New York--Newark, NY--NJ--CT Urbanized Area Congestion Report
In the line graphs below, FHWA uses Data Collection Year instead of Data Reporting Year to represent snapshot condition/performance at the time the data was collected. More information
The New York--Newark, NY--NJ--CT Urbanized Area covers parts of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. Targets are agreed upon by several transportation agencies and apply to the entire area.
Annual Hours of Peak-Hour Excessive Delay (PHED) Per Capita
-
Annual Hours of Peak-Hour Excessive Delay (PHED) Per Capita 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Condition/Performance -- -- 22.3 14.0 -- Targets -- -- -- -- 22.0 -
Behind the data: For the first performance period only, baseline condition and 2-year targets are not required for the Peak-Hour Excessive Delay measure.
Annual Hours of Peak-Hour Excessive Delay (PHED) Per Capita
(New Jersey) The following points are considered in the PHED Target Setting process. • Policy Goals - This performance measure (associated with the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program) deals with excessive traffic congestion and the role that it plays in pollutant emissions. - The goals of all partner agencies address the need to appropriately manage traffic congestion. The “excessive” part of the PHED name is because some level of congestion is recognized as acceptable and is thus not counted. This corresponds to the recognition that it is not possible or even desirable to eliminate all congestion delay; some congestion accompanies economic activity and thriving places. - The “per capita” implies that the total delay is shared by all residents; hence it considers it beneficial for some trips can be avoided or shifted to walking or biking or shifted out of the peak period. • Data - This is a measure of congestion on all roadways on the National Highway System (NHS) (mostly roads that are principal arterials or greater functional class) in the urbanized area. - The measure sums up the delay experienced by travelers throughout an entire year on those roads, specifically during peak periods. - Travel times in this measure are from the National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPRMDS), based on archived probe-based traffic data. Traffic volumes are from the national Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). Vehicle occupancies and time-of-day travel distributions are from national survey data and established estimation formulas. - The NPMRDS data is new and imperfect, but the best source that is available and approved for use. It is appropriate to consider the analysis for this measure to be “tentative” and neither a baseline nor a 2-year target are required by FHWA. - Only 2017 data is available for consideration as a baseline. The required 4-year target refers to travel in 2021. • Trends - There is no historical trend data for this measure. Related measures of congestion and delay have shown recent increases. - Long term forecasts of a similar measure suggest modest increases over time. - With economic growth, increases in the number of people traveling and the movement of freight on NHS roadways would likely increase delay. This would be only partially balanced by population growth reflected in the “per capita” portion of the measure. • Impacts - Transportation investment resources in the urbanized area are (by necessity) largely directed toward preserving the existing system. Agency plans and programs therefore have relatively small impact on NHS roadway delay overall. - Transportation system management and operations should moderate the expected increase in travel delay. Minimal new NHS road capacity is being added in the urbanized area in the near term. - The ability of the existing public transit system to accommodate increased ridership is limited over the time frame for the targets. - Continued increase in non-Single Occupant Vehicle (non-SOV) travel would mitigate growth in traffic delay to some extent. - Shifting trip making to outside peak hours would improve this measure (while potentially contributing to excessive delay at other times). - Changes in pricing (e.g., congestion pricing, fuel costs, transit fares) would potentially reduce excessive delay. - The impacts of transportation network companies (TNCs) and of emerging advanced transportation technology in terms of congestion are still being understood. These may lead to increases or decreases in this measure. - Land use, housing locations and work locations will continue to affect trip making and the traffic on NHS roads. • Uncertainty - Variability in the trends (with many external factors) affect this measure significantly. - The limitations of the current data and emerging calculation tools introduce additional significant uncertainty in the values for this measure. • Approach - Based on these considerations, the NYC/NJ MPOs and state DOTs are agreeing that an appropriate 4-year target (for 2021) would hold the increase to a small amount. - This 4-year target number of 22.0 reflects the number derived at the time of "pencils down" Urbanized Area Coordination meeting with the partner agencies. - The agencies fully expect to revisit and likely adjust this target in two years as allowed by FHWA.
(New York) Partners Are Taking Into Account Policy Goals o This performance measure (associated with the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program) deals with excessive traffic congestion and the role that it plays in pollutant emissions. o Goals of all partner agencies address the need to appropriately manage traffic congestion. The “excessive” part of the PHED name is because some level of congestion is recognized as acceptable and is thus not counted. This corresponds to recognition that it is not possible or even desirable to eliminate all congestion delay; some congestion accompanies economic activity and thriving places. o The “per capita” implies that the total delay is shared by all residents; hence it considers it beneficial for some trips can be avoided or shifted to walking or biking or shifted out of the peak period. Data o This is a measure of congestion on all roadways on the National Highway System (NHS) (mostly roads that are principal arterials or greater functional class) in the urbanized area. o The measure sums up the delay experienced by travelers throughout an entire year on those roads, specifically during peak periods. o Travel times in this measure are from the National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPRMDS), based on archived probe-based traffic data. Traffic volumes are from the national Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). Vehicle occupancies and time-of-day travel distributions are from national survey data and established estimation formulas. o The NPMRDS data is new and imperfect, but the best source that is available and approved for use. It is appropriate to consider the analysis for this measure to be “tentative” and neither a baseline nor a 2-year target are required by FHWA. o Only 2017 data is available for consideration as a baseline. The required 4-year target refers to travel in 2021. Trends o There is no historical trend data for this measure. Related measures of congestion and delay have shown recent increases. o Long term forecasts of a similar measure suggest modest increases over time. o With economic growth, increases in the number of people traveling and the movement of freight on NHS roadways would likely increase delay. This would be only partially balanced by population growth reflected in the “per capita” portion of the measure. Impacts o Transportation investment resources in the urbanized area are (by necessity) largely directed toward preserving the existing system. Agency plans and programs therefore have relatively small impact on NHS roadway delay overall. o Transportation system management and operations should moderate the expected increase in travel delay. Minimal new NHS road capacity is being added in the urbanized area in the near term. o The ability of the existing public transit system to accommodate increased ridership is limited over the time frame for the targets. o Continued increase in non-Single Occupant Vehicle (non-SOV) travel would mitigate growth in traffic delay to some extent. o Shifting trip making to outside peak hours would improve this measure (while potentially contributing to excessive delay at other times). o Changes in pricing (e.g., congestion pricing, fuel costs, transit fares) would potentially reduce excessive delay. o The impacts of transportation network companies (TNCs) and of emerging advanced transportation technology in terms of congestion are still being understood. These may lead to increases or decreases in this measure. o Land use, housing locations and work locations will continue to affect trip making and the traffic on NHS roads. Uncertainty o Variability in the trends (with many external factors) affect this measure significantly. o The limitations of the current data and emerging calculation tools introduce additional significant uncertainty in the values for this measure. Approach o Based on these considerations, the NYC/NJ MPOs and state DOTs are agreeing that an appropriate 4-year target (for 2021) would hold the increase to a small amount. o The agencies fully expect to revisit and likely adjust this target in two years as allowed for by FHWA.
N/AN/AN/A-
Data Sources:
2018, 2020 Biennial Performance Report
2020, 2021 HPMS Data Submittal
Non-Single Occupancy Vehicle (Non-SOV) Travel
-
Non-Single Occupancy Vehicle (Non-SOV) Travel 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Condition/Performance 51.6 51.7 51.6 51.7 -- Targets -- -- 51.6 -- 51.7 -
Behind the data: The State used data collection Method A (American Community Survey), as defined in 23 CFR 490.709(f)(1)(i), in establishing their targets.
Non-Single Occupancy Vehicle (Non-SOV) Travel
(New Jersey) The following points are considered in the Non-SOV Target Setting process. • Policy Goals - This performance measure (associated with the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program) recognizes the role that single-occupant vehicles play in contributing to traffic congestion and pollutant emissions. - Goals of all partner agencies (T4) reflect strong support for non-single-occupant modes, including public transit, ridesharing, walking, and biking. • Data - Non-SOV travel includes carpool, train, bus, walk, bike, taxi, rideshare, working at home, etc., anything other than driving alone. - Percent non-SOV travel for the urbanized area is calculated using U.S. Census American Community Survey data about journey-to-work trips for residents of the urbanized area. While all trips (not just journey-to-work) would be ideal to track, this regularly updated, approved dataset is recognized as the best available. - The data reflects five-year averages, with a time lag. Thus the baseline refers to 2012-2016 values, the 2-year target to 2014-2018, and 4-year target to 2016-2020. • Trends - Percent Non-SOV Travel has modestly increased in recent years, associated with factors such as growth in transit ridership. This has accompanied population growth and positive and negative employment changes. - Long term forecasts (plan horizon years) show minimal increases in percent non-SOV travel. - This is a percentage measure. If trip making continues to grow, the absolute number of non-SOV trips would increase even if the percentage stays the same. • Impacts - Changes are incremental to the five-year averages intrinsic to this measure. Any impacts of agency plans and programs must essentially already be underway to register. - The ability of the existing public transit system to accommodate increased ridership is limited. Expansion of the transit network is limited over the target time frame. - Continued increases in ridesharing, transportation network companies (TNCs), walking and biking would contribute to increases for this measure. - Land use, housing locations and work locations will continue to affect trip making and the use of non-SOV modes. - Changes in pricing (e.g., congestion pricing, fuel costs, transit fares) would affect this measure. • Uncertainty - The variability in the trends (including numerous external factors) discussed above means that there is a significant range of likely values for this measure in coming years. • Approach - Based on these considerations, the NYC/NJ MPOs and state DOTs are agreeing that an appropriate 2-year target (for the 2014-2018 period) is to maintain the percent non-SOV travel; and that an appropriate 4-year target (for the 2016-2020 period) would be a slight increase.
(New York) Target Setting Considerations Partners Are Taking Into Account • Policy Goals • This performance measure (associated with the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program) recognizes the role that single-occupant vehicles play in contributing to traffic congestion and pollutant emissions. • Goals of all partner agencies reflect strong support for non-single-occupant modes, including public transit, ridesharing, walking, and biking.
Data • Non-SOV travel includes carpool, train, bus, walk, bike, taxi, rideshare, working at home, etc., anything other than driving alone. • Percent non-SOV travel for the urbanized area is calculated using U.S. Census American Community Survey data about journey-to-work trips for residents of the urbanized area. While all trips (not just journey-to-work) would be ideal to track, this regularly updated, approved dataset is recognized as the best available. • The data reflects five-year averages, with a time lag. Thus the baseline refers to 2012-2016 values, the 2-year target to 2014-2018, and 4-year target to 2016-2020.
Trends • Percent Non-SOV Travel has modestly increased in recent years, associated with factors such as growth in transit ridership. This has accompanied population growth and positive and negative employment changes. • Long term forecasts (plan horizon years) show minimal increases in percent non-SOV travel. • This is a percentage measure. If trip making continues to grow, the absolute number of non-SOV trips would increase even if the percentage stays the same.
Impacts • Changes are incremental to the five-year averages intrinsic to this measure. Any impacts of agency plans and programs must essentially already be underway to register. • The ability of the existing public transit system to accommodate increased ridership is limited. Expansion of the transit network is limited over the target time frame. • Continued increases in ridesharing, transportation network companies (TNCs), walking and biking would contribute to increases for this measure. • Land use, housing locations and work locations will continue to affect trip making and the use of non-SOV modes. • Changes in pricing (e.g., congestion pricing, fuel costs, transit fares) would affect this measure. Uncertainty • The variability in the trends (including numerous external factors) discussed above means that there is a significant range of likely values for this measure in coming years.
Approach • Based on these considerations, the NYC/NJ MPOs and state DOTs are agreeing that an appropriate 2-year target (for the 2014-2018 period) is to maintain the percent non-SOV travel; and that an appropriate 4-year target (for the 2016-2020 period) would be a slight increase.
(New Jersey) The NY-NJ urbanized area has achieved an estimated 2-year non-SOV % of 51.6% versus the 2-year target of 51.6%. Partners in the region have advanced a diversified mix of projects that preserve the region’s high level of non-SOV travel. Multi-county Bike/Ped improvement projects, such as the NY Susquehanna and Western Rail Line Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Project, various State programs, such as the Transit Village and Park/Ride Programs, in addition to sustained levels of funding for New Jersey Transit to update and enhance the rider experience, have contributed to the region’s success in sustaining a high non-SOV travel share. Based on the ongoing level of uncertainty due to COVID-19, there was consensus among the partners to not adjust the target.
(New York) New York State continues to make substantial investments in public transportation; airports; freight and passenger rail; and bicycle and pedestrian activities. During the two-year period, substantial commitments have been made, notably $132 million for airport renewal; $610 million in capital replenishment for public transportation services; $143 million for enhancing freight and passenger rail; and approximately $70 million toward construction of the Empire State Trail, the longest multi-use state trail in the nation. New York State has also pursued approval of the Central Business District Tolling Program under the Federal Highway Administration’s Value Pilot Pricing Program, which would provide $1.0 million to renew and modernize public transportation services in the New York Metropolitan Area.
N/AN/A-
Data Sources:
2018, 2020 Biennial Performance Report
2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 HPMS Data Submittal