express lanes in the u.s. · 1/9/2018 · • identified and characterized currently operating...

Express Lanes in the U.S.

Leo Scott with Jack McDowellManaged Lanes Research Subcommittee

January 9, 2018

METRICS FOR EVALUATING HIGH-OCCUPANCY TOLL LANES

2

EXPRESS LANES IN THE U.S.

• Background• Who we are• What initiated the research

• Research summary• Findings summary

• Facility variation• Measures

• Operations• Financial• Enforcement• Social

• Conclusions

Introduction

AGENDA

3


• Gray-Bowen-Scott (GBS) - 12-person Transportation Project and Program Management firm based in Walnut Creek, CA

• GBS has provided project management for six San Francisco Bay Area express lane facilities:

• We provide leadership to the project team on behalf of our clients• As leaders, we are often asked questions about the facilities we

are delivering along with how they compare to others• Wanted to get “our arms around” reported performance data from

existing express lanes to answer the questions

Who We Are

Background

Operating Under Development

I-680 Sunol Grade I-880 in Alameda Co.

SR-237 in Santa Clara Co. I-680 Contra Costa North Seg.

I-680 Contra Costa South Seg. US-101 in San Mateo Co.

4


• The public• Potential users• Those anticipating an adverse impact

• The owners and operators• Elected/appointed board members• Staff• Legal and financial advisors

• Oversight agencies• Caltrans / State DOTs• FHWA• Others

• Policy advocates• Environmental groups• Social justice / smart growth groups

Background

Who is asking the questions?

5


• Operations• Will it help me? • How do I benefit if I am not a carpool and/or if I don’t/won’t pay?• Will I be able to drive through my city without impact?

• Cost• How much will I have to pay to use it?• How much will it cost to operate?• Who is paying how much to build it?

• Enforcement• How will you prevent cheating?• How will you catch cheaters?• How will you detect occupancy?

• Social• How will it impact carpools and transit?• How is it fair for those who can’t afford it?• What can be done to address inequity?

Background

What are they asking? (Frequently Asked Questions)

6


• Identified and characterized currently operating high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes in the United States

• Located publicly available reports produced by the governing agencies to gather details on the background information, performance, and finances for each facility

• Compiled statistics, other measures, and corresponding analysis for each facility based upon the reports (In some cases, minor calculations were performed to create data sets with similar measures of performance)

• Developed various approaches to present the statistics and measures consistent with each respective report, as well as to provide the necessary background information to accurately portray facility performance.

Research Summary

STUDY METHODOLOGY

STUDY PURPOSEIdentify before-and-after measures to address questions, not compare performance

7


Seattle

Research Summary

DATA from 10 of 29 OPERATING FACILITIES

Bay Area

Greater LASan Diego

Dallas-Fort Worth

HoustonMiami

Atlanta

NOVA

Twin Cities

Salt Lake City

Denver

Facility Variation

I-95 Alexandria, VA

9


Length(lane-miles)

Lane Configuration

New Lanes

Access Control

Toll-Free Req’t

Volumes (PHPDT) Opening

20 1 each dir. Soft/Cont. HOV 2+ 990 2008

14 1 SB Soft HOV 2+ 1135 2010

36 1 WB, 2 EB Soft/Cont. HOV 2+ 3222* 2016

8 1 each dir. Soft/Cont. HOV 2+ 1307* 2012

56 2 each dir. X Soft HOV 3+ 3170 2013

44 2 each dir. Soft/Pos. HOV 2+ 3696 2012

72 2 each dir. Soft+ HOV 3+ 1995

80 1 each dir.plus 2 reversible Soft/Pos. HOV 2+ 2012

36 1 each dir. X Soft/Cont. HOV 2+ 829 2011

48 2 each dir. X Soft HOV 2+ 2009

32 1 each dir. Soft HOV 3+ 1109 2011

84 2 each dir. X Soft+ HOV 3+ 3214 2016

Facility Variation

*

*

*Characteristics shown for comparison; no other data were analyzed

10

EXPRESS LANES IN THE U.S. Select Facilities for Summary

Los Angeles44 lane-miles2 lanes each direction

Sunol14 lane-miles1 southbound lane

Miami84 lane-miles2 lanes each direction

I-580 Dublin, CA

Performance Measures

12

EXPRESS LANES IN THE U.S. Performance Measures

PEAK-PERIOD HOURLY THROUGHPUT

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

I-680 Sunol I-110 LA I-95 Miami

AM Vehicle Throughput

AM Before AM After

BEFO

RE

AFTE

R


AM Person Throughput

AM Before AM After

BEFO

RE

AFTE

R

13


VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED

0

50,000

100,000

150,000


AM Peak-Hour VMT

AM Before AM After

BEFO

RE

AFTE

R


PM Peak-Hour VMT

PM Before PM AfterBE

FORE

AFTE

R

14


AVERAGE VEHICLE OCCUPANCY (AVO)

1.30

1.36

1.14

0.00

1.50

1.16

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

I-95 Miami

I-110 LA

I-680 Sunol

AM Peak AVO

AM Before AM After

AFTER

BEFORE

1.74

1.41

1.24

1.23

1.52

1.25

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

I-95 Miami

I-110 LA

I-680 Sunol

PM Peak AVO

PM Before PM After

AFTER

BEFORE

• Not provided by most agencies; calculated as the ratio of person volume to vehicle volume in all lanes.

15


39%

61%

Los Angeles

SOV

HOV

I-110

4%

95%

1%Miami*

HOVCAVBusMotorcycleVanpool

I-95

36%

10%45%

2%1%6%

SunolSOVViolationHOVCAVBusOther Toll-Free

I-680


EXPRESS LANE TRIPS BY TYPE

Toll-Free TripsTolled Trips

Clean-Air Vehicle (CAV) decals

*2% of trips were toll-free

16


2040 60

080-16mph

I-110 LA19

11.3

12.4

11.8

0 10 20

AM Travel Time (min)

AM Before AM After

EXPRS

EXPRS

EXPRS

30.4

13.3

27.1

15.3

0 20


AM Before AM After

AFTER

AFTER

BEFORE

BEFORE

2040 60

080+6 mph

2040 60

080-4 mph

AM Change in Speed (mph)


SPEED AND TRAVEL TIME BEFORE AND AFTER

2040 60

080+3 mph

2040 60

0

80+42mph20

40 60

080+34mph

AM Change in Speed (mph)

I-680 Sunol

I-95 Miami

Express Lanes General Purpose Lanes

17


62

40

69

49

26

59

0 20 40 60

I-95 Miami

I-110 LA

I-680 Sunol

AM Travel Speed (mph)

General Purpose AM Express AM

EXPRS

EXPRS

EXPRS

GP

GP

GP

Longer is better

19

11.3

30.4

13.3

0 20

I-95 Miami

I-110 LA

I-680 Sunol


General Purpose AM Express AM

GP

GP


SPEED AND TRAVEL TIME COMPARISON

Shorter is better

Financial Measures

I-95 Alexandria, VA

19


• Revenues include tolling income and investment gains• Expenses detailed on the following slide

*Alameda County Congestion Management Agency provides operations management at no cost to the SSCLJPA (I-680)** 100 lane-miles of combined I-10/I-110 Metro Express Lanes Facilities

I-680*FY 16-17

Los Angeles**FY 16-17

I-95FY 16-17

Total Revenues $ 2,083,153 $ 60,000,000 $ 47,485,259Total Expenses $ 1,939,514 $ 52,400,000Net Revenue $ 143,639 $ 7,600,000

Avg. Monthly Cost Per Lane-Mile $ 11,797 $ 43,667

Financial Measures

REVENUES AND EXPENSES

20


SR-91 I-680 I-110 I-95Field Maintenance XToll SystemRepair/Modifications X

CHP Enforcement ?Back Office Fees ?Utilities (Power & Comm) ?Performance/Data Reporting X

Management XAdministrative X XOther X

Financial Measures

OPERATING & MAINTENANCE COST BREAKDOWN

21


I-680 I-110 I-95 (2017)

SB NB SB NB SBFacility Length 13.7 mi 12 mi 12 mi

AverageToll $1.94 $1.78 $1.48

Highest Posted Toll $7.50 $11.25 $12.75

MaximumToll $7.50* $11.25 $12.75

MaximumToll Per Mile $0.55 $0.94 $1.06

Financial Measures

BAY AREA TOLL RATES (2016)

*2017 maximum rose to $9.00 ≈ $0.66/mile

Enforcement Measures

I-75 Stockbridge, GA

23


60%29%

11%Atlanta

SOVViolationHOV

I-85

Enforcement Measures

Express Lane Violations

Toll-Free TripsTolled TripsBE

FORE

AFTE

R

41%

21%

38% Tri-Valley

SOVViolationHOV

I-580

• High violation rates caused by learning curve for recently-opened facility

Social Measures

I-75 Stockbridge, GA

25


+1%

+21%

I-85 Atlanta

I-680 Sunol

AM Change

-27%

-25%

I-85 Atlanta

I-680 Sunol

-9%

+53%

I-85 Atlanta

I-680 Sunol

-3%

+1%

I-85 Atlanta

I-680 Sunol

SOV

HOV 2

HOV 3+

Social Measures

CHANGE IN CARPOOL VOLUMES

-8%

+28%

PM Change

-25%

+24%

-18%

+5%

TOTAL -5%

+20%

26

EXPRESS LANES IN THE U.S. Social Measures

TRANSIT VOLUMES

4718

2374

2788

1746

1276

2943

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

I-95 Miami

I-110 LA

I-680 Sunol

Daily Transit Ridership

Before After

AFTER

BEFORE

17.9%

10.0%

8.4%

0.0%

5.0%

9.6%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

I-95 Miami

I-110 LA

I-680 Sunol

Percent of Person Throughput

Before After

AFTER

BEFORE

• I-680 decreases in ridership caused by reduced service in the corridor• Significant mode shift to buses in Los Angeles partially due to increased frequency of

service, partially to introduction of express lanes

27

EXPRESS LANES IN THE U.S. Social Measures

EXPRESS LANE USERS BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME

55%24%

12%7%

2%Minneapolis

(Hennepin County)

$100,000+

$70,000-$99,000

$50,000-$69,000

$30,000-$49,000

Under $29,000

I-35W

15%

28%41%

14%

2%Seattle

(King County)

$150,000+

$100,000-$149,999

$50,000-$99,999

$20,000-$49,999

Under $20,000

SR 16743%

13%

31%

10%

3%Houston

(Harris County)

$200,000+

$100,000-$199,999

$50,000-$99,999

$25,000-$49,999

Under $25,000

I-10

• Existing corridor demographics unavailable

• More high-income drivers use the express lanes

• Cannot conclude whether low-income drivers were adversely affected

28


• FasTrak Flex is required to use the lanes• Low-Income Assistance Plan (formerly Equity Plan) offers

qualifying drivers a free FasTrak transponder and $25.00 credit

Social Measures

A LOOK AT LOS ANGELES (I-10 and I-110)

Equity Plan Drivers All Drivers

Total L.A. FasTrak Accounts 2.1%

Total Express Lane Trips 2.6%

Average Trips per month/account 12.2 10.6

Percent of Trips that were Toll-Free 80% 55%

Average Toll Paid $1.92 $2.33

Conclusions

I-635 Dallas, TX

30

EXPRESS LANES IN THE U.S. Conclusions

Answering the Questions• Operations

• Will it help me? • How do I benefit if I am not a carpool and/or if I don’t/won’t pay?• Will I be able to drive through my city without impact?

• Cost• How much will I have to pay to use it?• How much will it cost to operate?• Who is paying how much to build it?

• Enforcement• How will you prevent cheating?• How will you catch cheaters?• How will you detect occupancy?

• Social• How will it impact carpools and transit?• How is it fair for those who can’t afford it?• What can be done to address inequity?

It depends…

31


Common Measures

• Average travel times• Average speeds• Vehicle miles traveled• Express lane volumes• Daily or peak-period volumes

Infrequent Measures

• 95th percentile travel time• Vehicle types• Average vehicle occupancy• General purpose lane volumes• Peak hour volumes• Transit Ridership• Express lane speed/time

advantage• Revenues and expenses per

lane-mile• Average toll• User demographics

Conclusions

No or Limited Measures• Safety, esp. accidents• Occupancy detection• Enforcement• Corridor demographics

32


Purpose element SR 167 I-680 SR 237 I-10 (LA) I-110 I-35W I-85 I-95

Reduce Congestion

Encourage Carpools/Transit1

Travel TimeReliability

Minimize GPL Degradation2

Increase Throughput3

Tech/Design for Traffic Mgmt.

Conclusions

Meeting US-101 Purpose

1Changes in transit use were mainly attributed to altered service or other factors as evidenced by regional ridership trends2GPL conditions were often affected by regional changes in demand, which diminished the influence of express lanes3Changes in volume/throughput were largely influenced by economic factors; effect of express lanes remains unclear

Met purpose Inconclusive

Did not meet No data

33


• Increasing person throughput• Cannot conclude whether express lanes or other factors caused the

increase in person throughput seen in most facilities

• Providing travel-time reliability• Express lanes were always faster than general purpose lanes

• Reducing congestion in highway corridors• Express lane speeds and travel times improved• Some projects increased highway capacity with new lanes

• Minimizing degradation of general purpose lanes• Express lanes did not cause degradation, but many general purpose

lanes remained congested due to increased demand

Conclusions

Do Express Lanes meet operational objectives?

34


• Encouraging carpooling and transit use• Carpooling did not increase in most cases• Unclear how express lanes influenced transit use

• Serving drivers equitably (very limited data)• All income levels have used the facilities• A larger percentage of high-income drivers use the express lanes• Low-income drivers use the express lanes more frequently• In some cases, the lanes have benefitted non-paying drivers by reducing congestion in

the general purpose lanes• Increases options for all drivers

• Applying technology and/or design features to help manage traffic• Many strategies have been successfully developed for maintaining desirable speeds in the

express lanes

• Minimizing environmental effects• Cannot determine whether express lanes or outside factors (i.e. economy) caused the

increases in vehicle traffic

Conclusions

Do Express Lanes meet social objectives?

35


• Express Lanes are delivering on their basic purpose: increase person throughput by capitalizing on unused lane capacity

• Express Lanes performance reporting is inconsistent• Different ways to measure• Different ways to report• Limited reporting

• Express Lanes performance appears to be wide ranging• Express Lane facility comparability is limited, making a standard difficult

to define• Answering questions based upon other facilities experiences is nearly

impossible

Conclusions

So…

36


• There is value in various means and methods of reporting• Every facility operates uniquely (volumes, hours, rates, tolling technology, policies,

geometrics…)• Every corridor is different (geography, demographics, economy, use…)• Every agency is different (authority, composition, organization, oversight…)

• There is value in consistent reporting• Ability to improve performance• Ability to make better design choices• Proper accountability of operators

• BUT, how can this be done and is it worth the effort?

Conclusions

Final Reflections

Thank you

38

EXPRESS LANES IN THE U.S. REFERENCES

DATA SOURCES

Six-Month Performance Summary of SR 167 High Occupancy Toll Lanes Pilot Project (Dec 2008, WSDOT)Eight-Month Performance Summary of SR 167 High Occupancy Toll Lanes Pilot Project (Jan 2009, WSDOT)SR 167 HOT Lanes Pilot Project Annual Performance Summaries (2009 – 2012, WSDOT)

Southbound I-680 Express Lane Performance Evaluation – An After Study (June 2013, ACTC)I-680 Sunol Southbound Express Lane Annual Report (2016, ACTC)Sunol Smart Carpool Lane JPA Draft Audited Financial Statements (2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, ACTC)

I-580 Express Lanes Monthly Operations Update Presentations (July 2016, Sept 2016 – Nov 2016, Jan 2017 – June 2017, ACTC)

I-580 Express Lanes Monthly Operation Update Reports (Dec 2016, Feb 2017 – June 2017, ACTC)

SR 237 Express Lanes Update (Aug 2012, Aug 2013, VTA)SR 237 Express Lanes Annual Report (2015, 2016, VTA)

SR 237 Express Lanes Fiscal Year 2017 Quarter 3 Operational Report (VTA)

39


Los Angeles Congestion Reduction Demonstration National Evaluation Reports (2014-2015, FWHA)LACMTA Year End Budget Financial Performance Reports (2013-2016, LA Metro)

Joint 91 Express Lanes Monthly Status Report (2017, OCTA/RCTC)91 Express Lanes Fund – Audited Financial Statements (2004 – 2016, OCTA)

Minnesota Urban Partnership Agreement National Evaluation Report (2013, FHWA)

Katy Freeway: An Evaluation of a Second-Generation Managed Lanes Project (2013, FHWA/TxDOT)

Atlanta Congestion Reduction Demonstration National Evaluation Report (2014, FHWA)

95 Express Midyear Project Status Report for Urban Partnership Agreement (2009, FDOT)95 Express Phase 1 Fiscal Year Annual UPA Evaluation Reports (2011-2013, FDOT)95 Express Annual Operations Reports (2014-2016, FDOT)

REFERENCES

DATA SOURCES

express lanes in the u.s. · 1/9/2018 · • identified and characterized currently operating...

Documents