyzed by current 

analysis tools. Engineering judgment will need to be exercised to identify 

those problems and possible solutions.

For example, New York DOT’s Region 11 LBR Program is comprised of an 

interdisciplinary team headed by the Planning Director. The LBR Team compiles 

various completed studies and will bring other agencies on board as needed in 

order to develop a current inventory of bottleneck locations citywide; develop 
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

2-15

screening criteria; select and recommend priority locations for improvements; 

develop strategies for the selected locations and prepare the implementation 

plan. Projects are selected based on the following screening criteria: 1) project 

cost less than $10M; 2) annual vehicle-hours-delay > 25,000 hours; 3) speeds < 30 

mph; 4) requires little or no environmental documentation; and 5) projects NOT 

already programmed in the TIP. The LBR Team works with Program 

Management to address project programming, funding, and schedule issues, and 

they coordinate with local MPO staff regarding any TIP and/or conformity 

issues. As the work of the LBR program becomes better defined and develops 

greater focus, the team will expand to include other external agencies as well.

In Utah DOT’s Choke Point Program, potential projects are identified through 

public observations in the regions and input from users and local governments. 

Potential projects are then selected and prioritized based upon several factors, 

including average annual daily traffic (AADT), volume to capacity ratio (V/C), 

constructability, region priority, and accident rates. Qualifying criteria for 

potential projects include: 1) small safety, capacity or bottleneck projects that 

cost less than $10M; 2) can qualify for a categorical exclusion; 3) can be designed 

and constructed within one year; and 4) require minimum right-of-way needs. 

Examples of chokepoint projects include roadway widening, left-turn 

lengthening, dual left-turns, auxiliary lane on freeway, intersection or signal 

improvement, passing lanes on rural routes, and improvement of weave/merge 

areas.

Evaluating Bottleneck Improvement Projects

After implementation, it is often beneficial to conduct an “after” evaluation to 

gauge the effectiveness of the bottleneck removal project. A conservative 

approach to evaluating treatment effectiveness is to evaluate operational and 

safety benefits achieved. Common evaluation methods include microsimulation 

modeling, benefit/cost analysis, and crash data analysis using data collected 

before and after project implementation. In addition, the following performance 

measures are often used to assess the effectiveness of bottleneck improvement 

strategies: average speed (travel time), lane density, queue lengths, queue 

discharge rates, vehicle miles of travel (VMT), and vehicle hours of travel (delay). 

Additional insight could be obtained from before and after opinion surveys of 

area drivers. These types of evaluations are often not done, yet are important to 

quantify the benefits achieved through bottleneck mitigation.

Bottleneck Performance Measures in Bottleneck Assessment and 

Evaluation

This section describes bottleneck performance measures, data and methods 

needed to develop the metrics, presentation of performance measure results, and 

matching bottleneck treatments to needs.
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

2-16

Metrics

There are a number of metrics, which could be used to identify and track the 

results of bottleneck mitigation strategies. Below is a list developed by the 

Mn/DOT.

• Percentage of miles congested (i.e., number of directional miles with speeds < 

45 mph during peak periods);

• Total daily delay (volume x time difference between actual and posted 

speed);

• Reliability (TTI – Congestion Index/Travel Time Buffer Index);

• Miles of FIRST/incident response coverage;

• Number of hours where volume > capacity;

• Frequency of signal retiming;

• Percent of arterials with coordinated signals;

• “Before/After” benefit/cost ratio of corridor improvements;

• “Before/After” benefit/cost ratio of signal retiming;

• Customer satisfaction survey of peak-hour travel (omnibus transportation 

survey);

• Percent of MUFS instrumented;

• Planned lane closures System;

• Unplanned lane closures System;

• Average clearance time for snow and ice removal;

• Average clearance time for freeway incidents; and

• Throughput (i.e., number of vehicles through a specific corridor or across a 

screenline over a specified time period).

Data and Methods Needed to Develop Metrics

Data collection to support bottleneck analysis should be sufficient to capture the 

duration and extent of congestion. Typically, 15-minute traffic volume counts for 

all ramps and main lanes for a four-hour peak period are adequate. Other data 

can be collected through travel time runs, video, or origin-destination studies.

Many regional TMCs are archiving the data from their systems and can be a very 

helpful resource.

Presentation of Performance Measures

Performance measures can be presented in a number of formats. The one

recommended for this effort include routine reports on an annual or semiannual 

basis. If more frequent reporting is required, many emerging on-line reporting 
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

2-17

tools are becoming available that provide robust dashboard style results to easily 

convey to leadership and the public the status of a bottleneck program.

2.4 BOTTLENECK SELF-ASSESSMENT

Table 2.1 describes procedures for agencies to conduct an LBR Self-Assessment to 

establish where they currently stand with regard to implementing a bottleneck 

program, perhaps to the level of identifying at which “stage” it is.
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

2-18

Table 2.1 Bottleneck Programming Maturity Model Matrix

Level 0 – Ad Hoc 1 – Aware 2 – Planning 3 – Defined 4 – Managed 5 – Integrated

6 – Continuous 

Improvement

Institutional No structured LBR 

Program in place.

Some level of 

bottleneck 

recognition.

Agency is 

discussing needs/

plans for a 

structured LBR 

program.

Development of a formal LBR program is 

underway.

A formal LBR 

program is named 

and established, 

either as a separate 

program or part of 

another program.

Organizational No LBR Program 

Champion or Team 

in place.

Agency is aware of 

the need for a LBR 

Program champion 

and Team to 

support LBR 

activities.

Some level of LBR program assessment and formulation of roles 

for LBR Team is underway in one or more offices of agency.

Specific staff have 

the responsibility for 

oversee a formal 

LBR program.

Planning/

Programming

LBR strategies are 

not included in 

agency planning/

programming 

processes.

Agency has developed procedures for 

considering LBR strategies in the planning 

and programming processes.

LBR strategies 

becomes a 

component of the 

CMP.

LBR strategies 

integrated with 

short- and longterm planning and 

programming.

LBR strategies 

appear in planning 

and programming 

documents: MPO 

TIP, LRTP, annual 

programmed 

projects list.

Performance 

Measures

No defined 

practices and 

techniques for 

bottlenecks.

Agency has produced a set of procedures 

for measuring performance of bottlenecks 

(evaluation procedures).

Selected LBR 

projects are 

evaluated.

LBR projects are 

routinely evaluated.

LBR projects are 

highlighted in 

agencywide reports 

of congestion and 

safety.

Assessment/

Analysis Tools

No defined tools to

support bottleneck 

assessment/

analysis process.

Agency has defined procedures for identifying and assessing LBR strategies. A combination of 

analytical methods 

are used at different 

stages of LBR 

assessment and 

evaluations.
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

2-19

2.5 TEMPLATES FOR GETTING STARTED

This section introduces three templates that transportation agencies can consider 

in developing their own LBR Program. Each template includes an overall 

description of the approach, a bullet list of the key elements of the approach, 

followed by a step-by-step guide to implementing the template. Finally, each 

template concludes with a real-world example of the approach discussed.

The following templates are included in Appendix A.

• Template #1: Public Outreach Identification Process;

• Template #2: Leverage Existing Non-Bottleneck-Related Processes; and

• Template #3: Internal Identification Processes.

2.6 SUSTAINING A SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM

Once a LBR program has been established, its ongoing success will be based 

largely on two factors, funding and institutional integration. If funding for LBR 

programs is either dedicated or at least available through traditional sources, the 

chances that LBR issues will be considered in the future is very high. If,

however, an agency goes through the initial effort of setting up a LBR program 

and is at the end of the process unable to secure dedicated funding, or at least 

access to traditional sources, the program will not remain viable. It is, therefore,

critical that agencies consider funding options early on in the process. That is not 

to say LBR effort should not be initiated without funding secured; just the 

opposite. Many times the effort of setting up the LBR program can build enough 

momentum within an organization to secure funding or at least ensure access to 

compete with for funding.

Likewise, sustaining an LBR program will be much easier if the program is 

integrated into an organization. If identifying and evaluating LBR projects can 

become part of the core mission of the agency, the LBR program will continue 

even after the initial champions have left the organization or been reassigned.

2.7 SIGNS OF A LATENT PROGRAM

It may be prudent here to take a moment and discuss “when is a program not a 

program,” that is to say, when a program has de-evolved to not-producing 

effective mitigation projects.

Certainly, there are some administrative actions that would annul any active 

program. Foremost among these would be budget cuts, new administration 

initiatives, and emergencies. But in context of recognizing a dormant localized 

congestion mitigation effort, here are some vital signs to check.
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

2-20

• Projects are not being produced under “low-cost, short timeframe”

measures. The LBR program specifically does not define these terms in the 

context of the program; however, if projects are not being completed within 

“annualized” budgets, or are not being delivered in relatively short 

timeframes (e.g., a “construction season” as opposed to multiple out-years) 

then chances are these projects are outside the de facto definition of a 

“localized” congestion mitigation project.

• Candidate project lists are drying up. If a pre-standing list of candidate 

mitigation locations either does not exist or has not been updated for some 

time, then it may be a sign that program momentum has lapsed.

• Is the work effort generally equitable to the project size? Generally 

speaking, low-cost, short-term projects should have a much smaller planning 

and execution effort than large projects. By their very nature, these projects 

should be quick turn-around, low-cost, and high-yield benefits. However, if 

the project is bogged down with overly lengthy studies (“paralysis by 

analysis”), add-ons, or cost escalations, then it may be a sign that said project 

is beyond the scope of “localized.”

All of the above signs of a latent program are further discussed in FHWA’s 

“Traffic Analysis Toolbox X: Localized Bottleneck Congestion Analysis”

(FHWA-HOP-09-042) which focuses on what level of analysis is appropriate and 

representative for the subject projects and programs. In summary, that 

document concludes that the level of analysis (of any problem) should roughly 

correlate to the size of the problem. The main questions that this guidance 

helps an agency frame are: 1) do we have a satisfactory agency methodology to 

specifically address localized congestion problems; 2) within that program, do 

we have satisfactory justifications for project candidacy, selection, and 

solutions for said problems; and 3) are we executing these projects in a timely 

fashion and within budgets that are representative of the context of a 

“Localized Bottleneck Reduction” program?
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

3-1

3.0 Additional Resources

3.1 CASE STUDIES OF AGENCY PROGRAMS

The following provide comparisons of how different state agencies have 

incorporated low-cost bottleneck projects into their planning and programming 

processes.

Caltrans

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) does not have a formal 

bottleneck planning process; rather, bottleneck issues are addressed at the 

district level as part of their Corridor System Management Plans (CSMP), which 

are developed for some of California’s most congested transportation corridors. 

System monitoring and evaluation is seen as the foundation for the entire 

process because it cannot only identify congestion problems, but also be used to 

evaluate and prioritize competing investments. The CSMP includes the 

identification of bottlenecks and potential short-term fixes as part of an overall 

and long-term strategy for making corridor improvements. This may take the 

form of an “LBR audit,” which is a review of traditional large-scale corridor 

studies to identify opportunities for using LBR improvements as part of the 

package of improvements. The LBR audit concept is similar to that of Road 

Safety Audits. Caltrans does not have a direct funding for bottlenecks, although 

bottleneck projects are routinely programmed through the CSMP process.

Florida DOT

In Florida, there is not a “bottleneck” planning process, per se; rather, bottleneckrelated issues are addressed as part of the Florida Department of 

Transportation’s (FDOT) standard planning process. The planning process, 

which is managed by the FDOT Systems Planning Office, begins with needs 

identification conducted at the district level, then projects are developed and 

proposed for the Cost Feasible Plan. The Cost Feasible Plan is adopted and 

projects are ranked for inclusion into the 5- or 10-year programs. Traffic data 

and the statewide model are used to identify deficiencies, but it is the 

responsibility of the districts to identify and resolve hot spots.

Indiana DOT

Indiana DOT is in the beginning stages of developing a bottleneck program, as 

they are transitioning to a new asset management-based funding system with 

multiple funding teams. A program champion has been identified. Funding for 

bottlenecks will fall under the newly formed Mobility Asset Funding Team. The 

program will initially focus on Interstates, although INDOT is still considering 
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

3-2

how to best identify the spot location bottlenecks. It is expected that bottleneck 

countermeasures will have a very good benefit/cost ratio and compete well in 

the funding decision matrix that is a part of the new funding system.

Maryland State Highway Administration

The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) has a dedicated program of 

about $5M per year for the identification and implementation of low-cost traffic 

congestion improvements at intersections. The program’s genesis tracks to when 

SHA asked, “What can be done if and when a megaproject’s ‘no-build’

alternative is chosen?” The program has been well received by the public and 

local governments. Projects typically include low-cost projects that can be 

implemented quickly, such as signal timing upgrades and adding turn lanes and 

through lanes at intersections. The Maryland SHA also has had considerable 

success with projects to improve freeway ramps and merge areas that have 

reduced congestion bottlenecks at a low cost.

Michigan DOT

Michigan DOT currently is in the process of developing a structured Localized 

Bottleneck Reduction Program. The effort began several years ago with 

structured changes at MDOT, during which MDOT officially reorganized their 

Maintenance and Traffic and Safety Divisions to create a Division of Operations. 

The next step was the formation of a new section titled Systems Operations and 

Management (SOM). One of their early charges was to develop an approach to 

identify and eliminate bottlenecks throughout the State. Several years previous 

to this reorganization, MDOT developed and utilized a “Choke Point” Program, 

and their current efforts are patterned after that effort.

One of the first official action steps that the SOM Section pursued was to solicit 

potential bottleneck locations and problem descriptions from each of their seven 

region offices. More than 200 locations were identified, with about one-third 

being freeway interchanges. Based on further review by the SOM Section, the 

total number of potential locations was reduced to approximately 125 locations,

which they believed: 1) met their definition of a “bottleneck” location; and 2) had 

a potential cost-effective solution that could address the problem. One of the 

primary goals of this highly focused initial effort is to develop a documented and 

sustainable approach that can demonstrate excellent benefit-to-cost ratios, as well 

as justification for allocation and expenditure of funds on the statewide LBR 

Program. The underlying goal was to obtain leadership support and a dedicated 

funding template specifically for bottleneck reduction projects, which has now 

been achieved.

Many challenges exist as the Program and structure move forward. One primary 

challenge is the need to complete a detailed analysis necessary for a large 

number of potentially competing projects, as well as a freeway analysis of these 

projects. MDOT staff resources are limited and MDOT is reviewing the potential 

use of consultants and/or universities for project analysis. Another issue is how 
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

3-3

to justify and evaluate the impacts of the suggested changes as well as the 

existing problem. The intent is to create a level playing field for application of 

LBR funding by each of the seven regions. The third major challenge is the 

availability of funding. Michigan is going through an extremely dynamic period 

with the overhaul of the automobile industry, and their funding has been 

reduced. These issues are all being discussed and debated as MDOT moves 

forward to establish and document a formal, fully funded LBR Program.

Minnesota DOT

Minnesota DOT was originally driven to explore low-cost congestion relief 

projects because of budgetary restrictions, but soon realized that these projects 

could be implemented very quickly and, as a bonus, were highly visible and 

popular with the public. In much less than one year, Mn/DOT developed a 

highly accelerated process for bottleneck identification and prioritization, which 

led to many effective projects in the following two years. Mn/DOT also found 

that because of lower costs, it could identify multiple locations throughout the 

region and “spread around” bottleneck reduction projects in a fair and equitable 

manner. This process consisted of completing a study, which included a fivestep process to narrow potential projects into a recommendation list to the state 

legislature. Evaluation of completed projects produced high benefit/cost ratios,

usually greater than 8:1. Note: Circa 2009, this one-time activity was replaced by an 

ongoing CMS process known as the Congestion Management Planning Process, which 

has been formally adopted as part of the 3C planning process.
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

3-4

New York DOT

New York DOT’s Regional 11 Planning Office (New York City) established their 

Localized Bottleneck Reduction (LBR) program with a mission to mitigate 

recurring congestion at selected chokepoints and the operational influences that 

cause them on the region’s highway corridor mainlines, service roads, ramps, 

and immediate adjacent local streets and intersections. The operational 

influences include highway junctions and decision points, lane drops, weaves, 

merges, ramps, signals, intersections, width-restricted underpasses, and other 

factors that can adversely impact traffic flow at moderate to high volumes. The 

LBR program will investigate the opportunities as well as develop measures for 

the application of operational and low-cost infrastructure improvements to 

address chokepoints and to identify cost-effective improvements either as standalone initiatives or as part of existing Capital Projects. The goal of the LBR will 

be to move recommendations into the capital program.

Project Team. The LBR Program is administered through an interdisciplinary 

team headed by the Planning Director, with members designated by the 

functional unit managers. The approach is modeled after the Preliminary 

Minnesota’s Process to Identify and Prioritize Bottleneck Improvements

Step 1: Project Identification

Potential congestion management projects were identified from existing sources:

• Low-cost capacity improvements (e.g., auxiliary lanes);

• Restriping lane configuration; and

• Traffic control device improvements (e.g., ramp meters and signal timing).

Step 2: Quantitative Screening

• Project cost < $15 million

• Not in three-year TIP

• Annual hours of delay > 25,000

• Minimum of two hours of congestion

Step 3: Qualitative Screening

• Design readiness

• Cost range

• Congestion benefit

• Construction traffic management

• Future demand changes

• No adverse downstream effects

Step 4: Expert Workshop

Projects were prioritized by an expert group during a half-day workshop.

Step 5: Project Planning

The following were prepared for each project:

• Geometric sketches;

• Project scope;

• Congestion impacts;

• Safety impacts; and

• Benefit-to-cost ratio.
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

3-5

Feasibility Investigation (PFI) concept currently used by the Planning Office, 

which utilizes a multifunctional project scoping team as the “vehicle” for 

building consensus on the nature of a transportation problem, the key issues, and 

best solutions. This approach has been used by the Planning and Development 

unit to focus on and analyze the feasibility of specific projects, and it creates a 

forum for early consensus and buy-in of preferred alternatives and course of 

actions by the different functional groups.

The LBR Team will evaluate various completed inventories/studies and will 

bring other agencies on board as needed in order to develop a current inventory 

of bottleneck locations citywide; develop screening criteria; select and 

recommend priority locations for improvements; develop strategies for the 

selected locations; and prepare the implementation plan. The team will work 

through Program Management to address programming, funding, and schedule 

issues, and they will coordinate with the local MPO regarding any TIP and/or 

conformity issues. At the present time, the Localized Bottleneck Reduction 

program will be confined only to Region 11 functional groups plus FHWA. As 

the work of the LBR program becomes better defined and develops greater focus, 

the LBR PFI Team will be expanded to include external agencies, such as the 

NYCDOT, NYCT, MTA, PANYNJ, etc.

Program Benefits. The benefits of the LBR program include:

• Proactively engaging in reducing recurring delays and improving quality of 

life for affected communities;

• Reduce the rate of RCNs by elected officials and citizens to the department;

• Low-cost, effective solutions which will not require significant environmental 

actions and are relatively low-cost capital projects or maintenance work 

orders;

• Short implementation schedule; and

• Provide opportunity for incorporating recommended mitigations into 

ongoing projects, etc.

Screening Criteria and Schedule. The screening criteria for project selection is as 

follows: 1) project cost < $10M; 2) annual vehicle-hours-delay > 25,000 hours;

3) speeds < 30 mph; 4) requires little or no environmental documentation; and 

5) projects NOT already programmed in the TIP. Once the LBR PFI Team is 

constituted and established, it is expected that within the next 9 to 12 months, the 

identification and assessment, including corresponding mitigation strategies, of 

up to four bottleneck locations, will be available for further LBR team review and 

comment.

Ohio DOT

In 2008, Ohio DOT initiated a new Systematic Signal Timing Program that 

provides district offices and local governments with technical assistance (task 
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

3-6

order consultants) to analyze, coordinate, and upgrade the timing and phasing of 

signal systems in high-crash areas. Funding can also be used to upgrade signal 

equipment as needed. Funding is targeted to those areas listed as a top crash 

priority by ODOT, MPOs, or local governments. Project sponsors must verify 

that the crash patterns are relevant to signal timing concerns. Requests are 

funneled through the appropriate ODOT district office, which typically must 

concur with the request for assistance.

In Ohio, bottlenecks are part and parcel of the overarching Ohio Department of 

Transportation (ODOT) Highway Safety Program (HSP), which ranks all 

candidate projects and drives the statewide highway project selection and 

scheduling process. Beginning in 2002, ODOT developed a “congestion 

mapping” division that uses V/C ratios developed from traffic data recorders 

and roadway inventory. About the same time, ODOT administration pushed for 

an annual process of overlaying congestion-index and safety-index “hot spots.”

As a result, congestion hot spots now have a “voice” in the process regardless of 

crash indices, and congestion-related problems now compete for attention in the 

HSP listing. Specifically, highway sections with V/C ratios greater than 1.0 are 

considered “congested” and are added to the listing. Sections with V/C between 

0.9 and 1.0, but outside the cities of Columbus, Cincinnati, and Cleveland, are 

also added. After ODOT headquarters completes their statewide effort of 

congestion mapping and safety indexing, the respective District engineers are 

responsible for developing countermeasures for their top-listed candidate 

projects. District Safety Review teams sort projects into three scales – low (less 

than $100K and quickly implementable), medium ($100K to $5M and one to two

years), and high (greater than $5M and necessitating more than years to 

implement) – and then compete with other projects having the same scale but in 

other districts.

Utah DOT

Funded by the Utah Legislature, Utah DOT initiated a Choke Point Program in 

2006 to address safety, congestion, and bottleneck areas. It was successful, so the 

Legislature put forth more funding for additional chokepoint projects. The 

UDOT has used the choke point program to identify potential projects that could 

improve operations and safety with relatively low cost and in a short time 

period. Potential projects are identified through public observations in the 

regions and input from users and local governments. Qualifying criteria for 

potential projects include small safety, capacity, or bottleneck projects that: 

1) cost less than $10M; 2) qualify for a categorical exclusion; 3) can be designed 

and constructed within one year; and 4) require minimum right-of-way needs. 

Examples of choke point projects include roadway widening, left-turn 

lengthening, dual left turns, auxiliary lane on freeway, intersection or signal 

improvement, passing lanes on rural routes, and improvement of weave/merge 

areas. Projects are selected and prioritized in each region based upon several 

factors, including Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT), volume-to-capacity 

ratio (V/C), constructability, region priority, and accident rates.
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

3-7

Virginia DOT

Virginia DOT implemented the Strategically Targeted Affordable Roadway 

Solutions (STARS) Program. This program is a safety and congestion program 

that partners state, planning district and local transportation planners, traffic 

engineers, safety engineers, and operations staff to identify “hot spots” along 

roadways where safety and congestion problems overlap and are suitable for 

short-term operational improvements. The major goals of the STARS Program 

are to identify roadway improvements that:

• Are relatively low in cost with no more than $2M for a primary project and 

$5M for an Interstate project;

• Address existing mobility and safety problem areas;

• Require minimal preliminary engineering and right-of-way; and

• Can be implemented quickly, with a goal of 24 months or less.

Current funding for the program is through the Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP), although VDOT is looking for other funding mechanisms.

Washington State DOT

Washington State DOT (WSDOT) has no direct funding or a separate program 

just for bottlenecks, but formally recognizes “bottlenecks and chokepoints” in 

their project planning and development process and devotes a portion of the 

Washington Transportation Plan (WTP) to them. Financing large congestion 

relief projects has become a serious problem due to reduced tax revenues, so 

WSDOT has organized the Moving Washington initiative. As stated in their most 

recent Congestion Report:2

 

2 Washington State Department of Transportation, The 2010 Congestion Report, November 

2010, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Accountability/Congestion/2010.htm.

STARS Process

Step 1. Study Area Selection

Identify critical safety hot spots, and overlay congestion hot spots

Step 2. Conduct Detailed Study Process

Conduct objective and quantifiable study process

Step 3. Prioritize Recommendations

Prioritize recommendations based on benefit/cost analysis results

Step 4. Programming and Implementation
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

3-8

... WSDOT applies three balanced strategies to fight congestion – operate 

efficiently, manage demand, and add capacity strategically. By 

strategically adding capacity, WSDOT targets bottlenecks and 

chokepoints in the transportation system. However, because of limited 

resources, WSDOT understands that adding capacity cannot be the only 

solution for solving the congestion problem. That is why WSDOT uses 

operational strategies to maximize the efficiency of the existing 

transportation system (operate efficiently). WSDOT manages demand by

providing alternatives to drive-alone commutes between and within 

modes of travel and encouraging the traveling public to use them.

Performance results show that Moving Washington strategies and 

projects are making a difference around the State to relieve congestion.

Strategic, low-cost capacity improvements currently are a major emphasis for 

WSDOT. In the safety area, WSDOT learned that by targeting “black spots”

rather than corridor- or systemwide safety improvements, much greater impact 

for investments could be achieved. This same philosophy is being carried over to 

bottlenecks.

The Moving Washington initiative is part of the larger planning and programming 

activity of WSDOT. The Highway System Plan3

The process starts with definitions. Bottlenecks and chokepoints are defined 

differently from a functional viewpoint, but they both relate to the physical 

characteristics of the facility that impede traffic. Bottlenecks are places where the 

physical attributes of a roadway change in a manner that impacts the flow of 

traffic. Typical bottlenecks are locations where the number of lanes decreases; 

the roadway physically narrows either in shoulder width or lane width and 

narrow bridges. WSDOT defines chokepoints as places where congestion occurs 

because of traffic interference and/or the roadway configuration. Both 

bottleneck and chokepoint locations can be identified by WSDOT or other agency 

staff just by observation.

is the result of this process, 

which is performance-driven, as described below.

The next step is that the observed congestion must be supported with traffic data 

and analysis models. If congestion is a problem today or anticipated within the 

next 20 years, it also must satisfy one of the following applicable criteria:

• The congestion problem impacts the flow of mainline through-traffic.

Mainline traffic flow is considered to be impacted when through-vehicle

peak-hour speeds are equal to or less than 70 percent of the posted speed.

• Traffic flow criteria for ramps will also be considered to determine if the 

congestion is caused by on/off-ramp traffic.

 

3 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/HSP.
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

3-9

Once problem locations are identified, potential improvements are identified by 

central WSDOT staff, regional WSDOT staff, and MPO staff. The potential 

improvements follow a tiered process:

• First, low-cost improvements are considered, including LBR-type projects 

and operations.

• Second, larger-scale projects with a longer duration of benefits, short of major 

reconstruction, are considered.

• Finally, the “ultimate” long-term fix is identified, which usually involves 

major reconstruction.

Problem locations can have one, two, or three of these tiers identified for it. 

Solutions are then tested using analytic models developed by WSDOT for 

benefit/cost ratios and performance analysis. From this, the best combination of 

improvements is identified statewide.

The entire planning and project development process is performance-based. This 

fits into WSDOT’s longstanding emphasis on using performance measures to 

guide investment as well as the Governor’s Government Management, 

Accountability and Performance (GMAP) program, which spans all state 

agencies. Every month, the Governor and her staff meet with the heads of state 

agencies and departments to evaluate the performance results that these 

organizations currently are delivering. These open, candid meetings provide 

insight into what is and what is not working in state agencies, and what is 

needed to improve performance and achieve on deliverables. These meetings 

(held in Olympia twice a month in the Legislative Building) are open public 

forums.4

Metroplan, Little Rock, Arkansas

Metroplan, the MPO for the Little Rock region, has implemented a program 

dubbed “Operation Bottleneck” aimed at identifying current congested locations 

that are amenable to relatively quick and inexpensive treatments. Major 

congestion problems – arterial corridors and freeway sections/interchanges with 

major capacity deficiencies – are well known throughout the area. Further, 

future (major) problems have been identified with the modeling done for the 

long-range transportation plan. However, funding for the major improvements 

necessary at these locations must come from either:

• State DOT, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (they 

would be managed as state projects; and

• Local governments saving up several years of state and Federal allocations 

for a single project.

 

4 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Accountability/PerformanceReporting/GMAP.htm.
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

3-10

Metroplan wanted a way to serve their constituents better than constructing a 

scarce few megaprojects. Further, the region is almost in nonattainment for the 

eight-hour ozone standard. The text from their press release on the program 

sums up their intent very well:

“We’re aware of the major congestion issues in our area and have 

identified those in our long-range plans, but we know there are dozens, 

maybe hundreds of neighborhood problems throughout the region that 

could be fixed with something as simple as a roundabout or coordinating 

traffic signals to improve flow,” McKenzie says. “Localized problems like 

these can be harder to identify and are sometimes overlooked, even 

though they can be just as frustrating to drivers. Often they can be 

addressed much more quickly than larger projects. Those are the types of 

areas we are hoping to identify through Operation Bottleneck.”

Operation Bottleneck is largely based on the establishment of a Regional Mobility 

Authority (RMA). In Arkansas, an RMA is a coordinating body with no taxing 

powers – member counties would have to raise the taxes necessary to fund 

projects; multiple counties would be involved. Most likely, the RMA will be 

based on a temporary increase in local sales taxes county-by-county; they feel it 

is important to sunset the tax so it is more palatable to the public and elected 

officials. Metroplan hopes to leverage state and Federal funds against their selfgenerated revenue to fund the projects. Also key to the strategy is a specific list 

of projects to be funded by the tax increase, and most of the Operation Bottleneck 

effort has gone into project identification, as discussed below.

Project identification is being driven almost exclusively by public input via local 

meetings and an Internet survey. Metroplan also hired a marketing firm to 

promote the program through local media. Both congestion safety problem areas 

are being solicited, along with other modal deficiencies (transit, special 

transportation). A huge range of responses has been received, from 

megaprojects to minor problems on local roads. For congestion problems, 

signals and interchanges are dominating the responses. Safety problems 

identified by the public tend to be more general than site-specific. (This is 

understandable since congestion is experienced routinely but crashes are rare 

events for individuals.)

Metroplan staff will assemble the projects and will develop a list of projects to 

iterate with the public. Staff will also make revenue projections under different 

sales tax rates. No formal benefits assessment is planned – as with project 

identification Metroplan emphasized that public input is the driver for Operation 

Bottleneck, not technical processes (which they use for all other transportation 

planning activities). The staff will compare public-identified projects with those 

in the TIP and LRTP as well as against congested sections identified in their 

Congestion Management System in developing a prioritized list. Metroplan staff 

offered two types of improvements that are likely to dominate the project list:
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

3-11

• Low-cost arterial improvements – improved timing, intersection approach 

geometric improvements, and access management; and

• Roundabouts at uncontrolled, stop sign-controlled, or low volume signal 

locations.

Initial results are planned to be presented to public officials in October 2008.

Metroplan would like to make this an ongoing process, especially since the 

public support for the program has been very high. How to structure the 

funding for an ongoing program will be tricky, however.

FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

Appendix

A-1

A. Templates for Implementation

A.1 Template #1. Public Outreach Identification 

Process

Overview

This approach to starting a LBR program utilizes a public outreach campaign to 

identify bottleneck locations. After all, who knows more about traveling local 

roads than the people who use them every day? Major congestion issues are 

usually thoroughly identified through the traditional regional long-range 

planning approach, but there are hundreds of more targeted neighborhoodbased problems throughout any region that are sometimes overlooked, even 

though they can be just as frustrating to drivers. Often these bottlenecks can be 

addressed much more quickly than larger projects.

Key Elements

• Good method to quickly identify bottlenecks at a modest cost.

• Requires coordination between different organizational elements within an 

agency.

• Builds public support which could be leveraged for targeted revenue 

initiatives to fix the worst bottlenecks.

• Response rates from the public can be significant and feedback of results is 

critical to success.

Timeframe Cost Institutional Hurdles Analytical Complexity

Quick Turnaround Moderate Moderate Low

Approach

Step 1. Establish the types of bottlenecks to solicit.

Agencies should first decide how broadly or narrowly they want to explore 

bottlenecks in their region. For example, a region could choose to only look for 

suggestions for pedestrian-related issues. Likewise, the focus could be on 

signalization issues on corridors or even centered on modal concerns.
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

Appendix

A-2

Step 2. Determine outreach mechanisms.

Once the scope of the outreach is clarified, an approach to solicit the public’s 

input should be developed next. Leveraging the public input is an appealing 

approach to identifying bottlenecks since almost all transportation agencies have 

experience in communicating with the public. Outreach mechanism to consider 

include public meetings, telephone surveys, mail-in questionnaires, web-based 

surveys, and even newer social media surveys.

Whichever approach is selected, a targeted questionnaire should then be 

developed. The length, detail, and composition will be driven by the delivery 

mechanism. Care should be taken if multiple channels are utilized such as public 

meetings and telephone surveys. In these cases, one survey approach or 

questionnaire will probably not be appropriate and multiple methods to solicit 

responses to the public will be warranted.

Agency Public Information Offices (PIO) should be engaged in this process early; 

since they can provide a wealth of experience and expertise in reaching the 

public. The PIO can also help secure local press coverage of the agency’s 

bottleneck efforts. This exposure can increase participation in public meetings as 

well as any survey mechanisms utilized.

Step 3. Develop prioritization and sorting methodology.

Once bottleneck locations are collected, a mechanism must be developed to rank 

and prioritize the responses. Transportation agencies routinely prioritize and 

rank projects. However, for this effort, it is not recommended that any 

traditional extensive modeling or benefit analyses be conducted. These 

traditional planning processes, although well established, are too cumbersome 

for this effort since in this case input from the public is the driver not a technical 

processes.

Instead, priorities should be established by agencies using sketch level and 

simplified ranking mechanisms. Examples in include comparing the public 

identified projects with those in the TIP and LRTP as well as against congested 

sections identified in their Congestion Management System. Priorities could also 

be assigned by simply assessing the frequency of the number of occurrence of 

either specific bottlenecks or bottleneck subregions thereby generating regional 

hot spots.

Step 4. Create feedback mechanism.

Sharing the results of the bottleneck outreach and prioritization is vital to the 

success of this approach. Working with the PIO, agencies should ensure the 

results are released. Examples include holding another round of public 

meetings, additional press conference or releases, or a coordinated public 

relations campaign to promote the findings.
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

Appendix

A-3

Example: Operation Bottleneck, Metroplan, Little Rock, Arkansas

Metroplan, the MPO for the Little Rock region, implemented a program dubbed 

“Operation Bottleneck” aimed at identifying current congested locations that are 

amenable to relatively quick and inexpensive treatments. Major congestion 

problems – arterial corridors and freeway sections/interchanges with major 

capacity deficiencies – are well known throughout the area. Further, future 

(major) problems have been identified with the modeling done for the longrange transportation plan. However, funding for the major improvements 

necessary at these locations must come from either:

• State DOT, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (they 

would be managed as state projects); and

• Local governments saving up several years of state and Federal allocations 

for a single project.

Metroplan wanted a way to serve their constituents better than constructing a 

scarce few megaprojects. Further, the region is almost in nonattainment for the 

eight-hour ozone standard. Operation Bottleneck is largely based on the 

establishment of a Regional Mobility Authority (RMA). In Arkansas, an RMA is 

a coordinating body with no taxing powers – member counties would have to 

raise the taxes necessary to fund projects; multiple counties would be involved. 

Most likely, the RMA will be based on a temporary increase in local sales taxes 

county-by-county; they feel it is important to sunset the tax so it is more 

palatable to the public and elected officials. Metroplan leverages state and 

Federal funds against their self-generated revenue to fund the projects. Also key 

to the strategy is a specific list of projects to be funded by the tax increase, and 

most of the Operation Bottleneck effort went into project identification, as 

discussed below.

Project identification is being driven almost exclusively by public input via local 

meetings and an Internet survey. Metroplan also hired a marketing firm to 

promote the program through local media. Both congestion safety problem areas 

are being solicited, along with other modal deficiencies (transit, special 

transportation). A huge range of responses have been received, from 

megaprojects to minor problems on local roads. For congestion problems, 

signals and interchanges are dominating the responses. Safety problems 

identified by the public tend to be more general than site-specific.

Metroplan staff assembled the projects and developed a list of projects to iterate 

with the public. Staff also made revenue projections under different sales tax 

rates. No formal benefits assessment was conducted – as with project 

identification Metroplan emphasized that public input is the driver for Operation 

Bottleneck, not technical processes (which they use for all other transportation 

planning activities). The staff compared public-identified projects with those in 

the TIP and LRTP as well as against congested sections identified in their 

Congestion Management System in developing a prioritized list. Metroplan staff 

said two types of improvements that dominated the project list:
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

Appendix

A-4

1. Low-cost arterial improvements. Improved timing, intersection approach 

geometric improvements, and access management.

2. Roundabouts at uncontrolled, stop sign-controlled, or low-volume signal 

locations.

A.2 Template #2: Leverage Existing NonBottleneck-Related Processes

Overview

This approach to starting a LBR program promotes integrating a bottleneck 

program with congestion or safety programs already active in a transportation 

agency. Since starting a LBR program can sometimes face institutional, 

bureaucratic, as well as funding challenges, one successful method of addressing 

bottlenecks is to ensure LBR issues are integrated into already existing agency 

project identification and funding procedures. Established congestion or safety 

programs routinely survey for issues and hot spots and provide a great 

opportunity to be integrated with LBR issues. The advantage of this approach is 

that LBR-related projects will have access to an established funding mechanism.

Key Elements

• Provides LBR-related projects access to established funding mechanism;

• Bottleneck identification is linked to traditional processes which are 

potentially slower than other LBR approaches discussed in this report;

• Requires internal institutional reconfiguration of traditional processes which 

could take time as well as political momentum; and

• Care must be taken in ensuring LBR projects are given opportunity to 

compete fairly against other more traditional projects.

Timeframe Cost Institutional Hurdles Analytical Complexity

Quick Turnaround Low Low Low

Approach

Step 1. Identify existing program.

Transportation agencies looking to integrate LBR projects into existing 

procedures should first do an assessment of which of their current programs are 

applicable. Options could include integrating LBR concepts into an agency’s 

traditional corridor improvement process. For example, the identification of 

bottlenecks and potential short-term fixes could be included as part of an overall 
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

Appendix

A-5

and long-term strategy for making corridor improvements. Or a review of 

existing traditional large-scale corridor studies could identify opportunities for 

using LBR improvements as part of the package of improvements similar to that 

of a road safety audit. Agencies could also work to integrate LBR activities and 

initiatives into their existing Congestion Management Programs. Finally, LBR 

projects could be linked with safety programs and bottleneck issues and criteria 

could be added to the process of identifying safety projects.

Step 2. Integrate bottleneck-related metrics into project evaluation 

procedures.

Ensuring bottleneck-related metrics are included into the project evaluation 

process is a critical step in this approach. The metrics to include vary greatly 

depending on the type of traditional program. However, there are some core 

metrics which should be considered. Examples include simple V/C ratios, hours 

of delay, total daily delay, reliability, or something as simple as frequency of 

signal retiming. Since this approach is promoting the integration of LBR issues 

into existing processes, it should be noted that only a few bottleneck-related 

metrics will be eventually included in the final process.

Example

When the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) revamped their Highway 

Safety Plan (HSP) efforts a number of years ago, one of the controlling elements

identified was the level of congestion. A number of analyses showed that the 

highway safety and levels of congestion were intertwined, so an element was 

included in the HSP to specifically address congested locations regardless of the 

crash levels. ODOT’s HSP for the past six years has addressed congested 

locations in addition to freeway and nonfreeway high-crash locations. The HSP 

is administered by the Office of Systems Planning and Program management in 

the Division of Planning and the Districts through the District Safety 

Coordinators. Each year about $65M in funding is awarded for projects in the 

various categories that make up the program. Additionally, the districts utilize a 

portion of their budgets for low-cost improvements. The program has four 

elements in addition to the identification and study of high-crash locations that 

are described below.

1. Hot Spot Locations. Defined as any two-mile segment of freeway with more 

than 250 crashes or a nonfreeway location with more than 250 crashes over 

three years.

2. Rear-End Hot Spot Locations Map. Crash threshold set at 150 rear-end 

crashes for the section (both freeways and nonfreeways).

3. Congestion. Identified by calculating a roadway’s volume to capacity ratio 

(V/C). Sections with V/C ratios greater than 1.0 are considered congested 

and added to the annual work plan. Sections with V/C ratios between 0.9 
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

Appendix

A-6

and 1.0 are added if they are outside of Columbus, Cincinnati, and 

Cleveland.

4. Corridor Safety Program. Corridors with the highest density of fatal crashes 

are studied and addressed using a crossjurisdictional approach that combines 

engineering, enforcement, and educational resources.

The District Safety Review teams are required to study the locations identified in 

these components, as well as high-crash locations. The congested locations often 

show up on multiple lists, including the Hot Spot or High-Crash Location lists. 

When this is the case, the higher order study takes place and the location is listed 

as the higher order need. In general, this order is High-Crash Location, Hot Spot 

Location, then Congestion Location. This makes it difficult to identify all 

congestion relief efforts since a significant number of locations are listed on the 

higher order lists. The statistics presented here are based on locations flagged in 

ODOT’s Safety and Congestion Work Plan as congested locations, so they should 

not be considered as all inclusive of ODOT’s efforts in congestion relief.

The list of congested locations is determined using ODOT’s Road Inventory 

databases and applying highway capacity calculations to determine V/C ratios. 

The methodology includes analysis of signalized intersections and the 

development of artificial signalized intersections in urban areas that do not have 

accurate traffic signal inventories. Attachment 1 is the current ODOT list of 

congested locations that was generated in July of 2007. Study outcomes and fixes 

are tracked in a database. This database includes all locations since the effort 

started approximately six years ago.

Each location is studied using an abbreviated format that includes verification of 

the actual congestion issue by the District Safety Review Team. This is necessary 

since the data used to determine that statewide list is system level and may not 

always reflect actual conditions within a given section of roadway. ODOT has 

been collecting cost data and hopes to eventually be able to evaluate the costeffectiveness of the various countermeasures being utilized at congestion 

locations.

Solutions are grouped according to length of effectiveness and cost. Each 

Congestion Fix receives a Cost/Time code that is determined by rating Cost as 

Low, Medium, or High and Time as Short Term, Mid Term, or Long Term. The 

solutions range from simple maintenance activities to the programming of major 

projects. A number of Short-Term/Low-Cost recommendations have included 

meeting with the local law enforcement agencies, review of signs and pavement 

markings for upgrade, and use of time lapse video to analyze actual travel 

patterns.

Additional low-cost improvements have included signal timing revisions; minor 

striping and signing changes (e.g., changing lane assignments on intersection 

approaches); and other measures that can be accomplished by state or local staff. 

Medium-cost improvements have included signing, striping, and RPM 

upgrades/revisions; minor widening (e.g., turning lanes; and traffic signal 
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

Appendix

A-7

system upgrades). High-cost improvements are either new projects with the 

primary purpose of addressing the congestion or are major components of larger 

projects that are often major system rehabilitation efforts.

In summary, Ohio has been studying congestion sections and locations as part of 

their Highway Safety Program for the past six years and has been applying 

solutions to these that range from increased law enforcement and roadside 

assistance patrols to major reconstruction projects. They are collecting data and 

intend to use it to develop benefit/cost factors for future use and to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the solutions implemented. The location studies are prepared 

and reviewed by the District Safety Review teams that are multidiscipline teams 

well acquainted with using a wide variety of methods to implement solutions. 

They also can quickly determine if a specific location is listed on the various 

other components of the HSP. A variety of methods are used to implement 

improvements ranging from state or local forces performing the work to Federalaid construction contracts.

A.3 Template #3: Internal Identification Processes

Overview

This approach to starting a LBR program leverages internal expertise within a 

transportation agency in identifying bottlenecks. Major congestion issues are 

usually thoroughly identified by transportation agency personnel through the 

traditional regional and state long-range planning approach. However, there are 

perhaps hundreds of smaller scale targeted bottleneck problems which are 

overlooked simply because their scale does not compare to the larger congestion 

issues. In this approach to setting up a LBR program, the districts and regions

are called upon to identify these other smaller projects. District and regional

employees have the closest interaction with public; engage with them on a 

regular basis on a variety of traffic, congestion, or safety issues; and are in many 

times the best experts in identifying real bottlenecks that affect drivers every day.

Key Elements

• Low cost since agency staff are being polled and no public outreach is 

required; and

• Short timeline since many times, district and region engineers and planners 

already know where many local bottlenecks exist.

Timeframe Cost Institutional Hurdles Analytical Complexity

Moderate/Long Term Low High Moderate
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

Appendix

A-8

Approach

Step 1. Establish the types of bottlenecks to solicit.

Agencies should first decide how broadly or narrowly they want to explore 

bottlenecks in their region. For example, a region could choose to only look for 

suggestions for pedestrian-related issues. Likewise, the focus could be on 

signalization issues and corridors or even centered on modal concerns.

Step 2. Determine bottleneck solicitation mechanisms.

Once the scope of the outreach is clarified, an approach to solicit the districts or 

regions should be developed. It is recommended that an internal “call for 

projects” be developed and disseminated to the districts and regions. This call 

should have explicit directions on the information required for each bottleneck to 

target. This information should include standard performance measures such as 

traffic and safety, but the submission criteria should be flexible enough to 

include nontraditional metrics. It is recommended that a relatively short 

timeframe be assigned for the projects to be submitted. A shorter timeframe will 

promote a “tiger team” approach and districts and regions will be more 

motivated to ensure projects in their region are included to compete with other 

statewide projects.

Automated survey mechanism (i.e., web-based) could be utilized as well but care 

should be taken to ensure they are robust enough to allow districts and regions 

flexibility in submitting a wide variety of projects.

Step 3. Develop prioritization and sorting methodology.

Once bottleneck locations are collected, a mechanism must be developed to rank 

and prioritize the responses. Transportation agencies routinely prioritize and 

rank projects. However, for this effort, it is not recommended that any 

traditional extensive modeling or benefit analyses be conducted. These 

traditional planning processes, although well established, are too cumbersome 

for this effort.

Instead, priorities should be established by agencies using more strategic and 

simplified ranking mechanisms. Examples include comparing the potential LBR 

projects with those in the TIP and LRTP or ranking projects higher if they have 

lesser environmental documentation.

The ranking could be conducted by engineers and planners from Central Office 

or Headquarters or an expert panel could be formed with representation from 

each district and region to determine the priorities of the bottlenecks.

Step 4. Develop Bottleneck Project Plans.

Once projects are identified, project plans need to be developed and the projects 

programmed. It is recommended that a quick turn project plans be developed 
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

Appendix

A-9

for these projects. Elements include geometric sketches, traffic and safety 

impacts, costs, and even rough benefit/cost analyses. The projects need to be 

developed so that they can either compete for set aside LBR dollars or compete 

with other projects in the traditional programming process.

Example

Mn/DOT was originally driven to explore low-cost congestion relief projects 

because of budgetary restrictions but quickly realized that these projects could be 

implemented very quickly (and thus were highly visible to the public). They also 

found that because of low costs, they could identify multiple locations all over 

the region – the projects could be “spread around.”

The cornerstone of this process is the Congestion Management Planning Study 

(CMPS). This was developed as quick turnaround study so that projects could be 

recommended to the Legislature before it adjourned for the session. (The process 

was started in February and results achieved in May.) It was envisioned as a 

“tuning study” – how can the system be “tuned” in specific areas to get 

congestion relief rather than rebuilt. Although cast as a single study, it is hoped 

that it can be integrated as an ongoing process within the Department. The 

process works as follows:

• Step 1: Project Identification. Projects were identified from a number of 

different sources, including Mn/DOT project lists, Mn/DOT Area Managers, 

SRF Consulting Group, Inc., Mn/DOT Metro District’s Safety Capacity, 

Mn/DOT’s freeway congestion maps and the Governor’s 2007 bonding list. 

By combining the information gathered from the sources, 184 projects were 

identified and included in this study as congestion management projects.

• Step 2: Screening #1. A series of binary tests (pass/fail) were applied to the 

projects, resulting in downsizing the list to 100 projects:

– Project cost < $15M;

– Project not in three-year TIP;

– Could require project memorandum or lesser environmental 

documentation;

– Annual hours of delay > 25,000 hours of congestion;

– Freeway or Arterial > two hours of congestion; and

– Arterial relieves parallel congested freeway or directly responsible for 

freeway congestion.

• Step 3: Screening #2. Qualitative criteria were applied, resulting in 60 

projects still under consideration:

– Project implementation/design readiness;

– Cost range;
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

Appendix

A-10

– Congestion benefit (weighted delay);

– Traffic management for construction;

– Future demand changes; and

– Relieves congestion without adverse downstream affects.

• Step 4: Expert Workshop. Short-range congestion projects were prioritized 

by expert group during half-day workshop, resulting in 19 projects totaling 

$60.8M. The projects fell into three broad categories:

– Low-cost capacity improvements (e.g., auxiliary lanes);

– Restriping to change lane configuration (which the maintenance 

department could handle); and

– Traffic control device improvements (add ramp meters and “tune” signal 

timing).

• Step 5: Project Planning. For each of the 19 projects, the following project 

estimates were prepared:

– Geometric sketches;

– Type and scope of project;

– Congestion impacts;

– Safety impacts; and

– Estimated benefit-to-cost ratio.

Bottleneck Performance Measures

The State of Minnesota (not just the DOT) has been a leader in developing and 

using performance measures to assess how it is meeting customer expectations. 

In accordance with these principles, evaluation of completed projects is being 

done to track the effectiveness of current and future investments:

• Measurement of “before” and “after” project conditions to assess the project’s 

effectiveness and build experience for the type of benefits those different 

projects can deliver;

• Annual system measures that can capture overall congestion trends for 

different systems over time (e.g., Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) 

congestion index, percentage of Metro Urban Freeway System (MUFS) 

congested); and

• Measurement of strategies to shifts peak demands to off-peak periods (e.g., 

number of persons moved at the per lane capacity with speeds greater than 

45 mph).
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

Appendix

A-11

A preliminary list of performance measures being considered are as follows. 

Additional ones may be developed in the future and not all may apply to the 

bottleneck relief projects:

1. Percentage of miles congested (i.e., number of directional miles with speeds < 

45 mph during peak periods);

2. Total daily delay (volume x time difference between actual and posted 

speed);

3. Reliability (TTI – Congestion Index/Travel Time Buffer Index);

4. Miles of FIRST/incident response coverage;

5. Number of hours where volume > capacity;

6. Frequency of signal retiming;

7. Percent of arterials with coordinated signals;

8. “Before/After” benefit/cost ratio of corridor improvements;

9. “Before/After” benefit/cost ratio of signal retiming;

10. Customer satisfaction survey of peak-hour travel (omnibus transportation 

survey);

11. Percent of MUFS instrumented;

12. Planned lane closures System;

13. Unplanned lane closures System;

14. Average clearance time for snow and ice removal;

15. Average clearance time for freeway incidents; and

16. Throughput (i.e., number of vehicles through a specific corridor or across a 

screenline over a specified time period).

Overall, the CMSP process follows a procedure to develop candidate projects. 

(Freeway Performance data are used in the screening but in a very high-level 

way). Mn/DOT’s freeway data system provides lane by lane data for all 

controlled access road as well as all ramps – this allows them to easily created 

accurate and timely analysis on an as needed basis. This existing archive data 

system allowed Mn/DOT order to keep to the aggressive schedule. At the end of 

the process (Step 5) more quantification comes into play. This process worked 

extremely well in the eyes of Mn/DOT – they feel that a more labor intensive, 

and drawn-out procedure would have essentially yielded the same project list. 

The reason appears to be that current bottleneck problems are easily identified 

through visual inspection and via the freeway surveillance data, so a detailed 

analysis is not required.

Another aspect of the streamlining (in addition to the qualitative project 

identification and screening process) is that some larger environmental aspects 

could not be addressed (e.g., area drainage). In order to keep the costs low and 
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

Appendix

A-12

the projects quickly implementable, these environmental concerns were thought 

to be within the scope of the longer-term “megaprojects” being planned for.

Bottleneck Funding

No separate funding program was established for the CMPS projects – they have 

to compete for funding with other projects. If projects are seeking Federal

funding, then they have to go through the evaluation process established by the 

MPO, which has its own set of evaluation criteria.

Example Bottleneck Projects

Three low-cost bottleneck projects were highlighted by Mn/DOT. (These are 

being submitted as examples by the Division.) The positive impacts of these 

projects on congestion are dramatic. (See Table A.1 and A.2 for details.)

• I-394 at Louisiana Street. Mn/DOT added an auxiliary lane one mile long at 

a cost of $2.6M. Previously, queues could back up for six miles on this 

section; after completion, queues were reduced to zero! (for recurring 

conditions).

• I-94 in St. Paul. A four-lane section of freeway connected to two six-lane 

sections (a lane-drop bottleneck). Queues were 2.0 miles in the eastbound 

direction. Mn/DOT increased the number of lanes to six throughout this 

extended segment at a cost of $10.5M. Although the desired result was 

achieved, the existence of other major bottlenecks at the end of the segment 

(freeway-to-freeway interchanges) limited the effectiveness of this 

improvement.

• TH-100 in St. Louis Park. This is another example of a 6-4-6 lane drop with a 

highly restricted cloverleaf interchange in the four-lane section. The shoulder 

was used to provide an additional through lane; two close-spaced 

interchanges were connected with CD roads and the 1950s cloverleaf 

interchange was redesigned to a diamond interchange at a cost of $7.5M. 

Northbound queues were reduced from 5.25 miles to 0.25 miles and 

southbound queues were reduced from 6.0 miles to 0.25 miles.
FHWA Bottleneck Initiative

Appendix

A-13

Table A.1 Cost and Travel Time Benefit of Completed Congestion 

Management Projectsa

Project 

Cost 

(In Millions)

Reduction in 

Annual Hours 

of Delay

Estimated Annual 

Travel Time Benefit 

(In Millions)

Project 

Service 

Life (In Years)

Estimated Travel 

Time Benefit Over 

Project Service 

Life (In Millions)

Estimated Travel 

Time Benefit to 

Cost Ratio

I-394 $2.6 87,000 $1.1 20 $21.6 8 

I-94 $10.5 139,000 $1.7 20 $34.6 3 

TH 100 $7.1 1,063,000 $13.2 7 $92.3 13 

Total $20.2 1,289,000 $16.0 – $148.5 –

a Congestion data for Tables A.1 and A.2 were provided by Mn/DOT Metro Traffic and based on freeway 

loop detector data from 2004 to 2007.

Table A.2 Other Benefits of Completed Congestion Management Projects

Peak Period Vehicle 

Flow Increase 

Decrease in Miles 

of Congestion 

Increase in Peak 

Period Speeds Preliminary Safety Impacts 

I-394 4,650 6.0 30 mph in p.m. Sixty percent reduction of property 

damage crashes, no change in injury 

crash rate.

I-94 3,200 2.5 40 mph in a.m. 

25 mph in p.m.

Modest reduction in number of mainline 

crashes. 

TH 100 14,450 10.75 45 mph in a.m. 

30 mph in p.m.

Thirty percent reduction of property 

damage crashes, 70 percent reduction 

of injury crashes. 

March 2011

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Transportation Management (HoTM)

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

www.fhwa.dot.gov

FHWA-HOP-11-009

March 2011

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Operations (HOP)

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov

FHWA-HOP-11-009