SYSTEM

TRANSPORTATION

ADOPTED | APRIL 2016

APPENDIX

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

CONGESTION

MANAGEMENT
INTRODUCTION 1

PERFORMANCE MEASURES 

FOR THE 2016 RTP/SCS 4

CMP TOOLBOX AND STRATEGIES 19

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT UNDER MAP-21 32

CMP TOOLBOX AND STRATEGIES 32

NOTES 50

ADOPTED | APRIL 2016

APPENDIX

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to federal metropolitan transportation planning and programming requirements, 

the development, establishment and implementation of a Congestion Management Process 

(CMP) is fully integrated into the regional planning process (23 CFR, S450.320).

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defines the CMP as a “systematic approach 

that provides for effective management and operation, based on a cooperatively developed 

and implemented metropolitan–wide strategy, of new and existing transportation facilities 

eligible for funding under title 23 U.S.C., and title 49 U.S.C., through the use of operational 

management strategies.”

In accordance with Federal law [23 U.S.C. S134 and 49 U.S.C. S5303–5305], SCAG has 

made the CMP an integral part of the regional transportation planning process, including 

SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and 

the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP).

The CMP is part of SCAG’s integrated approach to improving and optimizing the 

transportation system, shown graphically as the Mobility Pyramid (FIGURE 1), to provide for 

the safe and effective management of the regional transportation system through the use 

of monitoring and maintenance, demand reduction, land–use, operational management 

strategies and strategic capacity enhancements. 

The regional CMP elements described in this report are:

z The SCAG CMP and the 2016 RTP/SCS

z County Congestion Management Programs

z Performance Measures for the 2016 RTP/SCS

z Transportation Systems Management

z Transportation Demand Management

z Land Use Strategies

z New Infrastructure

z The Federal Transportation Improvement Program – Single Occupancy Vehicle 

(SOV) Capacity–Enhancing Projects

SCAG CMP AND THE 2016 RTP/SCS

The FHWA’s CMP Guidebook outlines eight actions that are considered to be the core of 

the CMP. SCAG implements, monitors and evaluates these actions as part of its RTP/SCS 

process. These eight actions and how SCAG implements them are described below:

1. Develop Regional Objectives for Congestion Management – CMP objectives 

should be developed in coordination with the MPO’s long-range plan, and 

should guide the decisions made throughout the CMP and the broader 

MPO planning process.

As part of each RTP/SCS development process, SCAG performs a comprehensive 

objectives development process with hundreds of stakeholders across the region 

to identify regional objectives for a host of transportation planning areas, including 

congestion management. Adopted RTP/SCS goals address mobility, accessibility, 

reliability and productivity.

2. Define CMP Network – This step defines the geographic area to be covered by 

the CMP, as well as the CMP network and its transportation facilities that will be 

analyzed, including transit, bicycle, pedestrian and freight facilities.

PR

E

V

E

N

TION

& SAFETY

PREVENTION & SAFETY

PREVENTION

&

S

A

F

ETY

Intelligent Transportation Systems Traveler Information/Traffic Control

Incident Management

System Monitoring and Evaluation

Maintenance and Preservation

Operational Improvements

System Completion

and Expansion

Smart Land Use Demand Management / Value Pricing

Figure 1 Mobility Pyramid
 2 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

7. Program and Implement Strategies – This step involves programming 

and implementing fiscally constrained projects through the RTP/SCS 

and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) processes, to mitigate the 

identified congestion. CMP performance measures should be used as a tool for 

project prioritization.

As part of each FTIP update and amendment development process, SCAG 

implements projects and strategies identified in the FTIP and RTP/SCS in 

collaboration with the county transportation commissions (CTCs).

8. Evaluate Strategy Effectiveness – This step involves the evaluation of how well 

the CMP strategies are working, whether further improvements are needed, and 

whether the strategies should be implemented elsewhere in the region.

SCAG evaluates how its implemented strategies mitigate and reduce the 

identified congestion over time at the system level, using performance 

measures and monitoring.

COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

Under California law, urbanized areas must prepare a Congestion Management Program. 

These are comprised of several elements which are described in this section. In the 

SCAG region, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), 

Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Riverside County Transportation 

Commission (RCTC), San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), and Ventura 

County Transportation Commission (VCTC) are the designated Congestion Management 

Agencies (CMAs) for their respective counties and are subject to the state requirements. 

While Imperial County is not participating in the state program, CMP-related activities 

there are accomplished through the development of the RTP/SCS and the FTIP by the 

Imperial County Transportation Commission (ICTC). SCAG has a state–mandated role in 

reviewing the county programs for inter-county compatibility and consistency, as well as for 

consistency with the adopted RTP/SCS. (Per CA Code Section 65088.3, a county may opt 

out of the state congestion management program.) 

Because the magnitude of congestion and degree of urbanization differ among the counties 

in SCAG’s region, each county program differs slightly in form and local procedure. The state 

program elements are described below.

ROADWAY PERFORMANCE – Each CMA monitors the performance of a countydesignated freeway, highway and arterial system. This monitoring allows each county to 

track how their system and its individual components are performing against established 

standards, and how performance changes over time.

As part of each RTP/SCS development process, SCAG defines the six–county 

geographic area to be covered by the RTP/SCS, and all transportation facilities 

that will be analyzed, including freeway, highway, arterial, transit, bicycle, 

pedestrian and freight facilities.

3. Develop Multimodal Performance Measures –The performance measures a MPO 

selects for use in the CMP should address the congestion management objectives 

identified above, addressing a wide variety of congestion-related issues.

As part of each RTP/SCS development process, SCAG develops multimodal 

performance measures addressing a wide variety of congestion-related issues, 

including but not limited to mobility, accessibility, location efficiency, air quality 

and public health. Regarding congestion, SCAG evaluates person delay, truck 

delay and travel time.

4. Collect Data/Monitor System Performance – This step involves collecting and 

monitoring data to assess the CMP network’s performance.

As part of each RTP/SCS development process, SCAG updates and calibrates the 

regional travel demand model and activity-based model process using existing 

conditions, allowing it to provide an accurate representation of the performance of 

the existing highway and arterial system. Data sources include: Caltrans Highway 

Performance Monitoring System (PeMS) Caltrans Highway Performance Metering 

Program (HICOMP), Mobility Performance Report (MPR) and private sector data 

sources such as Inrix. In addition, SCAG collects a host of data on the performance 

of other modes of transportation, including transit, rail and goods movement.

5. Analyze Congestion Problems and Needs – This step identifies the congestion 

problems that are present in the region, and those that are anticipated based 

on the data collected for the RTP/SCS. This step also identifies sources of 

“unacceptable” congestion.

As part of each RTP/SCS development process, SCAG performs an assessment 

of congestion levels in the base year (2012 for the 2016 RTP/SCS) as existing 

conditions and the baseline future “no build” conditions scenarios. SCAG then 

performs an alternatives analysis process utilizing model runs to tests various 

modal strategies and their ability to address the identified congestion issues. This 

process ultimately results in the selection of the preferred plan scenario.

6. Identify and Assess Strategies – This step involves developing strategies that are 

appropriate to mitigate the congestion identified in Steps 4 and 5. A wide variety of 

strategies should be considered, including transportation demand management, 

operational improvements and multimodal facilities and services.

As part of each RTP/SCS development process, SCAG considers a comprehensive 

range of strategies, including transportation systems management, 

transportation demand management, and investments in multimodal capital and 

operational improvements.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 3

Government Code Section 65089. Imperial County also includes levels of service on major 

roadways in its Long Range Transportation Plan. Each county is required to update its 

program every two years.

SCAG CMP’S RELATION TO OTHER DOCUMENTS

Through the RTP/SCS, the SCAG CMP identifies strategies to reduce and mitigate 

congestion, which are incorporated into the FTIP. These FTIP projects are programmed 

through the CTCs, as all of these projects are incorporated in CTC long-range plans.

The SCAG CMP is also an important part of the South Coast Air Quality Management 

District’s (AQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The FTIP and RTP/SCS contain 

congestion-mitigating projects that are transportation control measures (TCMs). These are 

incorporated into the AQMP to reduce air pollution emissions. These measures contribute 

toward attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Federal funds 

may not be programmed in the carbon monoxide and ozone non-attainment areas of 

Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) for any project resulting in significant increase in 

SOV capacity unless that project is addressed through the CMP. SCAG’s FTIP process flags 

these SOV capacity-enhancing projects upon submittal by the CTCs, and it has a process to 

ensure that these projects meet the CMP requirements.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARTNER AGENCIES

Currently, five of the six counties in the SCAG region (all but Imperial County) have adopted 

programs that fall under the state congestion management requirements, and they are 

responsible for monitoring their respective networks and producing a report every two years. 

SCAG in turn has a state-mandated role in reviewing the county programs for inter-county 

compatibility and consistency, as well as for consistency with the adopted RTP/SCS. In 

the SCAG region, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties 

are contained within the TMA. The CTCs also work with SCAG to program their projects 

incorporated in their long range plans in to the FTIP and RTP/SCS. Many of these projects 

are TCMs that are incorporated in to the AQMP, and the SCAQMD and SCAG work together 

to ensure the region improves its air quality. Finally, the FHWA monitors and reviews 

SCAG’s processes to make sure CMP requirements are met.

Outside of state congestion management requirements, federal regulations require 

establishment of a traffic monitoring system (TMS). It is the responsibility of the state 

and Caltrans, working with the MPOs and local agencies, to develop a TMS. Caltrans, in 

accordance with applicable state law, is required to monitor the level of service (LOS) on the 

federal interstate and state highway systems. The LOS on arterials that is part of county 

networks or otherwise are provided by CMAs or local agencies. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement monitors border crossings. 

MULTI-MODAL PERFORMANCE – In addition to roadway performance, each county 

program contains an element to evaluate the performance of other transportation 

modes, especially transit.

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) – Each county program 

contains a TDM component geared at reducing travel demand and promoting alternative 

transportation methods.

LAND USE PROGRAMS AND ANALYSIS – Each county program incorporates a program 

for analyzing the effects of local land use decisions on the regional transportation system.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) – Using data and performance measures 

developed through the activities identified above, each county program develops a CIP. This 

becomes the first step in developing the County Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). 

DEFICIENCY PLANS – The county programs contain provisions for “deficiency plans” 

to address unacceptable levels of congestion. Deficiency plans can be developed for 

specific problem areas or on a system-wide basis. Projects implemented through the 

deficiency plans must, by statute, have both mobility and air quality benefits. In many 

cases, the deficiency plans capture the benefits of transportation improvements that occur 

outside the county TIPs and FTIP such as non-traditional strategies and/or non-regionally 

significant projects.

The regional transportation planning process and the county congestion management 

process should be compatible with one another. To ensure consistency, SCAG and the CMAs 

have developed the Regional Consistency and Compatibility Criteria. Information on the 

county activities and resulting data is updated on a biennial basis by each CMA and supplied 

to SCAG and air quality management districts.

SCAG REGIONAL CMP NETWORK

Each CMA monitors the performance of its identified program network. This allows each 

county to track how its network and its individual components are performing against its 

established performance measures, and how the network’s performance changes over time. 

At a minimum, all freeways and state highways are required to be monitored. The California 

Department of Transportation (Caltrans) monitors state highways and the Interstate system 

within the SCAG region. All the CMAs include major arterials in their networks as well. Once 

a roadway becomes part of the network, it cannot be removed.

The SCAG regional CMP Network consists of all the county networks combined. It includes 

all freeways, state highways and key arterials. In each county’s program, the level of 

service is recorded for all roadways in the CMP network in accordance with California 
 4 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

PERFORMANCE MEASURES 

FOR THE 2016 RTP/SCS

SCAG uses a variety of multi-modal performance measures at both the regional and local 

level to measure congestion. They include roadway measures, transit measures and active 

transportation measures. The 2016 RTP/SCS is a performance-based plan, and SCAG has a 

comprehensive set of performance measures to evaluate how well the RTP/SCS addresses 

the goals and performance outcomes. Please see TABLE 1 below and the Performance 

Measures appendix for more information.

Caltrans, in conjunction with the California Highway Patrol (CHP), has created Transportation 

Management Centers (TMCs) to monitor daily traffic conditions and non-recurring 

congestion. With the help of electronic technologies such as electronic sensors in the 

pavement, freeway call boxes, video cameras, 911 calls, officers on patrol, Caltrans highway 

crews, ramp meter sensors, earthquake monitors, motorist cellular calls and commercial 

traffic reports, the TMC provides coordinated transportation management for normal 

commutes, special events and incidents affecting traffic. Much of the data is archived 

through Los Angeles County’s Regional Integration of ITS Systems (RIITS), which should 

provide greater accuracy in the data collected and modeled. The TMCs are operated within 

each Caltrans district. For the SCAG region, Districts 7, 8, 11 and 12 all have TMCs. 

Table 1 2016 RTP/SCS Performance Measures

Outcome Performance Measure Definition Outcome Required Supports RTP Goals Data Source(s) LOCATION EFFICIENCY

Share of growth in High Quality Transit 

Areas (HQTAs)

Share of the region’s growth in households 

and employment in HQTAs

Improvement (increase) over No 

Project Baseline

RTP/SCS socio-economic small 

area data

Land consumption Greenfield land consumed and refill land 

consumed

Improvement over No Project 

Baseline Scenario Planning Model

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per capita Average annual vehicle miles driven per 

person 

Improvement (decrease) over No 

Project Baseline Travel Demand Model

Transit mode share The share of total trips that use transit for 

work and non-work trips 

Improvement (increase) over No 

Project Baseline Travel Demand Model

Average distance for work or non-work 

trips

The average distance traveled for work or 

non-work trips 

Improvement (decrease) over No 

Project Baseline Travel Demand Model

Percent of trips less than 3 miles The share of work and non-work trips which 

are fewer than 3 miles 

Improvement (increase) over No 

Project Baseline Travel Demand Model

Work trip length distribution The statistical distribution of work trip 

length in the region

Improvement (decrease) over No 

Project Baseline Travel Demand Model

MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY

Person delay per capita

Delay per capita can be used as a 

supplemental measure to account for 

population growth impacts on delay

Improvement (decrease) over No 

Project Baseline Travel Demand Model

Person delay by facility type (mixed flow, 

HOV, arterials)

Delay: Excess travel time resulting from the 

difference between a reference speed and 

actual speed

Improvement (decrease) over No 

Project Baseline Travel Demand Model

Truck delay by facility type (highways, 

arterials)

Delay: Excess travel time resulting from the 

difference between a reference speed and 

actual speed

Improvement (decrease) over No 

Project Baseline Travel Demand Model

Travel time distribution for transit, SOV, 

and HOV modes for work and non-work 

trips

Travel time distribution for transit, SOV, and 

HOV for work and non-work trips

Improvement (decrease in SOV 

share) over No Project Baseline Travel Demand Model
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 5

TABLE 1 2016 RTP/SCS Performance Measures Continued

Outcome Performance Measure Definition Outcome Required Supports RTP Goals Data Source(s) SAFETY AND HEALTH

Collision rates by severity and by mode

Collision rate per 100 million vehicle miles 

by mode (all, bicycle/pedestrian); and 

number of fatalities and serious injuries by 

mode (all, bicycle/pedestrian)

Improvement (decrease) over No 

Project Baseline 

CHP Accident Data Base, Travel 

Demand Model Mode Split 

Outputs

Criteria pollutants emissions CO, NOX, PM2.5, PM10, and VOC Meet Federal Transportation 

Conformity requirements

Travel Demand Model/ ARB 

EMFAC Model

Air pollution-related health measures Pollution-related respiratory disease 

incidence and cost

Improvement (decrease) over No 

Project Baseline Scenario Planning Model

Physical activity-related health measures Physical activity/weight related health 

issues and costs

Improvement (decrease) over No 

Project Baseline Scenario Planning Model

Mode share of walking and biking Mode share of walking and biking for work 

and non-work trips 

Improvement (increase) over No 

Project Baseline Travel Demand Model

ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY

Criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas 

emissions

CO, NOX, PM2.5, PM10, and VOC emissions; 

and per capita greenhouse gas emissions 

(CO2)

Meet Federal Transportation 

Conformity requirements and 

state SB 375 per capita GHG 

reduction targets

Travel Demand Model/ ARB 

EMFAC Model

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

Additional jobs supported by improving 

competitiveness

Number of jobs added to the economy as a 

result of improved transportation conditions 

which make the region more competitive

Improvement (increase) over No 

Project Baseline Regional Economic Model (REMI)

Additional jobs supported by 

transportation investment

Total number of jobs supported in the 

economy as a result of transportation 

expenditures.

Improvement (increase) over No 

Project Baseline Regional Economic Model (REMI)

Net contribution to Gross Regional 

Product

Increase in Gross Regional Product due to 

transportation investments and increased 

competitiveness

Improvement (increase) over No 

Project Baseline Regional Economic Model (REMI)

INVESTMENT 

EFFECTIVENESS

Benefit/Cost Ratio Ratio of monetized user and societal 

benefits to the agency transportation costs Greater than 1.0 California Benefit/Cost Model
 6 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

TABLE 1 2016 RTP/SCS Performance Measures Continued

Outcome Performance Measure Definition Outcome Required Supports RTP Goals Data Source(s) TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SUSTAINABILITY

Cost per capita to preserve multimodal 

transportation system to current and state 

of good repair condition

Annual cost per capita required to preserve 

the regional multimodal transportation 

system to current conditions

Improvement (decrease) over 

Base Year

Estimated using SHOPP Plan and 

recent California Transportation 

Commission 10-Year Needs 

Assessment

State Highway System Pavement 

Condition

Share of distressed State Highway System 

lane miles

Improvement (decrease) over No 

Project Baseline

Pavement Management System 

(Caltrans)

Local Roads Pavement Condition Pavement Condition Index (PCI) for local 

roads 

Improvement over No Project 

Baseline Local Arterial Survey Database

ENVIRONMENTAL 

JUSTICE

See Table 3: Performance Measures: 

Environmental Justice

Meet Federal Environmental 

Justice requirements. 

No unaddressed 

disproportionately high and 

adverse effects for low income 

or minority communities 

Acronyms:

CHP: California Highway Patrol

EMFAC: Emissions Factors

SHOPP: State Highway Operation & Protection Program
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 7

This appendix also identifies and reports on the top congested corridors in the SCAG region, 

including major bottleneck areas, congestion trends and non–recurring congestion at the 

regional and county level.

TRANSIT AND RAIL PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Each county also examines performance measures related to transit performance. OCTA 

uses four performance indicators which include vehicle headway, to measure how often 

service is available to transit patrons; load factor, measuring how many standees there are 

on a transit vehicle; on-time performance (OTP); and service accessibility, which measures 

the percentage of the population that has access to their service. Metro has a “mobility 

index”, which is a composite index of passenger throughput times speed.

For the 2016 RTP/SCS, SCAG’s six congestion performance analysis measures for 

transit and rail are:

z speed of service

z transit and rail modal share

z mileage of transit service by mode (e.g., local, express, BRT/BRT 

Lite and urban rail)

z bus lane mileage

z mileage of one-track operation for commuter rail

z accessibility to transit and rail

These performance measures will be measured by SCAG’s travel demand model. Transit 

and rail accessibility are also reported on in the 2016 RTP/SCS (accessibility of population, 

households and employment to different types of transit [e.g., local bus, express bus, 

rapid bus, rail, etc.]).

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MEASURES

Active transportation includes biking and walking. For the 2016 RTP/SCS, SCAG’s two 

congestion performance analysis measures for active transportation are:

z modal share

z mileage of bicycle facilities (e.g., Classes 1, 2 and 3)

Modal share is measured by SCAG’s travel demand model, as well as mileage 

of bicycle facilities.

ROADWAYS

Roadways include freeways, state highways and arterials. The five CMA counties in the 

SCAG region each have a state congestion management program–defined roadway 

network that is monitored for LOS approximately every two years. These include freeways, 

state highways and arterials, and their volume to capacity is measured for a LOS grade. 

The LOS is a required measure by California Government Code 65089. TABLE 2 shows 

the LOS definitions.

SCAG uses additional performance measures to determine congestion levels of the roadway 

network in its travel demand model which include: 

z Average Daily Speed

z Average Daily VMT

z Average Daily Delay

z Average Daily Heavy Duty Truck Delay

z Average Person Trip Length

Table 2 Level of Service (LOS) Definition

LOS Flow Conditions Operating 

Speed Delay Service Rating

A

Highest quality of service. Free traffic 

flow, low volumes/densities. Little or no 

restriction on speed or maneuverability

55+ None Good

B

Stable traffic flow, speed becoming 

slightly restricted. Low restriction or 

maneuverability

50 None Good

C

Stable traffic flow, but less freedom to 

select speed, change lanes or pass.

Density increasing

45 Adequate Adequate

D

Approaching unstable flow. Speeds 

tolerable but subject to sudden 

and considerable variation. Less 

maneuverability and driver comfort.

40 Adequate Adequate

E

Unstable traffic flow with rapidly 

fluctuating speeds and flow rates. Short 

headways, low maneuverability and 

low driver comfort

35 Significant Poor

F Forced traffic flow. Speed and flow may 

drop to zero with high densities. <20 Considerable Poor
 8 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

z Variability – The changes in congestion that occur on different days or at different 

times of day. When congestion is highly variable due to non-recurring conditions, 

such as a roadway with a high number of traffic accidents causing delays, this has 

an impact on the reliability of the system.

AGGREGATE REGIONAL AND COUNTY TRENDS

Caltrans publishes an annual traffic congestion report called the Mobility Performance 

Report (MPR). Data are presented here for the Caltrans Districts 7, 8 and 12 (covering Los 

Angeles-Ventura, Riverside-San Bernardino and Orange Counties, respectively) with 

respect to traffic congestion, in terms of vehicle hours of delay (VHD), and productivity, in 

terms of equivalent lost lane miles. The performance results are based on data collected by 

automated vehicle detector stations on the state highway system. Congestion is presented 

at two thresholds established by Caltrans based on engineering experience: severe 

congestion delay from vehicles traveling below 35 mph, and all congestion delay from 

vehicles traveling below 60 mph. Lost productivity represents the conversion of lost vehicle 

throughput, where speeds drop below 35 mph, into equivalent lost lane-miles. As described 

in the MPR, these lost lane-miles “represent a theoretical level of capacity that would be 

needed to achieve maximum throughput during the most congested time periods.”

FIGURE 2 and FIGURE 3 depict the vehicle hours of delay experienced in the SCAG region 

on an average weekday from 2005 to 2013. The charts show that congestion declined 

CAUSES OF CONGESTION

There are many causes of congestion, such as “too many cars,” a poor jobs/housing 

balance, unsynchronized traffic lights, etc. In the SCAG region, the jobs/housing balance is 

particularly an issue given the geography and urban sprawl of our region. Many residents 

have traditionally continued to move farther and farther inland for cheaper housing, thereby 

adding to VMTs in our region. In addition, Southern California is just beginning to move 

away from its “car culture,” so our region’s rail and public transportation systems don’t have 

the reach, ridership and modal share of eastern cities. Other causes of congestion include 

freeway and highway gaps, such as the I–710 and SR 2 gaps.

The FHWA defines four different types of congestion:1

z Intensity – The relative severity of congestion that affects travel. Intensity 

has traditionally been measured through indicators such as V/C ratios or 

LOS measures that consistently relate the different levels of congestion 

experienced on roadways.

z Duration – The amount of time the congested conditions persist before returning to 

an uncongested state.

z Extent – The number of system users or components (e.g. vehicles, pedestrians, 

transit routes, lane miles) affected by congestion, for example the proportion 

of system network components (roads, bus lines, etc.) that exceed a defined 

performance measure target.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012* 2013*

District 7 District 8 District 12 Total

Figure 2 Weekday Average Vehicle Hours of Delay at 60 mph (millions)

*Unofficial statistics

Source: Caltrans Mobility Performance Report

Figure 3 Weekday Average Vehicle Hours of Delay at 35 mph (millions)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012* 2013*

District 7 District 8 District 12 Total

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

*Unofficial statistics

Source: Caltrans Mobility Performance Report
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 9

2009 2010 2011 2012* 2013*

District 7 District 8 District 12 Total

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Figure 4 Weekday Average Lost Lane–Miles at 35 mph

*Unofficial statistics

Source: Caltrans Performance Monitoring System (PeMS)

Table 3 Weekday Average Vehicle Hours of Delay at 60 mph, by county (millions)

Year Los 

Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino Ventura Total

2009 87.5 21.8 10.2 5.3 2.7 127.5

2010 106.3 26.3 10.0 6.4 1.9 150.9

2011 86.5 23.2 8.3 5.9 2.2 126.2

2012* 93.0 26.1 8.5 6.1 2.7 136.6

2013* 103.3 29.2 9.4 7.8 2.9 152.6

*Unofficial statistics

Source: Caltrans Mobility Performance Report

Table 4 Weekday Average Vehicle Hours of Delay at 35 mph, by county (millions)

Year Los 

Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino Ventura Total

2009 48.8 12.3 3.6 1.9 0.5 67.0

2010 37.3 10.2 3.3 2.0 0.7 53.4

2011 39.9 12.4 3.4 1.7 1.0 58.2

2012* 44.7 14.0 3.8 2.2 1.0 65.7

2013* 103.3 29.2 9.4 7.8 2.9 152.6

*Unofficial statistics

Source: Caltrans Mobility Performance Report

from 2006 to 2009, reflecting the Great Recession and a region-wide decline in travel. 

Preliminary figures for 2012 and 2013 (indicated by asterisks on bar charts) show that 

congestion has climbed back to near pre-recession levels. All counties in the SCAG region 

are showing increasing congestion since 2011. Imperial County, which is part of Caltrans 

District 11 with San Diego County, is not included in this report.

TABLE 3 and TABLE 4 depict the vehicle hours of delay by county from 2009 to 2013.

Finally, the following charts depict the equivalent lost lane-miles data. FIGURE 4 depicts 

lost lane-miles from 2009 to 2013. In 2013, preliminary estimates suggest that the SCAG 

region lost an equivalent of 800 lane-miles of highway capacity on an average weekday due 

to congestion. This is very significant as it compares to 11,017 total lane miles in the SCAG 

region, or 7.3% of the total regional highway network (excluding HOV lane miles). 

SCAG utilizes lost lane-miles to measure highway system productivity as part of the 2016 

RTP/SCS performance measures analysis. FIGURE 5 depicts highway system productivity 

for the AM and PM peak periods for both the 2012 Base Year and the 2040 Plan. The RTP/

SCS investments are forecast to produce a 20 percent improvement in our region’s highway 

productivity, over existing 2012 Base Year conditions.
 10 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

AM Peak Period PM Peak Period

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

2012 Base Year Plan 2040

Figure 5 RTP/SCS Improvements in Highway System Productivity 

(2012 Base Year versus 2040 Plan)

COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TRENDS

Through the state Congestion Management Program, five of six counties in the SCAG 

region monitor a county-designated state Congestion Management Program network for 

LOS performance. In addition to freeways and state highways, which must be included 

in the network, the counties choose various arterials as part of the network. The CMP 

biennial monitoring allows each county to track how their system and its individual 

components are performing against established baseline and historical standards, and 

how this performance changes over time. State statute requires that the LOS on the county 

network perform at a grade of E or better, unless the baseline grade for that facility was not 

performing at that level.

OCTA is the latest CTC to have completed a state Congestion Management Program 

network analysis in November of 2015. Orange County’s latest performance, using an 

average intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analysis rating, shows an improvement over 

their 1991 baseline. Between 1991 and 2015, the average AM peak-period ICU improved 

from 0.67 to 0.59, a 12.6 percent improvement, and the average PM peak–period ICU 

improved from 0.72 to 0.62, a 13.9 percent improvement.

RCTC also recently completed its last state program analysis in December of 2011. Like 

OCTA, RCTC’s minimum LOS standard is E. Their 2011 analysis indicated that four freeway 

segments (three on I–15 and one on I–215) and three arterial segments were operating at 

LOS F levels. All seven of these locations however had programmed projects in RCTC’s 

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and are expected to improve the LOS to E or better.

SANBAG is in the process of developing their 2015 state program. This includes a novel 

web-based tool to allow users to monitor congestion levels on their county network. 

LACMTA has been studying a congestion mitigation fee the last few years as part of their 

state program requirements. The potential fee links the transportation/land use nexus in 

order to fund transportation improvements in the future.

MAJOR BOTTLENECKS

There are many major bottlenecks in the SCAG region that further increase congestion and 

delay. An analysis was done using PeMS data for 2012 to identify and rank the top 100 

locations by annual hours of vehicle delay and are illustrated in EXHIBIT 1 and TABLE 5. 

They are categorized as “very active,” “somewhat active” or “not active.” Most bottlenecks 

are active in the am or pm peak periods, or both, and some are active mid-day. The top 

ranked bottleneck in the SCAG region is on the San Diego Freeway. (I–405) at Getty Center 

Dr./Sepulveda Blvd. It results in over a million annual hours of vehicle delay. The second 

ranked is the junction of the Hollywood (U.S. 101) and Harbor freeways.(I–110), and the 

third-ranked is the Santa Ana Freeway. (I–5) at Washington Blvd. in the City of Commerce. 

They represent 900,000 and 700,000 hours of annual vehicle delay respectively. The 

large majority of the locations are in Los Angeles County, with 11 in Orange County, three in 

Riverside County and one in San Bernardino County. The location in San Bernardino County 

is at I–15 and Jurupa with 179,000 annual hours of delay. There are no bottlenecks in 

Imperial and Ventura Counties. The length of the bottleneck queues also varies, with severity 

and lane configuration as major factors.

NON–RECURRENT CONGESTION

Non-recurrent congestion is a major issue in our region. Non-recurrent congestion is caused 

by various forms of traffic incidents, and other variables such as construction projects and 

special events. In 2012, the estimated average percentage of congestion that was due to 

collisions or other incidents was about 47 percent. SCAG estimates lost capacity in the AM 

peak period, attributable largely to non–recurrent incidents such as collisions, weather 

conditions, stalled vehicles, etc., could have the effect of the loss of about 235 lane miles of 

freeway capacity when it is needed the most. The cost of physically adding this lost capacity 

by expanding existing roadways would exceed $500 million.

An analysis was done using PeMS data for the 4th Quarter of 2011 to examine the extent of 

recurrent versus non-recurrent congestion in the SCAG region. As shown in FIGURE 6, 53 

percent of region-wide congestion was recurrent. This varies highly by county, however. For 

example, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties had recurrent congestion rates of only 41 

percent and 26 percent respectively, and Ventura County weighed in at 25 percent. 
San Diego

Camarillo

Moorpark

Simi Valley

Thousand Oaks

Oxnard

Agoura

Hills

Alham bra

Arcadia Azusa

Bell

Burbank

Carson

Cerritos

Compton

Diamond

Bar

Downey

El

Monte

Glendale

Glendora

Inglew ood

Irwindale

La Mirada

La

Los Angeles Verne

Monrovia

Monterey

Park

Norwalk

Pasadena

Pomona

San

Dimas

Santa

Monica

So uth Ga te

Torrance

Walnut

West

Covina

Whittier

Calabasas

Long Beach

Adelanto

Apple Valley

Barstow

Chino

Chino Hills

Colton

Fontana

Hesperia

Highland

Loma

Ontario Linda

Rancho

Cucamonga

Redlands

Rialto

San

Upland Bernardino

Victorville

Yucaipa

Lancaster

Palmdale

Santa Clarita

Eastvale

Lake Elsinore

Hemet

Tem ecu la

Perris

Moreno Valley

Murrieta

Wildomar

Corona

Jurupa Valley

Desert Hot Springs

San Jacinto

Beaumont Banning

Calimesa

Riverside

Menifee

Norco

Palm

Springs

Aliso

Viejo

Anaheim

Brea

Buena

Park

Costa

Mesa

Cypress

Fo untain

Valle y

Fullerton

Garden

Grove

Huntington

Beach

Irvine

La

Habra

Laguna

Niguel

Lake

Forest

Mission

Viejo

New port

Beach

Orange

San

Clemente

Santa Ana

Seal

Beach

Tustin

Yorba Linda 91

60

126

71

57

60

101

101

15

215

10

15

10

210

405

5

605

710

5

15

405

110

105

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Orange

County

Los Angeles

County

Ventura

County

Freeway 2012 SCAG Top 20 Bottlenecks 2012 SCAG Top 21-100 Bottlenecks

(Source: Caltrans 2012 PeMS Data)

8

10

10

San Bernardino

County

Riverside

County

Imperial

County

° 0 4.5 9 2.25

Miles

Exhibit 1 Major Road Bottlenecks
 12 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

Rank County Route Direction Bottleneck Location

Absolute Postmiles

Latitude/ Longtitude

Total 

Annual 

Delay

Active During...

Bottleneck Queue End AM Mid– 

Day PM

1 LA 405 S Getty Center Dr/N Sepulveda Ave 58.5 66.1 34.096057,

–118.47685 1,048,100  

2 LA 101 S SR–110 3.2 7.8 34.0673443333333,

–118.256567111111 907,300   

3 LA 5 S E Washington Bl 127.9 134.0 33.993573,

–118.1433845 705,200  

4 LA 605 S I–5 11.2 15.0 33.940382,

–118.097178333333 619,200   

5 LA 10 E La Brea Ave 8.1 2.8 34.0340125,

–118.3532715 599,700   

6 LA 57 N SR–57/Pathfinder 15.2 11.5 33.988721,

–117.842841 568,000  

7 LA 170 S Magnolia Blvd/US–101/SR–134 2.3 6.1 34.163266,

–118.382094 556,300  

8 LA 101 S Garey St 1.8 5.4 34.053512,

–118.232514 543,300  

9 LA 605 N I–5 11.4 9.0 33.936927,

–118.098751 512,600   

10 LA 10 W Francisquito Ave/Vineland Ave 31.3 34.9 34.069011,

–117.971555 484,300   

11 LA 105 E Long Beach Blvd 11.9 8.0 33.9226491666667,

–118.205176166667 476,300   

12 LA 210 E Huntington Ave 33.4 28.8 34.1388025,

–118.01522775 468,500  

13 LA 405 N Santa Monica Blvd 54.7 51.9 34.047963,

–118.44737 427,500   

14 LA 10 E I–110 12.7 9.9 34.038052,

–118.274457 424,800   

15 ORA 405 N Brookhurst 13.7 10.6 33.70672075,

–117.95581375 411,200  

Table 5 Top 100 Bottlenecks

Legend: Very Active Somewhat Active − Not Active
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 13

Rank County Route Direction Bottleneck Location

Absolute Postmiles

Latitude/ Longtitude

Total 

Annual 

Delay

Active During...

Bottleneck Queue End AM Mid– 

Day PM

16 LA 5 N SR–110/Riverside Dr 137.7 133.4 34.086881,

–118.233611 400,400   

17 LA 405 N National Blvd 52.3 48.6 34.019085,

–118.423757 397,300  

18 LA 110 S Third St 23.0 27.1 34.055433,

–118.256754 396,800   

19 LA 101 N Haskell Ave 19.0 16.9 34.165132,

–118.474715 377,200  

20 LA 60 E SR–57/Brea Canyon/Lemon 23.5 18.4 33.999118625,

–117.852625875 367,100  

21 LA 405 S Howard Hughes Pkwy 48.7 53.2 33.976541,

–118.387273 357,300 

22 LA 101 N Lankershim Blvd/Universal Studios 11.2 9.1 34.1346145,

–118.356871 355,400 

23 LA 60 E San Gabriel Blvd/Paramount Blvd 8.4 3.9 34.03835525,

–118.083823583333 338,900  

24 LA 60 W Soto St 0.6 3.2 34.029636,

–118.217534 326,900   

25 LA 101 S Laurel Canyon 14.1 15.9 34.154314,

–118.394541 313,400   

26 LA 5 N Pioneer Blvd 121.9 118.8 33.921738,

–118.082976333333 306,900   

27 LA 170 N Arleta 7.4 5.7 34.230591,

–118.409589 306,000  

28 ORA 5 N E 17th St 104.6 102.2 33.76017875,

–117.86166025 305,400  

29 LA 10 W Westwood 4.0 7.6 34.031903,

–118.4213 300,700   

30 ORA 55 S Victoria 2.8 5.7 33.651901,

–117.908673 300,300  

TABLE 5 Top 100 Bottlenecks Continued

Legend: Very Active Somewhat Active − Not Active
 14 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

Rank County Route Direction Bottleneck Location

Absolute Postmiles

Latitude/ Longtitude

Total 

Annual 

Delay

Active During...

Bottleneck Queue End AM Mid– 

Day PM

31 LA 210 E Azusa/Pasadena 40.2 37.5 34.1207266666667,

–117.904954333333 298,800   

32 LA 110 N Washington Blvd 21.3 14.1 34.037093,

–118.274088 297,700   

33 LA 405 N Inglewood Ave 42.2 37.5 33.89154575,

–118.36196925 280,800  

34 LA 405 N Montana 56.2 50.9 34.065808,

–118.460396 273,100  

35 LA 101 S Coldwater Canyon 15.1 17.6 34.156627,

–118.412272 270,000   

36 LA 57 S Sunset Crossing 16.9 18.6 34.029739,

–117.811086 269,600   

37 LA 405 N Nordhoff 68.6 65.8 34.237367,

–118.472933 269,500  

38 LA 405 S Wilmington 33.2 41.0 33.825757,

–118.24005 268,600 

39 LA 101 S Louise 21.1 24.0 34.171083,

–118.510919 262,300  

40 LA 5 S Alondra Ave 118.6 122.4 33.8915495,

–118.0428305 259,000  

41 LA 134 W Vineland 0.4 2.3 34.153052,

–118.36974 257,500   

42 LA 134 E I–5 5.7 3.0 34.15272175,

–118.2801205 248,600  

43 LA 405 S I–605 24.1 27.7 33.786942,

–118.094686 248,000 

44 LA 5 N Guatemala 126.1 119.9 33.971763,

–118.122905 243,600  

45 LA 101 S Barham Dr 10.7 15.1 34.129747,

–118.348132 242,800   

TABLE 5 Top 100 Bottlenecks Continued

Legend: Very Active Somewhat Active − Not Active
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 15

Rank County ROUTE Direction Bottleneck Location

Absolute Postmiles

Latitude/ Longtitude

Total 

Annual 

Delay

Active During...

Bottleneck Queue End AM Mid– 

Day PM

46 LA 101 S Balboa Ave 20.8 22.0 34.171202,

–118.503926 239,500   

47 LA 60 E San Gabriel Blvd/Paramount Blvd 7.9 4.3 34.03634725,

–118.09134175 237,400  

48 LA 110 S I–405 8.6 12.1 33.855273,

–118.2849 232,800   

49 LA 10 W Arlington 10.1 11.3 34.036614,

–118.31917 230,800   

50 LA 110 S Vernon 18.8 21.3 34.002226,

–118.28122 229,700   

51 LA 405 N Pico / Olympic 53.9 51.7 34.038204,

–118.439159 226,100   

52 LA 405 N National Blvd 52.9 47.5 34.026728,

–118.429807 224,700  

53 LA 10 E San Pedro St 14.1 10.5 34.028118,

–118.253469 217,600  

54 LA 91 E Studebaker 11.4 8.5 33.876279,

–118.095037 215,000   

55 LA 405 S Lucerne St 33.8 35.6 33.826193,

–118.24972 214,400  

56 LA 5 N Calzona 131.8 130.0 34.021135,

–118.195375 213,900  

57 LA 110 S Gage 17.3 19.8 33.980182,

–118.281036 212,600  

58 LA 10 W Robertson 5.7 9.4 34.029948,

–118.392928 212,200   

59 LA 210 W Citrus 40.5 43.6 34.121161,

–117.896071 207,700 

60 LA 405 N Rosecrans Ave 42.9 36.9 33.900921,

–118.370315 206,000  

TABLE 5 Top 100 Bottlenecks Continued

Legend: Very Active Somewhat Active − Not Active
 16 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

Rank County Route Direction Bottleneck Location

Absolute Postmiles

Latitude/ Longtitude

Total 

Annual 

Delay

Active During...

Bottleneck Queue End AM Mid– 

Day PM

61 ORA 405 S Jeffrey Rd 3.6 6.5 33.6630485,

–117.793856 205,800  

62 LA 2 W San Fernando Rd 8.5 10.6 34.112548,

–118.245533 204,600 

63 ORA 5 S El Toro 90.9 93.8 33.614654,

–117.707825 203,700 

64 LA 60 W Crossroads 13.0 17.0 34.029247,

–118.008439 201,400   

65 LA 605 N I–10 21.6 19.7 34.054653,

–118.00395 197,100  

66 RIV 91 E Lincoln Ave Off/Maple St On 42.9 38.7 33.881507,

–117.588822916667 196,100  

67 LA 101 S Silver Lake 5.1 7.4 34.076926,

–118.280908 195,400   

68 LA 91 W Pioneer Blvd 11.9 14.4 33.8765586666667,

–118.081886333333 191,500   

69 LA 10 E I–605 29.8 26.6 34.065326,

–117.997535 189,700  

70 LA 405 S Jefferson 49.6 53.1 33.986242,

–118.398076 189,300  

71 LA 57 S Brea Canyon 13.2 17.2 33.960374,

–117.856055 188,800 

72 SBD 15 S Jurupa 107.7 109.6 34.047527,

–117.550244 179,000   

73 LA 5 N Dorris 138.1 132.7 34.090311,

–118.238626 179,000   

74 LA 210 W Santa Anita Ave 32.0 34.5 34.1481325,

–118.032958 178,800   

75 LA 105 W Normandie 6.0 7.9 33.926754,

–118.304542 177,200  

TABLE 5 Top 100 Bottlenecks Continued

Legend: Very Active Somewhat Active − Not Active
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 17

Rank County Route Direction Bottleneck Location

Absolute Postmiles

Latitude/ Longtitude

Total 

Annual 

Delay

Active During...

Bottleneck Queue End AM Mid– 

Day PM

76 LA 5 N Stadium Way 138.4 131.9 34.094038,

–118.242314 177,100 

77 LA 105 E Wilmington 9.7 7.1 33.928223,

–118.240518 177,100   

78 ORA 57 S SR–22/I–5 0.2 2.9 33.777415,

–117.874735 173,600  

79 LA 101 N Argyle 8.6 6.0 34.105922,

–118.327165 172,300 

80 ORA 405 S Warner Ave 14.3 17.6 33.714376,

–117.96538225 172,200  

81 ORA 5 N Anaheim Way/Katella Av 108.7 106.1 33.8051606666667,

–117.903963 171,100 

82 LA 101 S Rampart 4.6 7.4 34.074797,

–118.273463 169,200   

83 LA 10 E Vincent Blvd 34.4 31.7 34.072202,

–117.917964 168,800 

84 LA 5 S Fourth 134.0 135.7 34.041407,

–118.218373 168,800  

85 LA 60 W Workman Mill Rd 12.2 17.1 34.03138,

–118.02126 166,900   

86 LA 101 N Broadway 2.4 0.5 34.056973,

–118.242279 165,800   

87 LA 5 S Lakewood Bl 124.8 128.9 33.956897,

–118.110532 165,500  

88 LA 605 S Telegraph 12.4 14.7 33.950974,

–118.091381 160,300   

89 LA 110 N Vernon 19.1 15.4 34.006152,

–118.280854 155,500   

90 RIV 215 S Blaine St 34.1 35.3 33.982732,

–117.342665 154,400  

TABLE 5 Top 100 Bottlenecks Continued

Legend: Very Active Somewhat Active − Not Active
 18 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

Rank County Route Direction Bottleneck Location

Absolute Postmiles

Latitude/ Longtitude

Total 

Annual 

Delay

Active During...

Bottleneck Queue End AM Mid– 

Day PM

91 LA 405 S Truck Scale 35.6 37.8 33.845636,

–118.269942 154,200  

92 LA 105 E Yukon 4.2 2.4 33.924911,

–118.335537 153,700  

93 LA 405 S I–105 43.9 45.4 33.914766,

–118.370486 152,500  

94 RIV 91 E Mckinley Ave 46.6 44.5 33.8863645,

–117.51748625 152,000  

95 ORA 5 N Jamboree Rd 99.8 97.7 33.719344,

–117.7944745 151,400   

96 ORA 55 N Warner Ave 8.6 6.2 33.716619,

–117.843611 142,300  

97 LA 110 N King 19.4 14.9 34.010617,

–118.280787 141,600  

98 LA 710 N Washington Blvd 17.2 15.1 34.0005296666667,

–118.174889833333 140,900   

99 LA 5 N I–210 160.7 159.1 34.320108,

–118.4945 140,900  

100 ORA 5 S 1st St 103.1 104.4 33.745553,

–117.842538 140,500   

TABLE 5 Top 100 Bottlenecks Continued

Legend: Very Active Somewhat Active − Not Active
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 19

Demand Management (TDM), and also to reduce the dependence on SOV travel. The 

common goals of TSM are to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality and reduce or 

eliminate the need to construct new and expensive transportation infrastructure.

CORRIDOR SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLANS

In 2006, California initiated the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) to improve 

the state highway system. CMIA program guidelines require the development of Corridor 

System Management Plans (CSMPs) for those projects receiving CMIA funding, to ensure 

that mobility improvements are maintained over time. 

CSMPs provide a framework for long-term corridor management, with a focus on 

operational improvements. The intention of the CSMP effort is to continually monitor system 

performance and identify system improvements that are lower-cost, relatively quick to 

implement, and less capital-intensive than major corridor widening and expansion projects. 

In the SCAG region, CSMPs were developed by Caltrans for I–5 (two segments) and I–405 

in Los Angeles County; I-5, SR-55, SR–57, SR–91, and SR–22/I–405/I–605 in Orange 

County; SR–91 and I–215 in Riverside County; I–10 and I–215 in San Bernardino County; 

and US–101 in Ventura County . SCAG contributed funding toward the I–405 CSMP in Los 

Angeles County, as well as toward the I–210 CSMP undertaken as part of the Governor’s Go 

California initiative.

The CSMP development efforts began with a comprehensive assessment of corridor 

performance and the identification of congestion points called bottlenecks. This 

information was shared and verified with the stakeholders along the corridors. To address 

the bottlenecks, operational and minor capacity improvement projects were developed 

with input from stakeholders. These proposed improvements were analyzed using 

microsimulation models that were created specifically for the corridors. The potential 

improvements include ITS technologies, ramp metering, auxiliary lanes, ramp and 

interchange improvements and incident management.

Including improvements proposed in the CSMPs, the 2016 RTP/SCS earmarks $9.2 billion 

for TSM improvements, such as extensive advanced ramp metering, enhanced incident 

management, bottleneck removal to improve flow (e.g. auxiliary lanes), expanding the 

integration of our traffic signal synchronization network, and data collection to monitor 

system performance. 

This suggests that less built-out and developed areas experience more non-recurrent 

congestion because there is much less constant and general predictable congestion. 

Orange County has nearly equal levels of recurrent and non-recurrent congestion, and Los 

Angeles County is the only county in the SCAG region that has more recurrent congestion, 

at 58 percent of the time. Imperial County is part of Caltrans District 11 along with San 

Diego County, and was not included in the analysis. (Note: The actual percentage is likely 

exaggerated, due to the manner in which PeMS handles some data; more research is needed 

to verify this assessment.)

CMP TOOLBOX AND STRATEGIES

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT

Transportation Systems Management (TSM) employs a series of techniques designed to 

maximize the capacity and efficiency of the existing transportation system and its facilities 

by increasing its supply via Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and Transportation 

Figure 6 Recurrent vs. Non–Recurrent Congestion (2011 4th Qtr.)

Imperial Los 

Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino

Ventura SCAG 

Region

Data not

available

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Recurrent Delay Non-Recurrent Delay
 20 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

day. Metro implemented its first Metro Rapid lines in 2000 that use Transit Signal Priority 

(TSP) provided by the ATSAC system. These technologies have advanced to provide 

Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) services for dispatching and operations management of 

public transit buses, taxicabs, Uber, Lyft and many other transportation systems. They also 

now provide very accurate traffic speed and incident information for travel time and routing 

options, and provide transit and shared-ride users accurate, real-time arrival and departure 

information. In addition, the four Caltrans Districts (7, 8, 11 and 12) and most medium to 

large sized jurisdictions have Traffic Management Centers (TMCs) for their traffic signaling 

systems, and to manage natural and manmade disasters if that need were to arise.

ARTERIAL, HIGHWAY AND FREEWAY ITS STRATEGIES

SYSTEM MANAGEMENT – System Management is a multi-pronged approach to 

addressing congestion that includes adding new capacity, maintaining its infrastructure, 

investing in and encouraging the use of alternate modes such as transit and rail, and 

Transportation Management Systems (TMS) and strategies. System management aims to 

restore lost capacity by adopting operational improvement investments that adjust highway 

infrastructure to reduce bottlenecks. 

TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (TMS) – TMS strategies essential for 

improved operations include traffic control, traveler information and incident management.

z Ramp metering is a traffic control signal strategy for managing traffic flow on 

freeways by regulating the traffic entering the freeway or moving from one 

freeway to another through the use of control devices on entrance ramps or 

freeway connectors. 

z Adaptive ramp metering is a traffic response type of ramp metering that seeks 

to optimize a multiple-ramp section of a highway, often with the control of flow 

through a bottleneck as the ultimate goal. In a coordinated metering plan, the 

metering rates of a ramp are determined based on the prevailing traffic conditions 

of an extended section of roadway.

z Advanced Traffic Management systems are operational improvement strategies 

with business processes that rely heavily on technology to manage growing 

congestion. These processes include traffic control, traveler information and 

incident management. 

z Variable Speed Limits are speed limits that change using electronic signs based on 

road, traffic and weather conditions intended to reduce secondary collisions

INTEGRATED CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT (ICM) – ICM is the integration and operational 

coordination of multiple transportation networks and cross-network connections comprising 

a corridor and the institutional coordination of those agencies and entities responsible for 

SYSTEM MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES

Caltrans, SCAG and county partners have worked together to improve the efficiency 

of our highways and arterials. Initiatives related to maximizing the productivity of 

our roadways include:

z In Orange County, Caltrans completed the Corridor System Management Plans 

(CSMPs), which identify operational strategies to improve the productivity on 

highway corridors. CSMPs were completed for State Routes 22, 55, 57, 91 and 

Interstates 5, 405 and 605 in Orange County.

z In Los Angeles, Caltrans, in coordination with Los Angeles Metro and various cities, 

have embarked on the first Integrated Corridor Management project on Interstate 

210. This project aims to minimize congestion due to collisions and is referred to 

as the Connected Corridors initiative. Over the next 10 years, Caltrans plans to 

implement similar projects on 25 additional congested corridors statewide.

z Arterial Signal Synchronization projects have been completed on various arterials 

through the region to optimize traffic flow.

z In Los Angeles, Caltrans also began working on another corridor management 

initiative on Interstate 110 to coordinate highway ramp metering with arterial 

signals. This project is referred to as the Dynamic Corridor Congestion 

Management (DCCM) initiative.

z Various efforts have been completed to inform the traveling public of expected 

travel times to various destinations, and in some cases provide travel time 

comparisons with transit.

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) make use of advanced detection, communications 

and computing technology to improve the safety and efficiency of our surface transportation 

network. ITS is a program of technology applications and integration that allows system 

operators and users to better manage and optimize the use of transportation system 

capacity. ITS allows for the use of information technologies to collect data about the 

status of our highways, traffic signals, transit vehicles, freight vehicles, passenger trains 

and shared-ride vehicles and integrates that data in ways that affect and improve the 

efficiency of the system.

ITS systems are not new to the SCAG region. Systems like the City of Los Angeles 

Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) computer–based signal system have 

been in place since first installed around the L.A. Coliseum for the 1984 Olympics. ATSAC 

assists in optimizing signal timing to accommodate varying traffic demands throughout the 
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 21

incident durations. Incident management strategies include enhanced incident management 

systems that entail upgrading or enhancing the current incident management system 

to include deployment of ITS field devices, central control/communications software, 

communications medium (e.g., fiber optics), advanced traveler information systems, 

and/or freeway service patrols to reduce incident detection, verification response, 

and clearance times. 

TRAVELER INFORMATION SYSTEMS – Traveler Information Systems provide travelers 

with information in two categories, pre–trip and en–route, using existing and evolving 

technologies such as changeable message signs, weather detection/warning, information 

kiosks, highway advisory radio, etc. Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) include 

traveler information dispensed through 511 and other mobile systems that empower travelers 

to manage their trips in the most efficient manner.

RAIL ITS STRATEGIES

POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL (PTC) – PTC is a set of highly advanced technologies 

designed to automatically stop a train before certain types of accidents occur. Specifically, 

PTC, as mandated by Congress in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA, P.L. 110-

432, 2000), must prevent train-to-train collisions, derailments caused by excessive speed, 

unauthorized incursions by trains onto sections of track where maintenance activities are 

taking place, and movement of a train through a track switch left in the wrong position. PTC 

will not prevent accidents caused as a result of track or equipment failure, improper vehicular 

movement through a grade crossing, trespassing on railroad tracks, and some types of 

train operator error.

PTC is a sophisticated, predictive system that works to prevent accidents. The technology 

must account for a number of factors to measure the appropriate train stopping distance, 

including train information (weight, length); track composition (curvature, terrain); train 

speed; and train authority (authorization to move across a stretch of track). There are three 

main elements of a PTC system, which are integrated by a wireless communications system:

z Onboard or Locomotive System – This system monitors the train’s position and 

speed and activates braking as necessary to enforce speed restrictions and 

unauthorized train movement into new sections of track.

z Wayside System – The wayside system monitors railroad track signals, switches 

and track circuits to communicate authorization for movement to the locomotive.

z Back Office Server (BOS) – The BOS is the storehouse for all information related 

to the rail network and trains operating across it — speed limits, track composition, 

speed of individual locomotives, train composition, etc. — and transmits the 

authorization for individual trains to move into new segments of track.2

corridor mobility. It enables agencies to see the overall impact of multimodal transportation 

network management decisions and to optimize the movement of people and goods within 

the corridor instead of just on individual networks. 

ACTIVE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (ATM) is a congestion management approach that 

dynamically manages recurrent and non-recurrent congestion based on prevailing traffic 

conditions. This congestion management approach consists of a combination of operational 

strategies that, when implemented in concert, fully optimize the existing infrastructure and 

provide measureable benefits to the transportation network and the motoring public. These 

strategies include speed harmonization, temporary shoulder use, junction control and 

dynamic signing and rerouting.

ARTERIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS – Arterial Management Systems manage traffic 

along arterial roadways, employing traffic detectors, traffic signals and various means of 

communicating information to travelers. These systems make use of information collected 

by traffic surveillance devices to smooth the flow of traffic along travel corridors.

z Advanced Signal Actuation strategies include coordinated signal operations across 

neighboring jurisdictions with freeway ramp meters, as well as centralized control 

of traffic signals. 

z Coordinated Signal Timing/Signal Synchronization is a traffic signal operations 

strategy that promotes the smooth flow of traffic along an arterial to minimize 

stops, avoid congestion and minimize fuel consumption and air quality impacts 

resulting from the acceleration and idling of vehicles. This is done by calculating 

the arrival time for a group of vehicles at each intersection traveling at a specified 

speed, and then the traffic signals are strategically timed to turn green just as the 

group of vehicles arrives at each intersection. In order for the traffic signals to be 

synchronized, a group of signals must all be set to run on the same cycle length. 

z Traffic Signal Priority/Preemption (TSP) TSP is a strategy of giving special 

signal timing treatment to transit vehicles or emergency vehicles at signalized 

intersections. Normal operation of traffic lights is preempted green to allow 

emergency vehicles to help reduce response times and enhance safety. 

Signal preemption for transit systems allows public transportation priority 

access through intersections or at crossings to prevent collisions and increase 

passenger throughput.

z Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) System is the centralized 

adaptive traffic signal control system for the City of Los Angeles. The system 

provides real-time monitoring and adjustment of signal timing for nearly 4,400 

signalized intersections citywide. 

INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS – Incident Management Systems are a combination 

of policies and strategies that effectively coordinate the available resources to reduce 
 22 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

vehicles communicate with each other and roadway infrastructure such as traffic signals 

and roadway sensors.

Connected vehicles are vehicles that use communication technologies to communicate 

with the driver, other vehicles (vehicle-to-vehicle [V2V]), roadside infrastructure (vehicleto-infrastructure [V2I]), and the Cloud. ACVs improve vehicle efficiency, commute times 

and safety. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) has defined vehicle automation into five levels:

z No-Automation (Level 0) – The driver is in complete and sole control of the 

primary vehicle controls – brake, steering, throttle and motive power – at all times.

z Function–Specific Automation (Level 1) – Automation at this level involves 

one or more specific control functions. Examples include electronic stability 

control or pre-charged brakes, where the vehicle automatically assists with 

braking to enable the driver to regain control of the vehicle or stop faster than 

possible by acting alone.

z Combined Function Automation (Level 2) – This level involves automation of at 

least two primary control functions designed to work in unison to relieve the driver 

of control of those functions. An example of combined functions enabling a Level 2 

system is adaptive cruise control in combination with lane centering.

z Limited Self-Driving Automation (Level 3) – Vehicles at this level of automation 

enable the driver to cede full control of all safety-critical functions under certain 

traffic or environmental conditions and in those conditions to rely heavily on the 

vehicle to monitor for changes in those conditions requiring transition back to 

driver control. The driver is expected to be available for occasional control, but with 

sufficiently comfortable transition time. The second-generation Google car is an 

example of limited self-driving automation.

z Full Self–Driving Automation (Level 4) – The vehicle is designed to perform all 

safety-critical driving functions and monitor roadway conditions for an entire trip. 

Such a design anticipates that the driver will provide destination or navigation 

input, but is not expected to be available for control at any time during the trip. This 

includes both occupied and unoccupied vehicles. The third-generation Google car 

is an example of full self-driving automation. Vehicles with level 4 automation may 

also be referred to autonomous vehicles.  

Only Level 2 is currently in operation, however, the federal government and manufacturers 

are now developing, and testing Level 4 automation technologies on public roads in certain 

states that have passed enabling legislation which includes California.3

TRANSIT ITS STRATEGIES

AUTOMATIC VEHICLE LOCATION (AVL) – AVL systems detect bus locations, direction, 

speed and arrival and departure information. AVL systems enable:

z the monitoring of bus performance to increase operational efficiency; 

z improved safety and security; and 

z enhanced customer information such as real-time arrival and departure 

information and trip planning that increase ridership and customer satisfaction.

 AVL systems are often used in conjunction with TSP systems to improve running times and 

reduce delays to reduce operational costs and inefficiencies, and are a primary component 

of BRT and BRT Light systems.

TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY (TSP) – TSP gives transit vehicles signal priority to improve 

passenger throughput and bus speed. These are either hard-wired loop detection systems 

or wireless systems. Most commonly, the green phase is extended to allow a transit vehicle 

through the intersection.

ADVANCED PASSENGER COUNTING SYSTEMS (APCS) – These systems automatically 

count boarding and alighting passengers. The boardings are acquired through the fare 

payment transactions or with APCs, while the alightings must be acquired through APCs. 

APCs allow for a total population of boardings and alightings to be recorded by a transit 

operator, resulting in optimal route scheduling and planning.

SMART CARDS/ELECTRONIC FARE SYSTEMS – Smart card systems speed boarding, 

reduce stop dwell time, and reduce fraud and fare evasion. They also improve in origin/

destination information for optimal planning and scheduling. Smart cards may also have a 

cash purse that can be used for non-transit, retail transactions.

TRAVELER INFORMATION SYSTEMS – Traveler Information Systems include trip 

planning software, and real-time arrival and departure information for the transit customer.

AUTOMATED AND CONNECTED VEHICLES

Automated and connected vehicle (ACV) technologies involve less driver input and in the 

future completely driverless vehicles that will have the potential to reduce congestion 

through better optimization of transportation facility supply by enabling more vehicles to 

use existing infrastructure and also improve safety. Some automated and connected vehicle 

technologies are already available, but these are only a fraction of what will be available 

in the future. ACV technology includes the ability to rely on digital maps and on-board 

sensing to operate without any driver input, and connected vehicle operation is where 
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 23

There also are existing programs between Los Angeles and our region’s railroads (SCRRA, 

UP, and BNSF) that implemented an interface standard between the rail warning circuit 

controller and traffic signal controller (this interface standard is known as IEEE 1570–2002) 

for the purpose of establishing a “supervised communication circuit.” This standard has 

been promulgated by California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and is now reflected 

in both the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the American Railway 

Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA). An extended application of 

this standard involves the application of Advance Preemption, which allows the traffic signal 

to complete the pedestrian timing for conflicting crosswalks prior to trains arriving at the rail 

crossing. This extension, however, requires the railroad circuitry be designed in such a way, 

or be modified. This extended application is now common for active signalized intersections 

near rail crossings, including light rail. 

SCAG’S ROLE

SCAG has a critical role in the development and management of ITS in the region. As 

the MPO, SCAG is charged with developing and maintaining the Southern California 

Regional ITS Architecture. This architecture is the regional planning tool for ensuring a 

cooperative process to prioritize and deploy ITS technologies and for identifying critical 

data connections between institutional stakeholders. This architecture assists the region in 

deploying ITS systems that are truly integrated and able to share information among many 

agencies in consistent and compatible formats to achieve improved safety and efficiency 

of transportation operations. SCAG works closely with the CTCs, local governments and 

Caltrans Districts to update and maintain the regional architecture, and to assure the use of 

required systems, engineering requirements and applicable standards, which are required 

when federal funds are used on ITS projects.

EXISTING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND OPERATIONAL 

IMPACTS FROM ITS

ITS technologies are not a separate transportation mode, but they are a means of assuring 

that our existing transportation system is being managed and operated at maximum 

effectiveness to increase capacity. An example is ramp metering of freeways, which is 

designed to assess the optimal flow rate (highest achievable capacity) of the facility and 

adjusts freeway on-ramp metering to administer incoming vehicles in such a way that 

minimizes flow disruption to the freeway facility. Today, sub-optimal flow on our freeways 

and arterials, so-called “stop and–go traffic,” creates significant losses to design capacity 

and contributes to time delays and economic loses to travelers. ITS technologies allow us 

to observe, confirm and proactively address these losses in operational efficiency. This 

allows for rapid response to clear incidents and accidents, adjust ramp metering rates, 

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

ROADWAYS

The Southern California freeway system has an extensive ITS system that covers most 

of the urbanized portion of our region. Loop detectors in the pavement and video cameras 

provide information on speed and volume, and identify congestion and incidents which 

are fed to Caltrans/California Highway Patrol (CHP) TMCs. The TMCs are manned 24/7 

by CHP and Caltrans personnel, and monitor and respond to changes in traffic conditions, 

including both planned events and emergencies. Information is conveyed to the public via 

radio, the Internet, and through changeable message signs located throughout the freeway 

system. These capabilities allow Caltrans to respond quickly to incidents and allow the 

public to adjust their travel plans. In addition to these “hard-wired” systems, freeway, 

highway and arterial speeds and incidents are provided by cell phone providers and 

companies such as Google.

Arterial ITS systems are in place throughout the SCAG region as well. Local arterial systems 

include advanced signal synchronization capabilities to increase vehicular throughput which 

also have the ability to detect and respond to changes in traffic volume or direction of travel, 

and manage incidents. Like the freeway network, these systems include loop and video 

detection and also rely on wireless data such as that provided by Google.

TRANSIT

Most medium to large scale fixed-route and Dial-a-Ride operators have implemented four of 

the five transit ITS components, with the exception of TSP. TSP, however, is an integral part 

of Metro’s Metro Rapid program that has 20 routes: Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus, Culver 

City Bus and Torrance Transit have Rapid lines that employ TSP as well. These TSP systems 

are a combination of hard-wired loop technology as well as wireless technology.

Metro has also implemented smart card technology through its “TAP Card” system. This 

includes most of the large municipal bus operators (Munis) in L.A. County that receive federal 

funding. Some have yet to implement the TAP system as expensive hardware upgrades are 

necessary such as fareboxes.

The region also has “5-1-1” traveler information systems in place (similar in concept to 

9-1-1) administered by the CTCs which allow for a one-stop multi-media contact point for 

all traveler information services. The 5-1-1 system is part of a national initiative to create a 

national system of traveler information services.

RAIL

The Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) implemented PTC for its entire 

system in 2015 — the first commuter railroad in the nation to do so. The two large freight 

companies in our region, BNSF and UP, are also in the process of implementing it.
 24 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES

Maintain and update the Regional ITS Architecture to ensure eligibility of federal funding 

from state-of-the–art ITS technologies for regional stakeholders.

z Continue the development of a Regional Configuration Management process 

among CTCs, Caltrans Districts, ports and local governments to ensure consistent 

and compatible integration of ITS technologies and interoperable operations.

z Identify funding sources for transportation system operations and management 

strategies, including ITS, to ensure optimal operation of the existing and future 

transportation system in the region. This will be coordinated with the CTCs, 

Caltrans and other agencies implementing ITS technology.

z Implement near-term ITS priorities to improve the safety and efficiency of the 

current transportation system, including ramp metering, increased freeway 

detection, monitoring of goods movement operations, advanced traveler 

information systems/5-1-1/goods movement information systems, transit vehicle 

location and real-time schedule adherence, Rapid Bus systems, computer-based 

signal timing systems, interconnection between roadway traffic signals and 

railroad signal systems, automated fare collection, and toll collection technologies.

z Identify ITS base systems for future integrated freeway and corridor 

management strategies, including potential congestion pricing systems and High 

Occupancy Toll Lanes.

z Mainstream ITS investments and make ITS systems part of the capital investment 

in new projects to ensure optimal operations of new transportation investments.

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and the related TSM rose to prominence in the 

1970s and 1980s as cost-effective alternatives to road capacity expansions. TDM strategies 

are of two kinds: voluntary, or “soft,” strategies — such as preferential parking for carpoolers 

— that aim to lure some to alter their travel behavior in response to voluntary inducements, 

and “hard” strategies — such as increased parking pricing — that shift the behavior of a 

large number of travelers by changing the price of travel. TDM also can include regulatory 

strategies, such as regional employer ridesharing mandates. The SCAG region has been 

home to some of the more innovative and successful TDM efforts over the years. Some 

examples include rideshare programs, parking cash out and park-and-ride lots. 

Careful evaluations of these and other efforts around the U.S. have shown that soft TDM 

strategies can be very effective in reducing SOV travel at the scale of a large employment 

site. However, that the staying power of soft TDM strategies can fade over time without 

constant attention from employers or the accompaniment of hard TDM strategies. Hard TDM 

identify bottlenecks and slow approaching traffic to reduce collisions that would further 

diminish the system’s optimal flow rate capacity. Similarly, traffic signal systems on 

arterials are monitored for the proper timing of signal phases, traffic volumes and changes 

on arterials, and optimal timing plans are introduced to maximize arterial flow and minimize 

unnecessary delay. In addition to freeway on-ramp metering, Caltrans has installed 

freeway-to-freeway metering in some locations such as the I–210 and SR 57, and the I–105 

and I–605 interchanges.

FUTURE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

ITS plays a critical role in the operation and management strategies designed to increase the 

efficiency of the existing transportation system. The 2016 RTP/SCS allocates $9.2 billion in 

TSM measures, which includes ITS. 

The region will continue to update the capabilities of Caltrans TMCs, expand ramp 

metering and corridor management strategies, fill loop detection gaps, increase the use 

of signal system controls, and increase and improve the technical capabilities for transit 

bus and rail systems. ITS systems are not modeled directly as a mode in the regional 

travel demand model, but comparative studies of the impacts show significant travel time 

savings on arterials and highways, as well as improvement in the effective flow rates of 

our freeways. Transit ITS systems also help in increasing the OTP of public transit services 

through better scheduling.

ITS will play an increasing role in regional goods movement strategies. The Ports of Los 

Angeles and Long Beach are using ITS technologies, specifically AVL, as a major component 

in their highly successful air quality mitigation strategies. Advanced monitoring assists 

in achieving system efficiencies in the ports and intermodal operations, reducing delays 

and waiting times at gates and destinations, and allowing for more flexible dispatching, all 

of which reduce emissions. Weigh-in motion systems and enhanced detection will allow 

for better enforcement of commercial vehicles rules, reducing pavement damage and 

identifying critical paths for goods movement planning in the future. For more information on 

ITS strategies for goods movement, please see the Goods Movement Appendix.

ITS systems allow for enhanced capabilities to protect the transportation system and 

respond to emergencies. One goal of the 2016 RTP/SCS is to integrate transportation 

system information into a shared use capacity with emergency service responders. Visual 

safety systems, detection, AVL and the ability to share this information with public safety 

agencies will assist in deterring, preparing for, responding to and recovering from manmade 

security events and natural disasters. These technologies, although in place to manage the 

transportation system, can assist in providing a deterrence to crime and terrorism, as well as 

assist in major incident responses such as road closure or other events requiring the close 

coordination of evacuation vehicles.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 25

 Promotion and expansion of Guaranteed Ride Home programs

 Incentives for telecommuting and flexible work schedules

 Integrated mobility hubs and first/last mile strategies

 Incentives for employees who bike and walk to work

 Investments in active transportation infrastructure

 Investments in Safe Routes to School programs and infrastructure

RIDESHARING

The SCAG region continues to invest heavily in High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) and Express 

Lane (High Occupancy Toll) infrastructure, which provide incentives for commuters to share 

rides with others or take express transit services. CTCs and large employers in our region 

provide carpool and vanpool matching services and sometimes subsidies. Many large 

employers have GRH programs to act as an additional incentive for employees to carpool 

and vanpool. If they need to get home early due to an emergency of for some other reason, or 

have to stay late, they don’t have to worry about not having their car at work.

CARPOOLING AND VANPOOLING

Carpooling is when two or more people share a ride, traditionally to work, but also for other 

trip purposes. Carpooling has been a TDM strategy for a long time, and can save people 

significant amounts of financial resources because one car is being used instead of two 

or three. In the case where two people would be using two cars for the same trip, VMTs 

are reduced by half, with the resulting decrease in congestion and air pollution and VMTs. 

CTCs in our region provide carpool matching services through their 511 databases. Many 

employers also provide employees with a financial incentive such as a monthly stipend. 

The 2016 RTP/SCS assumes a $1.2 billion incentive pilot program beginning in 2035 

and extending five years to 2040. This incentive program will encourage carpooling by 

providing an average subsidy of $5 per parking space, resulting in more than 436,000 

trips reduced per day.

Vanpooling is similar to carpooling, but vanpools generally involve more people. A vanpool is 

usually a group of five to 15 people who regularly travel together to work typically about 30 

miles or more (roundtrip) in a comfortable van at least 13 days out of the month. Typically, 

riders pay a monthly fare and maintenance fee, while drivers ride at a discounted rate in 

exchange for driving and maintaining the van. Many employers and CTCs have vanpool 

programs and subsidize them. All six counties in the SCAG region have vanpool programs 

subsidizing more than 2,000 vanpools as of the beginning of 2015. Subsidy rates typically 

range from 20 percent to 50 percent of the vanpool lease cost, or up to $400.00 in the case 

of Los Angeles and Orange counties.

strategies, such as road and parking pricing, have been shown to influence travel behavior 

more durably and, depending on the application, over much larger geographies.

This does not mean that soft TDM strategies should be dismissed and hard TDM strategies 

implemented. Precisely because the effects on travel behavior are so significant, hard 

strategies can be controversial and require significant analysis, consensus building 

and public education prior to implementation. However, pricing benefits have proven 

to be more sustainable over time and complement the integrated land use strategies 

adopted by the region.

In general, TDM strategies complement each other. More employees might use a 

transit subsidy or carpool and vanpool if a guaranteed ride home (GRH) program were 

in place in the event of a family emergency or unscheduled overtime. If the employer 

were to also implement a parking cash-out program, the number of transit users would 

likely increase further.

Effective TDM programs can increase choices for travelers, and reduce per capita non–

renewable energy consumption and emissions. When transit usage, carpooling, biking 

and walking increase, transportation system efficiency tends to increase, bringing many 

benefits to the region. Therefore, these benefits can justify substantial public expenditures 

on effectively implemented soft TDM programs, even absent regional congestion benefits. 

This appendix outlines the TDM strategies that the SCAG region has committed to investing 

in the 2016 RTP/SCS.

In summary, the 2016 RTP/SCS commits $6.9 billion to fully implement TDM strategies 

throughout the region, which is a $2.4 billion increase from the 2012 RTP/SCS. There are 

three main areas of focus:

z Reduce the number of SOV trips and overall VMT through ridesharing, which 

includes carpooling, vanpooling and supportive policies for ridesourcing services 

such as Uber and Lyft.

z Redistribute or eliminate vehicle trips from peak demand periods through 

incentives for telecommuting and alternative work schedules.

z Reduce the number of SOV trips through use of other modes of travel such as 

transit, rail, bicycling and walking.

z In addition, the following strategies expand and encourage implementation of TDM 

strategies to their fullest extent.

 Rideshare incentives and rideshare matching

 Parking management and parking cash-out policies

 Preferential parking or parking subsidies for carpoolers

 Intelligent parking programs
 26 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

INTELLIGENT PARKING

Intelligent parking assists drivers in efficiently locating parking spots through ITS and smart 

phone apps. Through a smart phone app, a driver can locate vacant or soon-to-be-vacant 

parking spots in parking facilities such as structures and on-street parking managed by 

cities. Intelligent parking can:

z reduce traffic congestion;

z decrease air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; and

z improve safety (because drivers are not distracted by hunting for spaces).

Intelligent parking can also increase the supply of parking through variable peak-period 

pricing. This variable peak-period pricing, coupled with advance information about parking 

availability, may encourage a mode shift to transit or active transportation as drivers 

determine that the price is to too high or learn in advance the challenge of finding available 

parking. In addition to parking location and supply information, intelligent parking smart 

apps can allow drivers to purchase parking remotely through their smart phones.

Intelligent parking includes Automated Parking, which improves the efficiency of parking 

structures by increasing capacity versus conventional parking structures. While increasing 

parking supply alone could result in an increase in personal vehicle trips, it reduces the 

need for conventional parking spaces in high parking demand areas, thereby freeing 

much–needed real estate for other uses. Automated parking systems can be implemented 

with intelligent parking and pricing to minimize negative externalities associated with 

increasing parking supply.

TELECOMMUTING/WORK–AT–HOME/FLEXIBLE WORK SCHEDULES

Increasing the number of workers who work-at-home (self-employed, home-based business 

owners) or who telecommute/telework (wage and salary employees conducting some or all 

of their work from home or remotely) decreases home-based work trips, VMT, congestion, air 

pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

Telecommuting/teleworking can be defined as working outside the traditional office 

or workplace, usually at home, but also remotely while traveling, at client/customer 

workplaces, libraries and other Internet accessible locations. Once thought of as a “magic 

bullet” for solving congestion problems, telecommuting is now seen as one of many TDM 

strategies to reduce congestion.

Flexible work schedules involve adjusting the hours an employee works, for example 

working 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., or 10:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. instead of 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 

It also includes 9/80 and 10/40 schedules, during which employees work nine, nine-hour 

days per pay period or eight, ten-hour days per pay period.

CARSHARE

Carshare involves membership-based programs in which individuals can sign up to have 

hourly access to a pool of vehicles and then return them to the same or a different place 

from where they were picked up. Unlike traditional car rentals, vehicles can be picked 

up at designated spots around the city, usually in public parking lots. Zipcar, recently 

acquired by Avis, is one of the more popular roundtrip platforms. One-way carshare allows 

members to take a vehicle and leave it at a different station, or anywhere within allowed 

boundaries. Zipcar recently added one-way service, and a new company, Car2go, has 

launched programs in San Diego and is looking to provide services in Long Beach and Los 

Angeles in our region.

There is also a new business model involving individuals with private cars who rent them out 

for certain periods of the day or month. Companies such as RelayRides and Getaround are 

facilitating this service. The most quoted analysis of the impact of carshare services shows 

that 9 to 13 vehicles are taken off the road for each car sharing vehicle.

SCAG and its partners will strengthen their efforts to encourage ridesharing and other trip 

reducing strategies that aim to reduce vehicle trips, energy consumption, air pollution and 

greenhouse gas emissions. Among these efforts are to:

z Encourage local governments to require parking cash out 

programs, where feasible.

z Encourage cities to reconsider minimum parking requirements 

in zoning ordinances.

z Encourage the development and viability of Transportation Management 

Organizations/Agencies at major employment locations throughout the region.

z Program public funds in the FTIP to educate employers and 

expand the GRH Program.

z Provide seamless intra- and inter-county vanpool and carpool services to 

the regional traveler.

z Encourage park-and-ride lots along suburban corridors, and in 

bedroom communities.

z Identify current dedicated funding sources and work with CTCs and partners on 

identifying additional new funding sources.

z Increase the number of commuter vanpools through more effective marketing and 

the provision of non-monetary public sector incentives.

z Maintain and sustain a regionally coordinated marketing strategy among the 

public and private sectors to enhance vanpool programs, increase ridership and 

improve outreach efforts.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 27

z Injuries at work, regardless of location, are covered under workers’ compensation

z Injuries at a home office are not usually witnessed, raising concerns about whether 

they are work-related

z The reasonable accommodation provision of ADA may require employers to pay 

for modifications to home offices or equipment

z Employers must not discriminate against non-disabled employees in establishing 

telecommuting programs

z Employees face complicated rules pertaining to home office tax deductions, 

federal and state wage laws, workers compensation, etc.

z The Fair Labor Standards Act establishes overtime and record-keeping 

requirements for the vast majority of workers

z Some categories of workers are exempt from the law (e.g., executive, 

administrative or professional positions)

z Most telecommuters may be exempt employees

Some literature argues that while flexible work schedules and telecommuting may reduce 

(or, in the case of satellite offices, reroute) SOV commute trips, it may actually increase 

SOV trips for other trip purposes, such as errands and trips for lunch while an employee is 

working from home (although not necessarily during peak congestion periods). It is also 

contended that telecommuting may encourage people to live farther from their workplaces 

than they would otherwise. It is assumed that these additional trips may be roughly six miles 

per day. SCAG estimates that 25 percent of total VMT saved through telecommuting is lost 

through these extra trips.

Based on ACS estimates for non-self-employed workers, the telecommute rate grew from 

1.8 percent of all workers in 2007 to 2.6 percent in 2013. As baby boomers continue to 

retire in increasing numbers, the average age of our region’s workforce will decrease at a 

higher rate than ever before. As younger, generally more tech-savvy workers take over the 

workforce and employers continue to embrace remote access capabilities where practical, 

we can expect to see a renewed increase in the percentage of workers who telecommute. 

This trend, together with 2016 RTP/SCS strategies and incentives designed to promote 

telecommuting, are expected to increase the overall telecommuting rate to 10 percent by 

2040. Among these strategies are to:

z Support and encourage ubiquitous high-speed internet access 

throughout the region

z Recommend changing taxation policies that might discourage working 

at home/telecommuting

z Promote how telecommuters can easily meet OSHA/ADA compliance 

via self-certification

According to GlowbalWorkplaceAnalytics.com:

z 2.6 percent of the U.S. employee workforce (3.3 million people, not including the 

self–employed or unpaid volunteers) considered home their primary place of work.

z The number of days per week that employee teleworkers (not including self–

employed) telecommuted increased 79.7 percent from 2005 to 2012, although 

the rate of growth slowed during the recession.

z While telecommuting grew by 3.8 percent from 2011 to 2012, the size of the 

overall non–self–employed workforce actually declined 1.5 percent. For the period 

from 2005 to 2012, the telecommuter population grew by 79.7 percent while the 

non-self-employed workforce grew by only 7.1 percent.

z The region with the fastest percentage growth in regular employee telecommuting 

was the Inland Empire, posting a 77 percent increase since 2005 (based 

on growth relative to the local total population; among populations with 

over 1 million workers).

In the SCAG region, about 5.0 percent of all workers telecommute or work from home on 

a daily basis according to the American Communities Survey (ACS). Separating out the 

self-employed, the number of full-time telecommuters in the SCAG region is closer to 2.6 

percent percent for 2013. Currently, telecommuting is limited to “knowledge-based” workers 

including some management functions. However, knowledge based workers exist in most 

industries, allowing some occasional telecommuting.

Various barriers exist that are likely slowing down the growth of increased telecommuting. 

In a 2001 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported several barriers 

to telecommuting that could slow its growth. In summary, various laws and regulations 

put in place before the advent of telecommuting create challenges, particularly potential 

state tax effects and related administrative burdens arising from interstate telecommuters, 

and uncertainty surrounding employer responsibility to provide safe workplaces when it 

involves home offices.

The GAO identified the following barriers: 

z Management concerns about supervising remote employees

z Security/privacy concerns

z State tax laws (when crossing state boundaries) and their impact on corporate tax 

rate, individual taxes and sales tax application

z Applicability of potential Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

requirements and/or Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance

z Workers’ compensation costs
 28 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

Some of the benefits of investing in transit and rail are:

z New and enhanced transit services that provide new commute choices for 

commuters and residents 

z Cleaner air and reduced congestion, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMTs) and 

greenhouse gas emissions.

z Facilitation of current and future smart growth and sustainable communities

z The ability of residents to choose a healthier, more active lifestyle

z The ability of residents who do not own a vehicle to remain mobile and active

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION AND FIRST/LAST MILE

First /last mile strategies are designed to increase the range and accessibility of transit and 

rail stations by increasing and enhancing bike and pedestrian facilities to them, and providing 

alternatives to access transit and rail stations other than driving alone. Strategies include 

adequate sidewalk facilities, bike facilities such as bike lanes and lockers, and bike sharing 

and ridesourcing services such as Uber and Lyft. These strategies can increase the effective 

catchment areas of transit and rail stations from less than 1⁄4 mile to ranges considerably 

greater. Many cities in our region are implementing first/last mile strategies. SCAG partnered 

with Metro on its 2015 First/Last Mile Strategic Plan that examines different rail and transit 

station types to develop recommendations tailored toward these particular station types. 

The result is that the most effective strategies can then be implemented where they are 

the most effective and economically feasible. Also, in 2013, OCTA completed the Nonmotorized Metrolink Accessibility Strategy to identify first/last mile active transportation 

improvements at each of Orange County’s 11 Metrolink stations. For a more detailed 

discussion of active transportation and first/last mile strategies, please refer to the Active 

Transportation Appendix.

BIKE SHARE

Bike Share is a service in which bicycles are made available for shared use to individuals on 

a short-term basis from one point to another. Many bike share systems offer subscriptions 

that make the first 30-45 minutes of use either free or very inexpensive, encouraging 

bicycling for short trips. This allows each bike to serve several users per day. Bike share 

systems also include smartphone apps to show nearby stations with bike and dock 

availability. Our region is lagging in implementing bike share, when compared with other 

metropolitan areas in the nation. The City of Santa Monica is implementing its bike share 

program in early 2016, and Metro will roll out its county system in 2016–2017.

z Encourage revising workforce safety/fair labor standards to better reflect working 

away from a central location

According to the 2010 AQMD Rule 2202 Employee Commute Reduction Program (ECRP) 

survey, four percent of all workers in the air basin utilized a flexible work schedule in 2008. 

A 2014 national study of employers by the Families and Work Institute and the Society 

for Human Resource Management showed that the percentage of employers allowing a 

compressed work week grew from 38 percent in 2008 to 43 percent in 2014. Employers 

are becoming more likely to provide flex time and place and more choices in managing 

work time, without a loss in pay. These trends, together with 2016 RTP/SCS strategies and 

incentives to promote flexible work schedules, are expected to increase the overall use of 

flexible work schedules to 15 percent by 2040. 

TRANSIT AND RAIL

Changes in land use patterns around our transit investments, referred to as Transit Oriented 

Development (TOD), reduce SOV travel and VMT through increased transit use and active 

transportation, and provide better access to local jobs and services. Many TOD projects have 

been built in our region since the 2012 RTP/SCS, and many more are under construction 

and planned. These projects will play a significant role in reducing SOV travel and VMTs.

Significant transit investment has been made since the 2012 RTP/SCS, primarily based on 

voter-approved county sales tax measures. Following are major transit projects in various 

stages of planning and construction:

z Purple Line extension to Westwood

z Gold Line extension to Montclair (2B) and Ontario International Airport (2C)

z Speed and service improvements on the LOSSAN Corridor and Metrolink Network

z CA High-Speed Train Phase One

z Metrolink San Jacinto extension

z OC Streetcar

z Anaheim Rapid Connection Streetcar

z New BRT and BRT Lite services in Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties

z Redlands Rail

In addition to current commitments, SCAG is recommends the following:

z Increase service in productive corridors 

z New point-to-point express bus service in key corridors

z New Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)/BRT Lite in key corridors
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 29

The local bikeway network is the foundation for the regional bikeway network and the 

regional greenway network, as they are mostly comprised of local bikeways. 

Local governments are responsible for implementing most transportation infrastructure. Just 

over 4,800 miles of local bikeways exist in 2012, and local governments have proposed an 

additional 8,091 miles. This density of bikeways is likely to have an increasingly positive 

impact on the number of bicyclists and bicyclist trips. Anecdotal evidence from New York 

City and other cities indicate that an increased density of bikeways increases transportation 

safety. Streets with bike lanes in New York City have a 40 percent less serious injury and 

fatality collisions.4

REGIONAL BIKEWAY NETWORK

The Regional Bikeway Network (RBN) is a 2,220 mile system of interconnected bike routes 

of regional significance. The RBN connects cities and counties and serves as a spine for 

local bikeway networks and the regional greenway network. It includes on-road and off-road 

facilities that link major origins and destinations directly, or through connectivity to the high 

quality transit service.

The primary purpose is to serve regional trips, commuting and recreational bicycling. 

Using locally existing and planned local bikeways as the foundation, the RBN closes gaps, 

connects cities and provides a regional “backbone” for local bikeways and greenways. By 

having assigned route names/numbers, bicyclists can more easily travel across jurisdictions 

without having to frequently consult maps or risk having bikeways end on busy streets. It is 

anticipated that trips longer than 3 miles will likely be used in part on the RBN. The ultimate 

decision on final route locations and bikeway type rests with local jurisdictions.

SCAG recommends the following active transportation strategies and goals:

z Increase active transportation options for trips less than three miles.

z Increase dedicated funding for active transportation infrastructure.

z Decrease bicycle and pedestrian fatalities and injuries.

z Connect all cities in the SCAG region through a regional bikeway network 

with uniform signage.

z Increase the existing network of about 4,800 miles of bikeways 

to about 8,100 miles. 

z Implement all local bicycle/pedestrian plans.

z Encourage local jurisdictions to prioritize improvements to comply 

with ADA requirements.

z Encourage local jurisdictions to prioritize active transportation needs of the 

growing number of senior citizens, including access to transit.

SHORT TRIP STRATEGIES

The 2016 RTP/SCS Short Trip Strategies represent a set of state and local policies to 

encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation for short trips. In the U.S., nearly 

40 percent of urban and suburban auto trips are less than two miles, and in Los Angeles 

County 34 percent of trips are under one mile. These statistics demonstrate the need to 

invest in first/last mile infrastructure, including improved active transportation facilities and 

especially bike share. 

The 2016 RTP/SCS Short Trip Strategies will be applied to a selection of geographically 

defined areas and includes the following policies:

z Definition of Short Trip Strategies

z Application of robust complete street policies

z Reallocation of roadway space to active transportation facilities

z Significant implementation of bike share stations in Short Trip Concept Areas 

z Policies that support increased TOD

The SCAG region is investing $12.9 billion in active transportation projects as part of the 

2016 RTP/SCS. The active transportation plan has six specific strategies for maximizing 

Active Transportation in the SCAG region in two broad categories, short trips and regional 

trips. All six strategies are based on a comprehensive local bikeway and pedestrian network, 

using complete streets principles. These strategies include:

Short Trips:

z Local Bikeway Networks

z Bike Share 

z Livable Corridors/Short Trip Strategy

Regional Trips:

z Regional Bikeway Network

z Regional Greenway Network

z First/last mile (to transit)

LOCAL BIKEWAY NETWORK

Where the Regional Bikeway Network and Regional Greenway Network focus on regional 

connectivity, local bikeway networks focus on increasing the density of bikeways in the 

region. This density provides the starting points and end points for all bikeway trips in the 

region. The majority of the existing bikeways in the region are comprised of local networks. 
 30 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

transportation, sustainability and public health programs. These planning projects are 

scattered throughout our region at various cities and counties.

HIGH-QUALITY TRANSIT CORRIDORS (HQTCS) AND MAJOR TRANSIT 

STOPS

The 2016 RTP/SCS is placing a major emphasis on transit-orented development (TOD) and 

smart growth projects around HQTCs and major transit stops. A HQTC is a corridor with fixed 

route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute 

hours. A major transit stop is a transit stop that is a rail transit station, a ferry terminal served 

by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes 

with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon 

peak commute periods.

The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Senate Bill 375, Chapter 

728, statutes of 2008), provided for residential or mixed-use residential projects that may 

be exempt from, or subject to a limited review of, the California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA). The bill specifically states that these “transit priority projects” should: 

z contain at least 50 percent residential use, based on total building square footage 

and, if the project contains between 26 percent and 50 percent nonresidential 

uses, a floor area ratio of not less than 0.75; 

z provide a minimum net density of at least 20 dwelling units per acre; and 

z be within one–half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality 

transit corridor (HQTC).

A project is considered to be within one-half mile of a major transit stop or HQTC if all parcels 

within the project have no more than 25 percent of their area farther than one-half mile 

from the stop or corridor and if not more than 10 percent of the residential units or 100 units, 

whichever is less, in the project are farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor.

SB 743 was signed into law in 2013 and provides further opportunities for CEQA exemption 

and streamlining to facilitate TOD. Specifically, certain types of projects within “transit 

priority areas” (TPAs) can benefit from a CEQA exemption if they are also consistent with 

an adopted specific plan and the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). A 

TPA is an area within one–half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if 

the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a 

Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or 450.322 

of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In addition, aesthetic and parking impacts 

of certain infill projects within a TPA shall not be considered a significant impact on the 

environment. Finally, SB 743 also provides congestion management plan relief for a larger 

infill opportunity zone.

z Encourage the use of intelligent traffic signals that can detect slower pedestrians 

in signalized crosswalks and extend the signal time appropriately.

z Encourage local jurisdictions to adopt and implement complete streets policies.

z Construct cycle tracks where feasible in place of Class 2 or Class 3 bike facilities.

z Development of bicycle boulevards as a method of traffic calming.

z Installation of triple racks on buses.

z Support of folding bikes on transit.

z Increase the availability of convenient, secure bicycle parking.

z Support the use of signage to guide bicyclists to secure bicycle storage facilities in 

major employment areas.

z Support the development of bicycle facilities that provide access to and from 

major transit centers.

z Adoption of complete streets policies. 

z Implement pedestrian improvements at least one mile from major transit stations.

z Implement mid crossing sanctuaries where appropriate to 

improve pedestrian safety.

z Encourage street design standards that increase pedestrians’ personal security.

LAND USE

The Baseline Growth Forecast in the 2016 RTP/SCS links housing to transportation 

planning, considering both needs simultaneously. SCAG undertook a regional growth 

forecast effort to provide the foundation for the 2016 RTP/SCS and the Regional Housing 

Needs Assessment for the next housing element cycle. Forecasts for the October 2013 

through October 2021 planning years were developed through a bottom-up approach, 

wherein SCAG staff worked with local jurisdictions to attain the most up to date data.

This approach ensures that the resulting assumptions are consistent with planned 

transportation infrastructure. The baseline growth forecast provides the basis for developing 

the land use assumptions at the regional and small-area levels which build the 2016 RTP/

SCS Plan Alternative.

SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM

SCAG has implemented various projects and programs that are coordinated to the 

development of the 2016 RTP/SCS. Over the last two years, SCAG has funded 77 

sustainability projects throughout our region. These projects cover transit, rail, active 
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 31

or the elimination of bottlenecks), unless the project is addressed through a congestion 

management process meeting the requirements of this section.

In TMAs designated as non-attainment for ozone or carbon monoxide, the congestion 

management process shall provide an appropriate analysis of reasonable (including 

multimodal) travel demand reduction and operational management strategies for the corridor 

in which a project that will result in a significant increase in capacity for SOVs (as described 

in paragraph (d) of this section) is proposed to be advanced with Federal funds.

All identified reasonable travel demand reduction and operational management 

strategies shall be incorporated into the SOV project or committed to by the State and 

MPO for implementation.

MONITORING PROJECTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE CMP

SCAG previously used a $50 million threshold to identify projects to increase SOV 

capacity, but the agency is replacing this criterion with the following process for the 2016 

RTP/SCS and 2017 FTIP:

1. Identify all SOV capacity increasing projects that are fully or partially 

funded by federal sources.

2. Identify and determine projects that are 1) safety and/or operational improvements 

and 2) bottleneck relief projects, as these are exempted from the CMP process.

3. Identify SOV capacity increasing projects that are at least one mile in length, as 

this is the primary criterion that determines the need for CMP review.

4. Collect from the SOV capacity increasing project sponsors documentation upon 

project submittal that demonstrates that alternative TSM/TDM strategies were 

considered for the project in question during the alternatives analysis process. 

Acceptable documentation includes:

 Alternatives Analysis study and/or other relevant project planning study with 

specific reference to the TSM/TDM strategies

 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)

 Statement of overriding consideration explaining why consideration of 

TSM/TDM strategies were irrelevant, infeasible or impractical (e.g., arterial 

widening in rural area)

5. Create list of all SOV capacity increasing projects subject to the CMP. 

The list will include a description of the project along with its submitted 

documentation with a link.

NEW INFRASTRUCTURE

The 2016 RTP/SCS contains $556.5 billion of transportation Improvements to the SCAG 

region. For more information and a list of projects, please refer to the Active Transportation, 

Goods Movement, Passenger Rail and Transit Appendices.

Major projects include:

z Speed and service improvements on the Metrolink and Pacific Surfliner corridors

z CA High-Speed Train Phase One

z New Los Angeles County Metro Rail lines and extensions

z Redlands Rail in San Bernardino County

z OC and Anaheim Rapid Connection Streetcars in Orange County

z Hemet/San Jacinto Metrolink extension in Riverside County

z New BRT and BRT Light services region-wide

z SCAG Regional Bikeway Network

THE FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 

(FTIP) – SINGLE OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (SOV) CAPACITY–

ENHANCING PROJECTS

All federally funded congestion relief strategies (projects and programs) are programmed 

into the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) in the SCAG region. Under state 

law, the Congestion Management Program projects must be incorporated into the FTIP in 

order to receive federal and state funds.

 In non-attainment and maintenance areas, the FTIP projects as a whole, including 

congestion relief projects, must be analyzed for the Transportation Conformity requirements. 

In project-level analysis, the projects requiring federal action (funding or approval) are 

subject to environmental impact study (EIS) through the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). This is an evaluation and analysis of the alternatives. The selected alternative will be 

incorporated into the FTIP for implementation.

The federal government regulates the monitoring of projects that significantly increase SOV 

capacity in the region through 23 CFR§450.320 subsections d and e, which states, in part:

“In a TMA designated as non–attainment area for ozone or carbon monoxide pursuant to 

the Clean Air Act, Federal funds may not be programmed for any project that will result in a 

significant increase in the carrying capacity for SOVs (i.e., a new general purpose highway on 

a new location or adding general purpose lanes, with the exception of safety improvements 
 32 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to use to assess the performance of 

the interstate and national highway systems.

As part of this performance-based approach, a Metropolitan System Performance Report 

is required as part of the RTP/SCS. MPOs must evaluate the condition and performance of 

the transportation system, document the progress achieved in meeting performance targets, 

evaluate how the plan preferred scenario has improved conditions and performance (where 

applicable), and evaluate how local policies and investments have impacted costs necessary 

to achieve performance targets (where applicable).

Additionally, a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Performance 

Plan must be developed every two years, to report on progress towards the achievement of 

targets. Performance measures will be established to assess traffic congestion and on-road 

mobile source emissions.

At the time this document was being prepared, the federal rulemaking process to implement 

MAP–21 was not yet complete. SCAG will continue to monitor rulemaking to understand the 

implications for the RTP/SCS and the CMP, and take the necessary steps to fully evaluate 

the final rule. In December 2015, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, or “FAST 

Act,” was signed into law. The FAST Act amends Section 134 of title 23, U.S. Code, by adding 

that “a metropolitan planning organization serving a transportation management area may 

develop a plan that includes projects and strategies that will be considered in the TIP of such 

metropolitan planning organization.” As with MAP-21, SCAG will monitor the rulemaking 

process to implement FAST Act provisions. Moving forward, SCAG will also continue to 

coordinate with the CTCs regarding their countywide Congestion Management Programs, 

to ensure that the data collection and reporting on county roadway and transit networks 

can support the new MAP–21 reporting requirements for system performance. SCAG will 

also work with the CTCs and Caltrans to seek opportunities to evaluate and document the 

effectiveness of congestion management strategies to improve the knowledge base for 

congestion reduction strategies. 

CMP TOOLBOX AND STRATEGIES

The SCAG CMP Toolbox contains strategies, summarizes potential costs and benefits, 

and lists performance measures and metrics. The Toolbox contains both TDM and 

TSM strategies. In addition, complementary strategies are listed that may increase the 

effectiveness of various strategies.

All SOV capacity increasing projects will be incorporated in to an appendix of the 2017 FTIP, 

as well as listed on SCAG’s CMP website.

Below is a flowchart showing the required information needed for 

projects subject to the CMP:

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT UNDER MAP-21

MAP-21, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141), was signed 

into law in 2012. It transformed the framework for national investment in transportation by 

creating a performance-based surface transportation program. MAP-21 focused the federalaid program on several national goals, including congestion reduction. The United States 

Department of Transportation (USDOT) is required to establish performance measures for 

Figure 7 FTIP Congestion Management Process

All capacity enhancing project codes that do not already include mitigation measures:

If “Project Code” does not include TCMs, Active Transportation or other travel demand reduction 

and operational management strategies, provide the following dialogue boxes:

Project is not 

significant for 

SCAG CMP 

purposes

CAX76, CAX60, CAX61, CAX62, CAX63, CART1. CAXT1, CAXT2,

CAXT3, CARH3, CAXT4, CAX65, CAX67, CAX68, CAX70, CAXT6,

CAXT8, CAX59, CAN77

Is project -->

One Mile?

Attach e-copy of environmental 

analysis document signed by Caltrans 

and specific page #. Or use the CMP 

Amendment Comment Field to 

reference any other document with 

page # and/or web link where the 

document can be viewed.

If no CMP measures, justification is 

necessary. Use the CMP Amendment 

Comment Field to justify why no CMP 

measures are feasible or warranted.

CMP measures as part of the Capacity 

Increasing Project (click all that apply):

HOT Lanes

HOV Lanes

Truck Climbing Lanes

Ramp Meters

Park and Ride Lots

Traffic Signal Synchronization

Parking Management Systems

Bus Priority System

Reversible Lanes

Wide shoulders for bikes/peds in rural areas

Dedicated Bus Lane

Bicycle Facilities

Pedestrian Facilities/ADA Standards

Other Measure(s) Not Listed-Please List

No

Yes, mark

CMP Checkbox

Does not include Mitigation Measures

Includes

Mitigation?
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 33

CMP Toolbox – Carpooling/vanpooling

TDM: Carpooling and Vanpooling present a cost effective way to decrease congestion by using the available seating capacity in vehicles.

Carpooling and Vanpooling – An arrangement where several participants travel together in one vehicle, often sharing costs or taking turns as the driver. Can be formalized with dedicated vanpools.

Pros:

• Reduces costs to participants

• Reduces SOVs on roadways during peak periods

• Reduces amount of pollution released

• Reduces travel time

Cons:

• Requires punctuality of participants

• Reduces ability to run errands

• Only suitable for prescheduled trips, such as commuting

How measured: Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO): Can be performed through visual counts on roadways, employer surveys (some surveys done annually by South Coast Air Quality Management District).

Examples of quantifiable performance goal (measured by AVO):

• AVO >1.5 (example) • Average travel speed 

• Increase carpooling by 20% over base year by the year 2040 

Implementation costs:

• Promotion and monitoring

• Necessary complementary strategies can add costs

Congestion impacts:

• Directly impacts congestion on a 1:1 basis

Complementary Strategies:

• Carpool subsidies 

• Ride matching services

• Guaranteed ride home program

• Carpool matching software

• Preferential parking 

• Parking cash out

• Carpool exemption for ramp meters

• HOV lanes

• Toll road exemptions for vanpools

• Trip reduction ordinances

• Congestion pricing/parking pricing strategies

• Park and ride facilities

Responsible agency(ies): Employers, transportation management agencies, county transportation authorities, cities, air quality management districts

Primary stakeholders:

• Employers

• TMAs/TMOs

• Carpooling/ridesharing organizations

Secondary stakeholders:

• News media

• Law enforcement (HOV lane violations)

• Parking lot owners/operators

Table 6 CMP Toolbox and Strategies

Sources: Carpool Ride Matching Service; http://www.carpoolconnect.com/ Environmental Protection Agency Carpool Incentive Programs: 

TDM Encyclopedia; http://vtpi.org/tdm/tdm34.htm Implementing Commuter Benefits under the Commuter Choice Leadership Initiative

Sustainable Environment for Quality of Life; http://www.seql.org/Carpool%20Vanpool.pdf
 34 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

TABLE 6 CMP Toolbox and Strategies Continued

CMP Toolbox – Parking Cash Out

TDM: Employer paid parking subsidizes the cost of driving. By separating the cost of parking from a business, travelers have incentives to use other modes.

Parking Cash Out – An employer–funded program where an employer offers to provide a cash allowance to an employee equivalent to the parking subsidy that the employer would otherwise pay to provide the 

employee with a parking space.

Pros:

• Reduces costs for employer

• Provides “extra” money for employee

• Can provide more area for development/business use if business owns parking lot/structure

Cons:

• Other modes of transportation must be available in order for it to be effective

• Works best when employer leases parking lot (vs. owning lot)

• Excessive parking infrastructure already in place

How measured: Surveys of businesses or business areas

Examples of quantifiable performance goal: Reduce the number of cars parking in area A during normal employment hours by 10 percent from the base year. Change in 25% of employees using other modes by 

2040 to 10% employees using other modes in 2012.

Implementation costs:

• Minor costs to have payroll system accounts reflect parking cash out program and any tax benefits

• Necessary complementary strategies can add costs

Congestion impacts:

• Santa Monica reported a 17% reduction in parking and a 7% reduction in SOV travel (1998).

Complementary Strategies: Transit subsidies, carpool and vanpool subsidies, carpool and vanpool preferred parking; bicycle racks/lockers

Responsible agency(ies): Employers

Primary stakeholders:

• Employers

• TMAs/TMOs

• Cities

Local Case Study:

• California AB 2109 requires employers of 50 or more employees who lease their parking to offer parking cash out. 

• Santa Monica requires parking cash out under Ordinance 1604 and requires employers eligible under AB 2109 to implement a parking cash out program.

Sources: California Air Resources Board Parking Cash Out Incentives: 

Eight Case Studies 1998 US Environmental Protection Agency Parking Cash Out: Implementing 

Commuter Benefits as One of the Nation’s Best Workplaces for Commuters 2005.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 35

TABLE 6 CMP Toolbox and Strategies Continued

CMP Toolbox – Parking Management

TDM – The cost and availability of free parking is the second greatest influence on travel behavior behind the cost of gasoline.

Parking Management – The systemic influencing of transportation mode choices in a particular area by limiting the availability of parking, either through the reduction of available parking, or by increasing the 

costs of parking.

Pros:

• Reduced congestion

• Increased air quality

Cons:

• Imposing fees on what has traditionally been seen as free to the consumer may be politically unpopular

• Needs range of transportation options available (e.g.,bus, subway, rail)

How measured: Increase in transit ridership, number of carpoolers and vanpoolers, number of people biking

Examples of quantifiable performance goal: Reduce the number of SOVs in the downtown area by 90% from 2012 to 80% by 2040.

• Average parking lot utilization

• Percentage of SOV parking utilization

Implementation costs:

• Carpool/vanpool parking signs ($500/ea)

• Electronic parking availability signage

Congestion impacts:

• Can reduce congestion caused by drivers looking for free street parking

Complementary Strategies:

• Intelligent parking management systems

• Intelligent parking meters

• Parking cash out

• Increased parking fees

• Reduced parking fees/preferential parking for carpools/vanpools

• Reduced parking requirements

• Shared parking across buildings

Responsible agency(ies): Employers, parking lot owners/operators

Primary stakeholders:

• City government

• County government

• TMAs/TMOs

• Parking management companies

• Building owners/management

Sources: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop10010/presentation.htm 

Traffic Incident Management Handbook; http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/rept_mis/13286.pdf
 36 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

TABLE 6 CMP Toolbox and Strategies Continued

CMP Toolbox – Pedestrian Improvements

TDM: Pedestrian Infrastructure Investments – Developing pedestrian facilities to reduce motorized vehicle use for short (<1/2 mile) all–purpose trips and linkages to transit.

Pros:

• Reduced congestion

• Reduced emissions

• Reduced capital expenditures

• Improved Public Health

Cons:

• May not be effective for some communities

• Some older non–standard roadways may require sidewalk widening or innovative solutions to be 

effective

How Measured? 

Pedestrian level of service criteria: Qualitative criteria to determine how desirable an area is for walking, including sidewalk width, ADA compliance, safety, street life, social amenities, senior citizen security and 

comfort.

Walk Score: An internet tool that gives a score based on the number and type of amenities within a certain distance from a specified address.

Surveys of mode share: American Community Survey, National Household Travel Survey

Examples of quantifiable performance goal: Increase pedestrian Level of Service criteria for a given 

street or area to LOS D by 2040

• Number of pedestrians on a given street

• Ease and safety for street crossings

• Condition of sidewalks

• ADA compliance

• Pedestrian Level of Service standards

• Criteria for pedestrian friendly streets:

• Width of sidewalk

• Amenities (shops, restaurants, sidewalk cafes)

• Shade trees

• Barriers between sidewalk and travel lanes

Implementation costs:

• Sidewalk repair/ADA compliance $300–$500/sq. ft.

Congestion impacts:

• Changing traffic signals to emphasize pedestrian safety could slightly impact motorist convenience.

Complementary Strategies:

• Transit station improvements

• Sidewalk improvements

• Safe routes to school strategies

• ADA compliance

• Transit oriented development

• Traffic signal improvements

• Transit service

• Complete streets policies

Responsible agency(ies): Caltrans (state highways), counties, cities

Primary stakeholders:

• Caltrans

• Counties

• Cities

• Public works

• Engineering

• ITS (traffic signals)

• Safe Routes to School coalitions

• California Walks

• American Association of Retired Persons

Sources: US DOT Policy Statement Integrating Bicycling and Walking into Transportation Infrastructure

Transportation Research Board Transportation Research Record 1538 2007
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 37

TABLE 6 CMP Toolbox and Strategies Continued

CMP Toolbox – Motor Vehicle Restriction Zones

TDM: Motor vehicle restriction zones limit motor vehicles at a certain place, either temporarily or permanently. Most vehicle restrictions are implemented by local or regional governments, often as part of a 

downtown revitalization program or neighborhood traffic management plan, or during a period of exceptional traffic congestion or pollution. Cyclavia and Open Streets are examples of this, where major streets are 

closed down on the weekend for Active Transportation. Permanent examples include the 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica and Main St. in Riverside.

Pros:

• Enables other modes of transportation in the affected areas 

• Deferred vehicle trips (if temporary)

Cons:

• Potential motorist and business opposition

• When effective, can reduce traffic congestion, road and parking facility costs, crash risk, pollution 

emissions and local environment impacts

How measured: 

Use of alternate modes in corridor around vehicle restriction zone; change in LOS after permanent implementation

Examples of quantifiable performance goal: Increase pedestrian usage on street by 10%

Implementation costs:

• Temporary – variable costs for set up, security and tear down

• Permanent – cost of bollards/barriers

Congestion impacts:

• Can temporarily increase congestion until confusion is resolved.

Complementary Strategies:

• Bicycle racks

• Pedestrian improvements

• Increased bike facilities to/from zone

• Increased transit service to area

Responsible agency(ies): Local cities

Primary stakeholders:

• Local cities

• Local businesses

• Transit agencies

Examples: Pedestrian malls (3rd Street Promenade, The Grove, Downtown Disney)

Sources: Examples of Ciclovia type events (Cyclavia, http://ciclavia.wordpress.com/about/)

Ciclovia, Bogota, Columbia; http://streetswiki,wikispaces.com/Ciclovia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicolov%C3%ADa 

Pedestrian Malls: Santa Monica Promenade; http://enwikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Street_Promenade

Riverside Main Street Pedestrian Mall; http://www.riversideca.gov/shop/retail–centers.asp
 38 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

TABLE 6 CMP Toolbox and Strategies Continued

CMP Toolbox – Safe Routes to School Programs

TDM: Parents dropping off children at school represents a significant level of morning local congestion (10–15%). Increasing the number of students walking or bicycling can reduce local congestion.

Safe Routes to School: The use of resources to encourage children not to be driven to school, including bike/ped infrastructure improvements, education, encouragement and enforcement.

Pros:

• Reduced congestion during peak periods

• Increased safety for students

• Increased health/fitness

Cons:

• Can require considerable involvement from parents, teachers and law enforcement for some programs

How measured: Change in congestion around schools; change in number of students walking or bicycling to school

Examples of quantifiable performance goal: Increase the number of students biking or walking to school by 20% from 2012 to 2040 (age and distance appropriate).

• Number of students biking or walking

• Reduction in student fatalities/injuries

• Reduction in accidents around school 

• Before/after studies with education programs

Implementation costs:

• Funded through Federal and State grants specific to Safe Routes to School

Congestion impacts:

• Can reduce morning trip chaining, resulting in lower congestion.

Complementary Strategies:

• Sidewalk improvements

• Bicycle infrastructure and parking

• ADA compliance

• Traffic signal upgrades

• Traffic calming

Responsible agency(ies): Caltrans, cities, school districts

Primary stakeholders:

• Students

• Law enforcement

• City planning/engineering

• School administration

• Bicycle education organizations (CICLE, League of American Bicyclists)

• Parents

• Teachers

• Residents/businesses around school locations

• Parent, Teachers Association (PTA)

Sources: National Center for Safe Routes to School

Caltrans Local Assistance: Safe Routes to School Program 

Case Studies; http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/srts_case_studies.pdf
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 39

TABLE 6 CMP Toolbox and Strategies Continued

CMP Toolbox – Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements

Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Investments: Developing bicycle and pedestrian facilities to reduce motorized vehicle use for both short (<3 miles) all–purpose trips and medium (<5 miles) all–purpose trips.

Pros:

• Reduced congestion

• Reduced emissions

• Reduced capital expenditures

• Improved public health

Cons:

• May not be effective for longer commutes

• Some roadways may require widening or innovative solutions to be effective

How measured: 

Bicycle Mode Share: Bicycle counts and surveys on a regular schedule. This can be done through manual counts, or through ITS technologies to automatically count bicyclists.

Examples of quantifiable performance goal: Increase Bicycle and Walking Mode Share to 10% of all daily commutes by the year 2040; reduce bicycle and pedestrian fatalities by at least 50% by 2040. Miles of 

Active Transportation facilities as a percentage of roadway miles 

Reduction in bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities

• Increase in number of bicyclists and pedestrians by gender over baseline year

Implementation costs:

• Bike lane $5,000–$50,000/mile

• Bike path $600,000–$2+ million/mile

• Signage $500–$2,000/mile

Congestion impacts:

• Can result in lower speeds on some facilities, which could result in increased vehicular congestion during 

peak periods

Complementary Strategies:

• Increased bicycle parking

• Wayfinding signage

• Safe Routes to School plans

• Sustainability strategies

• Bicycle/Pedestrian transit integration

Responsible agency(ies): Caltrans, CTCs, cities

Primary stakeholders:

• Cities

• Counties

• Local bicycle advocates

• MPOs

• State DOTs 

• Transit agencies

• Rail organizations (for Rails to Trails)

• Utility companies (power line corridors)

Sources: US DOT Policy Statement Integrating Bicycling and Walking into Transportation Infrastructure

Transportation Research Board Transportation Research Record 1538 2007 

National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 552: Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities
 40 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

TABLE 6 CMP Toolbox and Strategies Continued

CMP Toolbox – Bicycle Transit Integration

TDM: Bicycling, combined with transit, increases the effective range of transit users. 

Pros:

• Increases first mile/last mile connectivity from .5 miles to 1–5 miles

Cons:

• More effective for longer distances that normally wouldn’t be traveled by bicycle alone

How measured: Average number of bicyclists on buses, trains, or routes/day, traveler O/D surveys.

Implementation costs:

• Bus racks ($500–$1,000 installed)

• Dedicated spaces on rail ($500–$5,000 installed)

Congestion impacts:

• Reduced vehicles on roadways, particularly during peak periods 

• Increased transit ridership

Complementary Strategies:

• Folding Bikes on Transit program

• Secured bicycle parking at employment centers

• Bike lanes, paths and designated routes

• Bicycle racks on buses

• Secure bicycle lockers at major transit stations

• Dedicated, safe bicycle storage on light/heavy rail cars

• Bike share

• Bike stations

Responsible agency(ies): Transit agencies, Commuter Rail Agencies

Primary stakeholders:

• Transit agencies

Sources: Example, Portland Oregon; http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.dfm?a=70399&c=36638 

http://www.trimet.org/howtoride/bikes/index.htm 

Caltrain; http://www.transitunlimited.org/Caltrain_bicycle_access
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 41

TABLE 6 CMP Toolbox and Strategies Continued

CMP Toolbox – Alternative Work Schedules

TDM: Alternative Work Schedules can reduce the number of vehicles during peak periods. 

Key strategies include flexible work schedules, staggered shifts, and compressed work weeks.

Flextime: Employees are allowed some flexibility in their daily work schedules. For example, rather 

than all employees working 8:00 to 4:30, some might work 7:30 to 4:00, and others 9:00 to 5:30.

Staggered shifts: Shifts are staggered to reduce the number of employees arriving and leaving a work 

site at one time. Some shifts may be 7:00 to 3:30, others 8:30 to 5:00, and others 10:00 to 6:30. 

Similar effect on traffic as flextime, but does not give individual employees as much control over their 

schedule.

Compressed workweek (CWW): Employees work fewer, but longer days; such as four 10–hour days each 

week (4/40) or 9–hour days with one day off every two weeks (9/80).

Pros:

• Decrease peak period VMT

• Improved travel time for participants

Cons:

• Minor employer costs to manage

• May not work universally

How measured: 

Number of participants, as collected by AQMD or local government through reporting or surveying; American Community Survey, National Household Travel Survey.

Examples of quantifiable performance goal: Increase percentage of participants among eligible employers by 2040 

% Participation from base year to current year by type of schedule

Implementation costs:

• Telecommuting

• Commute trip reduction programs

Congestion impacts:

• Reduced peak period VMT

• Improved travel time for participants

Complementary Strategies:

• Increased bicycle parking

• Wayfinding signage

• Safe Routes to School plans

• Sustainability strategies

• Bicycle/Pedestrian transit integration

Responsible agency(ies): Employers

Primary stakeholders:

• Employers

• TMOs (where applicable)

Sources: US Office of Personnel Management – Handbook on Alternative Work Schedules; http://www2.opm.gov/flsa/oca/aws/INDEX.asp 

Victoria Transportation Policy Institute, TDM Encyclopedia – Alternative Work Schedules; http://www.vtpi,org/tdm/tdm15.htm
 42 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

TABLE 6 CMP Toolbox and Strategies Continued

CMP Toolbox – Telecommuting

TDM: Telecommuting is where an employee uses telecommunication from home, rather than a central office, for any number of days in the week.

Pros:

• Reduced VMT during peak periods

• Reduced VMT overall

Cons:

• Only effective for certain industry types, such as white collar

How measured: Number of participants, as collected by AQMD or local government through reporting or surveying.

Examples of quantifiable performance goal: Increase percentage of participants among eligible employers by 2040.

Number of pedestrians on a given street; Criteria for pedestrian friendly streets; Ease and safety for street crossings 

– Width of side

Implementation costs:

• Initial costs, such as remote computer

• Second and succeeding year costs tend to decline

Congestion impacts:

• Reduced vehicles on roadways, particularly during peak periods

Complementary Strategies:

• Congestion pricing

• Increased parking fees • Satellite offices

Responsible agency(ies): Employers

Primary stakeholders:

• Employers

Sources: Transportation Policy Institute, TDM Encyclopedia Telecommuting; http: www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm43.htm
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 43

TABLE 6 CMP Toolbox and Strategies Continued

CMP Toolbox – Guaranteed Ride Home Program

TDM: The Guaranteed Ride Home Program is a complementary service that provides employees who carpool, vanpool, or take transit a guaranteed free ride home in the event of a family emergency or other 

situation where the employee must leave before his or her shift ends.

Pros:

• Increases desirability of carpooling, vanpooling and transit

Cons:

• Has potential to be costly without employer set limits

How measured: Complementary Strategy Use measurements for transit, carpooling, and vanpooling strategies

Examples of quantifiable performance goal: N/A, see Carpool, Vanpool, or Transit subsidy tools

Covered Emergencies:

• Personal illness 

• Illness, death of family member 

• Unscheduled overtime (carpool/vanpool only) 

Not Covered:

• Personal errands

• Scheduled medical appointments

• Scheduled overtime

• Natural disasters where the entire workforce is dismissed

Implementation costs:

• Variable incident related costs

Congestion impacts:

• Assists other programs to reduce congestion

Complementary Strategies:

• Transit subsidies

• Carpool incentives • Vanpool incentives

Responsible agency(ies): Employers

Primary stakeholders:

• Employers

• Employee • Taxi service

Sources: Case Study – Houston Texas; http://www.ridemetro.org/services/Bus/GuaranteedRide.aspx
 44 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

TABLE 6 CMP Toolbox and Strategies Continued

CMP Toolbox – Congestion Pricing

TSM: Congestion Pricing is the charging of fees for a vehicle to access certain high congestion areas, either during peak periods or other periods.

Pros:

• Reduces congestion

• Pricing revenue can be used to fund transportation improvements in local area

Cons:

• Implementation costs high

• Political opposition

How measured: AADT on facility and adjacent facilities

Examples of quantifiable performance goal: Reduce AADT on key streets by 10%

Implementation costs:

• ITS infrastructure to monitor, charge fees, and enforce violations

Congestion impacts:

• Targeted reduced congestion, such as in London

Complementary Strategies:

• Increased transit service

• Free local shuttle/Dash service

• Car free streets

• Bike share

Responsible agency(ies): Cities

Primary stakeholders:

• City ITS department

• City police

• Transit agencies
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 45

TABLE 6 CMP Toolbox and Strategies Continued

CMP Toolbox – High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes

TSM: HOV Lanes provide an incentive to carpool/vanpool/transit by reducing travel times for those allowed in the lanes during congested periods.

An HOV lane is a dedicated lane(s) along a freeway or arterial dedicated to vehicles with more than one or two occupants. They increase corridor capacity and provide an incentive for SOV drivers to rideshare. On 

average, a HOV lane in Los Angeles County accommodates 1,300 vehicles or 3,300 people per hour during peak periods, and the county HOV system serves approximately 331,000 vehicle trips or 780,000 

person trips per day.

Pros:

• Reduces SOVs on roadways during peak periods

• Reduces air pollution and GHGs

• Reduces travel time

Cons:

• Expensive to construct

• Can create congestion at access points

How measured: Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO): ADT in carpool lanes

Examples of quantifiable performance goal: Measured by AVO; increase carpooling by 20% over 2012 by the year 2040.

AVO <1.5 (example) 

Implementation costs:

• Capital costs

• Right–Of–Way costs

Congestion impacts:

• Can significantly reduce congestion

Complementary Strategies:

• Carpool subsidies

• Ride matching services

• Guaranteed Ride Home program

• Carpool matching software

• Preferential parking

• Parking cash out

• Carpool/bus lanes on arterials

• Carpool exemption for ramp meters

• Toll road exemptions for carpools

• Trip reduction ordinances

• Congestion pricing/parking pricing strategies

• Park and ride facilities

Responsible agency(ies): State Department of Transportation, county transportation commissions, MPOs, cities

Primary stakeholders:

• Caltrans

• MPOs

• CTCs

• Cities

Secondary stakeholders:

• Law enforcement (HOV lane violations)

• Traffic news media

• Carpooling/ridesharing organizations

Sources: Caltrans District 7, “2008 HOV Annual Report – Executive Summary,” January 2009
 46 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

TABLE 6 CMP Toolbox and Strategies Continued

CMP Toolbox – Traffic Incident Management

TSM: Incidents (crashes, special events, weather, and other causes) represent over 20 percent of all congestion. Reducing the response and clearance times can reduce overall congestion.

Traffic Incident Management: The systematic use of resources to reduce the duration and impacts of accidents, special events, severe weather, and other causes, and to improve the safety of motorists, crash 

victims, and first responders.

Pros:

• Improved safety (reduced secondary accidents, responder safety)

• Reduced emissions

• Emergency preparation

• Reduced capital expenditures

Cons:

• Measuring the effectiveness of the program over time will require high–level support and buy–in from 

leadership within participating agencies 

• Quest for improving time should not come at expense of safety

How measured: 

Roadway clearance time: The time between first recordable awareness of an incident (detection/notification/verification) by a responsible agency and first confirmation that all lanes are available for free traffic 

flow. 

Incident clearance time: The time between the first recordable awareness and the time at which the last responder has left the scene.

Examples of quantifiable performance goal: Reduction in incident duration for each incident evaluation period (by type of accident) 

• <1/2 hr (20% reduction); 1 hr & <2 hrs (10% reduction)

• >1/2 & <1 hr (15% reduction); >2 hrs (10% reduction)

Implementation costs:

• Cost of positioning tow trucks and other material

• Administrative costs of reporting

Congestion impacts:

• While not reducing VMT, can reduce congestion

Complementary Strategies:

• Transportation management centers

• Regional 5–1–1 system

• Changeable message sign

Responsible agency(ies): Caltrans, county transportation authorities, cities

Primary stakeholders:

• Law enforcement

• Fire and rescue emergency medical services

• Transportation agencies

• Towing and recovery

• Emergency managers

• Hazardous materials responders

• Medical examiners and/or coroners

• Elected and appointment officials

• Traffic media

• Highway users

Sources: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop 10010/presentation.htm 

Traffic Incident Management Handbook; http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/ipodocs/rept_mis/13286.pdf
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 47

TABLE 6 CMP Toolbox and Strategies Continued

CMP Toolbox – Ramp Metering

TSM: Ramp Metering reduces freeway congestion by limiting the rate at which vehicles enter the freeway.

Pros:

• Reduces the number of vehicles entering the freeway at one time, metering the flow on to the 

freeway facility and reducing congestion.

Cons:

• Creates localized surface street congestion for benefit of reduced travel time for longer distances.

How measured: Average travel delay, average freeway speed

Examples of quantifiable performance goal:

• Increase average freeway speeds • Reduce average travel delay

Implementation costs:

• Can be significant depending on level of sophistication

Congestion impacts:

• Reduced vehicles on roadways, particularly during peak periods

• Increased transit ridership

Complementary Strategies:

• Ramp meter bypass lanes for carpools

Responsible agency(ies): Caltrans, CTCs, MPOs, cities

Primary stakeholders:

• Caltrans

• CTCs

• Traffic management centers
 48 2016–2040 RTP/SCS I APPENDIX

TABLE 6 CMP Toolbox and Strategies Continued

CMP Toolbox – Traveler Information Systems

TSM: Traveler Information Systems

By providing current and accurate information to travelers, Traveler Information Systems provide real–time speed and incident information to enable options for trip routing.

Pros:

• Can promote alternate modes of transportation

• By avoiding congested areas, motorists can help mitigate the local congestion

Cons:

• Can be expensive to develop/maintain

• Requires coordination between technologies across jurisdictions

How measured: Number of times 5–1–1 is accessed on daily basis or during peak hours

Examples of quantifiable performance goal: Increase the number of users of 5–1–1 system by 20% through 2040.

Implementation costs: Congestion impacts:

• Can reduce congestion, but difficult to quantify benefits, when benefits are seen through other TDM or 

mode split strategies

Complementary Strategies:

• Sigalert.com

• 5–1–1 system

• Google maps (traffic)

• Traffic management centers

• Changeable message signs

• Next bus service

Responsible agency(ies): State Department of Transportation, county transportation commissions, MPOs, cities

Primary stakeholders:

• County ITS coordinator

• California Highway Patrol

• Local police force

• Freeway patrols

• Caltrans
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 49

TABLE 6 CMP Toolbox and Strategies Continued

CMP Toolbox – Signal Synchronization

TSM: 

By synchronizing traffic signals on arterials, the capacity of facilities can be increased.

Pros:

• Reduces vehicle idling time at intersections

• Increases LOS as traditionally measured

Cons:

• Can be expensive to develop/maintain

• Can require communication/coordination between technologies across jurisdictions

How measured: AADT, delay, average travel time

Examples of quantifiable performance goal: Reduce average travel time by 15%.

Implementation costs:

• Implementation costs are higher than unsynchronized signals

Congestion impacts:

• Can reduce congestion, but difficult to quantify benefits, when benefits are seen through other TDM or 

mode split strategies

Complementary Strategies:

• Sigalert.com

• 5–1–1 system

• Bus preemption signal for signals

• Google maps (traffic)

• Traffic management centers

• Changeable message signs

• Next bus service

Responsible agency(ies): Counties, cities

Primary stakeholders:

• Local police force

• Caltrans
 50

NOTES

1 FHWA, CMP: A Guidebook, April 2011

2 Association of American Railroads, https://www.aar.org/policy/positive–train–control

3 Center for Advanced Automotive Technology, http://autocaat.org/Technologies/Automated_and_Connected_Vehicles/

4 City of New York, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014–09–03–bicycle–path–data–analysis.pdf

ADOPTED | APRIL 2016

WWW.SCAGRTPSCS.NET

APPENDIX

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I CONGESTION MANAGEMENT

REGIONAL OFFICES

Imperial County

1405 North Imperial Avenue, Suite 1 

El Centro, CA 92243 

Phone: (760) 353–7800 

Fax: (760) 353–1877

Orange County

OCTA Building 

600 South Main Street, Suite 1233 

Orange, CA 92868 

Phone: (714) 542–3687 

Fax: (714) 560–5089 

Riverside County

3403 10th Street, Suite 805 

Riverside, CA 92501 

Phone: (951) 784–1513 

Fax: (951) 784–3925

San Bernardino County

Santa Fe Depot 

1170 West 3rd Street, Suite 140 

San Bernardino, CA 92410 

Phone: (909) 806–3556 

Fax: (909) 806–3572

Ventura County

950 County Square Drive, Suite 101 

Ventura, CA 93003 

Phone: (805) 642–2800 

Fax: (805) 642–2260 

MAIN OFFICE

818 West 7th Street, 12th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90017

(213) 236–1800

www.scag.ca.gov

please recycle 2347 2016.03.31