TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CIRCULAR 442 July 1995

National Conference onHigh-OccupancyVehicle Systems

June 5-8, 1994The Biltmore HotelLos Angeles, California

TRANSPORTATIONRESEARCHCIRCULAR

Number 442, July 1995ISSN 0097-8515

Subscriber CategoryIA planning and administrationIVA highway operations, capacity, and traffic control

Transportation Research BoardNational Research Council2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20418

The Transportation Research Board is a unit of the National Research Council, which serves as an independent advisor to the federal governmenton scientific and technical questions of national importance. The Research Council, jointly administered by the National Academy of Sciences,the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, brings the resources of the entire scientific and technical community to bearon national problems through its volunteer advisory committees.

7th National Conference on High-Occupancy Vehicle SystemsHOV Systems in A New Light

June 5-8, 1994The Biltmore Hotel

Los Angeles, California

Presented byTransportation Research Board

National Research Council

In cooperation with theFederal Transit Administration

Workshop Proceedings

Editors

Katherine F. TurnbullSarah M. Hubbard

Texas Transportation InstituteThe Texas A&M University System

Typing, Graphics, and Editorial Assistance

Patrick J. BeckKimberly M. Duren

Brad A. MorelloPam D. Rowe

Texas Transportation InstituteThe Texas A&M University System

The preparation of these proceedings was funded in part through grants from the Federal Highway Administrationand the Federal Transit Administration, United States Department of Transportation.

7th National Conference on High-Occupancy Vehicle SystemsHOV Systems in A New Light

Conference Hosts

Dave BarnhartRiverside County Transportation Dept.

Jerry BaxterCaltrans District 7Tom W. Bogard

Orange County Transportation AuthorityDonald G. Capelle

Parsons BrinckerhoffKenneth E. Cude

City of Los AngelesLynn Diebold

California Highway PatrolRichard P. DoyleCaltrans District 7Joseph El Harake

Caltrans District 12Michael E. EllegoodDeLeuw Cather, Inc.

Charles FuhsParsons Brinckerhoff

Keith GilbertAuto Club of Southern California

George R. HaleHNTB Corporation

Laurie HunterCommuter Transportation Services, Inc.

Alek JakovljevicAuto Club of Southern California

Ronald R. KluszaCaltrans District 7

Ram KumarKumar & Associates

Arthur T. LeahyLACMTADan MillerLACMTA

Raja J. MitwasiCaltrans District 7

Ken G. NelsonCaltrans District 7

Andres OconLACMTA

Charles J. O’ConnellCaltrans District 7

James OrtnerOrange County Transportation Authority

Bijan ParhizgarCaltrans District 7

Bill PasleyCalifornia Highway Patrol

Jerry C. PorterCalifornia Private Transportation Co.

James D. RatzlaffCaltrans District 12

Jim SimsCommuter Transportation Services, Inc.

Robert D. StevensCentennial Engineers, Inc.

John TakahashiLACMTA

Antonio ThomasSouth Coast AQMD

Catherine WasikowskiSouth Coast AGMD

7th National Conference on High-Occupancy Vehicle SystemsHOV Systems in A New Light

TRB Committee on High-Occupancy Vehicle Systems

Donald G. Capelle Tim LomaxParsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas Texas Transportation Institute

Dermis L. ChristiansenTexas Transportation Institute

Adolf D. MayUniversity of California, Berkeley

Richard CunardTRB Staff

Jonathan D. McDadeFederal Highway Administration

David E. BamhartLos Angeles County Transportation Commission

Charles J. O’ConnellCalifornia Department of Transportation

John W. BillheimerSYSTAN, Inc.

Russ L. PierceWashington State Patrol

John A. BonsallMcCormick Rankin International

Lew PratschTransportation Total Inc.

Donald J. EmersonFederal Transit Administration

Morris J. RothenbergJHK & Associates

Charles FuhsParsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas

Heidi StammPacific Rim Resources

Alan T. GonsethGonseth Associates

Sheldon G. StricklandFederal Highway Administration

Leslie N. JacobsonWashington State Department of Transportation

Gary TrietschTexas Department of Transportation

Alex KennedyCalifornia Department of Transportation

Katherine F. TumbullTexas Transportation Institute

Ted Knappen Carole ValentineManagement Associates Virginia Department of Transportation

James R. LightbodySanta Clara County Transportation Authority

Jon M. WilliamsMetropolitan Washington Council of Governments

CONTENTS

PART l-PLENARY SESSIONS

A National and International Status Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Welcome and Opening Remarks-James van Loben Sels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Tour de HOV . . . An Overview of Recent HOV Milestones-Tim Lomaxx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7A National and International Status Report-Charles Fuhs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Report from the Federal Highway Administration-Jerry W. Emerson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Report from the Federal Transit Administration-Ronald Jensen-Fisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

HOV System Development in California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Overview of Statewide HOV Programs and Issues-Jerry Baxter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Los Angeles Experience with Bus/HOV Operations-Dana Woodburyy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Developing, Implementing, and Operating an HOV Program for the Los Angeles Area-Raja Mitwasi . . 15Orange County’s HOV Program-Joseph Heckerr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16HOV System Operations and Plans for the Bay Area-H. David Seriani . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17San Diego’s HOV Operations and Plans-Carl West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Experiences from the United States and Abroad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Opening Europe’s First High-Speed HOV Facility on Route Al in Amsterdam-John P. Boender and

Aad de Winterr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20HOV Planning and Policy Development in Ontario-Thomas J. AppaRao and Tom Mulligan . . . . . . . . 23An Evaluation of Houston’s HOV Facilities-Dennis L. Christiansen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Implementation of HOV Lanes on I-270: Lessons Learned-Heidi F. Van Luven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Experiences from the Northridge Earthquake: Applying HOV Treatments in an Emergency . . . . . . 29The Caltrans Response-Charles J. O’Connell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Response-Arthur T. Leahyy . . . . . . . . 30The Metrolink Response-Richard Stanger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Emerging Issues, Research, and Vision for HOV Systems-Panel Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

PART 2-KEYNOTE LUNCHEON SPEECHES

HOV as a System-Wide Solution-Robert G. MacLennan n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Responding to Mobility Challenges Following the Northridge Earthquake-Dean R. Dunphy . . . . . . . . 40

PART 3-WORKSHOP REPORTS

Planning, Implementation, and Policy Development: Recent Experiences-Part 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Planning, Implementation, and Policy Development: Recent Experiences-Part 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Advanced Transit and HOV Roadway Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50HOV Systems and Air Quality Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Funding HOV Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Developing Integrated Systems: Park-and-Ride, Transit Stations, and Supporting Programs . . . . . . . . . 60Enforcement Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64HOV System Pricing and Toll Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

CONTENTS, continued

HOV System Compatibility with Other Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Demand Estimation and Modeling Experience-Part 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73Demand Estimation and Modeling Experience-Part 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Arterial HOV Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81HOV Systems Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Marketing HOV Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88Lane Conversion Strategies-Historical Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1Lane Conversion Strategies-Studies and Future Conversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96HOV Design and Safety Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99Bus Transit Operations on HOV Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

APPENDIX-Conference Attendance List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

6

PART l-PLENARY SESSIONSA National and International Status ReportJerry Baxter, California Department of Transportation-Presiding

Welcome and Opening RemarksJames van Loben Sels California Department o fTransportation

Thank you and welcome to California. We do not havean earthquake scheduled for today, but sometimes theyhappen unannounced. We want to focus on HOV facilitiesover the next few days. Although we do not have all thesolutions here in the Los Angeles area, we do haveexperience with different approaches and techniques. Wecertainly have major problems with traffic congestion thatneed to be addressed.

One of the things we have learned is that HOV facilitieshave to be approached as a system. Also, as we learneda number of years ago with the Santa Monica Diamondlane, there has to be public understanding and publicsupport for the system. It appears that commuters nowsupport HOV lanes. Part of this support relates to therealization that HOV facilities make it easier to live andwork where people want to and to make otherdiscretionary trips.

HOV facilities should include a total system of HOVlanes, park-and-ride lots, bus services, ridesharingprograms, and other elements. A coordinated approach isneeded to make these systems work. In the Los Angelesarea, the California Department of Transportation(Caltrans) is working with the Los Angeles MetropolitanTransportation Authority (LAMTA) and other transitagencies, the county transportation agencies, and theCalifornia Highway Patrol to ensure that all these elementsare present. The HOV lanes are also being coordinatedwith the development of the light rail transit (LRT), heavyrail, and commuter rail systems. Thus, we have found

that one key to successful HOV development andoperation is coordination among agencies and thesupporting services.

Providing information to commuters on all these traveloptions is also critical. In the Los Angeles area, the 1-800-COMMUTE telephone number provides informationon all modes. This system allows commuters to easilyobtain information on alternatives to driving alone.

The partnership in the Los Angeles area is committedto developing and operating an extensive HOV system.You will have the opportunity to see many elements ofthis system on the tours over the next few days. Inaddition to the fixed facilities, extensive ridesharingprograms, bus services, and marketing efforts are alsobeing used. All of these elements are focused onproviding quality services that commuters will findattractive enough to change from driving alone to using anHOV. The system must be safe, secure, and convenient.

An issue currently being examined in California and inother parts of the country is congestion pricing on HOVlanes. One idea is to allow single-occupant vehicles touse HOV lanes for a price. There are a number of issuesassociated with this concept, including potentialdegradation of travel times in the HOV lane and how touse the revenues generated from the pricing program. Itis important to remember that raising revenues throughcongestion pricing and relieving congestion through theuse of HOV facilities are two different concepts.Sometimes the lines between these two concepts getblurred, especially by public officials looking for ways toraise revenues. I hope you will discuss congestion pricingon HOV facilities at this conference.

You will also have the opportunity at the conference tohear about the experience with the recent earthquake inLos Angeles and the role HOV lanes, bus and railservices, and cat-pooling played in responding to thesignificant damage on many freeways. Temporary HOVlanes and detours were established, extra bus and railservice was added, and commuters were encouraged tocarpool. Many commuters did change their travel modesduring this time, and we hope they will continue to do soafter the major repairs to the freeway system arecomplete.

I hope you will find the conference enjoyable andchallenging. I would encourage you to ask questions andto share your experiences with others. I also hope youenjoy your stay in the Los Angeles area. Thank you.

Tour de HOV . . . An Overview of Recent HOVMilestonesTim Lomax, Texas Transportation Institute

In preparing for this presentation, I have thought ofmyself as a tour guide. I will be discussing some of theevents that have occurred in HOV facilities and issuessince the last HOV conference-both aspects that havechanged and those that have not. I will only highlight anumber of projects and issues that will be discussed inmore detail in other sessions during the conference.

I would like to start out by discussing what has notchanged with HOV facilities. For example, when youcome to Los Angeles, you think of Tommy Lasorda-heis just as obnoxious as ever.

The growth rate of HOV projects also has not changed.There continues to be a steady increase in the number offacilities and the miles of operating projects. Over the lastten years, the number of miles of HOV projects hasincreased from 120 miles to almost 550 miles. The typesof projects have also increased, with more projectsfocusing on low-cost a l ternat ives with shorterimplementation times.

Cost effectiveness concerns continue to be discussed.HOV facilities are seen not just as a way to increase theefficiency of transit, but also to increase the efficiency ofthe whole corridor. The requirements of the ISTEA andother recent legislation has also increased interest in HOVfacilities in many areas.

A number of HOV lanes around the country focusprimarily on serving carpools, This is especially true ofrecent projects located on non-radial freeways in suburbanareas. Support facilities and programs continue to be amajor focus of HOV projects throughout the country.These include enforcement areas and enforcementtechniques, park-and-ride lots, transit centers, integratedbus terminals, exclusive entrance and exit lanes, specialincident response vehicles, and vanpool and carpool

7

programs.Although these trends are continuing in many areas, a

number of changes have also occurred related to HOVfacilities. For example, there now appears to be a clearre la t ionship between HOV faci l i t ies and spor tchampionships. Houston and the soon-to-be NBAchampion Rockets, Dallas and the Super Bowl ChampionCowboys, Toronto and the World Series Champion BlueJays, and New York and Stanley Cup ChampionRangers-all of these cities also have HOV lanes. It is nosurprise that HOV lanes are being considered in Atlantanow that the Braves are not doing well.

Many existing HOV lanes around the country are beingextended. These include the HOV facilities on I-84 inHartford, the Gulf Freeway in Houston, I-5 and I-90 inSeattle, and a number of projects in California. TheCalifornia facilities will be discussed in more detail in thenext session this morning.

There are also a number of new HOV lanes throughoutthe world. The project on the A-l Freeway inAmsterdam represents the first facility in Europe open tocarpools. A new HOV lane is also being developed inMadrid. The Century Freeway here in the Los Angelesarea, along with Route 57 and Route 99 provide examplesof new projects in California. HOV lanes have also beenopened on I-495 in Long Island, I-80 in New Jersey, andI-65 in Nashville.

Many more HOV projects are in design or underconstruction. Examples of these facilities include I-270 inMaryland, I-287 in New Jersey, several freeways in theToronto area, the Stemmons and the LBJ Freeways in theDallas area, the Eastex Freeway in Houston, I-25 inDenver, and I-95 in Northern Virginia. A number ofarterial street HOV lanes have also been opened or are inthe planning and design stages. These include arterialstreet HOV lanes in Seattle and Toronto.

The use of HOV lanes to help respond to the recentearthquake in the Los Angeles area provides additionalexperience the HOV community can learn from. Theability to quickly implement these projects at relativelylow costs provides good examples of the role HOV lanescan play in responding to incidents and accidents.

Advanced technologies are continuing to be explored toenhance the operation and management of HOV facilities.Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI), which would beused with the HOV congestion pricing demonstrationsbeing discussed, and the use of advanced technologies tomonitor vehicle occupancy levels represent just twoexamples.

Supporting programs and facilities continue to beimportant parts of many HOV projects. Marketingmaterials, park-and-ride lots, transit stations, rideshareprograms, and other activities are moving forward in

8

many areas. An NCHRP Synthesis on HOV facilities,written by Chuck Fuhs, has been published by TRB.Additional information and guidelines are available fromstates, the ministries in Canada, and local transit agenciesas well. If you are considering an HOV lane, much moreinformation is currently available than was five years ago.

There are still a number of important issues related toHOV facilities that need to be addressed. The first is theair quality impacts of different types of HOV facilities andhow HOV lanes can be used to meet the requirements ofthe Clean Air Act Amendments and other legislation.More areas are discussing the potential of laneconversions. This is related to air quality concerns, butalso has cost and public acceptance implications. Thevehicle occupancy requirements for HOV facilities arealso being discussed in many areas. Capacity is beingreached on some lanes which use a two person vehicle-occupancy requirement. Increasing the vehicle occupancyrequirement to three persons is an option being seriouslyconsidered in many areas. This has the potential ofreducing utilization levels, however, and may cause“empty lane syndrome” perception problems. The issuemay be that we just do not have enough 2.5 personcarpools. I will leave you with the challenge ofdetermining how we generate 2.5 person carpools.

Thank you.

A National and International Status ReportCharles Fuhs, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas,Inc.

I appreciatee the opportunity to be here this morning.Summarizing the recent experience with HOV facilitiesaround the country and around the world is a difficulttask. This year we thought we would take a little differentapproach to presenting an update on HOV activities. Toaccomplish this, a video has been developed with the

assistance of individuals responsible for HOV projectsthroughout the world.

The following projects were highlighted in the video.

l Chicago, Illinois. The Illinois Department ofTransportation (IDOT) is currently designing the firstHOV lanes in the Chicago area. The selected design forthe Stevenson Expressway is a concurrent flow facilitywith the HOV lanes located in the center median of thefreeway. Implementation should occur in the next fouryears.

l Boston, Massachusetts. By the spring of 1995, twoHOV projects will be in operation in the Boston area.These facilities, accounting for 14-lane miles, are locatedon I-93. In ten years, approximately 25 miles of HOVlanes should be in operation. These are part of a long-range HOV plan developed by a multi-agency planninggroup. The Massachusetts Highway Department isresponsible for developing the I-93 HOV lane.Constraints for designing the contraflow HOV laneincluded limited rights-of-way and environmental issues.

l Long Island, New York. The HOV lanes on theLong Island Expressway are buffer-separated concurrentflow lanes. A 2+ occupancy requirement is used.Traffic is monitored by the Information for MotoristsSystem (INFORM). Access and egress are by taperedacceleration and deceleration lanes. A 14-foot shoulder isprovided on the left for enforcement and incidentmanagement. The Long Island Expressway HOV TaskForce, which was formed in 1991, assisted in developingthe operating guidelines for the facility. The Task Forceis comprised of legislative representatives, the countyexecutive, individuals from transportation, enforcement,and transit agencies, and representatives from the businesscommunity. The Task Force was instrumental indeveloping an outreach program to explain and promoteuse of the lane.

l New Jersey. The Diamond Express lanes on Route80 in North New Jersey opened in March of 1994. Theseare IO-mile long concurrent flow HOV lanes. Thefacilities were developed in response to growing trafficcongestion in suburban areas of the state. These laneswere originally intended to be general purpose lanes.Midway through construction, and even after a segmenthad been opened to general-purpose traffic, it was decidedto make them HOV lanes. After six weeks of operations,the lanes appear to be well utilized, with volumes greaterthan originally estimated. In the morning peak-period,approximately 2,500 vehicles, carrying 6,300 people, areusing the lanes. The travel time savings for HOVs usingthe lanes has been estimated at 10 to 15 minutes. The

9

violation rate has been relatively low, averaging betweenfive and ten percent. Public response has been mixedwhile the media has been supportive at times and neutralat other times. The HOV lane on Route 495 on theapproach to the Lincoln is still averaging around 700buses, carrying 34,000 people during the morning peakhour.

l Maryland. In September 1993, the first freewayHOV lane in Maryland opened. To date, the lanes havebeen well utilized and seem to be accepted by the public.The success can be attributed to the collaborative effortput forth by elected officials, the public, and the press.Informing the public on the purpose and goals of the HOVlane was of critical importance to the overall publicacceptance. By 1997 it is expected that Maryland willhave 18 miles of concurrent flow HOV lanes on I-270. Inaddition, a potential network of statewide HOV facilitiesis also being considered by the Maryland Department ofTransportation.

l Nashville, Tennessee. In September of 1993, the firstHOV lane in Tennessee opened on I-65 in Nashville. Thisis an eight mile concurrent flow HOV facility. The HOVlanes were added during the expansion of I-65 from fourto eight lanes. The average daily traffic (ADT) on I-65 isabout 68,000 vehicles. The HOV lanes operate Mondaythrough Friday from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and from4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. Regional transportation agenciesare working closely with the Tennessee Department ofTransportation to promote the use of the HOV system.

l Charlotte, North Carolina. Currently, construction isunder way on a barrier separated, reversible HOV lane inthe median of U.S. 74 in Charlotte. This is a major sixlane arterial, which carries approximately 97,000 vehiclesper weekday. In the 1970s, a freeway was considered,but adequate right-of-way was not available due to thedevelopment in the area. A six lane expressway, with areversible HOV lane in the median, was selected instead.The general purpose lanes have been designed foroperating speeds of 45 miles per hour and will includeaccess via auxiliary lanes. The HOV lane was designedfor operating speeds of 55 miles per hour with accesspoints at either end. The vehicle occupancy requirementfor the HOV lane will be 3 + . The lane will be operatedin one direction starting in 1996, and will be fullyoperational as a reversible facility in 1998.

l Florida. Florida’s HOV effort began in November of1991 when the Florida Department of Transportation(FDOT) issued a new Interstate Highway System Policy.This new policy established five key directives for the

Interstate Highway System in the state. These were tomaintain air quality consistent with the provisions of theFederal Clean Air Act Amendments; to support thedevelopment of viable urban communities by enhancingthe viability of public transit; to support regionalcommerce and long distance trips by allowing high speedmovements in dedicated lengths to promote energyconservation: to reduce congestion by designing facilitiesto promote the use of high occupancy vehicles; and toensure that the ultimate system is affordable. The policyis also very specific in defining the limits of potentialInterstate expansion. Interstate highways in urban areascannot exceed ten lanes, while those in rural areas cannotexceed six lanes. Other elements identified to help meetthe goals are allowing express bus services to use theHOV lanes, operating metropolitan rail service parallel toand within the I-4 right-of-way, frequent park-and-ridelots, expanded regional bus service, high speed intercityrail service operating within the I-4 corridor, andimprovements on crossroads to ease bottlenecks atinterchanges.

l Houston, Texas. Currently, 63.6 miles of HOV lanesare in operation on freeways in Houston, Texas. Thetotal planned HOV lane system is 104 miles. All of theHOV facilities are barrier separated, reversible laneslocated within freeway medians. Currently, HOV lanesare operating in five Houston corridors. The MetropolitanTransit Authority of Harris County (METRO) and theTexas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) have jointlyd e v e l o p e d t h e s y s t e m a n d s h a r e o p e r a t i o n a lresponsibilities. The system also includes 22 park-and-ride lots and direct access ramps.

l Santa Clara County, California. The first HOV lanein Santa Clara County was opened on the San TomasExpressway in 1982. Currently there are seven HOVlanes in operation and two more are under construction.By the end of 1994, there will be approximately 100 milesof HOV lanes in operation in the county. All of thefacilities are concurrent flow lanes.

. Sacramento, California. Four miles of concurrenttlow HOV lanes are in operation on Route 99 inSacramento. The HOV lanes represent lanes added toRoute 99. The HOV lanes operate on a 24-hour basis.Plans are underway to extend the lanes, and other HOVprojects are being considered.

l Seattle, Washington. The HOV lane system in theSeattle area continues to expand. The ultimate network isanticipated to comprise approximately 288 lane miles.Some 95 lane miles are currently in operation and an

10

additional 60 miles are under construction. A variety ofdesigns are used with the HOV lanes in the Seattle area.These include concurrent flow HOV lanes using both theinsideand outside lanes, barrier-separated reversible lanes,and arterial street HOV lanes. The potential forconverting existing general-purpose lanes to HOV lanes isalso being considered.

l Amsterdam, Netherlands. An HOV lane was openedin October of 1993 on Highway A-l on the east side ofAmsterdam. The lane is a reversible-flow facility and iseight kilometers long. Buses and carpools with three ormore occupants can use the lane. The facility is openduring the morning and afternoon peak-periods.

Report from the Federal Highway AdministrationJerry W. Emerson, Federal Highway Administration

Over the past 30 years, the vehicle miles of travel (VMT)in the United States has almost doubled from one to twomillion. The Interstate system was developed over thissame period, and a great deal of new capacity was addedto the roadway system. Even with this additionalcapacity, traffic congestion has increased significantly inmost metropolitan areas.

The Interstate system is virtually complete now and littlenew capacity is likely to be added. The demand fortravel, however, is expected to double again in the next 30years. HOV facilities represent one approach toaddressing this continued increase in travel demand.

There has been a significant increase in HOV facilitiesover the past 20 years. Prior to 1980, there: were lessthan 100 center-line miles of HOV lanes in operationaround the country. Currently, there are around 550miles. By the end of the decade, some 1,000 miles areanticipated to be in operation. Non-radial HOV facilitiesappear to represent a major portion of the new lanes.

This appears to be a growing trend which responds to themovement of both residents and jobs to suburban areas.

There is every indication of continued interest in HOVfacilities. The reasons for this include the ability of thesefacilities to move more people in fewer vehicles, whileoften staying within the existing freeway right-of-way.Implementation of HOV lanes can be accomplishedrelatively quickly compared to other alternatives, and jointfunding is often available to support the planning, design,operation, and evaluation of HOV lanes. At the federallevel, this includes funding from both the FederalHighway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal TransitAdministration (FTA). At the state and local levels,funding may be available from highway, transit, and otheragencies.

M a n y p r o v i s i o n s o f the Intermodal SurfaceTransportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 encouragethe development of HOV facilities. Four sections addressHOV lanes in detail. These are the Congestion Mitigationand Air Quality, the Interstate Maintenance, MetropolitanPlanning, and the Statewide Planning sections. A numberof subsequent regulations have been issued that implementmany of these provisions.

The new joint FHWA/FTA planning regulations wereissued in the fall of 1993. These require that the resultsof the six ISTEA-mandated management systems areincluded in the ongoing statewide and metropolitanplanning processes. Consideration of demand reductionstrategies, operation analyses, and other factors must beincluded in these plans. The six required managementsystems are pavement management, bridge management,safety management, congestion management, publictransportation facilities management, and intermodalmanagement. Each of these management plans hasspecific requirements and timelines for development andimplementation. There are also penalties-such as thewithholding of 10 percent of a state’s highway funds-fornon-compliance.

The congestion management system requires states andMetropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to developsystematic programs to enhance the mobility of people andgoods, not just vehicles. The congestion managementsystem should be part of the ongoing planning process andshould include consideration of all modes and alternatives.The goal is to reduce traffic congestion where it existsnow and prevent it from occurring in places where it doesnot currently exist. Emphasis should be placed on theoperation and performance of the existing system. HOVfacilities will represent a significant focus of congestionmanagement systems in many areas.

Congestion management plans should identify specificstrategies for the efficient use of transportation facilities.Examples may include transportation demand management

11

(TDM) strategies, operational improvements, incidentmanagement techniques, and congestion pricing. Inaddition to the previously mentioned support for HOVfacilities, the ISTEA provided for congestion pricingdemonstration projects. Requests for proposals forcongestion pricing pilot programs have been issued, andexperiments with market pricing strategies and HOV buy-in or pricing could be considered.

Under the ISTEA, support for HOV facilities may beconsidered using National Highway System (NHS), theSurface Transpor ta t ion Program (STP) , and theCongestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) programfunds. Authorization of the proposed 159,000 mile NHSis currently being considered by Congress. In conclusion,the ISTEA and subsequent regulations are supportive ofHOV facilities. As noted recently by U.S. Department ofTransportation Secretary Pena, the goal is not to get moresingle-occupant vehicles on the system, but rather toencourage more use of all HOV modes.

Report from the Federal Transit AdministrationRonald Jensen-Fisher, Federal Transit Administration

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to participate inthis conference. I will cover three general topics in mycomments this morning. First, I will discuss the newplanning regulations, including the portion addressingmajor investment strategies. Second, I will summarize theAdvanced Public Transportation Systems (APTS)program, which is FTA’s IVHS component. Finally, Iwill highlight the transportation model improvementprogram, which applies to travel forecasting models.

As Jerry noted, the new Metropolitan PlanningRegulations were issued in October of 1993. Theseregulations represent a significant change from pastpractices and will influence corridor and subarea planning.In the past, the approach to planning and the alternatives

considered were often driven by available funding. Ifhighway funds were available, highway alternatives wereconsidered; if transit funding was available, transitalternatives were considered. The flexible fundingprovisions of the ISTEA really changes this approach.

The new planning regulations further support thischange. The regulations require that a full range ofreasonable options and alternatives be considered insubareas and corridors. Thus, the focus is no longer ona single mode. Rather it is on multiple modes andcombinations of different modes. The regulations furtherrequire the involvement of multiple groups in the majorinvestment studies. At the outset of a study, at least fivegroups must be involved in the initial discussions on thetechnical content of the study, the range of alternatives tobe examined, and other issues. These groups are the statedepartment of transportation, the MPO, the local transitagency, FTA, and FHWA. In addition, the regulationsnote that resource and environmental permitting agenciesand private transit operators should be included early inthe planning process.

Although rapid transit is often thought of as rail service,HOV lanes can provide a form of rapid transit. Providingexpress bus service, which can average 55 mph on anHOV lane, is certainly comparable to LRT or heavy railservice which may average between 22 and 30 mph.HOV facilities have rated very highly in the cost-effectiveness evaluations that have been conducted inmany corridors. It is critical that buses, not justautomobiles, be considered early in the design stage ofHOV facilities. In the past, some HOV lanes have beendesigned without adequate consideration to buses. Thishas made the provision of bus service on some facilitiesdifficult. The University of Washington is currentlydeveloping guidelines for transit considerations with HOVlanes. These should help enhance transit considerations inthe planning, design, and operation of HOV facilities. Inthe future, FTA discretionary Section 3 funding will bestrongly linked to designing HOV facilities with transit inmind.

The provision of information on bus routes andschedules, and ridesharing is critical to encouraginggreater use of these modes. There are a number ofopportunities today to use a wide range of advancedtechnologies to enhance the flow of information. FTA’sAPTS program includes a number of demonstrationsfocusing on the use of advanced technologies to improvethe provision of transit information, as well as enhancingservice delivery and management capabilities. RonFisher, who is the Director of the office heading thiseffort, is participating in this conference. There are twosessions focusing on APTS and HOV facilities, and I amsure Ron would be happy to discuss the program in more

12

detail.ISTEA and the Clean Air Act Amendments place

additional demands on the travel forecasting process. Inrecognition of this, FTA, FHWA, and the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) have initiated the travel modelimprovement program. This program, which is orientedtoward improving travel demand forecasting models, hasfour components. The first element is being conducted bythe Texas Transportation Institute. This is the outreachcomponent which includes workshops, conferences,newsletters, reports, and other elements. The secondcomponent focuses on near term improvements to thetraditional four step transportation modeling process.

The third element is developing a whole new generationof models. This is an enormous effort to completely

restructure travel demand models. This includes a $27million software development effort. L o s AlamosNational Laboratory is taking the lead in this portion ofthe project. This new approach involves examining travelat the micro or individual level, which is a completelydifferent approach from the traditional models. Thefourth element is considering new data needs and identifymethods and techniques for collecting and analyzing datafaster and easier. Part of this effort includes updating theexisting FHWA manual on travel surveys.

The activities in these three general areas provide agood indication of FTA’s interest and involvement inHOV planning, design, and operation. I hope you willhave a productive conference. Thank you.

13

HOV System Development in CaliforniaArthur T. Leahy, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority-Presiding

Overview of Statewide HOV Programs and IssuesJerry Baxter, California Department of Transportation

I would like to review the history of HOV development inCalifornia, highlight a few milestones, and share ourexperiences with you. The use of HOV facilities inCalifornia started in 1970 with HOV bypass lanes at thetoll plazas on the Oakland Bay Bridge in the SanFrancisco area.

In 1973, the El Monte Busway opened. Jointly fundedby FHWA, FTA, Caltrans, and the Regional TransitDistrict (RTD), this facility was initially opened only tobuses. It was later opened to carpools with three or morepersons. Although this project continues to be successful,it is interesting to note that it has not been duplicatedanywhere else in the state. The El Monte Busway showsthat buses and carpools can operate on the same facility.

1976 was the next HOV milestone with the infamousdiamond lane on the Santa Monica Freeway. This project,which I am sure you all know about, converted thenumber one general purpose lane in each direction intoHOV lanes for carpools of three or more people (3 +).. Inhindsight, there are a number of things that probablyshould have been done differently on this project. Forexample, there was no marketing or public informationprogram and the 3+ vehicle occupancy level may nothave been appropriate. The project, which wasimplemented partially in response to the first regional airquality plan, may have set back HOV development inCalifornia ten years.

By 1983, there was only 35 miles of HOV lanes inCalifornia. Between 1985 and 1990 there was aresurgence of HOV development in the state. By 1990,

there were some 220 miles of HOV lanes in California,and by the end of 1994, there will be 470 miles inoperation. The Los Angeles region has embraced HOVfacilities. The reaction is very similar to the experiencewith ramp metering. When meters were first introduced,there was some resistance, but now they are widelyaccepted. HOV lanes have also been institutionalized, aslong as they are addition lanes.

In 1993, Caltrans adopted the Urban Freeway conceptto treat the urban freeway system uniformly throughoutthe state. This approach was adopted based on therecognition that the state highway system should look andoperate the same throughout the state. Characteristics ofurban freeways include ramp metering, changeablemessage signs, television surveillance, service patrols,highway advisory radio, and HOV lanes. Thus, the HOVconcept is imbedded in the urban freeway system inCalifornia.

There was a further realization that the freeway systemin the five county region around Los Angeles should lookand operate the same. Thus, there was a need for thethree Caltrans Districts in this area to work together andcoordinate activities. Working with the counties and otheragencies, an HOV master plan was developed for theregion. Similar planning efforts are also underway in theSan Francisco Bay area and the San Diego area. Currentprojections are that the ultimate California HOV lanesystem may reach 500 miles.

Thus, it appears that HOV lanes in California havebecome institutionalized. A major effort now is to ensurethat the necessary support facilities and services are inplace. These include park-and-ride lots, transit services,ridesharing programs, direct connectors, access ramps,enforcement, and other elements. These are all criticalcomponents to a successful HOV system. Part of thiseffort is to establish a closer working relationship with theLos Angeles County Metropolitan TransportationAuthority (LACMTA) and other transit agencies.Houston, which you will hear more about during theluncheon speech today, provides an excellent example ofa close working partnership between the state departmentof transportation and the local transit agency.

The HOV lanes in California and the Los Angeles arearepresent a mix of facilities. Although concurrent flowHOV lanes are the most common, buffer widths betweenthe HOV lanes vary from 1- to 4-feet. The vehicleoccupancy requirements on all facilities are two or morepersons (2+), except the El Monte Busway, which isthree or more (3+). Signing is relatively uniform

14

throughout the state. The use of HOV bypass lanes atmetered freeway entrance ramps is also being expanded.

A number of evaluation studies have been conducted onthe HOV lanes in the state and monitoring efforts areongoing. The El Monte Busway, which carries as manypeople during the peak-periods as the three adjacentfreeway lanes, provides one of the best examples of theeffectiveness of HOV lanes. There are still a number ofissues that will need to be addressed. These include whatto do when capacity is reached at the 2+ vehicleoccupancy level, additional enforcement activities, andother concerns.

I hope you enjoy the conference this week and have apleasant stay in Los Angeles. Thank you.

Los Angeles Experience with Bus/HOV OperationsDana Woodbury, Los Angeles County MetropolitanTransportation Authority

Thank you, Art. It is a pleasure to have the opportunitythis morning to discuss the experience with bus and HOVoperations in the Los Angeles area. As you know, werecently had the opportunity to test these systems duringthe Northridge earthquake. Buses and HOV lanes playedvital roles in the emergency efforts, especially along theSanta Monica Freeway. This integral artery, which is theworld’s most heavily traveled freeway, immediatelybecame the focus for traffic mitigation activities. Whilethe freeway underwent extensive repairs, the left lane wasconverted into an HOV lane to help traffic flow morefreely. This provided carpools with significant travel timesavings over SOVs, which had to use local streets in someareas.

Buses were another critical element in the overallresponse to the earthquake. Within three days, 22 buseswere added to routes on the west side and the SanFernando Valley. Within ten days, the MTA created,augmented, or rerouted 27 bus lines to assist earthquakeaffected commuters. Other transit operators-includingthe Los Angeles Department of Transportation, SantaMonica Municipal Transit, and Foothill Transit-joinedthis effort. The extra buses, along with the detour routesand the HOV lanes, made travel from the west side todowntown Los Angeles much easier.

The MTA and Caltrans are working hard to resolve themobility problems in the Los Angeles area. The MTA’sintegrated transportation system includes 400 miles of lightrail transit (LRT) and subways, which link up withMetrolink, the intercounty commuter rail network, andapproximately 1,800 buses. A multimodal approach isneeded, however, which encompasses both transit and

freeway elements. HOV lanes are an especially importantpart of this mix in an automobile oriented society like LosAngeles. HOV lanes for buses, carpools, and vanpoolsare playing an ever increasing role in Los Angeles’freeway system.

Today, approximately 67 miles of freeway HOV lanesare in operation in Los Angeles County. These facilitiescarry an average of 1,250 vehicles an hour during thepeak-periods. The average vehicle occupancy level onthese facilities is 2.3 persons per vehicle. The facilitiesrepresent the joint efforts of Caltrans and the MTA, andhave been funded through a combination of federal, state,and local sources. Earlier this year the MTA Boardcommitted $3 15.9 million for construction of the next 88miles of HOV lanes on nine freeway segments throughoutthe county. These lanes are expected to be open by 1998.Next month the MTA will release a request for proposal(RFP) for the development of an HOV Master Plan. Theplan will help integrate HOV lanes with park-and-ride lotsand transit centers. The different freeway corridors willbe analyzed to determine where HOV lanes are neededand where cost-effective facilities can be developed.Freeway to freeway HOV connectors will also beexamined.

The newly opened Glen Anderson (Century or I-105)Freeway includes direct freeway-to-freeway HOVconnections. These ramps appear to be a big bit withcarpoolers. The HOV connectors represent another goodexample of Caltrans and the MTA working together. TheMTA has almost completed the 20-mile LRT METROGreen Line, which is located in the center of the I-105Freeway. The Green Line will intersect the METRO BlueLine, which runs 22 miles from Long Beach to downtownLos Angeles. When the Green Line opens next year,commuters from El Sagundo and Norwalk will have directaccess to downtown by both HOV lanes and METRO. Afurther bonus will be added in 1995 when Caltranscompletes the Harbor Freeway Transitway. This facility,which includes a 3-mile elevated structure, will provide aconnection to the El Monte Busway at Union Station.Thus, HOVs will be able to travel from San Pedro to theSan Gaberial Valley. Construction will also begin thissummer on an HOV project on the Route 118-Sini ValleyFreeway.

Jerry mentioned the El Monte Busway, which has beenin operation for 20 years. For a long time, this singlesuccessful project was Los Angeles’ only HOV project.It is still working today as some 18,000 daily passengersride 12 bus routes using the HOV lane. Clearly, addingmore HOV lanes will help address mobility problems inthe area. By providing a regional HOV system, Caltransand the MTA are building an integrated network that willhelp accommodate the mass transit and transportation

15

demand management needs of the future. An HOVsystem provides commuters with the incentives of reducedtravel times, improved trip reliability, and reduced costs.Further, it will encourage ridesharing.

The 14 million people living in the Los Angeles Basinown 6 million cars. Travel between counties in the areais so essential that transportation planning must considerthe surrounding counties, which includes an area ofapproximately 12 thousand square miles. The totalpopulation of the region is expected to increase to between21 and 23 million over the next 16 years. The number ofdaily vehicle trips will top 60 million, in 1990. HOVlanes and busways are two techniques that can be used toturn the Los Angeles mobility problem around. Everyonebenefits from HOV lanes and busways through improvedair quality, reduced congestion, and energy savings. Inthe long run this will help improve the quality of life inthe region.

Developing, Implementing, and Operating an HOVProgram for the Los Angeles AreaRaja Mitwasi, California Department of Transportation

Good morning and welcome to Los Angeles. There areover nine million people living in Los Angeles County.Approximately three million people commute to thecentral business district (CBD) on a daily basis. Thefreeway system in the county is over 500 miles, whichrepresents only half of the system projected in the mid-1950s. The number of vehicles continue to increase in theregion. As a result of these two factors, Los Angeles hassome of the busiest freeways in the world.

The development of the HOV system in Los Angelesbegan in the early 1970s with the opening of the El MonteBusway. As Jerry mentioned, the Santa Monica DiamondLane project, which converted an existing general purposelane into an HOV lane, probably set HOV lane

development in Los Angeles back ten years. If thisproject had not failed, the development of the HOVsystem would have occurred much sooner. The nextHOV lane was opened about ten years later. Since then,research and engineering studies have guided thedevelopment of an HOV system in the region.

A video on the HOV system in Los Angeles waspresented. The major highlights from this video includedthe following.

l The El Monte Busway opened in 1974. Initiallyopened to buses only , carpools of three or morepassengers (3 +) were allowed to use the busway startingin 1976. The facility is 11 miles in length and cost $60million to construct. The facility provides an HOV lanein each direction of travel. The HOV lanes are separatedfrom the ad.jacent general purpose lanes by a 14-footbuffer.

l A circular bus station is located at the eastern endof the busway, providing direct access to the busway.. Amajor park-and-ride lot is located around the station. Afly over access ramp is provided at Del Mar Avenue.The station at California State University, Los Angelesfeatures a split roadway and a sky bridge.

l The extension of the busway into downtown LosAngeles, which was built 12 years later, cost $18 million.It provides access to the downtown street system withoutreturning to the freeway.

. The Route 91 demonstration project re-striped themedian to provide an HOV lane. The eastbound lane cost$250,000 for eight miles when it opened in 1985. Thewestbound lane opened in 1993 and cost $1.1 million.

l The Route 405 (San Diego Freeway) HOV laneopened in 1993. All lanes are 11-foot and the buffer is al-foot double yellow line. This facility is being extendednorth through the interchange with I-105.

l The I-105 (Glen Anderson or Century Freeway),which is 17.3 miles long, will probably be the last newfreeway to he constructed in Los Angeles. The facilitycost $2.3 billion. It includes three general purpose lanes,one HOV lane, and a rail line in each direction. Thereare also six enforcement areas and six ingress/egresspoints in each direction. There are also direct connectionsto the future Harbor Freeway Transitway. These arereferred to as the fifth level of a four level interchange.

l The HOV lanes on the Route 210 Foothill Freewayopened in January 1994. The 16 mile project cost $15.4

16

million. A rail line is located in the median of this facilitythrough part of the project.

Orange County’s HOV ProgramJoseph Hecker, California Department of Transportation

l The Harbor Freeway Transitway is currently underconstruction. This facility includes a 1.3 mile elevated“T” section that will carry two northbound and twosouthbound bus and carpool lanes. It also includes on-linetransit stations. The Harbor Freeway Transitway isscheduled to open in July of 1995.

. The Los Angeles Route 14 HOV lane was initiatedduring the recent Northridge Earthquake. Carpools areallowed to use the outside shoulder of what was a truckconnector in the northbound direction. In the southbounddirection, the number one freeway lane was used as anHOV lane when the facility was reopened. HOV use onthese lanes has exceeded 2,000 vehicles per hour.

There are approximately 65 miles of existing HOVlanes in the Los Angeles County, with an additional 40miles under construction. Further, 115 miles of HOVlanes are in the design stage and 125 miles are in theplanning process. Other measures are also being used toprovide an integrated transportation system. Otherelements include ramp metering, HOV bypass lanes,traffic system management and traffic operations systems,IVHS technologies, freeway service patrols, bus, rail, andcarpools.

These efforts have been planned, funded, implemented,and are being operated through the joint efforts ofCaltrans, MTA, counties, local governments, and othergroups. This coordinated approach will continue to beneeded to ensure that the system is developed and operatedefficiently. Some of the challenges currently being facedin the area include obtaining media, political, and publicsupport, right-of-way acquisition, maintaining traffic flowduring construction, and nighttime construction. I am suremany other states are facing similar issues. I hope wewill have the opportunity to discuss them during theconference this week and share ideas on ways to addressthem.

On behalf of the Orange County portion of Caltrans, it isa pleasure to welcome you to this conference. Iappreciate the opportunity to provide you with anoverview of the HOV facilities in Orange County. Until1988, Orange County was part of the 3-county LosAngeles Caltrans District. In 1988, Orange Countybecame a separate district.

Orange County is located approximately 20 miles to theSouth of Los Angeles. Given the diverse home and worklocations of commuters, and the numerous attractions inthe area, traffic congestion is a major problem at alltimes. The rapid growth in population and thecorresponding growth in vehicle registration has createda great demand for additional roadway capacity. Forexample, it has been estimated that the annual averagedaily traffic increased by 250 percent between 1966 and1986.

Both Caltrans and the Orange County TransportationAuthority (OCTA) recognized the need to explore long-term solutions to this rapid growth. HOV systems wereviewed as important elements of this plan. Therequirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,as well as the financial cost of expanding existingfacilities, provided additional challenges in this effort.Caltrans and OCTA responded with a county-wideinterconnected HOV system. The focus of this systemwas to provide travel time savings and more reliable triptimes to HOVs. Thus, freeway-to-freeway connectors anddrop ramps were given equal priority with additionallanes. All of the freeways in the county will eventuallyhave HOV lanes, and most will have freeway-to-freewayHOV direct connections.

Currently, 110 directional miles of HOV lanes are inoperation on freeways in the county, along with 92 HOVbypass lanes at entrance ramp meters. One HOV drop

17

ramp is in operation, two are under construction, and fourmore are in the planning stage. There are four freeway-to-freeway HOV connectors under construction and eightin planning. HOV lanes are in operation on I-405, I-5,Route 55, and Route 57. The HOV lanes in the I-405corridor extend 48 directional miles, which makes it oneof the longest full-time HOV lanes in the county. Thereare also 62 directional miles of HOV lanes underconstruction. These facilities should be operational bymid-1996. An additional 50 miles, which is currently indesign, should be operational by 2000. With the additionof the HOV lanes being planned on three toll facilities, thecounty should have a total of 353 directional miles ofHOV lanes in operation by 2001.

The requirements placed on air quality non-attainmentareas, of which the greater Los Angeles metropolitan areais the only extreme classification, limit the types offreeway projects that can be constructed. The HOV lanesare be ing used to he lp address these i ssues . Acombination of federal and state funding is being used,along with private funding for the toll road prqjects. Thetoll road projects include the use of congestion pricingtechniques to encourage carpooling, vanpooling, andtransit use.

To date, the HOV projects in the county have beendeveloped and implemented through the joint efforts ofCaltrans, the OCTA, the Transportation Corridor Agency(TCA), FHWA, FTA, and the private sector. This jointeffort has been successful at developing a long-rangeapproach to addressing the mobility needs in the area.This has helped Orange County become a transportationleader. A short video highlighting the HOV system fromthe perspective of a user was shown.

HOV System Operations and Plans for the Bay AreaH. David Seriani, California Department of Transportation

Thank you, Art. It is a pleasure to have the opportunityto discuss the HOV facilities in the San Francisco Bayarea this morning. For those of you who are not familiarwith the Bay area, it consists of nine counties. SanFrancisco-which is located just south of the famousGolden Gate Bridge-Marin, Napa, and Sonoma to thenorth; San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz to thesouth; and Alameda and Contra Costa to the east.Caltrans District 4 covers the nine county area.Approximately 155 lane-miles of the HOV lanes are inoperation in the District, with another 65 lane-miles underconstruction. Some 12 lane-miles of the exiting HOVlanes are being modified. In addition, about 78 lane-milesare programmed within the next five years.

All of the HOV lanes in District 4 are contiguous part-time lanes with no buffers between the HOV lane and themixed flow lanes. The lanes revert to general purposeuse-open to all vehicles-during the non-peak hours.The minimum occupancy requirements for all of the HOVfacilities-except the San Francisco/Oakland BayBridge-is two or more persons per vehicle (2+). Tollfree passage for vehicles with three or more persons (3 +)is allowed on the Golden Gate Bridge from 5:00-9:00A.M. and from 4:00-6:00 P.M. In addi tion, there areabout 26 lane-miles of HOV lanes in operation onexpressways. These are under the control of Santa ClaraCounty. An additional 51 lane-miles are planned on theSanta Clara County Expressway by the year 2005. Inaddition, there are 11 HOV bypass lanes in the District,with another 56 HOV lanes programmed for the future.

The District 4 HOV program started in 1970 on theBay Bridge. Originally opened as a bus-only lane,carpools were soon allowed to use the lane. Three majorfreeways-Routes 80, 580, and 880-serve the BayBridge, which is a double deck bridge with the westboundlanes on the upper deck and the eastbound lanes on thelower deck. There are five lanes in each direction oftravel. Annual average daily traffic for the bridge isabout 250,000. In 1982, metering lights were installedjust downstream of the toll plaza to help control peak-period demand.

The Bridge has four HOV lanes in the westbounddirection-two on the left side and two on the right sideof the toll plaza. These lanes carry about 38 to 50percent of ail the people over the Bay Bridge in themorning peak hours. The HOV lane users bypass themetering lights and congestion at the toll plaza, savingabout 15 to 20 minutes. In addition, HOVs do not haveto pay the toll charge. The left hand side lanes revertback to normal toll operation in the off-peak hours, andthe right hand side lanes are bus-only lanes during the off-peak hours. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC) is considering increasing the toll on this bridge.

Forty-one park-and-ride lots are in operation in the BayArea. A study is underway to examine the usage ofexisting lots and the need for future facilities. Thesefacilities are served by a mix of rail and bus services.

The District 4 HOV program started in 1984 when1/2c of the local sales tax of Measure A was approved bythe voters. The HOV lane on Route 237 was also openedin 1984. The permissive shoulder HOV lane was alloweddue to right-of-way constraints. Due to the left turnconflicts and to reduce confusion, the HOV lanes werelocated on the right hand side. Also, in addition to theregulatory signs mounted on the right shoulder, mast armswith real time changeable message signs were alsoinstalled. These signs give real time information to themotorists on the hours of operations for the permissiveshoulders and the HOV lanes.

In 1986, the first few miles of the HOV lane on Route101 was opened. Today, this facility is about 25 mileslong in each direction. Utilization levels have increaseddramatically with the completion of the last section ofRoute 101 HOV lanes. This indicates that HOVutilization will increase with the development of the HOVsystem. When all of the HOV lanes programmed in theDistrict are completed, there will be more than 400 lane-miles of HOV lanes in the Bay Area.

San Diego’s HOV Operations and PlansCarl West, California Department of Transportation

I would like to discuss both the HOV planning activities .currently underway in the San Diego area and describe theoperating HOV facilities. HOV lanes in San Diegorepresent one approach being used to maintain the qualityof life in the area. The HOV plan has been integratedinto the growth management plan and is being monitoredas part of the overall planning process.

The population of San Diego County is approximately

2.6 million. When added with Tijuana, Mexico, somefive million people are expected to reside in the areawithin the next 20 years. The existing freeway system isapproximately 300 miles. This will expand to 375 milesin the near future. About a third of the existing systemexperiences fairly severe levels of congestion. Thegeography of the area, which includes numerous canyons,results in many short trips using the freeway system. Allfour Interstate routes have ADTs of over 200,000.Congestion levels are expected to double, even with aplanned 1.4 vehicle occupancy level during the peakhours.

A 140-mile HOV system plan is proposed for the SanDiego region. In the development of the plan, bothcongestion levels and adequate median width wereconsidered. Many of the older freeways in the centralareas do not have enough space in the median for HOVlanes to be added. A measure of at least 1,000 vehiclesper hour is used as the benchmark for consideration of anHOV lane.

The Regional Transportation Plan includes otherpolicies addressing HOV facilities and supporting services.The policies call for special consideration for busoperations in the design of HOV facilities. The types ofimprovements include elements such as direct bus ramps,on-line stations, and other priority treatments. Also, anytime adding to a four lane freeway or building a newfreeway is being considered, HOV lanes must beexamined. If HOV lanes cannot be justified at this time,sufficient right-of-way for future lanes should be acquired.

There is an extensive system of freeway entrance rampmeters in the county. HOV bypass lanes are beingimplemented at many of these ramps. The park-and-ridelot system is also being expanded and coordinated with theHOV facilities. Priorities have been established fordifferent parts of the proposed HOV system.

The San Ysidro border crossing is the largestinternational border crossing in terms of vehicles andpeople in the world. Recently an HOV lane was openedat this facility. It is operated only during the week. Thevehicle occupancy requirement is four or more persons(4+). There is also an HOV lane on the Coronado TollBridge. Carpools, which also do not pay a toll, represent35 percent of the Bridge traffic. A bypass for busesleaving downtown San Diego is in operation in the BalboaPark area. This provides significant travel time savingsfor buses in the afternoon peak-period.

Located on I-l.5 is a two-lane, reversible, barrierseparated HOV facility. It is eight miles in length. It isopen for three hours in the morning-toward downtownSan Diego-and for 3.5 hours in the afternoon in theoutbound direction. It is closed during the rest of the day.There is no intermediate access, so the facility serves long

19

trips in the corridor. It was constructed at a cost of $32million in 1988 and could be converted to LRT in thefuture if necessary. The facility is managed by an off-sitetraffic management center. The signs and barriers areoperated electronically, although a manual drive throughis used to ensure that all vehicles have cleared the lane.

The I-15 HOV lanes have also been used for researchand development activities associated with advancedtechnology projects. Tests have included IVHStechnologies such as collision avoidance and high speedpaint striping. These tests are conducted during the mid-day and on weekends. The lanes have also been used tomanage traffic in the case of a severe accident in thegeneral-purpose lanes. The criteria employed todetermine if the HOV lanes should be used for trafficmanagement purposes during an incident is that at leasttwo general-purpose lanes must be anticipated to be

blocked for at least one hour.At the I-15 HOV entrance locations, electronic

changeable message signs are used to communicate withmotorists. Pop-up pylons and a barrier arm are used toclose off entrance to the lanes. All of the devices areoperated from the traffic management center.

A before and after study was conducted during the firstfew years of operation. Carpool volumes increased bysome 53 percent during the tirst two years of operation.Vehicle volumes increased during the peak hour fromapproximately 900 vehicles to 1,900 vehicles. The publicreaction to the facility has been generally positive.

The potential of congestion pricing or HOV “buy in”is being considered for the I-15 HOV facility with theexcess revenue being used to support transit services inthe corridor.

20

Experiences from the United States and AbroadMorris J. Rothenberg, JHK & Associates-Presiding

Opening Europe’s First High Speed HOV Facility onRoute Al in AmsterdamJohn P. Boender, Centre for Research and ContractStandardization in Civil and Traffic Engineering

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure to behere to talk about Europe’s first HOV lane on HighwayAl near Amsterdam. I would like to start by explainingthe operation and the design of the HOV lane and thenAad de Winter will discuss the incident managementsystem and the initial experience with the HOV lane. TheHOV lane was opened in October 1993. More details areprovided in the paper we have prepared for thisconference.

For those of you who are not familiar with thegeography of Europe, the Netherlands is located in thenorthwest part of the continent. This area has a very highpopulation density. The Netherlands is about 200kilometers from north to south and 150 kilometers fromthe east to the west. About 15.5 million people live in theNetherlands. There are about 5.5 million cars and 15million bicycles.

The Netherlands has a highway system of about 2000kilometers. The region between Amsterdam, Utrecht,Rotterdam, and The Hague is called the Randstad. Aboutsix million people live and work in this area. This meansthat the population density in the Randstad is twice as highas in the rest of the Netherlands. This high populationdensity is reflected in the number of cars using thehighways in the Randstad and in the number of trafficjams which occur every day.

The HOV lane is located east of Amsterdam onHighway Al between Highway A9 south of Amsterdamand Highway A6 in the east. The HOV lane is located in

the central reservation of Highway Al and in the morningpeak-period it can be used by carpoolers from theresidential areas in the center of the Netherlands toAmsterdam. In the evening, the lane can be used in theopposite direction by all traffic.

I would like to briefly explain the operationalobjectives of the facility. More and more emphasis isbeing given to the reduction of the negative effects of roadtraffic like air pollution, fuel consumption, and noisepollution in the Netherlands. One of the measures takento address this is to promote carpooling and publictransport. This can be achieved by giving them a time-advantage over other traffic. In the area where the HOVlane was built, design of a reversible lane had alreadystarted. In order to accommodate the desired time-advantage, the reversible lane was changed into an HOVlane in the morning peak-period. In the evening peak-period, it was not necessary to make it an HOV lane.

The HOV lane was designed as a reversible flow lanebecause of the difference in traffic volumes in the twodirections. The lane is eight kilometers long. At the eastend of the HOV lane where Highway Al joins withHighway A6, a special HOV flyover lane was designed.The HOV lane is open for HOV 3+ carpools, buses, andalso motorbikes. The HOV 3+ designation was chosendue to the expected growth in the number of carpools ifan HOV 2+ requirement was used. The HOV lane isopen to carpoolers from 5:30 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. in themorning. In the evening, the lane is open to all trafficfrom 3:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.

I would briefly like to describe the design of the HOVlane. The HOV lane is located in the central reservationof Highway Al. Between the barriers, the available widthis 5.85 meters. There is one 3 meter wide traffic lanewith narrow shoulders of 1.3 meters on either side.Pullouts are designed for enforcement and for emergencyparking at several locations along the HOV lane.

Ingress and egress is provided only at the ends of theHOV lane; there are no entrances and exits along thelane. The design of the entrances and exits requiredspecial attention to prevent drivers from entering the HOVlane when this is not allowed. Gates made with abreakaway provision are used to visually block theentrance.

Also, the entrances are protected with a moveable steelbarrier on wheels. This steel barrier physically seals theentrance completely. When not in use, it is integrated inthe concrete barrier.

One of the most expensive parts of the project was the

flyover ramp. This flyover was built to allow carpoolersdriving on Highway A6 to enter the HOV lane onHighway Al towards Amsterdam. The flyover has onelane and is open only in the morning peak-period.

It was too expensive to build a second flyover for thereturn trip, so carpoolers with a destination alongHighway A6 have to use the normal lanes of Highway Aland use the normal interchange to Highway A6. In theevening, the reversible lane can only be used by cars witha destination along Highway Al through use of the ad-grade HOV slip ramps at the entrance and exit points. Inorder to reach the entrances, drivers have to make a clearfiltering move from the left hand lane.

The exits of the HOV lane are designed as additionallanes to the highway. This lane becomes the fourth laneof the highway. After about one kilometer, the number oflanes again is reduced to three.

In the morning peak-period, carpoolers are able to usea three kilometer long extended ingress lane. This so-called approach lane was built to prevent carpoolers fromjoining a traffic jam before they could reach the entranceto the HOV lane on the east side of Highway Al. Theapproach lane is only separated from the main carriagewayby rubber marker posts.

As a support medium for the HOV lane, park-and-ridefacilities were built at interchanges on Highways Al andA6 prior to the start of the HOV lane. A total of eightcarpool-parking areas were built. On the highway and thefeeder roads, drivers are guided to these areas by trafficsigns. The carpool parking areas have parking spaces forabout twenty-five cars. In addition, the lots contain busstops, bicycle parking facilities, and a public telephone.

Additional information is being distributed within theregion to promote carpooling. Brochures are used toinform drivers not only about the benefits of carpoolingbut also about ways to organize a carpool.

Finally, I would like to talk about the signing andpavement markings used in the Netherlands as comparedto the situation in the United States and Canada. We donot use road markings like the diamond sign used in theUnited States and Canada on HOV lanes. To informdrivers about what HOV -stands for, information signpostings were positioned prior to the approach lanes. Inthe Highway Code in the Netherlands, there is no carpoolsign available.

To insure the legal validity of the HOV lane, we wereforced to use a somewhat complex solution for the timebeing. The lane had to be closed for all traffic with theexception of carpool 3 + and buses. When the HOV laneis open for traffic, the signpost shows “Carpool 3 + ” andthe destination Amsterdam. When the lane is not open,the signpost for the HOV lane is changed into neutralgray, and drivers are not given any information about the

21

HOV lane outside the operating hours.

And de Winter, Netherlands Ministry of Transport,Public Works and Water Management

I would like to talk about incident management, time andcost benefits, and the initial use of the HOV lane. AS

with other road infrastructure, it is unavoidable that trafficincidents, such as breakdowns and accidents, will occuron the HOV lane. Reports of incident occurrence may bereceived by automatic or visual detection. An adequateprocedure is needed to help with this effort.

A stationary vehicle on the lane will be detected by theS. O.S., which stands for Speed Observation System. TheS.O.S. is linked to a closed circuit video camera network.The camera c loses t to the incident i s ac t ivatedautomatically upon detection. Visual detection can bedone by police, road-service patrols, road users, and byvideo in the Traffic Control Centre. The video system forvisual monitoring consists of twenty-three cameras and islinked to the S.O.S. All these systems are remotelycontrolled and monitored from the Control Center. Everyreport which is received is passed on to the ControlCentre as the central point of dispatch.

In the case of a breakdown or accident on the HOVlane, the occupants should remain in their vehicles;walking across the HOV lane or main carriageway is notallowed, out of concern for road safety. A sign on thebarrier tells drivers to stay in their car in a breakdown,because the vehicle will be detected automatically. Incase of breakdown or accident, the entrance to the HOVlane is immediately sealed off. This is to prevent the lanefrom filling and risking the chance of other accidentsoccurring. This measure also enables emergency servicesto work more safely on the lane.

Two emergency vehicles (tow trucks) are constantly oncall while the HOV lane is open. One emergency vehicleis intended for towing vehicles away from the lane whenminor accidents occur. The other emergency vehicle isequipped with a crane with a long reach and can be

2 2

deployed to lift vehicles over the barrier and out of thelane when more serious accidents occur. In this case, thetraffic lane furthest to the left of one of the maincarriageways is cleared of traftic.

Construction started on the HOV lane in September1991. The HOV lane was opened to traffic on October27, 1993. The total cost of the project was approximately$30 million, of which $6 million was directly attributableto the HOV lane. The other $24 million would have beenspent regardless of construction of the reversible lane.The extra $6 million included the modification of thereversible lane into an HOV lane, the construction of theflyover, and the approach facilities for carpoolers.

In general, it can be contended that the HOV lane haslived up to the expectations formulated prior toconstruction. In November, the first whole month afterthe opening, about 1,000 vehicles per morning period usedthe HOV lane. In the following months, the volumeincreased, to an average of 1,200 vehicles in April.Eighty-three percent of the vehicles using the HOV laneduring the morning period are passenger cars; thirteenpercent are motor bikes, and five percent are buses.

The total number of people making use of the HOVlane during the peak morning rush hour (except formotorcyclists) is at approximately 1,700. Theperformance of a normal traffic lane in Holland isapproximately 2,400 people per hour. If the observedgrowth increases, within two years, the HOV laneperformance will be considerably higher than that of anormal traffic lane.

The journey time for drivers on the main carriagewayduring the morning period is about thirty to fifty minutes.This is ten to thirty minutes more than for carpoolers inthe HOV lane. In November 1992, eleven months priorto the opening of the HOV lane, the Al was number oneon the National Jam-chart. In November 1993, the Aldropped to fourth place. The total length of the trafficjam rose in December on the Al. The total duration,however, was reduced by twenty percent, and in the Jam-chart it dropped one place.

In the first four months after opening, six accidentsoccurred. In all cases, the damage was limited tosuperficial damage. In three of the cases, a barrier washit. The other collisions were bumper-to-bumpercollisions caused by slippery road surfaces or the lack ofclarity about the route.

The majority of drivers on the main carriageway haveindicated that the HOV lane has no negative influence onroad safety. During the first four months of operation,the lane was closely monitored by the police. The numberof violations in this period remained relatively low, muchless than one percent. Later, the level of policemonitoring was slowly scaled down, which led to a slight

rise in the number of violations to about one percent onthe days the monitoring took place.

A few months prior to the opening of the HOV lane,there was a certain amount of attention from the media.This attention was primarily of a slightly negative nature.In the months after the opening, there were furthernegative reports in the media. They focused on thefollowing points:

l Traffic jams would occur due to a short weavingsection near the exit in the west.

l Traffic jams would be longer than before.

l The lane would not be used-the so-called emptylane syndrome.

The most important lesson to be gained from this isthat communication on this type of project can be a crucialfactor. It appears to be almost impossible to refutenegative publicity, even if it is based on patent untruths.The government has little or no opportunity to present itsstandpoint when negative publicity has already started. Ihave gathered some headlines of Dutch newspapers. Ithink maybe a few of them will be difficult for you toread, but you must believe me when I say that they arenot all that positive.

After opening, an apparently empty HOV lane led toa discussion in the media and even in the Parliament aboutopting for a two-plus occupancy rate. This call was sostrong that the Minister found it necessary to initiate anextra study into a possible change to two-plus occupancy.

The first results of this study show that the HOV lanehas lived up to expectations. The design and layout aresufficiently obvious and recognizable to the road users andthere has been no negative influence on road safety. Ihave noted the transit performance, which alreadyapproaches that of a normal traftic lane. In addition,there is a clear increase in the utilization of the lane in thebusiest morning rush hours.

The HOV lane has led to a lessening of traffic jamproblems in the morning rush hours, as well as theevening rush hours. Despite the empty lane syndrome,decreasing the occupancy to two plus can only offer solaceover the very short term.

It was a pleasure and honour for us to present the firstresults of the Highway Al HOV lane to you. Thank youfor your attention.

23

HOV Planning and Policy Development in OntarioThomas J. AppaRao, Ontario Ministry of Transportation

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss HOV planningand policy development in Ontario. This paper focusesmainly on our activities in the Greater Toronto Area. Iwill describe the activities of the Provincial government,while Tom Mulligan will discuss the efforts of theMunicipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is the largest urbanregion in Ontario and indeed the whole of Canada. TheGTA accounts for 40 percent of the population and 50percent of the economic base of the Province. Obviously,an effective and efficient transportation system isnecessary to serve the social and economic needs of thisregion. The Greater Toronto Area contains five regionalmunicipalities-Halton, Peel, York, Durham andMetropolitan Toronto-and thirty local municipalities.The GTA extends about 100 miles east-west and 80 milesnorth-south. The population is approximately fourmillion, and this is forecast to grow to over six million inthe next 30 years. Currently one-half of the populationlives in Metropolitan Toronto.

The transportation system in the Toronto area includesroads, highways, rapid transit, commuter rail, and anextensive bus system. The Province is responsible forbuilding and operating the highway system; GO Transit,a provincial agency operates the commuter rail system;and the Province and the municipalities share the capitaland operating costs of municipal roads and transit. Thetotal provincial/municipalcapital funding for transportationin the GTA is approximately $1 billion/ year.

There are many current and future trends that led theprovince to examine the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)option. First, there is an increasing congestion on theroad system. Secondly, an increasing share of the growthis occurring in suburban areas, which in turn leads to alarge growth in interregional travel as well as intra-regional travel in the regions surrounding Metro Toronto.

These trends are expected to continue and to become moresignificant problems in the next 30 years. The increasedtravel demand cannot be accommodated by road expansionalone due to limited rights-of-way as well as social andenvironmental considerations, while transit cannot addressall of the suburban travel growth because of the dispersednature of the demand and cost considerations.

These were some of the factors that led to Ontario’sHOV policy, which was announced two years ago. Priorto this, the Province had been actively involved inpromoting ride sharing and assisting municipal HOV lanedevelopment. With the announcement of the policy, theProvince has initiated actions that would lead to HOVfacilities on provincial highways. The Province is alsotaking a much more comprehensive, deliberate, and pro-active approach towards the development of an integratedprovincial/municipal HOV system in the GTA.

The Ontario HOV policy formally recognizes theimportance of HOV facilities in addressing futuretransportation, environmental, social, and economic needs.The policy emphasizes collaboration with other levels ofgovernment, transit operators, and the private sector indeveloping these systems. The critical importance ofsupport programs are also recognized. The objective ofthe Ontario HOV system is to complement and enhancethe transit systems, not to compete with them. The HOVsystems can also play a strong role in forming a transithabit among commuters and can serve as a precursor tofuture rapid transit facilities.

Ontario is taking a combined opportunity-based andtraditional planning approach to the development of theHOV lane systems. To date, four major freewaycorridors have been studied to determine the need andfeasibility of providing HOV lanes. Preliminary or detaildesign is under way on three of these corridors. A fewadditional issues are being examined in the fourthcorridor. All four corridors were identified to be viablefrom an HOV demand standpoint. Studies will soon beinitiated on three additional corridors. An HOV networkstudy, which will cover the entire GTA region, will alsobe initiated soon. A provincial/municipal committee hasbeen established to provide leadership, coordination, andcommunication on HOV programs and issues. A fundingstrategy for HOV facilities has been established and astrategy to address the support programs is beingdeveloped.

The long-term vision for the HOV system in theToronto area includes HOV lanes on all major highways.The HOV lanes on highways and on arterial streets wouldbe well integrated. The physical facilities would besupported by appropriate programs and policies to ensuretheir effective use. The HOV and transit networks wouldbe well coordinated to complement each other providebetter service to the user. The HOV network would

2 4

enable buses to run faster and operate more efficiently,making bus transit more attractive to users.

Tom Mulligan, Municipality of Metro Toronto

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to discuss HOVplanning and development activities from the perspectiveof the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Thephilosophy of the municipality differs slightly from that ofthe Province. We are concerned with the arterial streetnetwork rather than the Provincial Highway system. Theroadway network in our area is maturing, resulting in alimited ability to respond to the growing travel demands.One approach being pursued by the Municipality is tryingto change commuter travel behavior from driving alone tousing HOVs--including transit, carpools, vanpools-andbicycles and walking.

Most major urban areas in Ontario have experiencedsignificant growth over the past 25 years. Much of thisgrowth has been in low density suburban areas. This hasresulted in severe congestion in many areas. This trendis expected to continue unless major changes occur.Arterial street HOV lanes can help address suburbantraffic congestion by focusing on person movement ratherthan vehicular movement. HOV lanes can also providepriority to buses, thereby improving reliability andoperating speeds.

The emphasis of the approach being taken in Torontois to make the arterial system more efficient by givingHOVs priority over single-occupancy vehicles. The HOVlane system plan has been developed by examiningpotential oppor tuni t ies for enhancement and bymaximizing resources. The result is a proposed gridnetwork HOV lane on our major arterial roads.

To maximize the person carrying capacity of theroadway network, transit operations should be a majorconsideration in any HOV project. Most of the arterialstreet HOV lanes in Toronto utilize the curb lane toprovide easy bus access. The eligibility of other HOVsand the vehicle occupancy requirements depend on how

many buses are anticipated to use the lane. For example,with the high bus volumes on many HOV lanes inToronto, only 3 + carpools and vanpools will be allowedto use the lanes. In areas with less bus service, a 2+vehicle occupancy requirement may be used.

The HOV system developed by the Municipality ofMetropolitan Toronto follows the arterial street gridnetwork. The proposed network of HOV lanes willpenetrate most suburban areas and will connect majoremployment and residential areas. The HOV lanes will beintegrated with the existing rapid transit lines in the regionand in some cases may act as precursors for rapid railfacilities. It is anticipated that the development of theHOV system will take about 25 years.

It was recognized early in the development of the HOVprogram that in addition to the HOV lanes, a number ofsupport programs and facilities needed to be provided tohelp promote use. Ridesharing programs are beingimplemented in a number of areas. One approachincludes a ride matching pilot study in a suburban officepark. Other programs provide preferential parking forHOVs at subway station park-and-ride lots, travelinformation centers at shopping malls and office buildings,and assisting employers establish their own ridesharingsystems.

To ensure that the public understands and supports thearterial street HOV lanes, special attention is being paidto public awareness and marketing programs. Aneffective enforcement program is also critical to insurethat the public perceives the lanes are being properlyused. High violation rates will work against future HOVprograms.

In conclusion, the Province and the municipalities arevery supportive of HOV facilities and programs. Allgroups are working together to plan, design, operate, andenforce a system of HOV facilities that will address thegrowing issues of traffic congestion and will enhance thequality of life in the region.

25

An Evaluation of Houston’s HOV FacilitiesDennis L. Christiansen, Texas Transportation Institute

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to discuss theongoing evaluation of the Houston HOV lane system.Bob MacLennan provided an excellent overview of theHouston transit and transportation system in his luncheonspeech yesterday. I would like to focus my remarks todayon the ongoing assessment of the lanes that have beenconducted by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) withthe support of the Metropolitan Transit Authority ofHarris County (METRO) and the Texas Department ofTransportation (TxDOT).

Traffic congestion became a major problem in Houstonduring the 1970s. HOV lanes were one of the alternativesexamined to address these growing concerns. Acontraflow HOV lane on the I-45 North Freeway wasimplemented in 1979. The lane was opened to buses andauthorized vanpools during the morning and afternoonpeak-periods. Although many people did not think thelane would work, it was a big success. Premium park-and-ride bus service was introduced and ridership levelsincreased significantly.

The success of this ini t ia l project led to thedevelopment of an extensive system of HOV lanes inHouston. Currently, 64 miles of a planned 105 mile HOVlane system are in operation in five radial freewaycorridors. The facilities have been planned, designed,constructed, and are being operated through thecooperative efforts of METRO and TxDOT. The HOVlanes represent the largest component of METRO’s long-range transit plan.

Although there are a few sections of two-lane, two-direction facilities, most of the HOV lanes in Houston areone-way, reversible lanes located in the median. They areusually 20 feet wide, and are separated from the mainlanesby concrete median barriers. Some of the lanes were

implemented by narrowing the general-purpose trafficlanes and/or the inside shoulder. Ingress and egress isprovided in a variety of different ways. Slip ramps areprovided in some areas. This is the cheapest and easiestform of access to the HOV lanes, but conflicts may arisewith merging vehicles. Grade separated access ramps arealso used on the Houston HOV lanes. These ramps cost$3 to $6 million on average and provide directconnections from major park-and-ride lots and transitstations.

The cost of the HOV lane system has averagedapproximately $6 million a mile. Annual operating costsaverage $250,000 per lane. Some 80,000 people use thelanes on a daily basis, with carpools and vanpoolsaccounting for 60 percent of this and bus riders 40percent. The costs for carpool and vanpool use is verylow.

One of the keys to an effective HOV facility isattracting new bus riders and carpoolers. In Houston, theHOV lanes have influenced commuters to change fromdriving alone to using HOV modes. The HOV lanes haveattracted young, educated, white-collar Texans to usetransit. The survey results indicate that the time savings,trip time reliability and the ability to avoid trafficcongestion are the main reasons people use the lanes. Acomparison of a freeway corridor with an HOV lane andone without indicates that bus ridership is twice as high inthe corridor with the HOV lane. HOV lanes haveproduced more reliable travel times, which in turn hasincreased the efficiency of bus service and improvedschedule adherence. Cat-pool volumes have alsoincreased. In addition, carpools using the HOV lanes tendto last longer.

The HOV lanes have support from the general publicin Houston. In addition to support from HOV users,survey results from motorists in the general purpose lanesindicate that the lanes are considered good improvementsto the transportation system. Support for the motoristsystem among users and non-users continues to grow.

The experience in Houston indicates that, while HOVlanes are not the total solution to traffic congestion andenvironmental problems, they can play important roles inhelping to address these concerns. They represent one setof tools to help improve mobility. Other areasconsidering HOV lanes may want to examine theexperience in Houston in more detail.

26

Implementation of HOV Lanes on I-270: LessonsLearnedHeidi F. Van Luven, Maryland State HighwayAdministration

Good morning. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity totalk about the first freeway high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)lanes in Maryland, which was opened last September. Weapproached planning for the HOV lanes like a pilotproject. We knew for practical, legal, and economicreasons, however, that HOV lanes were going to be partof the mix for all future highway planning in Maryland.Therefore, the project had to work. To date, the projecthas been working well.

I would like to start by providing a background totransportation planning in Maryland and the first HOVproject. Interstate 270 serves a heavily traveled corridor,which includes residential communities and hightechnology business campuses. I-270 is a radial freewaythat connects the rapidly growing corridor of northwestWashington, D.C., with the Capital Beltway. Between1970 and 1990, the average daily traffic volumes havemore than doubled along this corridor. The increasingtraffic volumes show the effect of this continued growthand the reasons for much of the traffic congestionexperienced today.

In 1991, approximately ten miles of I-270 werewidened to accommodate eight mainline freeway lanes andfour continuous collector-distributor lanes. This wideningutilized the available right-of-way, leaving no room foradditional expansion. Forecasts, however, indicate thatthe capacity of even this expanded 12 lane roadway willbe exceeded by the year 2000. This would result ingridlock on one of Maryland’s most impor tanttransportation corridors. Obviously, something had to bedone to prevent this.

One of the first things that was done, after the 12 lanewidening was completed in 1991, was to put up signs over

the new median lane that read “Future HOV Lane.”Although the traffic volumes at that time did not justifyopening the new lane as an HOV lane, it was felt that thepublic needed to be prepared for such a possibility.

Historically, the solution for gridlock has been to addmore lanes but since there is no more right-of-wayavailable in the I-270 corridor, long-range planning had toinclude HOV lanes as a major consideration along withother transportation options. The Maryland StateHighway Administration (MSHA) believed that HOVlanes were a viable means of slowing down the rapidincrease in the rate of traffic growth. At the very least,HOV lanes would guarantee free flow conditions for thosewho chose to carpool or ride the bus during peak-periods.The requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendmentswere also a consideration. The I-270 corridor does notmeet federal air quality standards and is considered a non-attainment area. With the passage of the ISTEA, federalmatching ratios for interstate projects in non-attainmentareas dropped from 90 percent to 80 percent except forHOV projects.

SHA had planned to widen portions of I-270 to thenorth and south of the 12 lane expansion section. Theseprojects were part of the capital program. Althoughinterstate funding was to be used for these projects,securing additional funds for the ten percent increase inthe state match was a significant concern.

From a transportation planner’s perspective, theconcept of HOV lanes appears to be a good one.However, elected officials and the public-at-large do notalways agree, but most news reporters think ‘that thisdifference of opinion is wonderful because it createscontroversy-and controversy makes for good stories.

As a result, when the State of Maryland began toconsider using HOV lanes as a possible solution togridlock, you can understand why we approached the ideawith great reservation. We decided to give the concept ofHOV lanes a try, however, and hoped to benefit from thelessons of HOV history-rather than having to repeatthem. Pioneers have always paved the way for those whofollow, and Maryland is grateful to those of you who areveterans of the great HOV wars.

We knew from your experience what we were upagainst in terms of public and private resistance. We alsorealized, from recent local experience, that the publicgenerally balked at the idea of HOV lanes. You see, arecent attempt to implement HOV lanes on the Dulles TollRoad in nearby Virginia failed, generating considerablepublic skepticism about HOV lanes, especially amongmotorists along the I-270 corridor.

Therefore, in March of 1993, when we launched ourHOV lane study, a strategy was developed that not onlyrecognized the potential resistance and skepticism on the

27

part of motorists and policy makers, but also incorporatedthe need to deal with this into every step of the planningprocess. We began by reviewing the experiences otherstates had with HOV lanes. Based on this assessment, wecame to the following conclusions.

. Before any decision is made to implement HOVlanes, options should first be developed and presented toand discussed with the public. This discussion shouldinclude whether to open or maintain the lanes as general-use lanes.

l Develop a high profile information campaign thatwill make clear to the public and to the press just howHOV lanes work and the benefits of HOV facilities.

l Time the implementation of the HOV lanes so thatit will be obvious to the public that their use will help torelieve congestion in the general-use traffic lanes. It iscounterproductive if the public sees empty HOV laneswhen the general-use lanes are overcrowded.

l Make HOV lanes part of an overall strategy thatincludes employer-based carpool programs, park-and-ridefacilities, and other services.

At the beginning of the I-270 HOV study, we decidedthat it was as important to collaborate on the developmentand evaluation of alternatives, as it was to collaborate onmaking a final decision. To accomplish this, a technicalteam which included representatives from the county inwhich I-270 is located and from the Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA) was established. Sub-teams werealso formed to address operational issues and publicrelations. Further, as the study progressed, themetropolitan planning organization, local and state electedofficials, and interest groups throughout the corridor wereinformed about the status and findings from the study.The key to the collaborative approach was two-waycommunication that made our constituents also our stakeholders. We told them what we were doing; they told uswhat they thought. The result was that we were able tomake reasonable modifications to the HOV options as wewent along.

The public was kept informed throughout the process.Although people continued to strongly resist the conceptof HOV lanes, many began a gradual shift from resistingthe idea to giving HOV lanes a chance if we could provethat they would work. Overcoming people’s resistance tothe HOV concept by giving them facts and figures waskey to our public information campaign. For example,during the planning process, a broadcast-quality video tapewas produced that explained what HOV lanes were, how

they worked and why they were being considered. Thisvideo was shown to citizen interest groups, electedofficials, and at a formal public hearing.

The public hearing on the I-270 HOV lane proposalwas highly publicized. A press release, which included atoll free HOV “hotline,” was widely disseminated to allprint and electronic news outlets. As a result, the pressasked for and received advance interviews. Televisionstations appreciated having professionally produced tapefootage to illustrate the story, and repeatedly aired theHOV “package” as well as a pre-recorded question-and-answer session before the hearing. The turnout at thepublic hearing and the tremendous number of phone callsand letters that followed were evidence that the publicinformation campaign had been effective.

In the summer of 1993, the decision was made to moveforward with HOV lanes on I-270. A letter stating thatthe decision had been made was mailed to citizens groups,civic associations, business leaders, and elected officialswithin the I-270 corridor. An announcement to thegeneral public was also made at a press conference.Special one-on-one meetings were held with radio and TVtraffic reporters, transportation writers, and editorialboards of local newspapers. Employer informationpackets were distributed to major employers andridesharing coordinators along the I-270 corridor to helpthem answer the most commonly asked questions aboutHOV facilities. Employers were urged to encourageemployees to share a ride.

One of the most important tactics at this point in thepublic information strategy was advance signing. Forexample, months before opening the first HOV lane, apermanent HOV sign was put up and a small bannerwhich read “future” was placed over it. Then, one monthbefore opening the HOV lane, another banner was placedover the permanent HOV signs. That banner read“Opening September 27th.” Once the HOV lane opened,variable message signs were used to advise drivers thatthey were approaching the HOV lane.

A solid base of technical information was alsodeveloped as part of the HOV study. Vehicle occupancycounts verified that there were enough existing highoccupancy vehicles to ensure that the HOV lanes would beused by existing carpoolers even if the estimated diversiondid not occur. Volume and capacity projectionsestablished the need for a two person (2+) minimumoccupancy requirement per vehicle. These projectionsalso helped in the comparison of the people movingcapability of the HOV lanes versus the general-use lanes.Data on vehicle occupancy and peak hour traffic volumeswere used to determine the best hours for HOV operation.Data on travel times before and after implementation ofthe HOV lanes were calculated and compared to show the

28

travel time savings resulting from the HOV Ianes.Opening day on September 27, 1993, exceeded our

expectations. The vehicle volumes in the HOV lane weregood, the press reports were favorable, and one publicopinion poll indicated that the majority of the peoplethought HOV lanes were a good idea. We did have oneinteresting event during the opening, however. Asofficials and the press were watching from a bridge, anincident involving a violator in the HOV lane, a motoristin the adjacent lane, and a police car pursuing the violatoroccurred. No one was hurt, but guess what story led thenews that night?

Ongoing monitoring has been conducted since theopening of the HOV lane. During this time, the HOVlane volumes have ranged from approximately 400 to 600vehicles per hour during the evening peak-period.Average travel times for all motorists on’ I-270 haveimproved. Before the HOV lane was opened, the averagetravel time for the two mile segment was five minutes.Since the HOV lane opened, the average travel times aredown to four minutes in the general-use lanes, and twominutes and 17 seconds in the HOV lane.

Violation rates have been fairly high, averagingapproximately 23 percent. A range of enforcementmethods continue to be tested to find the best way toreduce violations without slowing traffic or increasingaccidents. The courts have upheld the violation citationsto date.

We credit the success we have had to four key factors.First was the collaboration with the public, the press,elected officials, and local interest groups from planningthrough implementation. Second was the ongoingcommunication through open debate and discussion. Thisnot only informed the public but also provided usefulfeedback that often led to modifications which eitherimproved the plan or avoided impasses. Third, closeattention was given to all operational details, from signingand paint striping to enforcement. This helped ensureeverything went as smoothly as possible at start up.Finally, we avoided startup confusion by anticipatingpotential problems. The public was informed that HOV

lanes were coming, when they were coming, and what toexpect on opening day. Providing the public with helpfulinformation was instrumental’ in getting the public tocooperate that first day.

The I-270 pilot project just described is the first of fourphases planned in the I-270 corridor. With Phase I, anew HOV lane was constructed on the northbound side ofthe 2% mile East Spur segment of I-270 with eveningpeak-period restrictions only. Phase II will open by Julyof this year. This will include a new southbound HOVlane, to Phase I’s northbound HOV lane, operating in themorning peak-period from 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. PhaseIII will open in the summer of 1996. Newly constructedlanes will help to relieve bottlenecks just north of thewidened 12-lane section. On the same day that the newlanes are opened, the existing median general-use lane inthe original 12-lane widened section will be converted toan HOV lane. The intent of this simultaneousimplementation is to reduce the sense among singleoccupant vehicle drivers that they have lost something.Phase IV will open in the summer of 1997. These newlyconstructed lanes will help to relieve bottlenecks at thesouthern end of the widened 12-lane section, known as theI-270 West Spur.

The statewide plan for HOV implementation will be anoutgrowth of this pilot project. A statewide network ofpotential HOV facilities is being identified as part of thisprocess.

In conclusion, one of the most important lessonslearned from this project is that for HOV lanes tosucceed, they have to be used, and in the final analysis,it will not be the Maryland State Highway Administrationthat determines whether HOV lanes will be used, but thedrivers themselves. All that we in MSHA can do is hopethat if we build it, they will come-or to be more precise,if we build it, they will carpool. So we will continue toplan, to collaborate with all constituencies, and to learn aswe go. But we also plan to step up our campaign toconvince Maryland motorists that an HOV highway maybe as inevitable as an information highway.

29

Experiences from the Northridge Earthquake: Applying HOV Treatments in an EmergencyDonald G. Capelle, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.-Presiding

The Caltrans ResponseCharles J. O'Connell, California Department ofTransportation

I would like to provide an overview of the Caltransresponse to the Northridge earthquake. Although it wasa major earthquake, the impact on the freeway systemwould not have been all that bad except for the fact thatI-5, the major interstate route between Canada andMexico, was severed at the interchange with State Route14. This is a location where, because of the topography,there is no parallel arterial or freeway. Interstate 5 alsois a major north/south truck and car corridor in thisregion. The severing of this route caused trucks to bererouted throughout the Southern California area andresulted in major problems for commuters living in thearea north of Los Angeles. At that location, I-5 carriesapproximately 130,000 vehicles a day. Trucks account forsome 15 to 20 percent of this traffic. Other facilities thatwere affected include State Route 14 and State Route 118which carry approximately 180,000 vehicles a day,respectively. Both of these routes are primarily commuterfreeways. On the other hand, the Santa Monica Freeway(I-10) carries some 340,000 to 370,000 vehicles a daydepending upon the location. It is located in the heart ofthe west side of downtown Los Angeles, and there is asubstantial grid network of alternate routes in the SantaMonica Freeway Corridor primarily high standard arterialsand some parallel freeways which are not present in the I-5 Corridor.

The I-5 Freeway was also severed at Gavin Canyon justnorth of SR 14. Major sections of State Route 118immediately east of I-405 were also severely damaged.

Also the eastbound roadway suffered major damage andcollapsed on a viaduct section; the westbound roadwaywas temporarily shored, resurfaced and reopened in arelatively short time to carry both east and west traffic.

One of the innovations on I-10 was the utilization of aneastbound off-ramp which was quickly repaired andopened in the opposite direction for utilization bywestbound HOVs. Two alternate routes were providedwhere I-10 was severed at La Brea Avenue.

The utilization of truck route/bypass lanes at the I-5 andState Route 14 interchange area provided two lanes ineach direction almost immediately for traffic detoured byway of State Route 14. With a little creativity, thenorthbound direction was expanded to include an HOVlane and two general purpose lanes. Southbound StateRoute 14 was restriped to provide one HOV lane (and twoSOV lanes) which provided a quick bypass so that trafficcould more efficiently utilize the southbound truck laneswhich remained opened. In addition, a supersededparallel state highway known as Sierra Highway, whichwas essentially a four lane facility, remained open totraffic. Traffic flow was modified to provide initiallythree lanes in the peak direction and one lane in theopposite direction. However, as soon as the truck bypasslanes were opened, Sierra Highway was permanentlyconverted to three southbound lanes and one northboundlane thus balancing total capacity. The key here was theability to convert to HOV operations an HOV lane in eachdirection on the truck bypass. In the northbounddirection, a three mile HOV lane was created, and in thesouthbound direction, a IO-mile HOV lane was created.These lanes were extremely effective, providing about a15 to 20 minute savings in travel time to HOVs. All ofthese changes were accomplished through the coordinatedefforts of Caltrans, City and County of Los Angeles andthe city of Santa Clarita.

On I-5, a two-lane detour was created which utilized thesuperseded state highway arterial (known as the Old Road)which provided for two lanes of traffic in each directionas compared to the eight lane I-5 freeway. No HOV laneswere in use on this bypass.

HOV lanes were used on State Route 118 becauserestoration of original capacity was able to be provided inless than a month and a parallel arterial system existed.This section of State Route 118 was essentially a six-lanefacility. By restriping and reshoring the westboundviaduct, six lanes of traffic (three lanes in each direction)were provided, essentially restoring the original capacity,while the eastbound viaduct was being rebuilt,

30

Two detours were established on the Santa MonicaFreeway between Washington Boulevard and La BreaAvenue. An HOV detour utilized the Santa MonicaFreeway right up to the location of the structure collapse.Westbound HOVs utilized a converted eastbound offramp/connector and were essentially taken off the freeway atone offramp and immediately back on the convertedeastbound offramp. Eastbound HOVs were taken off atLa Brea Avenue and returned at Washington Boulevard.A more circuitous detour was necessary for SOVs thatwere diverted off the freeway at La Brea Avenueapproximately one mile upstream of the HOV lanedetermination. Eastbound HOVs were also exited atRobertson where they traversed local arterials leading tothe freeway at Washington Boulevard. Overall, there wasa savings of approximately 15 to 20 minutes for HOVsduring the peak commute period.

The public adapted well to the installation of HOVlanes, both on I-10 and I-5/SR 14 truck lanes. On the SR14 truck lanes, peak HOV volume frequently ranged from2,000 to 2,200 vehicles per hour per lane during peakperiods. On I-10, HOV usage ranged from 700 vehiclesper hour to 1,400 vehicles per hour during peak periods.Mixed flow lanes on the State Route 14 truck bypassfrequently ranged as high as 2,400 vehicles per hour perlane. The overall savings to the public utilizing HOVlanes averaged approximately 20 minutes.

The Los Angeles County MetropolitanTransportation Authority ResponseArthur T. Leahy, Los Angeles County MetropolitanTransportation Authority

The earthquake occurred at 4:31 A.M. on January 31,1994. That was a holiday Monday morning. By5:30 A.M., an emergency command center had beenestabl ished a t the LACMTA. S ta f f f rom a l ld e p a r t m e n t s - i n c l u d i n g o p e r a t i o n s , e q u i p m e n tmaintenance, facility maintenance, engineering, safety,communications, and the news bureau-gathered at the

center to share information and to start identifyingresponse strategies. The group examined the extent ofd a m a g e t o f a c i l i t i e s a n d e q u i p m e n t , a v a i l a b l ecommunications, and alternatives.

A number of immediate actions were initiated. First,all bus and rail operators were mobilized. This effortfollowed the previously developed emergency plan, soLACMTA personnel knew what to do. An assessment ofall facilities was initiated to determine the extent ofdamage and necessary repairs were identified. Theseefforts were coordinated with those of other agenciesthrough the command center in the basement of City Hall.

Although the first day was very difficult withreoccurring aftershocks, 96 percent of the normal busservice was operated. Ridership was about 20 percentbelow normal, but it was important for transit dependentgroups. Responses from riders indicated that the servicewas critical for traveling to and from work. Thisprovided a reassurance to the public that the city was stillfunctioning.

The Metro Blue Line was also in operation that day.The system was inspected after each aftershock to ensurethat all the structures were still sound. The Red Linesubway was not in operation, however, due to theinspections needed after each aftershock. A bus bridgewas established replicating the route of the Red Line. OnTuesday, the day after the earthquake, all bus and railservice was in operation. Ongoing communications weremaintained with Caltrans and local jurisdictions. This wascritical since many of the bus route were impacted bydetours and conditions on the freeways and local streets.Approximately 75 detours were in place within 24 hoursof the earthquake.

During the weeks after the earthquake, the MTAactively participated in an interagency planning committee.This committee was chaired by a representative from thegovernor’s office. A great deal of support was providedby the governor’s office, as well as federal officials.Other representatives on the committee were fromCaltrans, the City of Los Angeles, law enforcementagencies, and the other transit agencies in the area. Thepurpose of the committee was to plan and coordinatestreet and highway detours, bus service changes and newservices, and coordinating public information. Dailyupdates and press releases were used to help communicatewith residents and travelers.

In closing, the experience of the LACMTA indicates theimportance of having an emergency plan that allemployees are familiar with. It is also critical to updatethese plans after they are used in an emergency. The planworked well and all employees knew what they should do.The single largest key to success was probably the closecoordination and communication among the different

31

agencies. This enhanced the efforts of each agency andprovided a coordinated approach to addressing problemsand to communicating with the public.

The Metrolink ResponseRichard Stanger, Metrolink

I would like to take this opportunity to provide anoverview of the Metrolink system and to describe how weresponded after the earthquake. Metrolink startedoperations just 15 months before the earthquake inOctober of 1992. Metrolink is part of the SouthernCalifornia Regional Rail Authority, which was establishedthrough a joint-powers agreement among five counties.The sole purpose of the authority is to plan, build, andoperate commuter rail service.

The system has expanded very rapidly. The initialsystem included 112 miles when it was opened in 1992.By June of 1993, 196 miles were in operation. Currently,the system includes 346 miles. By 1995, the Metrolinksystem will encompass 500 miles on seven lines.

A number of factors have contributed to this growth.First, the bond measures passed in 1989 and 1990earmarked adequate funds to build the system. The bondmeasures were largely a response to the significantincreases in congestion experienced in the Los Angelesarea. Between 1980 and 1990, vehicle miles of travelincreased by approximately 60 percent, with only a 2percent increase in road miles. Second, for the first time,freight railroads were willing to sell major portions ofurban track. Between 1990 and 1993, public agenciespurchased 700 miles of railroad rights-of-way and track,along with 700 acres of stations, yards, and otherfacilities. Slightly less than half of this is anticipated to beused for commuter rail. Third, county governmentsrealized they would have to work together to implement acommuter rail system. Finally, improvements to existing

railroad rights-of-way are categorically exempt underCalifornia environmental law. This allowed immediatemovement toward construction.

The Metrolink system uses existing railroad rights-of-way and freeway median rights-of-way. Where possible,existing stations have been renovated. The cost of theinitial four lines was approximately $600 million. Thisincluded almost 200 miles of track and the centralmaintenance facility. This averages out to approximately$3 million a mile. The subsidy per trip is approximately$0.28 per mile or $8.70 for an average trip. The subsidylevels have been declining.

After the earthquake, key segments of the freewaysystem were broken and traffic, especially in the north,was disrupted. The rail lines fared much better. The RedLine bounced one foot vertically and one foot laterally,but remained relatively undamaged. Surface railroadtracks, especially in curves, moved as much as a footlaterally, but maintained gauge.

It was evident immediately after the earthquake thatthere was a need to expand Metrolink service to helpmaintain mobility. Service was not operated the day ofthe earthquake because of the need to inspect the systemafter each aftershock. The reassignment of vehicles intothe area started immediately, however. Three trains wereavailable due to the delay in the opening of the OrangeCounty Line. Also, the MTA had purchased the SaugusLine to Palmdale a year earlier, so that the track wasalready owned.

Ridership levels were below normal on Tuesday, but onWednesday, an additional 4,000 people rode the system.This continued through the next week. It was also evidentthat service would have to be extended to interceptcommuters coming from the Antelope Valley where300,000 people live. By Thursday, agreements had beenreached with the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale that bythe following Monday the system would be extended toLancaster and two new stations would be open. The newstations were developed quickly, with at least sixcontractors working simultaneously. Also the Corps ofEngineers and the SeaBees helped construct some stations,along with city and county public works departments.The response was truly a group effort.

Before the earthquake, daily system ridership wasslightly under 1,000. Ridership peaked in the two weeksimmediately after the earthquake and then leveled out.Caltrans was able to open part of the I-S/Route 14interchange by the end of January. We knew thatridership would decline, partly because we had only14,000 seats available for some 21,000 riders. Riderswho purchased a February monthly pass could ridethrough March for free and free emergency trips wereprovided for firefighters, police, and other individuals.

3 2

Current ridership is about 3,000 after the reopening of theI-5 bridge and the Route 14 ramps. This is still fourtimes greater than before the earthquake.

A number of capital improvements are being made onthe line. The 78 mile trip took approximately 2 hours and25 minutes. The extremely slow curves required trains tooperate at about 28 miles an hour. This is unacceptablefor long term service. Metrolink is working with theFederal Emergency Management Agency to improve theline. Initially, it was thought that reconstruction of the I-5interchange would take about a year. Although I wouldlike to compliment Caltrans for doing an extremely finejob of rebuilding the freeways, part of me wishes it hadtaken a little longer.

Based on a preliminary analysis, four improvementswere identified to reduce the travel time from 2 hours and25 minutes to 1 hour and 35 minutes. First, ten miles ofnew track had to be built in the Antelope Valley to get offthe Southern Pacific mainline. Second, curves needed tobe straightened in the 33-mile Soledad Canyon area.These two steps saved 40 minutes in travel time. Third,one tunnel needed to be repaired. Although it did notsustain much damage, standing water in the tunnel became

a problem. Fourth, ongoing work approaching UnionStation in downtown Los Angeles is being completed.

A number of activities have been undertaken toaccomplish this. On an average day since the earthquake,6,400 cubic feet of earth has been moved, 900 tons ofballast has been spread, 1,500 feet of rail has been laid,and 300 ties have been set or replaced. All of this isbeing done under freight and Metrolink traffic. Theserepairs and improvements have cost approximately $50million, or $1 million a mile. Most of the funding hascome from the Federal Emergency Management Agencyand the Los Angeles County Metropolitan TransitAuthority (LACMTA).

In many ways, the earthquake put Metrolink on themap. Before the earthquake, probably only about 10percent of the residents in Los Angeles knew whatMetrolink was. Now, this number is probably 80 or 90percent. The response by Metrolink showed that thesystem could be counted on and that it is an important partof the overall transportation system in the Los Angelesarea.

3 3

Emerging Issues, Research, and Vision for HOV Systems-Panel DiscussionDonald G. Capelle, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.-Presiding

Panelists:Katherine F. Tumbull, Texas Transportation InstituteMorris J. Rothenberg, JHK & AssociatesLeslie N. Jacobson, Washington State Department of TransportationKeith Gilbert, Automobile Club of Southern CaliforniaArthur T. Leahy, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Dr. Capelle opened the session by noting that theConference participants had completed forms on the firstday identifying key issues, research needs, and futurevisions related to HOV facilities. The responses to thesurvey were compiled into nine categories. Panelmembers were asked to respond briefly to some of thoseissues. A summary of the responses from the panelists isprovided.

There have not been any recent developments inHOV enforcement techniques. What enforcementapproaches will be used in the future?

Jacobson: One of the most important things we can dois to involve representatives from the enforcementagencies very early in the HOV planning and designprocess. Enforcement officials should also be involved indeveloping the operating plans for HOV facilities.Ensuring that enforcement areas are designed and locatedproperly is important, as is providing a system that makessense to the public. This can make enforcement easier.

Tumbull: A number of areas around the county areexamining the potential application of a variety ofadvanced technologies to assist with HOV enforcement.Although there is not a currently available technology thatcan be used to help determine the number of vehicleoccupants, this possibility is being examined. A numberof research studies and demonstration projects are focusingon this issue. Within the next few years, there should bea much better idea of what these technologies are and howthey can be applied. This represents just one of a numberof combinations of IVHS technologies and HOV systems.The luncheon comments by Bob MacLennan also raise animportant issue that enforcement for the worst casescenario needs to be considered. This should include howto guard against motorists doing strange things andmisusing the facilities.

Rothenberg: Enforcement needs to be considered earlyin the design phase, and we need to do our best atbuilding compliance into the design and operating plansfor HOV facilities. It is also important to remember thatHOV facilities are new in many areas and motorists maynot be familiar with the requirements. This points to the

need to improve public information and marketingprograms. If we do a better job at informing people onthe proper use of the lanes, we may be able to reduceviolations.

Gilbert: One of the best enforcement devices is a lowtechnology approach; the $271 maximum fines given toviolators in California. This seems to work from aconsumer standpoint.

Although bus service is an important part of manyHOV facilities, some transit agencies around thecountry consider HOVs to be competitive with bus orrail services. Are HOV facilities competitive orcomplementary to other transit services?

Leahy: At the MTA, HOV lanes and busways havebeen viewed as compatible with rail sections. The ElMonte Busway provides a good example of buses,carpools, and vanpools all using the same facility. Theaddit ion of carpools may have resul ted in somedegradation of bus speeds, but overall it has worked well.The impact of a busway or HOV lane on bus ridership isvery positive. Before the El Monte Busway was opened,there were approximately 1,000 daily riders in thecorridor. Now, approximately 19,000 to 22,000 dailypassengers ride buses in the corridor. Service has beenincreased significantly since the busway was open, withpeak hour headways averaging between one to threeminutes.

Tumbull: There are two important points to makeabout bus services and HOV facilities. First, as noted insome of the other presentations, there has been asignificant growth in non-radial HOV lanes. Bus serviceshave historically been provided in a radial direction;providing service from suburban areas to the downtown.Correspondingly, there has been little suburb-to-suburbbus service. With the growth of non-radial HOV lanes,we need to look at the role bus service should play inserving this travel market.

It is also important to note that many transit systemscontinue to have problems ensuring adequate operatingassistance. Houston, Dallas, and the other MetropolitanTransit Agencies in Texas are lucky in that they have a

34

dedicated sales tax revenue that provides a stable fundingbase. Other transit agencies around the country do nothave this. These are two important challenges currentlyfacing many transit systems. We need to be aware ofthese concerns and work with transit agencies to try toenhance bus services on HOV facilities.

Jacobson: One of the responsibilities we have at thestate department of transportation is to work with transitagencies to make sure the HOV facilities will support thetransit service in the area. Thus, like enforcement,representatives from transit agencies need to be involvedearly in the planning and design stages to ensure thattransit operations are adequately considered. Also, in anarea like Seattle, which does not have a rail transitsystem, the HOV lanes have helped increase bus servicesand ridership levels. Representatives from CommunityTransit would probably agree that the Seattle HOV laneshave been very supportive of their system and partlyresponsible for the increase in ridership experienced overthe last decade.

Rothenberg: The key is really to get people out of theirsingle-occupant vehicles. Carpools represent an importantstep away from the habit of driving alone. It may lead togreater use of other forms of transit also. It is alsoimportant to remember that HOV facilities are just one ofthe transportation tools available. There are a number ofdifferent markets that need to be served and thetransportation system should be responsive to thesedifferent market segments.

A number of proposals are currently beingconsidered to use congestion pricing on HOV lanes byselling excess capacity to single-occupant vehicles.What do you think of those proposals and the possibleuse of congestion pricing on HOV lanes?

Gilbert: We discussed this issue at a session earliertoday and there did not seem to be a great deal ofopposition to the concept. Rather than calling itcongestion pricing, I would consider it similar to the idea

discussed in the Los Angeles area a number of years agoof providing a premium service for a premium price. Atfirst, this was discussed in terms of separate roadways.Now the idea of using excess capacity in HOV lanes toprovide this premium service is being considered. Theremay not be all that many areas where this concept wouldbe feasible because it would require an exclusive HOVlane with limited access points. In addition, I am not surethat there is much excess capacity on many HOV lanes.I am not sure I agree with the idea of allowing 3 +carpools to use an HOV lane free, but charging 2+carpools. It seems that we should be encouraging allforms of ridesharing.

Environment issues, especially air quality, continueto be important concerns in many areas. Are wegetting any closer to understanding the environmentalimpacts of HOV facilities?

Rothenberg: This issue represents the highest priorityresearch project identified by the TRB HOV SystemsCommittee’s Subcommittee on Research. A problemstatement on this topic was developed and submitted to theNational Cooperative Highway Research Program(NCHRP) for funding. It was not accepted this year forfunding, but it may be considered next year. A numberof NCHRP projects do focus on air quality issues,however. One of these is focusing on quantifying airquality benefits and costs from transportation controlmeasures and other techniques to reduce automobileusage. HOV facilities should be considered within thisproject.

Jacobson: One of the issues discussed at the air qualitysession was the fact that existing transportation and airquality models are probably not sophisticated enough toadequately examine the impacts of HOV facilities. Inaddition, a number of other issues must be considered inthis analysis. These include the type of HOV facilitybeing considered, the estimated mode shift, characteristicsof the travel corridor, and local conditions.

3 5

PART 2-KEYNOTE LUNCHEON SPEECHESHOV as a System-Wide SolutionRobert G. MacLennan, General Manager, The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County

It is a pleasure to participate in the Seventh National HOVConference here in Los Angeles. I bring greetings fromthe home of the next NBA Champions-the HoustonRockets. The community pride in the Houston area hasbeen very evident during the basketball playoffs.Although Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County(METRO) does not allow any advertising on our buses, aMETRO bus has been painted with “Go Rockets.” Freerides are currently being provided on this bus.

Los Angeles is a great location for the conference.There are a number of similarities between the HOVfacilities in Houston and Los Angeles. Both representcoordinated and cooperative efforts between numerousgroups. The HOV lanes in Houston have beendeveloped-and continue to be operated-through the-jointefforts of METRO and the Texas Department ofTransportation (TxDOT).

The HOV lanes in Houston represent a basic elementof the mass transit system and are a major part of theoverall transportation system. How Houston got to thispoint was not necessarily a well planned route, however.Rather, it brings to mind an anecdote about Bishop FultonJ. Sheen.

Some of you may remember that back in the 1950s and1960s, Bishop Fulton J. Sheen was a great moral force inthe United States. He had a program on television thatwas broadcast nationwide, and he traveled all over theworld presenting inspirational talks.

One evening in Philadelphia, Bishop Sheen decided towalk from his hotel to the Philadelphia Town Hall eventhough he was unfamiliar with the city, Sure enough, hebecame lost and was forced to ask some boys to directhim to his destination.

One of them asked Sheen, “What are you going to do

at Town Hall?” Sheen replied, “I’m going to give alecture.” “What about?” the boy asked. “On how to getto heaven. Would you care to come along?” “Are youkidding?” said the boy, “You don’t even know how to getto Town Hall!”

It would be terrific for me to be able to tell you thatHouston public transportation planers knew from the starthow high occupancy vehicle lanes would be used toprovide a system-wide solution to our transportationproblems. However, like Bishop Sheen, although weknew our ultimate destination, we did not know the routewe were going to take to get there.

A brochure produced in 1978 illustrated the routeMETRO planned to take when it was created as a brandnew transit authority in Houston, Texas. The brochureshows an artist’s conception of four steps in Houston’spublic transportation future.

The first picture is of a congested freeway; which wascertainly the state of Houston traffic in 1978. The nextframe shows a dedicated busway down the middle of thatfreeway. The third picture shows construction takingplace on the busway, and the fourth picture shows a railline in place of the busway.

Well, we have not gotten to the rail line yet because afunny thing happened on the way to the train. Ourbusways turned into an HOV lane network, and werealized we had a successful transportation system on ourhands.

Once we realized that, we made managing the assets ofthe HOV lanes a major part of the system-wide solutionfor Houston’s traffic problems. We have had quite a bitof success doing that. According to the TexasTransportation Institute, Houston is the only major city inthe country which has had continuously decliningcongestion levels since 1984.

Here’s the route we took to our version of“transportation heaven”-our 64 mile, and soon to be 104mile-barrier separated HOV lane network.

W h a t w e only recent ly decided to cal l “HighOccupancy Vehicle” lanes were at first simply “contra-flow” lanes. They then became barrier separated“Authorized Vehicle Lanes,” or “Transitways.” Theselanes were mainly seen as effective mass transittechniques-but not “the system-wide solution” to trafficmanagement.

Houstonians like their cars and pickups, and manythink they have a right to their single occupant vehicles.These independent folks were somewhat hostile to the first

3 6

contraflow lane because it took an existing lane offreeway, in the off-peak direction of travel, and restrictedits use to buses and vanpools.

The citizens trapped in traffic alongside the HOV lanesdid not interpret the intermittent buses or large vans flyingpast them as 47-less-cars-blocking-their-way. Theythought they saw under utilization of these transit lanes.And they complained so loudly that we began to allowcarpools to enter these previously transit-only lanes.

At first, we had all kinds of restrictions. Drivers hadto go through a training course, display an authorized usertag, and ferry at least three passengers in addition to thedriver. Needless to say, Houstonians remained hostile.They knew how to drive, and they cherish their privacy.Until we lowered the occupancy minimum to two persons,few carpools used the HOV lanes. When we finallydropped the training requirement and let any two personsbrave enough to figure out how to get on the lane try the“transitways,” the HOV lanes very quickly became aspopular as sliced bread.

Thus, we backed into using our transitways as trueHOV lanes because of public opinion. Meanwhile, thecost of building a train system, and the political problemsattendant with both the cost and possible locations took atoll on public opinion. Not-in-my-backyard attitudestoward train building had a lot to do with the utilization ofa freeway-based HOV lane system.

Since we were a new agency, and we were seekingfederal funds, Houston METRO held two areawidereferenda that solicited citizen input on the locallypreferred transit system technology. In a 1993 election,heavy rail got soundly trounced.

We conducted a lot of surveys and public opinion pollsin the mid-1980s, and in 1988, we ran the issue up theflagpole again. This time the vote indicated strongsupport for dedicating 25 percent of our sales tax to streetconstruction and maintenance of traffic management ingeneral. This is when METRO really became a differenttype of transit authority and really became a serioustransportation agency. It also looked like there wassupport for rail technology in the form of a loop connectorfed by a bus system that added to the HOV system, ratherthan replacing it.

We were, at this time, beginning to get federalappropriations for our system as well. The followingsequence of events took place over the next tive years:

l the board changed, and rail was dropped;

l the board changed again, and a new rail plan wasdeveloped and adopted;

l the mayor and the board changed, and rail was

dropped again.The current Board of Directors took a good look at

Houston’s transportation assets, including the HOV lanes,and, realizing the treasure we had in them, decided thatHouston should stick with and expand on our state-of-the-art bus system and run it on HOV lanes wherever and foras long as that makes sense. We were successful ingetting approval to keep and continue the federal fundingprogram on the basis that our HOV lanes were still fixedguideways. We named our system-wide solution “TheRegional Bus Plan. ”

Of course what I have just told you is a very simplifiedversion of a very complex fifteen years of existence.Even today, there are some who say that HOV lanes arenot legitimately fixed-guideway transit systems. I wouldargue that it is exactly the sort of intermodal system thatISTEA was formulated to encourage.

Let us look at the bus aspect of the system first. Busesmake great sense in cities like Houston for two majorreasons: we have a very large service area, 1,279 squaremiles, and comparatively low densities. In fact, everycorridor in Houston that could justify rail has an HOVlane either in operation or under design. Houston has nonatural barriers like oceans or mountains to contain itsgrowth, so it just spreads across on the coastal plain likecattle looking for fresh grass.

Also, for better or worse, Houston is the last largeAmerican city without zoning. We thought last year thatwe might get zoning, but our citizens voted it down stillone more time. So planning and channeling developmentis very hard to do in a city like ours. This makes aflexible transportation system essential if we are torespond to the needs of our growing city.

More and more, Houston is becoming-as Joel Garreausays-a collection of Edge Cities. Our central businessdistrict, while still the major employment center, is beingchallenged by numerous other employment nodes such asthe Texas Medical Center and The Galleria/Uptown area.These are just two of about twelve areas that are attractingemployees away from the central core. Three of thesemajor activity centers alone are in the nation’s top twentyemployment districts today.

Thus, Houston is like most other large cities in theworld. The central business district is no longer the onlyemployment center. This suburbanization of worklocations creates problems for transportation geared tohub-and-spoke systems which are typified by the railsystems of older cities.

Our large interconnecting freeway system has alreadylaced these employment centers together, so using thefreeway HOV lanes for buses makes, good sense forHouston. Our park-and-ride system brings the workersdirectly to the large major activity centers, or drops them

37

off at transit centers to make transfers to other suburbanlocations. Bus riders who make the trip all the way to amajor activity center on one bus are dropped off close totheir buildings.

One of the many issues associated with a possible railsystem in Houston is how it compares with theeffectiveness of the park-and-ride bus system as far ascollecting and distributing riders. This, of course, is ontop of the fact that the average park-and-ride bus speed istwice that of the average rail line, plus park-and-rideservice is already very cost efficient.

All of the rail systems evaluated in Houston havepresented problems when factoring in distribution ofpassengers from the central train station onto buses fordelivery to the downtown office buildings. Riders’ tripsbecome longer if they have to change modes. Thischallenge may not be formidable in cities with long-established intermodal transit systems, but Houstonianshave never been substantial users of public transit, so weare constantly competing with the automobile for theirbusiness.

Distribution problems become much smaller when thetransportation system is comprised of buses and carpoolsbecause they are much more flexible. Flexibility is thekey word when dealing with low density areas. HOVlanes amplify the flexibility needed.

There are, of course, planning challenges to theeffective use of HOV lanes. Finding the right mix ofvehicles, hours of operation, number of passengers, andsafety has not been easy. I have already told you that westarted out requiring four persons with a trained driver andan authorization card, then we dropped to two persons.Once the word got out about what a good deal this was,ridership in carpools increased so rapidly on the I-10 Westtransitway that we had to raise the occupancy requirementsduring the peak hours. To keep the HOV lane fromclogging up, we require three persons in each car duringthe morning and afternoon peak hours.

In order to retain our bus passengers, we have to keepthe traffic moving swiftly on the HOV lane. Thus, goodmanagement and monitoring of the traffic flow isessential. Currently, we are very close to raising theoccupancy levels during the morning peak hour on twoother freeway HOV lanes to keep them flowing smoothly.

We have also changed the operating hours for the HOVlanes. Originally, they were only open during the peakhours. Complaints about under-utilization of the lanes ledto vastly expanded hours, however. Late in 1993 andearly in 1994, three wrong-way incidents occurred on thelanes that lead us to restrict operating hours. Theincidents appear to be caused by driver errors. One casemight have been the result of two teenagers deliberatelygoing the wrong way with no lights at night playing

chicken. Another involved a driver with a blood alcoholcontent of 0.27 whose entry onto the HOV lane defies anylogic and some laws of physics.

We took a number of steps to prevent these types ofincidents from occurring again. The entries and exits tothe lanes have become more controlled and extraenforcement personnel have been deployed. We also cutback the operating hours initially. Recently we haveupgraded our signage and extended the hours again, butnot quite as broadly as before.

Over time, we have continued to add to the HOV lanesystem. Almost 65 miles are currently in operation. Anadditional 40 miles are under construction or in design.Every time a new lane opens, we see ridership risedramatically.

Right now, combined with our bus system, our HOV-network carries more passengers than the bus and railsystems of San Diego or Miami or Atlanta. The systemoperates at a cost-per-passenger mile of about $0.05 permile.

With this bus-based, HOV-based system, it has becomevery difficult to justify investing in a rail system. Wewould invest in rail if and when the HOV system,carefully managed to achieve maximum use of its assets,did not meet Houston’s needs any longer.

For example, the HOV lane on which we have alreadyincreased the occupancy requirements during peak hoursis on one of the most heavily traveled freeways in theHouston region-the one heading from Houston to Austinand San Antonio. There may be a time when we willhave to increase the occupancy requirements on this HOVlane to four persons, then go to vans, then go back tobuses-only. By that time, demand for capacity will haverisen so high that ridership on a rail system parallel to theHOV lane might be economically feasible. If and whenthat occurs, we will fulfill the promise of our originalbrochure and install the beginning of a rail system. At themoment and in the foreseeable future, not only is theridership not there for a rail system, but the HOV lanesalso provide other benefits.

Houston’s HOV lanes help us comply with ISTEArequirements that high occupancy vehicle facilities must beconsidered before general purpose freeway lanes areadded, even though our HOV lane network was alreadyunder construction before that ISTEA ruling came abut.

In Houston, we’ve found that middle class, inner cityneighborhoods and environmental groups would ratherhave HOV lanes added than double deck or significantlywiden our freeways, even though land is available forwidening.

The HOV lane alternative also appears to be preferredover a commuter rail line or toll roads down existingfreight rail rights-of-way through a major Houston park

38

and alongside inner-city neighborhoods. So, recentexperience indicates that many residents are more open toHOVs than other modes of transportation. Further, whilethe lower cost of HOV lanes compared to rail makes HOVseem an excellent investment, the fact that HOV rights-of-way can also be utilized as rail lines in the future-ifpassenger ridership warrants that expense-helps usrespond to rail-oriented Houstonians.

Now, I would like to shift gears and address the topicof HOV lanes as a system-wide solution. I would like youto consider your city’s total transportation system as abundle of major assets and talk about asset managementfor a moment. In “Driving Forces that have ShapedTransportation Demand Management,” Tad Widby says,“If most businesses in the United States . . . [wanted] toincrease their output . . . they may add a second shift,have one of ‘their lesser-used plants produce more product,or take some other action. Few would . . . build a secondmanufacturing plant. Most, would try to get moreproductivity from their existing assets. In thetransportation field . . . the response to the need to handlemore trips has often been to build more capacity ratherthan to wring more capacity or productivity out of whatwe already have. ISTEA clearly sets asset management asa fundamental priority. ”

In this context, if a total transportation system is lookedat as a manufacturing process “one would consider theinputs, the outputs . . . and other aspects to gain greaterproductivity. Before adding capacity, it is likely that onewould consider adding a second shift (spreading the peak),finding more efficient product delivery means (increasingvehicle occupancy), using just-in-time inventory control(demand response and incident management are closeapproximations), and applying pricing schemes designedto move the product more cost effectively (deep discountsfor transit riders and perhaps congestion pricing forcarpoolers and vanpoolers). ”

It would be great to tell you that when Houston lookedat its transportation assets, our leaders decided to makebetter use of our assets by putting HOV lanes down thecenter of all freeways. As I have already told you,however, we worked our way into our current system.

After we looked at rail costs, and evaluated whichheaven we wanted to enter, we realized we had alreadycreated a system that was bigger than most, more effectivethan many, and had gained popularity with Houstonians.Only then did we really begin to treasure the system.

Not only had we utilized the unused Houston freewaymedians as an asset, and improved them, but we nowbegan to see other ways to organize and manage oursystem so that our assets are even more productive.

I have mentioned that we increased vehicle occupancyby upping the number of passengers needed for peak hour

travel on the HOV lane; we plan to do more of that. Ihave also touched on how management of occupancylevels is crucial to keeping the HOV lanes flowing rapidlyso that we maintain our transit riders.

METRO has also taken a significant role in Houston’scooperative freeway incident management program, amajor element of which is the Motorist AssistanceProgram or MAP. This is a particularly good example ofthe coordination of various public agencies and the privatesector to manage our total assets for the good of theregion. In this cooperative effort, METRO laid out theprogram and pays the salary of sheriff’s deputies to drivethe MAP vans. The Houston Car Dealers Associationprovides many of the vans that patrol the freeways.Houston Cellular provides free telephone air time formotorists to call in freeway incidents that are blockingtravel. METRO police-with interagency agreements withstate, county and various other cities-are also speciallytrained to control the clearance of incidents and accidentinvestigation on the major freeways in the Houstonregion.

One of the most important ways that we are going tomaximize our HOV lane assets is by employing intelligentvehicle highway systems (IVHS) management tactics. Anumber of projects are underway in the area.

Loop detectors and cameras-installed in the mid-1980s-are being updated to provide instant informationabout transitway and freeway traffic conditions. METROand TxDOT are now installing similar systems on all themajor transitways and freeways of Houston. Theseelectronic aides will be run from a new central controlfacility.

The central control facility is another cooperativeproject of METRO, the TxDOT, the City of Houston, andHarris County. Personnel in the facility will monitortraffic on freeways and many major thoroughfares. Atemporary traffic control center is currently in operation.

From the new center, we will oversee and adjust trafficon a real-time basis so police will be able to respond morequickly to incidents that slow traffic. This coordinatedsystem is informally called the “Houston IntelligentTransportation System” or HITS.

At the same time, TxDOT is building a fiber opticnetwork to link the freeway electronics to the centralcontrol facility. Included in this computerizedtransportation management system are loop detectors,closed circuit television, ramp metering signals, electronicmessage signs, and radio information to provideimmediate information to drivers about traffic conditionsahead and possible alternative routes if problems develop.

We also have begun the preliminary stage of thefederally-sponsored Smart Commuter IVHS operationaltest. METRO and TxDOT have divided that project intotwo components. In one component, we will provide

39

access to immediate traffic and transit information for atest group of drivers who commute from north Houston onInterstate 45 to downtown.

The second part of the Smart Commuter test will allowa selected group access to real-time ride matchinginformation. Our plan is to provide computer linkedinformation for west side commuters-headed for theGalleria, a huge “Edge City.” Commuters will enterdeparture and destination information, then thatinformation will be matched with someone who wants aride to the same area. A meeting place will b earranged-say a park-and-ride lot-and “instant car-pools”will result.

Not necessarily related to the maximization of the HOVsystem, but an integral part of our total transportationasset management program, is our program to installsmart intersections. METRO has begun a $120 millionprogram to have our intersections “talk” to traffic lights,and have traffic lights talk to each other, and automaticallyadjust movements in traffic corridors and cross-corridors.

These new smart intersections will also relay thatinformation to the computerized central control facility.We will have almost 600 intersections modified andfunctioning in the next two-and-one-half years. Some arealready linked and operating together. TxDOT has aprogram similar to METRO’s for the roadway trafficsignals under its control. Together, the two agencies havesome $500 million committed to these programs.

If we go back to Tad Widby’s comparison of managingtransportation assets like we would manage the assets ofa manufacturing plant, you will remember that we havetalked about using IVHS to make our product moreefficient. We have talked about increasing vehicleoccupancy requirements to both assure efficiency and toadd the equivalent of a second shift by spreading the peaktraffic. We have talked about a just-in-time inventorycontrol equivalent, in the use of demand response transitas well as our cooperative incident clearing, our MotoristAssistance Patrols, and the coordination of all traffic fromour new central control facility.

I will briefly mention that a pricing scheme designed tomove the product cost-effectively comes in the form of thecurrent free use of the HOV lane. Park-and-ride patrons,as well as carpool and vanpool patrons, receive the bonusof time, and faster movement when they use the HOVsystem. During the peak hours, traffic flows in the HOVlane at a much faster pace than in the freeway main lanes.For instance, on the 13 mile Katy HOV lane, METRObuses and carpoolers usually save 18 to 22 minutes per

trip over the main lane drivers.Another asset management technique we are examining

is congestion pricing. We would like to test this conceptfirst on an HOV lane that is under design right now. Inthis instance, we hope to sell unutilized capacity as longas that capacity is available without impeding the flow ofoverall traffic.

The other bonus for consumers with the decrease ofsingle occupant vehicles is in the form of cleaner air.Automobiles are polluters and the Clean Air Act has fairlystrong support among our citizens. The 1991 Clean AirAct Amendments openly call for increased vehicleoccupancies. Houston, which is a Severe Non-Attainmentarea for ozone, is going to have to increase vehicleoccupancies for workers by about 25 percent. That meanscutting one-in-four single occupant vehicles each day ofthe work week.

Clearly these governmental mandates are powerfulorganizing principles. HOV lanes are perfectly situatedto provide alternative ways to respond to these mandates.Also, the law passed by Congress last summer allowingup to $60 per month of discounted transit passes to benon-taxable, will clearly benefit HOV lanes in increasedbus occupancy.

California’s recently passed cash-out law requiresemployers of more than 50 employees who subsidize theiremployees’ parking in leased space to offer the workerscash in lieu of parking. This is another governmentalmandate that will indirectly increase the use of the HOVlane by carpools, vanpools, and buses.

As my final point, I would like to say that looking atthe transportation infrastructure as a whole, rather thanfrom the point of view of competing governmentalagencies, is the key to this asset management program.Your city’s transportation assets may be different fromHouston’s. HOV lanes may or may not be the mostefficient use of the transportation rights-of-way in yourcity.

Examining your city’s total transportation assets withclear eyes, devoid of territorial protection and with stronginteragency cooperation, may yield new insights. Thatmay be the most important system-wide solution of all.

The cooperative efforts of the various transportationagencies have been essential to evaluating the best use ofthe total transportation assets of Houston and HarrisCounty, and have pointed Houston in the direction ofHOV lanes as our organizing principle. In fact,cooperation is the basic ground on which we haveconstructed our little piece of HOV heaven.

40

Responding to Mobility Challenges Following the Northridge EarthquakeDean R. Dunphy, Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, State of California

The Emergency Transportation task force was created torespond to the Northridge earthquake. Mr. Dunphyplayed a videotape which documented the earthquakedamage and the reconstruction effort. The videotapeincluded the following points.

l At 4:30 A.M., on January 17, 1994, a major earthquakehit Southern California. An emergency transportation taskforce was established later that day for the sole purpose ofgetting the Los Angeles freeway system back in operation.

l Segments of major freeways in the Los Angeles areasuffered major damage. Damaged facilities included thesection of the I-10 on Santa Monica Freeway just west ofdowntown, the raised interchange of I-5 and Route 14 inthe San Fernando Valley, a section of I-14 just north ofthe Route 5 and Route 14 interchange, and Route 118 inthe San Fernando Valley.

l Sixty people died in the earthquake, and thousandsmore were injured. Damage to buildings, roads, andother facilities was estimated in the billions of dollars.Further, it was expected that the city would not be back tonormal for two years.

l Minutes after the earthquake, Caltrans went to worksetting up detours and getting the demolition crews out tothe sites. By 11:OO A.M., demolition contractors werealready working. Crews worked 24 hours a day, sevendays a week, to help get the freeways back to normalconditions.

l After 84 days and $30 million, the Santa MonicaFreeway was restored to normal working conditions.Although standards were maintained, the quick responsecan be attributed to cutting red tape and to incentives forearly completion. It took four months to get I-5 back inoperation. Repairs to all the freeways should becompleted by the end of 1994.

l Immediately after the earthquake, traffic congestion inmajor travel corridors was terrible. The media and othersources provided strong encouragement to the public totake public transit or carpool to help al leviat ivecongestion. Commuters responded in a positive manner.For example, ridership increased by some 95 to 100percent on one bus route. New Metrorail stations weredeveloped to help meet the demand on rail service.Special HOV detours were developed. These providedsignificant travel savings of 15 to 20 minutes andencouraged HOV use.

l Other actions were also taken. For example, sometwo-way streets were converted into one way facilities,trucking companies were asked to stagger their deliveryhours, and temporary roadways were built where freewaysections had collapsed.

l In summary, I think the video provides an excellentoverview of the quick response by Caltrans and otheragencies to the Northridge earthquake. The quick,coordinated reaction to this disaster is just anotherexample of the good working relationship that existsamong transportation agencies in the Los Angeles area.Thank you.

41

PART 3 -WORKSHOP REPORTSPlanning, Implementation, and Policy Development: Recent Experiences-Part 1Paula Hammond, Washington State Department of Transportation-Presiding

Developing HOV Options in New York City: TheLong Island Expressway (I-495)Peter 0. Sucher, HNTB Corporation

Mr. Sucher discussed efforts to identify new and expandedlow cost HOV options which could improve transportationservice and efficiency on the Long Island Expressway(LIE) corridor for westbound morning traffic; these effortswere also discussed in a paper written by Mr. Sucher.Mr. Sucher included the following points in hispresentation.

l Recently, attitudes toward HOV facilities have changedin New York City. Selected lanes on the upper deck ofthe 59th Street bridge were converted for HOV use duringthe morning peak-period to determine how HOV laneswould work in the New York City environment.

l The purpose of this study was to develop improvementsto the existing LIE corridor. The LIE corridor extendsfrom the Queens Midtown Tunnel (QMT) on the west tothe Queens/Nassau County Line on the east, a distance ofapproximately 14 miles. The LIE is the only east-west,mixed traffic, limited access route serving Manhattan andLong Island. Currently, there is a two mile contraflowlane on the LIE, from just east of Greenpoint Avenue tothe QMT. This contraflow facility is separated fromopposing traffic by pylons.

l A major constraint in the corridor is the bridgecarrying the Long Island Railroad over the LIE, whichr e p r e s e n t s a s i g n i f i c a n t p h y s i c a l c o n s t r a i n t .Reconstruction would be very expensive and wouldsignificantly impact the surrounding residential area.

l The westbound traffic volumes in the LIE corridorsteadily decline as traffic approaches the QMT. Thehighest traffic volumes on the mainlanes and the serviceroad occur where the LIE crosses the Grand CentralParkway. The volume here is approximately 7,700vehicles. The average auto occupancy level is about 1.3persons per vehicle, with 25 percent of the mainlane autoshaving two or more passengers.

l The contraflow lane is open to buses, occupied taxis,and authorized vehicles. No carpools are allowed on theLIE contraflow lane. Currently 127 express buses use the

contratlow lane in the peak hour, resulting in an expressbus demand in excess of 5,100 passengers.

l The objective of the project was to come up with a lowcost alternative to improve the efficiency of the LIEcorridor. One alternative considered was to expand thewestbound bus lane eastward. Other alternatives were toallow vanpools and carpools to enter the lane.

l A total of six alternatives were developed forpreliminary consideration. Alternatives 1 and 2 wereextensions of the existing contraflow HOV lane currentlyoperating. Alternatives 3 and 4 allowed carpools andvanpools to use the entire HOV lane; both alternativesutilized a fly-over structure, and a moveable barrier,extending the HOV lane approximately two miles andcontinuing in a concurrent flow lane to the QMT.Alternatives 5 and 6 extended the HOV lane east of theLong Island Railroad overpass, using the left lane as adedicated HOV lane.

l These alternatives were evaluated by a steeringcommittee that consisted of the New York StateDepartment of Transportation (NYSDOT), New YorkCity Department of Transportation (NYCDOT), FederalTransit Administration (FTA), Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA), and local community boards.The committee narrowed down the alternatives to twobasic options. These were examined in more detail in thenext phase of study. The options combined elements ofAlternatives l-4 and included a moveable barrier and acontraflow lane.

l The contraflow option would extend the contraflowlane eastward to the Grand Central Parkway area. Thisalternative would require buses and taxis to weave throughmixed flow traffic to access the contraflow lane or wouldrequire construction of a fly-over structure.

l The moveable barrier alternative would allow carpoolsand vanpools to use the lane. Based on the projecteddemand, it was recommended that buses, occupied taxis,and 3 + carpools be allowed to use the HOV lane createdby the moveable barrier. The demand estimates for theinitial use of the lane is approximately 700 vehiclescarrying over 7,600 passengers. Time savings areestimated at as much as 10 minutes. The cost for the

improvements are expected to range from $14 million to$30 million. Overall, the benefit cost ratio is expected tobe 2.5:l.

l While both the contraflow and moveable barrieralternatives met the objectives of the study, the moveablebarrier alternative offers the opportunity to increasecarpool use and help promote the objectives of the CleanAir Act Amendments and the Employer Trip Reduction byencouraging carpool, vanpool, and bus use. It also offersthe potential to serve HOVs in two directions, rather thanjust one.

l I t was recommended that the moveable barr ieralternative be carried into more detailed engineeringstudies as part of a larger corridor study. The NYSDOTis in the process of developing this study effort.

Policy Guidelines for HOV FacilitiesDonald Sarndahl, JHK & Associates

Mr. Samdahl described the development of HOV policyguidelines for use by state, regional, and local agencies inthe Phoenix, Arizona area. This topic was also addressedin a paper written by Mr. Samdahl and Peter M. Lima.Mr. Samdahl conveyed the following points in hispresentation.

l The policy guidelines were developed in a studyconducted by JHK and Lima & Associates in the Phoenixarea. Phoenix currently has 26 miles of HOV lanes ontwo freeways, and additional facilities are being planned.

l Phoenix undertook an aggressive freeway constructionprogram in the late eighties, and developed a freewaymanagement system, improved transit service and HOVlanes. However, an integrated HOV system plan was notdeveloped, nor were policies to guide the development ofHOV lanes and HOV support facilities. In 1990, initialwork was done on the development of an HOV policy, butthis policy was not formally adopted.

l The development of the policy guidelines was part ofa partnership to examine HOV facilities as a means tomeet travel demand and as an air quality conformitymeasure.

l Several types of facilities are addressed by the policyguidelines. In addition to HOV lanes, freeway to freewayramps, freeway to arterial street or park-and-ride ramps,ramp metering, ramp metering bypass lanes, park-and-ride

lots, and bus stations are addressed in the policies.

l The process to develop the policies includedidentification of the opinions of stakeholders, theapplicable federal requirements, existing HOV policies inthe region, HOV policies in other states and regions, anda redefinition of the goals, objectives, and roles andresponsibilities of all agencies.

l Reaching a consensus on a commitment statement wasa key to getting the agencies to move ahead. The processstarted with identification of a mission statement, and thenthe commitment statement was framed and adopted by theparticipating agencies. The commitment statementindicates that HOV lanes should be an integral componentof the freeway system, and that a full range of supportfacilities and programs should be considered as part of theoverall policy statement,

l HOV policies were framed in a number of categories.A needs determination was identified to set thresholdcriteria for the application of HOV treatments. One ofthese criteria relates to the level of congestion in thecorridor. More specific criteria were identified for othertypes of HOV facilities. For example, freeway tofreeway HOV connections should only be used at theintersection of two high volume HOV corridors. Basicpolicies were also identified for design, hours ofoperation, enforcement, maintenance, monitoring, andevaluation. Funding sources, marketing strategies, andsupport programs are also addressed by the policy. TheHOV and related policies were adopted by the agencies inDecember of 1993.

l Once the HOV policy was adopted, the HOV systemplan could be developed. The plan identified 111 miles ofHOV lane, 5 pairs of freeway to freeway HOV rampconnections, 11 exclusive HOV freeway to arterial ramps,99 HOV bypass ramps, 30 park and ride lots, and 2 busstations, proposed for implementation over the next fifteenyears. The plan was adopted.

l The policy also mandates reserving right-of-way forfuture HOV facilities. The policy does not definitivelyanswer every issue, however. The policy is flexibleregarding issues such as the inclusion of buffers adjacentto HOV lanes, and the use of direct ramp connections,which increase the cost but enhance system continuity.The policy stresses integration of HOV facilities, andrecognizes agency roles, responsibilities, andcommitments. In general, the policy should have specificintent, but be flexible as to how it can be applied.

43

Developing and Testing HOV Lane Alternatives-I-290 Eisenhower Expressway in Chicago, IllinoisJohn C. Tone, Parsons Brinckerhoff

Mr. Tone described the development and testing of HOVlane alternatives for the I-290 Eisenhower Expressway inChicago, Illinois. These alternatives were also discussedin a paper written by Mr. Tone. Mr. Tone made thefollowing points in his presentation.

l Chicago currently has rail transit operating in the,median of some freeways, but does not currently have anyHOV lanes. Despite good transit, highway travel andvehicle miles traveled have been increasing, and arecontributing to Chicago’s status as a severe non-attainmentarea. As a result, the city and surrounding six countiesare faced with mandates to increase average vehicleoccupancy by 25 percent.

l The goals of this program are to demonstrate theeffectiveness of an HOV facility on I-290, and at the sametime minimize diversion from the parallel transit lines.The development of the scope for this project was a jointeffort with the Illinois Department of Transportation(IDOT). The program is also being coordinated with theChicago Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO),which is responsible for determining the traffic demandforecast. Sketch plan volume estimates of the HOVdemand have been used in the preliminary analysis,however. A key to this project is to gain anunderstanding of existing congestion and delay levels, andto see how an HOV facility would function in a complexmultimodal network.

l A two stage study is being undertaken. This includesan overall feasibility assessment and a macro-levelassessment of the design features of potential alternatives.Alternatives being considered include an interim low costlane by re-striping the current facility, and buffer or fullyseparated HOV lanes.

l The study area is six miles long, and I-290 currentlycarries over 200,000 vehicles per day. It is a majorbottleneck in the regional network. On the east end, I-290has an eight lane cross section, which becomes a six lanecross section at the second interchange. On the west endthere are 16 lanes feeding into six lanes, demonstratingsignificant lane imbalance. The facility has trafficcongestion for 14-16 hours per day, six days a week, andeven on Sunday the conditions are not favorable. In theeastbound direction, eight directional lanes feed into three,and a six lane toll road funnels into a single lane onto I-290. This location typically backs up for five miles.

l The ramp metering system and IDOT’s SurveillanceProject provided an abundance of data for the study.Considering the hourly volumes in westbound direction,early morning traffic starts between 5:00 A.M. and 6:00A.M., with peak traffic already over 5,000 vph. Highvolumes continue until after 8:00 P.M.

l In the morning peak, the directional distribution isabout 50/50 in the middle of the segment. At the westend, there is more traffic going west toward the O’Harearea than there is going east toward downtown.Similarly, the inbound volumes are very high in theevening peak. Eastbound traffic approximates westboundtraffic in the evening and the peak hour is between 3:00and 4:00 P.M.

l Vehicle occupancy counts indicate 2 + occupancy ratesas high as 27 percent, and 32 percent on some ramps.Three plus occupancy rates are as high as 12 percent onsome ramps. There is also heavy truck traffic on thefacility, with over 12 percent of the vehicle mixcomprised of heavy trucks.

l Lane drops restrict the traffic flow on west end. In theeastbound direction, many vehicles use parallel arterialsand then enter the expressway after the bottleneck section.On the ramp from Austin Boulevard, over 1,500 vehiclesenter on the left entrance where a lane is added.

l Level of service (LOS) analysis indicated LOS E andLOS F conditions at both the west and east end of thefacility. At beginning of the study, the client and the tollroad authority viewed the bottleneck situation as being aneastbound problem. But analysis of the speeds, delays,capacities and volumes indicated that queuing is worse inwestbound direction with the drop from four lanes to threelanes.

l Analysis of speed and delay characteristics indicate thatfrom 6:00 to 8:00 A.M., eastbound speeds are down to 10mph in lane drop areas. Speeds in these areas do notreturn to a reasonable speed (40 mph) until after 9:30 in the morning. Similarly, the westbound queue startsforming at 1:00 P.M., and by 3:00 P.M. it extends almostthe full six miles back to the loop.

l Once a congestion problem was clearly identified, theissue became whether it could be addressed by an HOVfacility. Working with the Chicago Area TransportationStudy (CATS), a number of traffic assignment networkswere developed for use in the model. Alternativesconsidered included: a re-striping option with fullaccessibility and buffer separated lanes between

44

interchanges; more access restricted options, including anaccess restricted option serving express trips from the westend into the Oak Park area; and an option that providedbuses access to the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) railterminal at Des Plains.

l A number of scenarios were considered with respect tooccupancy requirements. Analysis indicated that thefacility would be congested under a 2+ occupancymandate, with approximately 1,600 vph in the eveningpeak-period. However, the facility may suffer from theempty lane syndrome if a 3+ occupancy requirement isimplemented, with volumes as low as 290 vph in theeastbound morning peak-period. Two options beingconsidered for implementation include limiting accesspoints and using a 2+ occupancy requirement, andimplementing tolls to provide additional access, tollswould also provide additional funding for the project.

l The HOV analysis is complicated by the activities ofthe Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (ISTHA). TheI-88 tollway, one of the major routes feeding into I-290,is in the process of installing Automated VehicleIdentification systems (AVI). The ISTHA has expressedconcern regarding the implementation of tolls on I-290,and has recognized the need for AVI users on I-88 to beeligible to use the HOV lane on I-290.

l In summary, while work is still in progress, I-290meets all primary and secondary requirements for an HOVfacility. Alternative lane configurations that are beingdeveloped at a concept plan level have ruled out some ofthe more cost intensive alternatives. Options that arebeing evaluated include the use of a flyover ramp at themajor merge area at the west end to eliminate weaving,and modification of the right of way in the parallelrailroad and transit envelopes to provide space for aseparate HOV roadway. Construction of the HOV facilityas a separate roadway would be preferable from thestandpoint of minimizing impacts on the existingexpressway lanes.

HOV System Planning in the Puget Sound RegionRobert E. Fellows, Washington State Department ofTransportation

Mr. Fellows described HOV system planning in the PugetSound region. Mr. Fellows made the following points inhis presentation.

l Seattle currently has 94 miles of HOV lanes. Existinglanes are located on I-5, I-405, I-90, and 520.

Additionally, there are 60 miles of HOV lanes currentlyunder construction. When the entire HOV plan isrealized, there will be 288 miles of HOV lane in the area.

l Seattle’s typical HOV facility is a left side concurrentflow lane, with an 8 inch gore stripe. There are alsosome right side concurrent flow HOV lanes, and there arebarrier separated reversible lanes on I-90. Seattle’s HOVlanes operate 24 hours a day, with a 2+ vehicleoccupancy requirement on all but one facility.

l HOV system planning is important for a number ofreasons. Unlike the general purpose lane system, whichis intact, and to which incremental improvements can bemade without regard to connectivity, HOV facilities areunique, and phasing is important. When a new HOVfacility segment is opened, it must connect to both existingsegments, and future segments, and it must open in anorderly way.

l Because the state now pays for a large percentage ofcost for the construction of an HOV facility, theWashington State Legislature has become more interestedin HOV planning and operations.

l HOV planning is needed for a number of reasons. InSeattle, coordination between HOV lanes located on theinside and outside of a freeway is important, especiallywith respect to transitions between the two types offacilities. Another reason HOV planning is important isbecause many HOV projects are implemented in stages,which implies that the phases of construction must becoordinated. HOV planning must also address fundingissues, because funding must be available to complete theentire HOV facility to avoid “islands” of HOV lane beingconstructed. HOV planning also must consider the specialneeds of transit. Finally, HOV planning should includecoordination among the different agencies involved.

l Although HOV planning has come a long way in thePuget Sound area, there is still a need to identifyadditional access needs to address other issues.Improvements to the existing and planned HOV facilitiesinclude accommodating the needs of transit andenforcement, and enhancing safety. Seattle has a strongexpress bus system linking Tacoma, Seattle, and otherlocations. Currently, buses have difficulty merging acrosstraffic to enter some HOV lanes. This obviously is notdesirable from either a traffic flow or safety perspective.

l A major effort is under way to examine some of theseissues. The program consists of eleven studies, which arebeing conducted by a consortium of consultants.

45

l Two of the studies are general analyses of future trafficand the HOV travel markets. These studies are examiningfuture travel demands and the role of HOV facilities.

l There is also a study examining HOV lane conversionoptions. This study includes public opinion research, andopportunities to bring together groups on all sides of thelane conversion issue.

l The study on safety and enforcement issues isexamining how improvements can be made, and isdetermining where safety problems currently exist. Thereare four studies looking at transit access needs in specificcorridors. One of these studies is evaluating inside andoutside HOV lanes, and the access needs that are requiredif the entire lane is moved to the inside lane. Other accessstudies include an arterial HOV study, which willdetermine how to improve HOV travel in downtownSeattle, and a study focusing on freeway to freeway HOVconnections.

l The environment in which HOV planning is takingplace is also important. HOV planning in the PugetSound area was originally a two part process, withWashington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)responsible for the specific facility work, and theMetropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) responsiblefor the HOV plan. However, it is hard for the MPO todo comprehensive work when there are so many otherresponsibilities that must be met.

l There are other factors that may eventually affect theHOV system in the region. Discussions continue on therole of a rail rapid transit system in the region. Theimplementation of a rail transit system would obviouslyaffect the HOV system in the region. This kind ofuncertainty affects the planning process, and as a result,HOV planning takes place in a fluid environment.

l Areas where additional work is needed includeexamining arterial street HOV facilities and park-and-ridelots. WSDOT will play a coordinating role in thesestudies, working with different groups.

46

Planning, Implementation, and Policy Development: Recent Experiences-Part 2Christine Johnson, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.-Presiding

Implementing Florida’s Interstate Policy: TheInterstate Four Multi-Modal Master PlanVictor P. Poteat, Post Buckley Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.

Mr. Poteat commented on the recent transportationdevelopments and future goals of the state of Florida. Healso discussed the I-4 corridor in detail. These topicswere also discussed in a paper written by Mr. Poteat andAlice Gilmartin. Mr. Poteat included the followingelements in his presentation.

l In 1991, the Florida DOT adopted a policy that limitedroadway expansion. This policy placed a strong emphasison future mobility and included two goals: to direct localtrips on the interstate system to transit and other highoccupancy vehicles (HOV) in dedicated lanes, and toprovide for long distance and interstate travel and thetransport of goods.

l In urban areas, the policy limits freeways to no morethan six general use lanes, and four barrier separated lanesserving through trips and HOV vehicles. In rural areas,freeways are limited to no more than six lanes, three ineach direction, for all traffic modes.

l The limit on freeway lanes is intended to maintain airquality, develop a liveable urban community, limitexpansion of right-of-way, support regional commerce,allow through truck movements, encourage energysavings, and facilitate affordable projects.

l The focus of this policy is on multi-modal solutions tourban and intra-regional trips. The exclusive use laneswere designed to promote HOV use.

l A light rail system is currently being planned in the 75mile I-4 corridor in the Orlando area. Over the next 20years, a 1.5 to 20 percent increase in volume is expectedin the I-4 corridor. There is already considerablecongestion in this area.

l During the first level of analysis, 14 design andoperations alternatives were developed. The first set ofalternatives focused on the design components. Thesealternatives suggested that the highway would be improvedby implementing six general use lanes, and four speciallanes. In the area of transit, an express bus system and alight rail system were tested, as was a combination ofboth. The interstate policy indicated that provisions for

high speed rail within the interstate right-of-way should bemade wherever possible. Operational components, suchas the frequency of access to HOV lanes and the numberof large trucks were also considered.

l The next level of analysis considered five alternatives,which included varying levels of transit and highwayimprovements. In each case, analysis considered theimpacts of implementing transit in conjunction withhighway improvements in the I-4 corridor.

l The main concept emphasized is that an HOV lanemust be managed over time. Ongoing studies must beconducted to determine the demand, optimal occupancy,and best way to manage the HOV facility.

Planning Criteria Used in HOV Studies in theGreater Toronto AreaMichael J. Delsey, IBI Group-Toronto, Ontario

Mr. Delsey discussed the planning criteria used in theGreater Toronto Area (GTA), and a case study ofHighway 404. This topic was also addressed in a paperwritten by Mr. Delsey. The following elements wereincluded in Mr. Delsey’s presentation.

l Presently, Ontario does not have any HOV lanes.There is, however, an HOV system in Ottawa. Althoughthe benefits of HOV lanes are very attractive, they arestill considered a risky endeavor. The process forimplementing an HOV lane includes monitoring corridorsfor opportunities for HOV lane implementation, assessingthe physical feasibility, performing corridor overviewstudies, and making an executive decision for or againstimplementation.

l The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO)recently undertook four studies concerning HOV facilitiesin the Toronto area. The MTO’s corridor overview studyfocuses on the analysis of the need and the justification forthe system, the development of a variety of conceptalternatives, the evaluation of alternatives, and theselection of the best solution. IBI was assigned to studythe Highway 404 corridor.

l Highway 404 is 14 kilometers long, with six lanes atthe south end, four lanes at the north end, and a numberof arterial and freeway interchanges. There are plans to

4 7

widen this freeway to ten lanes in the next five years, thepossibility of including HOV lanes in this expansion isbeing considered prior to the initiation of construction. Atthe north end, the facility has a wide rural median,demands in this region is expected to increase significantlyover the next ten years. Further south, there is a six lanecross section, the median begins to narrow, and thefreeway looks more urban in nature. The right-of-waybecomes more constrained, and the land is developedimmediately adjacent to the highway.

l In 1991, Highway 404 had an average annual dailytraffic volume of 60,000 vehicles per day at the north end,and 200,000 vehicles per day at the south end. Much ofthis traffic comes from Highway 401. The southern endof Highway 404 terminates at the intersection of Highway401, a 12 lane express facility. Highway 401 was built inthe 1960s, and for a number of years has served over300,000 vehicles per day.

l In the evaluation of the need and justification for HOVlanes, traffic forecasts and analysis, operationalcharacteristics, and any other factors that might supportHOV in the Highway 404 corridor were explored.

l In 1993, 2 + demand ranged from a low of 500vehicles per hour to approximately 1,300 vehicles perhour, depending on the time of day and direction oftravel. There is HOV demand throughout the day, whichsupports a 24-hour operating policy, which is supported bythe Ministry.

l Three components of travel demand are normallycalculated and considered in HOV analysis: primarydiversion, secondary diversion from parallel corridors, andlatent demand from new carpools that form to takeadvantage of benefits of the HOV facilities.

l One factor that affects demand is access. Access couldinitially be served by at-grade weave zones, or by directaccess ramps. There are also a number of proposedsupport facilities, including arterial HOVs, a connectingfreeway HOV, and opportunities for park-and-pool lots.

l The study focused on the GTA Travel Forecast Model,developed by IBI, which operates within the Multi-ModalTransportation Planning Model (ME2). The multi-classassignment algorithm of ME2 allows HOVs to access theentire road network, while SOVs are prohibited fromaccessing the HOV lanes. When the model runs, HOVand SOV trips are simultaneously assigned between originsand destinations; the combined travel demand influencesoverall congestion and link travel times until an

equilibrium is reached in the network. Model resultsinclude both primary and secondary effects of HOVdemand.

l In the forecast years 2001 and 2011, HOV volumesranged from 600 to 1,500 vehicles per hour southbound inthe morning peak hour. Similar demand is expected inthe northbound direction, due to the balanced trafficpattern.

l Some of the inherent deficiencies of the model includethe fact that no penalties are assigned for access into orout of the HOV lane, and minimal time penalties areassigned for at-grade weave zones. Adjustments weremade in the benefit-cost analysis to account for thedeficiencies.

l Latent demand was the third component of the HOVforecast volumes. Typically, latent demand is calculatedby multiplying the primary diversion component by asmuch as 120 to 160 percent. However, when the volumespredicted by the modelling effort were multiplied by 1.2or 1.6, the resulting demand was unreasonably high. Asan alternative, the arc elasticity method was used, assuggested by Tim Lomax of the Texas TransportationInstitute. The arc elasticity method compares HOVdemand before and after implementation of an HOV lanewith expected travel times and speeds. Application of thearc elasticity method yielded latent demand values of 10to 25 percent.

l The recommended HOV lane was a two-way, medianoriented, concurrent flow, buffer separated facilityoperating 24 hours a day. To lower the cost, the initialfacility had at-grade weave access rather than direct ramptreatments.

l The benefit-cost analysis was a comparison of the costof an HOV lane and four basic widening plans. The firstplan was widening ten of the 14 kilometers without anyconnections to Highway 401 or the Dawn ValleyParkway. This was a low cost alternative, but it actuallyresulted in negative benefits as compared to the base case,which was the addition of mixed flow lanes. Under theother alternatives considered, the addition of directconnections at the south end in alternative two, theaddition of direct access ramps in alternative three, andthe addition of arterial connections in alternative four,both the costs and the benefits increased. However, whenconsidering alternatives three and four, the costs continuedto increase wi th the implementat ion of ar ter ia lconnections, and the benefits a c t u a l l y d e c r e a s e dmarginally. This may have been due to the fact that the

4 8

HOV travel time benefits are overestimated when themixed flow lanes become very congested and it is difficultfor the HOVs to enter and exit the freeway.

l Even though the MTO has not implemented an HOVsystem, it has been under consideration for a number ofyears. A plan will probably be implemented when fundsare available, and when the MTO is confident that theproject will succeed.

Successful Planning of HOV Facilities Under SevereEnvironmental and Physical Constraints: TheSoutheast Expressway Contraflow HOV LaneWilliam T. Steffens, Massachusetts Highway Department

Mr. Steffens discussed the implementation of an HOVlane in the Massachusetts area, including factors such asthe public, physical constraints, and environmentalconstraints. A more detailed presentation of this materialwas provided in a paper written by Mr. Steffens and LuisaPaiewonsky. Mr. Steffens included the following pointsin his discussion.

l In 1972, a contratlow lane was implemented on I-93,the Southeast Expressway. The facility was separatedfrom the main lanes by large plastic cones that were set upmanually. The project continued until one of the workersputting the cones out was killed. In 1976, a concurrent,take-a-lane project was initiated. This lane immediatelysuffered from the empty lane syndrome, and a lack ofenforcement, which prompted the project to be terminatedin less than two weeks.

l The driving force behind the most recent HOVinitiative, which examined an 8.3 mile section of I-93,was environmental constraints.

l The facility travels through densely populated areaswith the right-of-way varying between 110 and 100 feet,and crosses 15 bridges. Due to the resulting constraints,as well as the past failures, a feasibility study wasconducted to demonstrate that an effective HOV lanecould be built. The only feasible alternative was toretrofit, because the entire right-of-way was consumed bytravel lanes or utilities.

l The average daily traffic volume on this segment of I-93 is approximately 190,000 vehicles, making this facilityone of the most heavily used roadways in the state.

l A long range plan was developed for this corridor sothat immediate decisions could be made in accordance

with future goals. An oversight committee wasdeveloped, it included representatives of all the majorfunding agencies, as well as the conservation lawfoundation, EPA regulators, and private organizations thatsupported the HOV study. The committee assisted in thedevelopment of criteria for the HOV project.

. A one year deadline for the HOV feasibility study keptthe Massachusetts Highway Department focused. Thestudy criteria included five to ten minutes of travel timesavings, and long term HOV lane effectiveness, theanalysis was initially based on a 2+ o c c u p a n c yrequirement.

l A fatal flaw analysis committee was also established,the sole purpose of this committee was to eliminate anyproposals that violated basic objectives, such as those thatresulted in negative air quality impacts.

. The oversight committee concluded that in the shortterm, a reversible contraflow lane should be developedusing moveable barrier technology. This contraflow lanewas widely accepted by the public and the media.

Criteria Used in HOV Planning and FeasibilityStudies in the Greater Montreal RegionOrtevio Gallela, TRAFIX Consultants, Inc., Montreal,Quebec

Mr. Gallela reported on the steps that the Ministry ofTransportation in Montreal is taking to include HOVfacilities in the development of the future transportationplan. He discussed many different corridors in Montreal,as well as studies that were conducted to determine thefeasibility of HOV in these corridors. This topic is alsodiscussed in a paper written by Mr. Gallela and RobertOlivier. Mr. Gallela included the following points in hisdiscussion.

l HOV planning in Montreal is unique due to the factthat Montreal is an island. The population i sapproximately three million, and is expected to expand tofour million in the next twenty years. Half a millionpeople live on the north and south shores, the island isvery densely populated.

l Because the island was developed in the fifties andsixties, there are very few highways. Highway 40 hasbeen in operation since the sixties and has an averagedaily traffic volume of 140,000 vehicles and an averagedaily traffic volume of 60,000 vehicles on the serviceroad. There are 11 bridges from the north shore to the

49

south shore, there is significant congestion on thesebridges. One of the goals is to improve the efficiency ofthe bridges.

l In the early eighties, Montreal experimented with acontraflow lane. It was extremely successful, and it isstill in operation. It serves approximately 100 buses perhour and 7,000 passengers per hour. Although congestionis only a problem during the peak hours, the number ofpeak hours is increasing.

l The Ministry of Transportation of Quebec has decidedto implement two of the recommendations developed byTRAFIX Consultants. One of the recommendations is theaddition of an HOV lane on Highway 15. The currentaverage daily traffic volume on this facility is 100,000vehicles, 6,600 vehicles during the peak hour. In theHighway 13 corridor, the moveable barrier technique isalready in operation.

l Park Avenue, an arterial corridor that links two subwaylines, is located in a dense neighborhood and leads into thedowntown area. This facility had two lanes in eachdirection until a fifth lane was added in the middle. Thislane was reserved for the peak direction travel, and wasimplemented mainly to gain a curbside lane for busoperation. The inside lanes are general purpose lanes.The curbside bus lane currently serves 25 to 30 buses perhour.

l Twenty to 25 percent of the planned HOV lanes arecurrently in operation. Three of the HOV studies used inthe planning process will be explained here. The regionalaccessibility study attempted to identify possible HOVfacilities for carpools and buses. Nine bridges withhighway sections leading to them were selected forevaluation. The Ministry of Transportation developed aset of criteria that must be met before an HOV lane can bebuilt. The criteria dealt with both the number of vehiclesthat cross the bridge and the travel time savings. The

average delay at the bridge approach is approximately 20minutes. A ten minute minimum travel time savings wasidentified.

l The second study examined eight facilities, bothfreeways and arterial, to select candidate corridors fortransit improvements. For freeways, the major criteriawere minimum travel time savings of 0.6 minutes perkilometer for buses, and a minimum volume of 300carpools and 30 buses. For arterials, the travel timesavings should be approximately 10 % of the normal traveltime, and the number of persons in the priority laneshould exceed the number of people in the non-prioritylanes. This study was performed in 1992. Since then,Highway 13 and 15 have been under construction forHOV lanes and almost 60 miles of bus and taxi lanes havebeen implemented.

. The third study examined the accessibility of buses andtaxis in the downtown area. In this study, variousreserved lane scenarios on the three major arterial leadinginto downtown were evaluated. Both operational andfacility factors were evaluated. The operational criteriaincluded transit, traffic, parking, and infrastructurefactors. The facility criteria considered the type offacility, contraflow, curbside, reversible, etc. Thepracticality of each system was broken down into twocomponents, the accessibility of the system to malls andother highly used areas, and the comfort of the system forboth operators and users of the system. In each of thethree corridors, the authorities decided that there wasenough public support to convert a lane to a bus and taxilane.

. These projects have been quite successful. All of theprojects have been take-a-lane and the public has beensupportive. The only problem has been the need for am o r e objective evaluat ion of the advantages anddisadvantages of these systems.

50

Advanced Transit and HOV Roadway SystemsJohn West, California Department of Transportation-Presiding

Twin Cities Travlink ProjectJames L. Wright, Minnesota D e p a r t m e n t ofTransportation

Mr. Wright provided an overview of Travlink, one of theIVHS Operational Tests currently being undertaken by theMinnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). TheTravlink project, which is being implemented in the I-394corridor, is being funded by federal, local, and privatesources. Mr. Wright covered the following points in hispresentation.

l The objectives of the Travlink project are to:

- Improve service quality and increase transitridership.

- Check the performance of advanced publ ictransportation technology in a real world environment,from both a passenger and operator perspective.

- Evaluate the impact of automatic vehicle location(AVL) on service efficiency and quality, includingschedule adherence and safety.

- Determine customer responses to informationtechnologies.

l The project includes a number of components. AnAVL system is being installed with 80 buses in the I-394corridor using a Global Positioning System (GPS). Onethousand advance traveler information systems are beinglocated in homes and at work sites. Display monitors arebeing installed at selected transit stations, and electronicsigns are being implemented at four park-and-ride lots.Finally, an automatic vehicle identification (AVI) system,using buses as probes for the Advanced TravelI n f o r m a t i o n S y s t e m (ATIS) d a t a b a s e , i s b e i n gimplemented.

l The project focuses on the I-394 corridor, which servesapproximately 180,000 vehicles per day. The corridorincludes a freeway and an HOV lane system. Threetransit centers and seven park-and-ride lots, with 1,000parking spaces, are also included in the project. Accessto I-394 is completely ramp metered, with ramp bypassfor HOVs.

l The project is enhanced by the availability of 6,000

parking spaces in downtown parking garages that haveHOV discounts, and closed circuit television (CCTV) forincident management. Further, 38 autoscope cameras,which provide speed, volume, density, and vehicle mixinformation as well as visual imagery are located in thecorridor, along with changeable message signs.

l The system will provide information via videotextterminals and kiosks. Information that will be providedincludes how to get to a location, transit schedules andmaps, current bus status, bus fares, park-and-ride lotlocations, special events and service changes, specializedtransportation services, and customer services.

l There are a number of participating agencies, both inthe public and private sector. The five participatingpublic sector agencies include MnDOT, FHWA, FTA,the Regional Transit Board (RTB), and the MetropolitanTransit Commission (MTC). Private sector groupsparticipating include Westinghouse, US West, 3M, andMotorola.

l The evaluation goals for the Travlink project includeexamining user acceptance, assessing the effects ofinstitutional issues, and analyzing the technicalperformance of the system. The evaluation plan has beencompleted by Cambridge Systematics.

l Market research was conducted in the initial stagesusing focus groups. Results indicated that the projectshould serve peak-period commuters on I-394, andprovide congestion information, accident information,work zone information, and information about modealternatives. Results also indicated that the perception ofthe project was negative. This feedback has resulted inproject modifications, and two additional focus groups willbe held later this year.

l The AVL will be installed in 12 buses, initially, andtesting should begin by the end of June. The advancedtraveler system final design is also proceeding. Thissystem will provide real-time schedules, probe informationon speeds, construction and incident information, andMTC schedules via the kiosks and videotext terminals.

l The Operational Test, with 80 vehicles and 1,000videotext terminals, is scheduled to begin in October,1994. It is hoped that the evaluation of the first phasewill be completed by June, 1995.

51

Bellevue Smart Traveler ProgramEldon L. Jacobson., Washington Department ofTransportation

Mr. Jacobson provided an overview of the Bellevue SmartTraveler program, which focuses on encouraging peopleto use an HOV mode to get to work. Mr. Jacobsoncovered the following points in his presentation.

. The first phase of the Bellevue Smart Traveler programwas a six month test, funded by the Washington StateDepartment of Transportation (WSDOT) and USDepartment of Transportation (USDOT). Other partnersin the program include the University of Washington, theBellevue Transportation Management Association, PactelPaging, METRO, and Seiko.

l Every day, approximately 22,000 commuters travel todowntown Bellevue, a suburb on the east side of Seattle.Currently 80 percent of the cars entering downtownBellevue are SOVs.

l The Bellevue Smart Traveler program providesdynamic carpool matches, based on the preferred travelroute and departure time of potential carpoolers. Theprogram also provides traffic and transit information.Volunteers access information through the use of pagerswhich are being provided free during the test.

l The program is based on a dynamic ridesharingconcept, which is a day-to-day arrangement forcarpooling. Survey results indicated that a carpool orvanpool to or from work on an occasional day-to-day basisis the most popular type of rideshare.

l The goal of the program is to encourage alternatives toSOV commuting by providing traveler information and byemphasizing the benefits of carpooling to the individualcommuter. An expected benefit of the program isdecreased traffic congestion. It is estimated that trafficdelays will be reduced by 50 percent if one in ten SOVcommuters will shift to a carpool. It is also expected that,if the program is successful, it may serve as a model forother cities.

l Participants were recruited through employers, whohad to register to participate. Encouraging employees toparticipate was a major challenge of the project. Afterregistration, the volunteers were divided into threerideshare groups, depending on their employment center.

l To use the system, participants call the travelerinformation center (TIC) using a touchtone telephone and

enter their ID and password. To offer a ride or searchfor a ride, participants must specify whether the ride is towork or home, the day, and the time. The system liststhe available rides, and provides the driver’s first name.If a particular ride is chosen, the phone number of thedriver is provided so that contact can be made.Participants can also access traffic and transit information,as well as assistance, using the touchtone telephone.

l The same information can be accessed using the pager.The pager can also be used to access news, sports,weather, business and traffic information. Further, it canbe used for traditional paging.

l Technical problems that have been encountered includelimited display room on the pager, availability of trafficreports, and the use of pagers i s not recorded.Preliminary results indicate that more rides were offeredthan sought, and the viability of rideshare groups isunclear. Questions that must still be answered includewhat constitutes a viable rideshare group, and how toencourage people to get out of their cars and accept aride.

. The six month demonstration phase was completed onApril 15, 1994. Major statistics as of April 15,considering 53 users in 3 ride groups, include:

- 447 phone calls were received.

- 509 rides were offered.

- 148 rides were sought via telephone; whenconsidering this statistic, it is important to note thatmost rides were sought via pagers, and have not yetbeen quantified.

- Traffic information was accessed 110 times.

- Transit information was accessed 40 times.

l An expansion of the project has been approved. Thisexpansion will be funded through the federal IVHSOperational Test Program and will include additionalemployers and a test of two way pager technology.

Market Research on Single Trip RidesharingWilliam C. Jeffrey, Virginia Department ofTransportation

Mr. Jeffrey discussed the development of a methodologyto evaluate people’s response to casual carpooling, and the

52

effects of delays and fares on their willingness toparticipate in a casual carpool. Mr. Jeffrey made thefollowing points in his presentation.

l Casual carpooling, unlike traditional carpooling, allowscommuters to share a one-way, one time ride with nofurther obligation. Casual carpooling utilizes empty seatsin private vehicles as a form of public transportation.

l One thousand surveys were distributed during themorning rush hour to commuters working in TysonsComer, Virginia, a high density employment center. Twohundred surveys were returned. The resulting sample wasrelatively homogeneous. It included commuters who drivetheir own car to work in Tysons Comer during daytimehours.

l The goal of the project was to produce a methodologyfor quantifying the value of time to commuters, ratherthan to state conclusively how all commuters will beaffected by casual carpooling, travel time savings, delaysand fares.

l Survey questions focused on how many extra minutescommuters would spend to pick up a co-worker for a fareof $1, $2, $3, and $4, and how much they would bewilling to pay for a ride that was 0, 5, 10, and 15 minutesfrom their home.

l Linear regression analysis of the data indicated that,with respect to drivers:

- Delays between 0 and 15 minutes were much moreimportant than fares between $1 and $4 whendetermining the number of commuters who would bewilling to give rides in a casual carpool situation.

- More drivers were willing to accept casual carpoolriders if no delay were incurred.

- Few drivers were willing to accept casual carpoolriders if 20 minutes of delay were incurred.

l Linear regression analysis of the data indicated that,with respect to riders:

- Delay was more important than fares whenestimating the number of potential casual carpoolriders, but by a smaller margin than for drivers.

- The number of respondents willing to be casualcarpool riders decreased as delays increased, and asfares increased.

- When the fare was unrestricted (no maximum), thefare was the dominant factor; when the maximum farewas $4, the dominant factor was delay, although thefare was still important.

- Although riders with an 80 minute commute arewilling to pay more than riders with a 20 minutecommute time, a distance based price should not beassumed to be the best alternative until additionalresearch has been conducted.

l Linear regression analysis of the data indicated that,with respect to both drivers and riders:

- The fare factor is minimal compared to the delayfactor.

- The length of the commute was not found to havean influence on the willingness of a commuter to giveor take a ride. Drivers with a commute time of 80minutes are no more willing than drivers with acommute time of 20 minutes to spend extra timepicking up riders.

l The results indicate that delay is much more importantthan any fare up to $4 on a person’s willingness to be acarpooler, even for riders, although fares do have aneffect on commuters’ willingness to carpool. The lengthof commute is insignificant when considering a person’swillingness to be a carpool driver, and has a small effecton a person’s willingness to be a rider.

Houston Smart Commuter IVHS Operational TestSarah M. Hubbard, Texas Transportation Institute

Ms. Hubbard provided an overview of Houston SmartCommuter IVHS Operational Test. This topic was alsodiscussed in a paper written by Katherine Turnbull andSarah Hubbard, Texas Transportation Institute (TTI),Gloria Stoppenhagen, Metropolitan Transit Authority ofHarris County (METRO), and Charles Dankosik, CastleRock Consultants, Inc. Ms. Hubbard made the followingpoints in her presentation.

l The Smart Commuter project is being co-funded byMETRO, the Texas Department of Transportation(TxDOT), FHWA, and FTA. Project assistance is beingprovided by TTI. A national evaluation of the SmartCommuter Operational Test is being coordinated throughthe Volpe Center. Castle Rock Consultants and SAIC areconducting this national evaluation.

5 3

l T h e i n t e n t o f t h e H o u s t o n p r o g r a m i sto use advanced technologies to inform commuters abouttraffic conditions and high occupancy vehicle alternatives,and consequently, to increase use of the HOV lanes.

l A market assessment was conducted in the early stagesof the development of the Operational Test. Thisassessment included focus groups and surveys of users andnon-users of the Houston HOV lanes. The non-usersurvey results indicated that commuters do listen to trafficreports, and do change their travel behavior based on thisinformation. The survey results also showed that whilemost non-users know the location of the nearest park andride lot, many do not know enough about the bus systemto feel comfortable enough to begin using it.

l The results of focus groups indicated that commuterswanted a number of options for their daily commute. Theresults further indicated that the traffic informationprovided must be accurate and timely. The focus groupparticipants suggested that the information and systemmust be simple and easy to use, and should providesolutions, not just information. All of the findings of themarket assessment were considered in the development ofthe Operational Test.

. T h e O p e r a t i o n a l T e s t c a p i t a l i z e s o nthe existing transportation infrastructure in Houston, whichincludes an extensive HOV system. There areapproximately 64 miles of HOV lanes in operation in fivecorridors. The Smart Commuter program focuses onincreasing the efficiency of this system by encouraging itsuse. The program includes components in the I-45 NorthFreeway corridor, and in the I-10 West or Katy Freewaycorridor.

l T h e c o m p o n e n t i n t h e I - 4 5 N o r t hFreeway corridor will provide real-time traffic and transitinformation to commuters in their home and at work.This information may influence some of these commutersto utilize an HOV mode rather than taking a singleoccupancy vehicle. S T h e p a r t i c i p a n t s w i l l l i v ein the Kuykendahl area, and work downtown. This

traditional suburb to downtown commute is well served byfrequent transit service from the Kuykendahl park-and-ridelot.

l The real-time traffic data that will be provided includesa graphic depiction of travel times for both the freewayand HOV lanes. The real-time traffic data is alreadybeing collected through the AVI program in Houston.Information about the park-and-ride lot and transitservices will also be provided. Typical information thatwill be provided includes the bus schedules, bus fares,and where the bus will stop once it gets downtown.

- A major component of the Smart Commuter programis the evaluation program. The local and nationalevaluations are being closely coordinated. The evaluationwill examine the impacts of the provision of real-timetraffic and transit information at home and at work.Impacts may include changes in commuter time of travel,travel route, and mode of travel, and any consequentchanges in the utilization of the HOV facilities. The localevaluation, which will quantify these impacts, has beendeveloped by TTI, and some of the before data collectionactivities have begun.

l Smart Commuter participants in the Katy Freewaycomponent will live in the Addicks area and work in thePost Oak/Galleria area. The commute targeted in thiscomponent of the Smart Commuter program is a suburbancommute, a travel pattern that is not well served bytraditional transit services. The basic concept for the Katyfreeway component is the provision of a real-time carpoolmatch for both drivers and passengers.

l Because the Katy Freeway HOV lane has a threeperson minimum occupancy requirement during somehours, the Smart Commuter program will not onlyencourage the formation of 2+ carpools, but will alsoencourage a shift from 2 person carpools to 3 + carpools.The Smart Commuter program will encourage the use ofcarpools through both the current incentives of a reducedand more reliable travel time, and the convenience of areal-time carpool matching service.

54

HOV Systems and Air Quality ImpactsJim Ortner, Orange County Transportation Authority-Presiding

Results of the Sacramento ModelsRobert A. Johnston, University of California, Davis

Mr. Johnston discussed the development of a model whichwas designed to project vehicle emissions levels for theSacramento area. He outlined the background of the studyand this model. A paper, authored by Mr. Johnston and aformer student of his, Mr. Ceerla, was available. Mr.Johnston made the following points in his presentation.

l A review of current models used in the Sacramentoarea, indicated that they were most inadequate for currentpurposes. While modelling efforts are rapidly improving,most still do not meet the accuracy requirements specifiedby the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.

- Most HOV studies focus on capacity improvements,although capacity improvements are important, manyagencies are interested in the impact HOV lanes have invehicle control emission rules. Empirical studies haveshown that the addition of HOV lanes results in increasesin speed, but not necessarily reductions in vehiclevolumes.

l The United States Department of Transportation(USDOT), FHWA, and the California Air ResourcesBoard have all issued reports analyzing HOV lanes,mostly these focus on travel time and vehicle emissionlevels on the freeway before the HOV lane was developed.In many cases the models in use focus on a five to tenyear planning horizon, although some models look at longrange impacts.

l The objectives of this study were to test HOValternatives, land use alternatives, and travel pricingpolicies in the Sacramento region. All of the alternativesfocused on reducing vehicle miles travelled, emissions,and energy use. The alternatives were evaluated based ona 20-year planning horizon. Alternatives evaluatedinclude:

- A no build scenario.

- Concurrent flow HOV freeway lanes.

- Concurrent flow HOV freeway lanes with parking,gas, and mileage pricing.

- Take-a-lane HOV freeway lanes.

- Take-a-lane HOV freeway lanes with parking, gas,and mileage pricing.

- Light rail transit.

- Light rail transit, with parking gas and mileagepricing.

- T r a n s i t o r i e n t e d d e v e l o p m e n t , l a n d u s eintensification, and light rail transit.

- T r a n s i t o r i e n t e d d e v e l o p m e n t , l a n d u s eintensification, light rail transit, and parking, gas, andmileage pricing.

l The analysis indicated that the lowest vehicle milestravelled (VMT) resulted from the implementation of thetransit oriented development, land use intensification, andpricing strategies. Transit oriented development and landuse intensification without pricing resulted in the secondlowest VMT. The light rail transit alternative resulted inlower VMT than the HOV alternatives.

l The alternative with the lowest vehicle hours of delaywas the light rail transit and pricing option. The HOVand pricing alternative was second lowest in terms ofdelay. The transit oriented development and pricingalternative had the lowest total vehicle hours, while thetransit oriented development without pricing was second.

l The best alternative with respect to minimizingemissions was the transit oriented development andpricing. The transit oriented development without pricingoption was second. The light rail transit and pricingalternative rated third, and significantly better than theHOV alternatives. The transit oriented development andpricing option also conserved the most fuel.

l The study also included an analysis of the costsassociated with different alternatives. The HOValternatives resulted in a higher cost than the light railtransit alternatives.

l The results of the analysis indicate that transit land usepolicies and pricing policies are worth further study froman air quality standpoint since these alternatives had thelowest VMT, emission, and fuel use. The take-a-laneHOV and pricing alternative rated as good as the new

HOV lane alternative in terms of delay, better in VMTand costs, but worse with respect to emissions. The no-build HOV scenario was nearly as good as new lane HOVscenario w i t h r e s p e c t t o e m i s s i o n s o t h e r t h a nhydrocarbons. The land use and pricing scenario ispotentially the most equitable, in terms of increasingaccessibility to low-income housing.

The Effect of HOV Lanes in Reducing VMT andEmissionsVictor Martinez, HNTB Corporation

Mr. Martinez presented a paper, prepared by Mr.Bieberitz, HNTB, on the effects of HOV lanes in reducingVMT and vehicle emission levels. Mr. Martinez includedthe following elements in his presentation.

l The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require asignificant reduction in emissions for many urban areas inthe United States. How this will be accomplished whentraffic is increasing in these areas will be a significantchallenge. Reducing VMT through the use of HOV lanesis an approach being considered in many areas. HOVconnectors can also be used to enhance the operationaleffectiveness of HOV lanes. Increase in the use oftransit, carpooling, and vanpooling will also be important.

l Urban freeways make up less than three percent of thetotal urban highway mileage, but carry approximately 30percent of the total traffic. In Milwaukee, freeways makeup eight percent of the arterial street mileage, but carryapproximately 40 percent of the total traffic.

l To examine the effectiveness of HOV lanes, fourdifferent cities were studied. HOV lanes in Seattle,Minneapolis, Orange County, and San Diego wereincluded in the analysis. The results of this analysisindicated that:

- A poll in the Seattle area found that 85 percent ofthe people had used the HOV lane and 14 percent usethem three to five days a week.

- In Minneapolis, the I-394 HOV lane has resulted inan increase from a 1.23 average vehicle occupancy(AVO) before the HOV lane, to 1.3 A’VO during theinitial operations. A 1.6 AVO is projected by the year2000.

- In Orange County, Route 55 had a 1.21 AVO beforethe HOV lane was opened and a 1.34 AVO after. InSan Diego, the AVO in the I-15 corridor increased

55

from 1.22 to 1.28 after the implementation of the HOVlane.

l Freeway HOV lanes are currently being considered inMilwaukee. The current AVO in the Milwaukee area is1.17. With a freeway HOV lane system the AVO isprojected to increase to 1.21. If the Milwaukee areagrows at an annual rate of one percent, VMT could beexpected to increase by 12 percent, even with HOV lanes.The Clean Air Act Amendments require a 45 percentreduction in vehicle emissions. Given this analysis, theexpected reduction in VMT is too small to meet thisrequirement. Therefore, it appears that drastic changes intransportation will be required by 2005 to meet therequirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments.

The State of Modelling for Emissions and HOVLanes

All three speakers discussed the status of currentmodelling effects related to estimating the air qualityimpacts of HOV lanes. The speakers also responded toquestions from the audience. Major points covered in thediscussion included the following.

l Lower emission levels may occur in the future due toa number of factors. Cleaner fuels, electric vehicles, andgreater use of HOVs may all contribute to reducingemissions. Also, any strategy that allows vehicles tooperate in a steady state process will lower emissions.Studies show if you can eliminate hard accelerations anddecelerations on freeways, emissions can be decreased bya factor of 40 or 50. There is a lot of uncertainty in themodels, however, and some models predict that in certainsituations emissions may actually increase.

l Improvements are needed in current models toadequately estimate the emission impacts of HOV lanesand HOV facilities. Most existing models provide roughestimates. The current models are good for estimates oftotal emissions but are not sufficient for comparingstrategies related to different types of lanes, alternativeswithin certain corridors, and other factors. There is aneed for a closer connection between what the vehicles aredoing on the road, traffic dynamics, and emission levels.

l The design of an HOV facility may impact emissionlevels. The HOV facility must provide maximum benefits

56

to be attractive enough for motorists to change fromdriving alone to an HOV mode. Also, emission levels arelower when a steady speed of 55 mph can be maintained.If the speed varies for even a short period of time, thecarbon dioxide emissions will increase by a factor close to20. Thus, HOV lanes should be designed to maximize asteady speed and eliminate starting and stopping.

l Progress is being made in the development of lowemission and clean fuel vehicles. Estimating what theimpact is of allowing these vehicles to use HOV lanes is

difficult, however, the real question is how to get peopleto buy these cars. Access to HOV lanes or preferentialparking benefits would help provide an incentive forpeople to choose these cars.

l The emission profiles for buses, car-pools, andvanpools should be examined in terms of emissions perperson. For example, a full bus may have a lower perperson emission level than a clean fuelled car. A fourperson carpool is tough to beat in terms of emissions,however.

57

Funding HOV SystemsLinda Bohlinger, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority-Presiding

Methodology for Determining the InvestmentWorthiness of High-Occupancy Vehicle ProjectsRichard S. Marshment, University of Oklahoma

Dr. Marshment briefly discussed the different fundingsources that are available for HOV lane construction. Healso summarized current research activities beingconducted for the FHWA. Dr. Marshment addressed thefollowing elements in his presentation, which were alsocovered in a paper prepared for the conference.

l There are a lot of options for funding HOV lanes. Atthe federal level funds from both FTA and FHWA can beused for highway projects. The ISTEA should make iteasier to finance HOV lanes, due to the flexible fundingprovisions of many sections. Although greater flexibilityis provided in the ISTEA, multimodal and intermodalprojects are still more difficult to fund because of theircomplexity.

l The research being conducted for FHWA examinesHOV lane evaluation techniques and funding sources. Theresearch is assessing existing evaluation methods forHOV lanes. This includes examining possible biases withcurrent techniques, analyzing new approaches, testingthese new evaluation methods on actual projects, andevaluating how various methods influence project ranking.

l The first step in the study was to inventory existingevaluation methods. A number of different techniqueswere examined including a user-benefit analysis, the FTAnew rider index, the American Association of Highwayand Transportation Officials (AASHTO) user-benefitindex, and other methods.

l The new rider index, which is also referred to as theincremental cost per new rider, adds the capital andoperating costs of an alternative, subtracts the existinguser benefits, and divides this value by the number of newriders attracted. One criticism of this method is that it hasa modal bias. With an HOV project, the benefits tocarpoolers and the reduction in congestion are not includedin the calculation.

l The AASHTO user-benefit index calculates thedifference between the incremental benefit of a project andthe capital costs plus the salvage costs. A positive indexindicates that the project would be beneficial. The higherthe index, the greater the estimated benefits of the project.

Limitations with this model include the requirement for atleast two forecast periods in the future, with interpolationin the intermediate years, and a possible modal bias.

l Another alternative examined represented acombination of other methodologies. This approachfocuses on a single year assessment with locallyestablished parameters, user and non-user impacts, andmodal impacts. The benefit-cost items that are usedinclude travel time savings, transfer costs, capitalconstruction costs, and subsidies.

l Evaluation procedures usually must address twoquestions. The first is whether to build an HOV facilityor not. The second is to compare different alternatives.Three criteria were identified for consideration in theevaluation procedure. These are economic efficiency,financial efficiency, and user efficiency. The fourperspectives that must be considered during the evaluationprocess are the federal, state, local, and user perspective.The five types of financing that can be used arediscretionary grants, formula grants, user fees, bonds, andgeneral revenues. A viable project should meet one ormore investment criteria and one or more perspectives.

. An example of how a revised evaluation methodologymight work was examined for an HOV lane in Oklahoma.The parameters included air quality improvement, accidentreduction, noise reduction, and auto parking. The worktrip value of time reflected the local wage rate, and thenon-work trip value of time was twenty-five percent of thelocal wage rate.

l One of the preliminary recommendations from theresearch study is to expand the horizon past 15 years. Alonger time span, such as a 20 or 30 year forecast, wouldhelp determine the full benefits of the differentalternatives. Consideration should also be given to therelationship between transportation and land use.Transportation investments have a significant impact onland use. In most modelling efforts, land use is heldconstant.

Funding HOV Lanes from the Federal PerspectiveJeffrey Lindley, Federal Highway Administration

Mr. Lindley discussed the perspective of FHWA onfinancing options, HOV buy-in projects, temporary

58

reductions in standards, and lane de-conversion.Financing options were discussed in light of recentlegislation and new federal programs. Mr. Lindleyaddressed the following topics in his presentation.

l The ISTEA addresses HOV facilities in a number ofsections and provides increased flexibility in the use offederal funds. For example, HOV projects couldpotentially be funded through the National HighwaySystem (NHS) program, the Congestion Mitigation andAir Quality (CMAQ) program, the Surface TransportationProgram (STP), FTA, and Interstate Maintenance. WhileHOV alternatives are generally an appropriate use of fundswithin each of these programs, the HOV facility must beseen as the best expenditure of the transportation funds.In addition, a wide range of state and local funding can beused to support HOV projects.

l FHWA does not oppose HOV buy-in prqjects, butconcerns have been raised with these types of projects.Proposals for pricing in HOV lanes are usually trying toaddress the empty lane syndrome, and maximize efficiencyof an HOV lane. It is critical that HOV buy-in prqjectsmaintain acceptable speeds, tolls and enforcementmonitoring do not impede traffic, and that operationalproblems at access points be avoided.

l Design standards need to be examined carefully on acase by case basis. Reduction in standards may beappropriate in some cases on a temporary basis. Someexamples of the temporarily reduced standards are 11 footlane widths and shoulders on only one side of a facility.These allowances should have little impact on operationsor safety, and are usually implemented only for shortsections of a facility.

l There have been a few recent instances of lane de-conversion, such as the Dulles Toll Road. In this case anHOV lane was designed, implemented, and opened, onlyto be converted to use by general purpose traffic. In thepost-ISTEA period, this type of situation may end up in alegal battle if federal funds were used to construct theHOV lane.

State Perspective of HOV Lane FundingPete Hathaway, California Transportation Commission

Mr. Hathaway summarized Caltran’s perspective on HOVfunding, and discussed the prioritization of prqjects andprograms. Mr. Hathaway highlighted the followingelements in his discussion.

l The main job of the California TransportationCommission (CTC) is to establish priorities for capitalprojects. The regions send their priority list of projects tothe CTC. These lists are used to develop the stateprogram. This, and the regional ranking form the basisfor the state’s priorities.

l Caltrans has had a policy for many years that all newfreeway construction in urban areas must include carpoollanes. The ISTEA further supports this approach.

l Due to the recession, the long-term rail program hasbeen limited. Current projects include both rail andfreight components, however. One example is theAlmeda freight corridor, which would provide accessfrom the port through the city. This is proposed to be aconsolidated rail line without any cross traffic conflicts.There are also a number of freeway projects. Examplesinclude completing a gap on Route 710 and widening asection of Route 5. Given limited funding, not all ofthese prqjects can be financed immediately. Currently thecarpool lane program is a top priority and is receiving$3 15 million.

l Five years ago legislation was passed establishing an$18.5 billion, ten year program called the TransportationBlueprint. Under this program, improvements areprogrammed using a seven year planning horizon,however. The CTC was unable to program anything forthe year 2001 due to funding limitations.

l A number of factors have contributed to the currentfunding problems. One of these factors is Proposition156, a $1 billion rail bond that was on the ballot in 1992.The voters passed the first of three rail bonds in 1990, butturned down the second one, and as a result, the programlost a billion dollars. Another factor is the recession,which has decreased revenues by approximately $400million in the last few years. Furthermore, Congress hasheld back $200 million in funding that is due toCalifornia. Thus, lack of funding for cr i t icaltransportation projects is a major concern in the state.

Innovative Ways to Fund HOV LanesGeoffrey S. Yarema, Nossaman, Guthner, Knox and Elliott

Mr. Yarema discussed different funding methods for HOVlanes. He summarized the financing used for the HOVand toll lane projects on the Harbor Freeway in LosAngeles. Mr. Yarema highlighted the following parts ofa paper prepared on this topic for the conference.

59

l The standards being used by FHWA on HOV buy-inprojects attempt to maximize the use of HOV lanes,ensure a high level of service for all HOVs, mandateminimal traffic impedance due to enforcement, and avoidproblems at access points. Although not all HOV laneswill be able to meet these standards, it appears the newHarbor Freeway transit lane will.

l The Harbor Freeway transit lane is 13 miles in lengthand has two lanes in each direction, with relatively fewaccess points. A number of factors support the use of atoll lane program on the Harbor Freeway HOV lanes.Factors include the construction of the transitway, whichrepresents a large capital investment in an importanttransportation corridor, the fact that the facility is expectedto be under utilized if dedicated solely for HOV use, andthe fact that the transitway design is well suited foradaptation to the high occupancy toll (HOT) lane concept.

l The HOT lanes concept would permit toll-paying SOVsonly to an extent that their use would not compromisefree-flow on the facility. SOV use would be regulated byelectronic toll collection devices that would also be usedfor enforcement. The revenues generated from the SOVtolls could be applied to meet local transportation needs.Benefits of this approach included maintaining quality of

service for HOVs, providing greater mobility for SOVs,improving traffic flow on parallel freeways and arterials,and increasing revenues.

l The driving feature of this approach appears to be theadditional revenues that will be generated. Conservativeestimates indicate that anywhere from $5 to $15 millionwould be generated from the SOV tolls.

l The project is similar to the Route 91 program inOrange County, which is currently under construction. Anumber of other congestion pricing applications are beingconsidered and implemented in California. These includethe Foothill Corridor, the San Waukeen Hills Corridor,the Eastern Corridor, Route 125, extending Route 57, I-15 in San Diego, and the Oakland Bay Bridge.

l A number of steps must be followed to implementthese types of projects in California. First, statelegislation authorization must be obtained. Second, bothCaltrans and FHWA should be involved early in theprocess as their support and approval is critical. Third,it is also important to involve the local MPO and airquality management district. Finally, the vendorprocurement process for the installation and operation ofthe toll equipment must be initiated.

60

Developing Integrated Systems: Park-and-Ride, Transit Stations, and Supporting ProgramsJames J. Snyder, New Jersey Department of Transportation-Presiding

Parking Demand Analysis for HOV FacilitiesGerald R. Cichy, Wilbur Smith Associates

Mr. Cichy discussed the parking demand analysis forHOV facilities conducted in the Dulles corridor in theWashington, D.C. area. This analysis included the phasedconsideration of parking demand for ridesharing, expressbus, and rail. Mr. Cichy highlighted the followingelements of a paper prepared for the conference withPatricia G. Drake, Wilbur Smith Associates, and WilliamW. Mann, Virginia Department of Transportation.

l The project was ini t ia ted in 1990 when theCommonwealth Transportation Board of Virginia passeda r e s o l u t i o n c a l l i n g f o r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f acomprehensive phased m u l t i m o d a l p r o g r a m o fimprovements in the Dulles corridor. The project corridorincludes the Dulles airport and the surrounding ‘area.Roadway facilities in the corridor include the Dulles TollRoad and the airport access roads.

l A total of six sites were examined for possibledevelopment of parking facilities at the western end of thecorridor. Two of the sites were on airport property andthe other four were on private property. The corridor wasdivided into four origin zones related to the Council ofGovernment traffic assignment zones. The destinationzones were downtown Washington, D.C., a ten-mile zonearound the downtown, Tysons Comer, and Dulles Airport.

l The number of trips from the different origin-destination pairs were then examined. A number ofelements were examined to estimate carpooling in the areaand potential use of the facilities. First, decline in thepercentage of carpooling between the 1980 and 1990census was considered. Second, the 1990 census data wasutilized and the propensity for carpooling in the I-95corridor-which has an HOV lane-and the Dullescorridor were compared for each of the destination zones.Different carpool occupancy levels were also analyzed.From past experience, a 75 percent capture rate wasestimated for the parking facilities.

l The results from the analysis were used to evaluate thepotential use of each facility. Three sites were identifiedas the most feasible for the development of park-and-ridelots in the corridor. Two of these facilities are currentlybeing implemented.

l There was excellent cooperation on the study from allagencies and jurisdictions, the airport authority, andprivate developers. This represents a critical element inhelping to ensure the successful development of HOV andpark-and-ride facilities.

Freeway Service Patrol Program-Proposed FHWAImplementation GuidelinesDiane Perrine, Los Angeles County MetropolitanTransportation Authority

Ms. Perrine discussed the coordination between the LosAngeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority(MTA), the California Department of Transportation(Caltrans), and the California Highway Patrol (CHIP) toimplement a large scale freeway service patrol. She alsodescribed the role of freeway service patrols in trafficmitigation. Ms. Perrine highlighted the followingelements in her presentation from a paper prepared for theconference with Shaker Sawires of the MTA.

l According to Caltrans statistics, approximately half ofall congestion is caused by incidents. This is especiallytrue with limited access HOV lanes. Many incidents donot warrant the response of a full incident response team,however. In many cases, tow trucks are more costeffective than police at responding to minor accidents andincidents.

l The Los Angeles freeway service patrol program hasbeen in operation for three years. The results of thisprogram show it has been successful at reducingcongestion for motorists stuck behind the stalled vehicles.Accident rates have been reduced by 3 percent. Incidentresponse time has been reduced by approximately 15minutes, or about half. The service patrol program hasalso reduced air pollution caused by stalled vehicles.

l The most important benefit, however, may be thepositive public response to the program. Publicacceptance of the freeway service patrol is very high. Allthree agencies receive numerous letters from motorists andresidents on the program. Caltrans has estimated thebenefit/cost ratio of the program at 11:l.

l Approximately 16 percent of the incidents responded toinvolve two vehicles in the left lane or the left shoulder.These motorists are unable to walk across the freeway to

61

a call box or other help. Thus, the program helps some200 individuals every day during the peak hours whowould otherwise be stranded on the freeway.

l Similar programs have been implemented in at least 38metropolitan areas around the country. It appears that theuse of freeway service patrols especially important withHOV lanes. The presentation on the patrols used inHouston today provides one example of this.

l Freeway service patrols also provide the opportunity toreport accidents early. Since vehicles are constantlymoving throughout the freeway system, incidents are oftenobserved and response time is greatly reduced.

l Freeway service patrols are most effective on HOVfacilities and freeways with high traffic volumes andspeeds under 30 mph. Also, areas with high accidentrates and deficient shoulders are prime candidates forpatrols. All of these factors help identify areas that maybe prime candidates for recurring accidents.

l The Northridge earthquake in January provided a testof the use of freeway service patrols to monitor areas ofreduced capacity due to emergencies. Extra funding fromFHWA and Caltrans was used for additional patrols.Over 3,000 assists were made with these funds.

l A call box system could be used as an interim steptoward a service patrol. Call boxes may also beappropriate for lower volume areas. Call boxes are a lessexpensive alternative, they function on a 24-hour basis,and they can be used throughout an area. In Los Angeles,both solar paneled and cellular technologies are used withthe call box system.

l Contracting for freeway service patrols should beconsidered. Tow companies have a great deal of expertisein clearing accidents. Three year contracts provideadequate time for companies to amortize their equipment,but also require that funding be available for that period.In Los Angeles, CHIP supervises the service through fieldinspections and the use of automatic vehicle location(AVL) systems. CHIP also monitors services by posingas stranded motorists. Extensive initial three-day drivertraining programs are required of all operators, along withmonthly and annual refresher training.

Application of a Siting and Demand EstimationModel to Coordinate Park-and-Ride/HOV FacilityPlanningWilliam E. Hurrell, Wilbur Smith Associates

Mr. Hurrell summarized a paper on the statewide park-and-ride siting project conducted for Caltrans. AliceSgourakis, Wilbur Smith Associates, and Steven B.Colman, Dowling Associates, co-authored the paper. Mr.Hurrell covered the following points in his presentation.

l Caltrans currently oversees a network of over 400park-and-ride lots, with over 29,000 parking spaces. Thisis almost 4,000 acres of land devoted to park-and-ridefacilities. The purpose of this study was to examine theway decisions were being made on locating, sizing, anddesigning park-and-ride lots. The project was intended toexamine a number of basic factors including the factorsinfluencing use, and the location and design features thatcontribute to a successful park-and-ride facility. Althoughmany of the lots are well utilized, some are not well used.

l In addition, Caltrans wanted to obtain a betterunderstanding of the characteristics of park-and-ride lotusers and to explore the potential for public/private jointdevelopment opportunities. Further, the study examinedthe relationships between park-and-ride use and HOV use,including transit use.

l The project has been divided into three phases. Thefirst phase, which is complete, examined park-and-ridefacilities throughout the country and included site specificdata collection at lots in California. The second phaseinvolves the development of a park-and-ride facility sitingmethodology. The third phase will involve trainingCaltrans staff in the use of the methodology, which willinclude a demand forecasting process.

l One of the major activities in the first phase was adetailed examination of park-and-ride facilities in SouthernCalifornia. Approximately 170 lots, with 17,500 parkingspaces, are located in Southern California. These rangein size from lots with only 12 spaces to as many as 2,100spaces. A survey of 89 facilities was conducted for thisstudy. The survey included both interviews of users atlarger lots and mail back surveys at smaller facilities. A29 percent response rate was obtained on the mailsurveys.

l The survey results helped identify the generalcharacteristics of park-and-ride lot users. Ninety-eightpercent of the respondents drove to the lot and the averagevehicle occupancy of automobiles entering the facilities

62

was estimated at 1.13. Transit, with 43 percent, was themost common departure mode. Vanpooling was secondwith 31 percent and car-pooling was third with 18 percent.5.5 percent reported that they used an HOV lane for atleast part of their trip. Work was the most commonlyreported trip purpose at 98 percent. The averagedestination parking cost was $6.18 a day. Thus, onereason people may use park-and-ride lots is to avoidparking costs at their destination.

l Information was also obtained on the demographic andsocio-economic characteristics of park-and-ride users.The respondents were fairly evenly split between females,51 percent, and males, 49 percent. The most commonlyreported occupations were secretarial/ clerical, 19 percent,technical/administrative, 38 percent, and professional 15percent. Over 50 percent of the respondents reportedhousehold incomes of over $40,000. Further, 91 percentwere between 25 and 60 years of age, with the majority ofthese between 36 and 45. This indicates that many usersrepresent the middle income, middle age group.

. Information was also obtained on trip characteristics.30 percent of the respondents reported living within threemiles of the facility. The average time to the lot was 7.5minutes, and the median distance was 5.4 miles. This issimilar to past research, which has identified park-and-ridemarket areas of approximately five miles. On the otherhand, the average distance from the park-and-ride facilityto the final destination was 27 miles.

l Security and lighting were identified by respondents asthe two most important factors influencing use of park-and-ride facilities. Other features identified as importantwere the quality of the transit service, the availability ofpay telephones, sheltered waiting areas, and otheramenities. Utilization levels were also higher at lotsassociated with HOV lanes. This relationship is beingexamined in more detail.

l The general approach for examining park-and-ride lotsstarts with an overall evaluation of the need for suchfacilities in a region. Corridor specific information is thenexamined. This includes the demand estimation processfor alternative sites, the identification of the mostappropriate sites, analysis of land availability and costs,and a ranking or rating of facilities. A seven-step processis being developed in this study. A park-and-ride demandestimation tool is a key component of this process. Thismodel will be integrated into the regional model. It issensitive to the factors that influence park-and-ridedemand and is easy to use. The model will be tested inSouthern California as part of the study.

Phase Three of the Evaluation of the I-394Transportation SystemAllan Pint, Minnesota Department of Transportation

Mr. Pint presented the results from the third phase of theongoing evaluation of the I-394 HOV lane and relatedtransportation system. This covers the first full year ofoperation of the completed facility. The I-394transportation system includes 11 miles of freeway andHOV lanes, transit centers, metered freeway accesspoints, and parking garages in downtown Minneapolis.Mr. Pint summarized the following highlights from apaper co-authored by Joseph J. Kern and CharleenZimmer, Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc.

l The HOV lanes include three miles of two-lane,reversible barrier separated lanes and eight miles ofconcurrent flow HOV lanes. All the freeway entranceramps are metered, with HOV bypass lanes at about halfthe ramps. The facility is a completely automated systemthat includes closed-circuit television, loop detectors, rampmetering, changeable message signs, and HOV entranceand exit gates. All of these elements are monitored andcontrolled by MnDOT’s Traffic Management Center.Other elements include three transit centers in thecorridor, park-and-ride lots, and three parking garages onthe edge of downtown Minneapolis which provide directaccess to and from the HOV lane and charge reducedparking rates for rideshare vehicles.

l The first evaluation phase, which was completed in1989, examined the introduction of the interim HOV lane,The second phase evaluated the use of the interim laneduring construction of the final facility. The third phaseevaluates the first year of operation and will establish theongoing monitoring process.

l Overall, the average daily traffic (ADT) on the totalfacility increased from 86,000 vehicles in 1984 to 137,000in 1993. Most of this increase occurred in the last year,with the completion of the total system. The current ADTis 146,000. Morning peak hour inbound vehiclesincreased from approximately 4,000 vehicles to 6,000vehicles. Some 1,600 vehicles, carrying 4,600 people,use the HOV lane during the morning peak hour.

l One of the primary objectives of the project was toincrease auto occupancy levels in the corridor. This hasbeen accomplished. In 1984, the morning peak hour autooccupancy level was 1.15. This increased to 1.31 by1993. Transit ridership has also increased in the corridor.Since 1984, service has been increased in the corridor andtransit ridership has grown by some 63 percent.

63

l A 2+ vehicle occupancy level is used on the HOVlane. Violation rates on the barrier separated segment arevery low, averaging below 4 percent. Violation rates areslightly higher in the concurrent flow sections, but for themost part, motorists appear to obey the occupancyrequirements.

l Travel time savings have averaged around five percent.The park-and-ride lots are well utilized and expansions tosome are being planned to accommodate additionalvehicles. T h e t h r e e p a r k i n g g a r a g e s includeapproximately 6,000 parking spaces. Rideshare vehiclesfrom I-394 pay only $20 a month to park in the garages.Currently, approximately 3,160 contract spaces have beensold in the garages. Two-thirds of these are I-394carpoolers. A guaranteed ride home program has recentlybeen introduced to further encourage ridesharing in thecorridor.

Carpooling with Co-Workers in Los Angeles:Employer Involvement Does Make a DifferenceRoy Young, Commuter Transportation Services

Mr. Young summarized the results of an analysiscomparing co-worker carpools with those formed withfriends and family members. Using data from the 1993State of the Commute, which is an annual study ofcommuter behavior and attitudes in the Greater LosAngeles area, this analysis examined the commutebehavior, employment characteristics, attitudes towardcommuting, and demographic characteristics of these twogroups of carpoolers. Mr. Young covered the followingelements in his presentation.

l Los Angeles has a relatively high carpooling levelwhen compared to other major metropolitan areas of thecountry. The State of the Commute study indicates thatcarpool rates have been relatively flat since 1991,however. Although the share of carpooling has remainedrelatively constant since 1991, changes have occurred inthe composition of carpools during this period. Carpoolsformed with co-workers increased from 34 percent totalof carpoolers in 1991 to 42 percent in 1993.

l The average trip distance for co-worker carpools tendsto be higher than the travel distance for carpools formedwith family members or friends. The average distance forco-worker carpools is 20 miles, compared to 11.6 milesfor other carpools. Co-worker carpools are also fourtimes as likely to use park-and-ride lots for carpoolformation. Both of these factors have importantimplications for forecasting the demand for both park-and-ride lots and HOV facilities.

l The survey results indicate that employer incentiveshave had a positive influence on carpooling with co-workers. Incentives reported include customized ridematching services, preferential parking, and financialsubsidies. It also appears that both large and small worksites are producing improved carpool use.

l The two groups also appear to have differentmotivations for carpooling. Co-worker carpoolers notedcosts, comfort, and stress reduction most frequently thanother carpools. Co-worker carpools further seem toinclude more males, more middle age, and more middle-to-higher income levels than those with friends and familymembers.

64

Enforcement IssuesJohn W. Billheimer, Systan Inc.-Presiding

The California PerspectiveLt. Shawn 0. Watts, California Highway Patrol

Lt. Watts discussed the difficulties California HighwayPatrol (CHP) off icers encounter enforcing therequirements for proper use of HOV lanes. He describedhis experience with HOV lane enforcement in the LosAngeles area. Lt. Watts included the following elementsin his discussion.

l The officers issuing tickets for violators need adequatespace to pull vehicles over and to write the citations.CHP has proposed to Caltrans that the HOV lane systembe restriped so that the buffer zone is on the left-sideinstead of on the right. This would allow officers to stopvehicles against the median wall, and would consequentlylimit their exposure.

l An ideal enforcement area would be a minimum of1,300 feet long with tapers on both ends for a total lengthof approximately 2,000 feet. This would provide enoughroom for the officer and driver to safely pull into thepocket, stop, and safely pull out again. The width shouldbe at least 14 feet.

l Large enforcement areas tend to collect debris, whichcauses a safety problem. Enforcement areas should becleaned regularly.

l The frequency of enforcement areas along HOV lanesis also a concern to the CHP. The enforcement areasshould be placed so that an officer can station his vehiclein one enforcement area, observe a violation, and pull theviolator over in the next enforcement area.

l Most of the existing enforcement areas are too short topull into and out of safely. If an enforcement area is notprovided, the officer may try to pull the motorist over tothe right, across the general purpose lanes. The generalpurpose lanes are usually congested, which makes thismethod of enforcement more difficult and dangerous. Asa result, fewer violators receive citations, and the numberof violations increases.

l Motorists need to be educated regarding what theyshould do when they are pulled over in an HOV lane.When driving in the HOV lane, motorists should pull overto the left side if at all possible. This will help reduce thedanger to both the officer and driver.

l The variety of lane separation treatments for variousHOV facilities may cause confusion for some drivers.Each type of separation causes its own unique set ofproblems concerning enforcement. For example, one typeof separation used is a painted double yellow line.Although it is illegal for motorists to cross these lines, itis very difficult to enforce.

l Buffer areas that are between 8 feet and 12 feet wideencourage both HOV and SOV motorists to use the bufferarea for vehicle refuge. These buffer areas are notsatisfactory as enforcement areas because of the highspeed traffic on both sides. Sometimes pylons are placedin the wide buffer between the HOV and mixed flowlanes. These pylons prevent the area from being used asan enforcement area, and are usually knocked down bymotorists.

l Some forms of separation allow very infrequent accessto, and egress from, the HOV facility. As a result, anofficer may have difficulty entering the lane, or mayremain in the lane, for extended lengths,

l Some HOV lanes only operate during peak hours, andothers operate 24 hours a day. Motorists who are familiarwith one set of operating hours may not realize that otherHOV lanes operate during different hours. HOV lanesthat operate only during the peak-hours tend to have highviolation rates at the beginning and the end of theoperating periods. Another related issue is the need forconsistent signing.

l Electronic enforcement of HOV facilities would bemore cost effective and safer. It would remove officersfrom situations with high speed traffic on both sides andwould enhance the ability to monitor all parts of the lanes.

The Federal PerspectiveJim Robinson, Federal Highway Administration

Mr. Robinson showed a video on the design of HOVenforcement areas. The video was prepared by RonKlusza from Caltrans. Following the video, Mr.Robinson discussed HOV enforcement issues. He coveredthe following points in his discussion.

l The tirst enforcement area built on SR 91 was 800 feetlong and 10 feet wide. This size proved to be both too

65

short to safely stop a vehicle and pull back into traffic, l 81 percent of the respondents knew about the HEROand too narrow for safety. program.

l An ideal enforcement area, developed in coordinationwith the CHP, would be a minimum of 1,300 feet longand 14 feet wide. The appropriate spacing of enforcementareas depends on many factors including the availability ofspace, and access to the HOV lane. As a minimum, thereshould be at least one enforcement area every three miles.

The Washington State PerspectiveLeslie N. Jacobson, Washington Department ofTransportation

Mr. Jacobson discussed HOV enforcement in WashingtonState. The following points were covered in hispresentation.

l Law enforcement officials in the Seattle area estimatethat one in ten of the vehicles in the HOV lanes are singleoccupancy vehicles. Approximately 300 tickets are givenfor HOV violations per month. Because these tickets aremoving violations, they appear on the violator’s drivingrecord. In Washington, the fine for an HOV violation is$47; the fine in California is $217.

- It appears that the levels of HOV enforcement variesbetween different areas and different states. It isestimated that violations are highest in areas with littleenforcement. When violation levels are high, evenotherwise law-abiding drivers may begin to use the HOVlane.

. The HERO telephone line receives about 1,000 callsper month. When a first violation is reported to theHERO program, an informational flier is mailed to theviolator. When a second violation is reported, a letter ismailed to the driver, telling them that they have beenspotted illegally using the HOV lane. If a fourth violationis reported, a trooper may make a personal call to thedriver’s house. Although the HERO program does nothave the authority to issue tickets, many drivers use theline to vent their frustrations.

l A survey was conducted to determine the public’sperception of the HERO program. The results of thissurvey indicated that:

l 75 percent of the respondents felt HOV violationswere a problem, 50 percent felt violations were only aminor problem.

l 71 percent of those indicating knowledge of thesystem, thought HERO was a good idea while 50 percentof this 81 percent thought HERO reduced violations.

l Six percent thought violations were reduced a greatdeal as a result of the HERO program, 3 1 percent thoughtviolations were not reduced very much as a result of theHERO program.

l 64 percent of the general population favored theHERO telephone line, 24 percent had no opinion about theprogram, and 12 percent disliked the program.

- Ninety percent of the calls received on the HERO lineare for first time violators, 7 to 9 percent are second timeviolators, and only 1 to 3 percent are for drivers withthree or more violations. There have been only a coupleof cases in which a trooper has actually visited someone’shome.

Experience from the Shirley Highway HOV LanesDavid L. Tollett, Federal Highway Administration

Mr. Tollett discussed the evolution of HOV l a n eenforcement in Virginia. Methods of enforcementpreviously used were summarized and possibleimprovements were highlighted. The following pointswere covered in Mr. Tollett’s presentation.

l The first HOV lane opened on the Shirley Highway inVirginia in 1978. The manner in which the HOV laneshave been enforced has changed throughout the years.When the HOV lanes were first opened, violators werecharged with failure to obey highway signs. This is amoving violation, and resulted in a $35 fine and threepoints on the violator’s license. This type of enforcementresulted in over 10,000 citations per year in NorthernVirginia.

l A HERO program was implemented to reduce thenumber of violations. This program was in effect forapproximately one year. It was not well received becausethe public did not like the idea of being informants.

l A proposal to record license plate numbers visually,and mail citations to violators was initiated based onlegislation passed by the General Assembly. Thislegislation held the registered owner responsible for theoperation of a vehicle. State law enforcement officials

6 6

decided that drivers of rental cars and out-of-statevehicles, who may not know what an HOV lane was,would not receive citations. The citation could be rebuttedin court if the owner wished to testify that they were notdriving at the time of the violation.

l Although it is relatively quick and easy for enforcementofficers to note the license plate numbers of violators, thepaperwork to process each citation was lengthy. Todecrease the amount of officers’ time involved in thisprocess, the troopers now turn the plate numbers over toa clerk, who looks them up. The summons are then filledout electronically and mailed. With this system in effect,the fine increased to $50 plus court costs of $24, for atotal cost of $74. Points do not accrue on drivers’licenses because the driver is not specifically identified,but rather the owner of the vehicle is.

l The new electronic procedure is now in use and seemsto work well. A lack of support from the courtsdiminishes the effectiveness of the system, however.HOV violations have the lowest conviction rate of anyviolation in the state, varying from 30 to 50 percent,depending on the jurisdiction. Support from thelegislature and courts is needed to strengthen the laws forHOV enforcement. One way to garner this support maybe to include them in the planning and marketingprocesses. Electronic enforcement would also beenhanced by a device that would be able to "see" into

vehicles and determine if they are in violation of the HOVrestrictions.

l For HOV lanes to be effective, there must be anexpectation that if you violate, you will be caught, and thecourt will follow-up on the citation.

Experience from Recent Enforcement StudiesJohn W. Billheimer, Systan Inc.

Mr. Billheimer discussed a number of HOV enforcementstudies that have been conducted for Caltrans and theCHP. The following points were covered in hispresentation.

l A recent study was conducted in which HOV violationrates were measured before, during, and after periods ofspecial enforcement. The enforcement patrols were sentout in different configurations and at different times of theday.

l It was determined that one officer policing the HOVlane had a similar effect on the violation rate as two

officers policing the lane half as often. The one officerwas less disruptive to traffic, however.

l Heavy enforcement over a three month period was notsignificantly more effective than the same level o fenforcement over a one month period. The samepercentage of violations occurred with one officer locatedon a ramp one day a week for one month as with oneofficer on the ramp one day a week for three months.

l One method of enforcement presently in use inCalifornia is the ramp enforcement program. This entailsmonitoring violation rates on the ramps and sending outenforcement depending on the violation rates. Rampswith higher violation rates get more enforcement thanthose with lower violation rates. The same approach isnow being tried on HOV lanes.

l On HOV lanes that are available for use only duringlimited operating hours, the violations increase at thebeginning and end of the operating period. In themorning peak-period, the violations are higher at thebeginning of the peak-period, while it is still dark, than atthe end of the period.

l Studies found that there is no correlation between thespeed differential of the HOV lane and main lanes and theHOV violation rate. A fast moving queue had fewerviolations than a slow moving queue, but there was verylittle correlation with the actual amount of time saved.This may be due to the tendency to overestimate theamount of time that is saved by travelling in the HOVlane.

l The original enforcement areas on many HOV laneswere too small to use for pulling a vehicle over, buthaving an officer sit in the area anyway was helpful fordeterring violations. If a driver is pulled over on the rightshoulder, across all the lanes of traffic, other drivers donot know that the driver is receiving a citation for anHOV violation; therefore, they do not know that the HOVlane is being enforced.

l Less special enforcement is needed for longer HOVlanes than for shorter ones. There is a greater probabilityof violators in the longer HOV lanes being pulled over byregular enforcement because they are in the lane for alonger period of time.

l Automated enforcement would be a great help. Astudy was conducted examining the use of videoenforcement. Different configurations of cameras wereexamined to record vehicle occupancy rates. The cameras

6 7

were able to record the occupancy with 95 percentaccuracy, but 20 percent to 40 percent of the vehiclesidentified as violators were not. An officer was placeddown the road from the cameras to verify that the vehiclesidentified as violators actually were. The errors occurreddue to things such as a child or an adult asleep on theseat.

l It is very important to contact enforcement agencies atthe beginning of the HOV lane planning s tage.Enforcement personnel can then be included throughoutthe planning, design, and operations process.

Enforcement Issues in the Boston AreaRobert W. Brindley, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade &Douglas, Inc.

Mr. Br indley discussed the problems re la ted toenforcement of the HOV facilities in the Boston area. Thefollowing points were covered in his presentation.

l When building a new facility, it is very important toinvolve representatives from law enforcement agenciesearly in the planning stages. Once the facility isoperating, a continuous exchange of information with law

enforcement personnel is also necessary. Informationsuch as what data needs to be collected before accidentscan be removed from the lanes, and what consists of aviolation must be determined.

l It is important that all of the rules and restrictions foruse of the HOV lane be made available to commuters, lawenforcement personnel, and judges. This should includethe kind of vehicles allowed, the vehicle occupancyrequirements, and hours of operation.

l There is currently an effort in Boston to use photoenforcement to issue citations for individuals running redlights. It would be beneficial to extend this enforcementto HOV lanes. Photo enforcement has been attemptedpreviously, but with little success. The registry did notkeep good records, so quite a few of the cases weredismissed because the car was stolen or not registeredproperly. Currently, the registry is converting their filesfrom 3 X 5 inch cards to computer files, so that systemwill become more reliable. Once this is accomplished,HOV photo enforcement may be feasible.

l Another issue concerns judges and the courts. Often,if a judge does not agree with the use of HOV lanes, theviolation cases will he dismissed.

68

HOV System Pricing and Toll CollectionKeith Gilbert, Automobile Club of Southern California-Presiding

Selling Surplus HOV Capacity: The ArizonaTollroad Company CaseHenry Wall, Kimley-Horn & Associates

Mr. Wall d iscussed the concept of us ing IVHStechnologies in conjunction with road pricing to create asmart HOV lane. He used an example from Arizona todescribe how this concept might be applied in practice.Mr. Wall covered the following points in his presentation.

l There are three major purposes of smart HOV lanes.First, it creates a congestion management tool throughHOV lane pricing. Second, it promotes more efficient useof under-utilized HOV lanes. Third, it creates a revenuestream to fund other services.

l There are a number of different HOV/road pricingconcepts. One approach is to convert an under-utilizedHOV lane into a priced HOV lane. IVHS technologiessuch as AVI and toll tags, electronic signs, and ATMScould be used in this conversion. The general concept inthis approach is to let 3+ HOVs travel for free, charge2+ HOVs a reduced fee, and charge SOVs a higher pricefor use of the HOV lane. This could be done in real-timeto ensure that the traffic flow does not get too heavy.

l HOV pricing at freeway ramp meters is anotherconcept, as is HOV pricing on busways. A new lanecould also be added as a toll lane. Finally, an existinglane could be taken for a smart HOV lane.

l Under the ISTEA, it is illegal to impose tolls onexisting federal interstate freeways except as it may bepermitted under the Congestion Pricing Pilot Program.Tolls on added lanes to the Interstate system are allowed,however. In Arizona, the initial concept was to utilize anexisting HOV lane, which was built with Interstate funds,as a toll facility. The resulting revenues would be used tobuild other HOV lanes and supporting facilities. Thecurrent legislation does not allow this approach, however.

l Potential benefits from these approaches include valuepricing, raising users’ awareness of the cost of congestion,creating additional capacity, enhancing the efficiency ofthe HOV lane and the full facility, improving publicperception, generating additional revenues, and justifyingHOV lanes in additional areas. Air quality levels mayalso improve and other environment benefits may berealized.

- Taking an existing freeway lane may be more feasibleif HOV pricing is utilized, rather than just converting itinto an HOV lane. The impact of SOVs is lessened andpublic acceptance is improved.

l There are a number of perceived drawbacks to HOVpricing strategies. Some people think the HOV lanes andair quality will be degraded. These concerns could beaddressed through the use of advanced technologies tomanage the facility, however. Other issues relate toequity and the potential lowering of vehicle occupancylevels.

l The speed and operating conditions in the HOV lanecan be managed by regulating the toll charge. This canbe accomplished through the use of IVHS technologies.Advanced technologies can also be used to monitor andenforce a smart HOV lane.

l The revenues generated from HOV pricing could beused for many purposes. Possible projects includebuilding additional HOV lanes, and marketing carpooling,express bus services, park-and-ride facilities, IVHSprojects, and many other transportation and non-transportation projects. The real issues to advancing theseconcepts are not technological, but institutional andorganizational.

Bay Bridge Pricing DemonstrationKaren Frick, Metropolitan Transportation Commission

Ms. Frick discussed the congestion pricing demonstrationproject which is being implemented on the Bay Bridge inthe San Francisco Bay area. She presented thebackground to the project, the general concept, and thecurrent status. Ms. Frick covered the following points inher presentation.

l A number of groups came together a few years ago tolook at market-based pricing strategies in the Bay area.T h e s e i n c l u d e d t h e M T C - t h e M P O f o r t h earea-Caltrans, and other governmental, business,environmental, and public interest groups. FHWAselected the Bay Bridge project for funding through theCongestion Pricing Demonstration program.

l The goals of the project include reducing congestion,improving air quality levels, providing additional transit

69

and ridesharing alternatives, and actually testingcongestion pricing. There are a number of reasons theBay Bridge was identified for the first demonstration. TheBay Bridge is a highly congested corridor. It is anexisting toll facility, and it has HOV lanes in operationduring the morning peak hours. Express buses and BARTare also in operation in the corridor, along with ferries.Further, because it is a bridge, there are few realisticconvenient alternative routes.

l HOV modes in the corridor currently carry highvolumes of traffic. BART currently accounts for 36percent of the person trips in the corridor, whilecarpooling and vanpooling account for 24 percent and ACTransit carries about 6 percent.

l The Management Board overseeing the prqject hasdeveloped a number of alternative pricing strategies. Thetolls currently being considered range from $2 to $4. Thetoll could be applied only in the morning, in the inbounddirection of travel or during both the morning andafternoon. The tolls could be the same for the two timeperiods or they could be different. An off-peak discountcould also be offered from the existing $1 toll. Caltranshas also indicated interest in a step charge. Under thisconcept, toll charges would increase during the peak-of-the-peak.

l The revenue generated from the project would be usedto fund commute alternatives. These might includefunding for BART, bus services, shuttle services, demand-responsive vans, ferry services, carpoollvanpoolprograms, park-and-ride facilities, security upgrades,BART parking, low income discounts, telecommuting,flextime, bike shuttles, and bridge improvements.

l Currently, delays of 20 minutes are common during themorning commute. The modeling analysis indicates thatthere is a four minute reduction in delay for every $1increase in tolls. Thus, increasing the toil to $3 coulddecrease delay by about half.

l Legislative authority must be obtained to raise tolls onthe Bay Bridge. Currently, focus groups, small groupmeetings with key opinion leaders, and a public opinionpoll are being conducted.

l The focus groups have provided some interestingresults. As might be expected, there is more oppositionas the toll rates increase. Concerns were also voiced overhow the revenues would be used. The off-peak discountwas also not well received. The focus groups wereconducted by modes. Most people indicated satisfaction

with their current commute patterns and did not indicatethey would change modes based on increased tolls.

- The equity issue has also been examined by/reviewinghousehold incomes in the East Bay and the West Bay.The East Bay carpoolers and vanpoolers have much higherincome levels than those in the West Bay.

l The planning phase of the project will be completed bythe end of the year. A complete package on thecongestion pricing program will be presented to thelegislature in 1995. If legislative authorization isreceived, a new toll structure would be implemented in1996.

Route 91 HOV Lane Public/Private DemonstrationJerry C. Porter, California Private TransportationCorporation

Mr. Porter discussed the development of the Route 91HOV lane in Orange County, California. He summarizedthe background and current status of the project, as wellas the financing techniques and the anticipated tollstructure. Mr. Porter covered the following points in hispresentation.

l The project has been under development for about fouryears. Four private groups are involved in the planning,design, and construction of the facility. Route 91currently experiences high levels of congestion, especiallyduring the peak hours. Assembly Bill 680 is the keylegislation that allowed this and three other toll projects inthe state. All are “build, transfer, and operate” projects.When completed, the projects will be dedicated back toCaltrans, who will then lease them to the developers fora 35-year period. The legislation further stipulates thatthe facilities must supplement an existing highway.

l The Route 91 project will build and operate four lanesin the median of the existing freeway. The four lanes willprovide a combination of carpool and toll facilities. Somepeople call these HOT lanes-for high-occupancy tolllanes. Toll collection will be totally electronic, even forHOVs. There will be no toll booths.

l Congestion pricing is at the heart of the project. Thereis a commitment to maintain the time savings for HOVs.Toll rates will vary depending on congestion levels.Automatic changeable message signs will be used toinform motorists of the current charges. HOVs aredefined as vehicles with three or more occupants. HOVswill have to drive through a special lane to allow visual

7 0

confirmation of vehicle occupancy levels. There is aprovision in the agreement that allow a discounted chargeto HOVs if needed to maintain the debt coverage ratio. Itis not anticipated that this will be necessary, however.

l Additional agreements were needed on the prqject toaddress maintenance and other provisions. The financingplan was also more complex than a typical highwayprqject. The non-recourse financing used means that thelenders can look only to prqject revenues for the debt

coverage stream. The equity partners do not have anymore at stake than their initial equity investment.

l The total prqject cost is $126 million. Approximately15 percent of this is provided by the partners. Groundbreaking on the project occurred ten months ago andconstruction is currently underway. Project completion isscheduled for December 1995, with the facility open totraffic in 1996.

71

HOV System Compatibility with Other ModesHeidi Stamm, Pacific Rim Resources, Inc.-Presiding

Land Use as an Influence on Mode Choice: HOVSystems versus Rail Systems for Serving SuburbanAreasDavid E. Schumacher, Metropolitan TransitDevelopment Board, San Diego

Mr. Schumacher discussed the role that land use factorsplay in evaluating how to “retrofit” public transportationsystems into suburban areas, and whether thesetransportation systems should utilize HOV lanes and busesor rail. A paper on this topic was available. Thefollowing points were covered in Mr. Schumacher’spresentation.

l I-15 is the main North-South corridor for the inlandSan Diego County area. The Northern portion of I-15consists of low density suburban development. TheSouthern section includes higher density developments. Astudy is currently underway to examine potentialimprovements in the corridor including LRT, HOV lanes,and transitways.

l The ADT for I-15 is 170,000 to 250,000 vehicles perday and is predicted to be greater than 300,000 vehiclesper day by the year 2015. Expansion is needed, but is notf e a s i b l e b e c a u s e o f r i g h t - o f - w a y restrictions,environmental constraints, and a lack of parallel arterials.The only facility improvement currently planned is anextension of the existing eight mile HOV lane, the lanewill be extended in both directions.

l The corridor is one of the fastest growing areas in thecounty with respect to housing and employment. Thepopulation is projected to increase 58 percent from 1990to 2015, and employment is prqjectad to grow by over 36percent. Due to this growth, the traffic problem isexpected to become similar to that of Los Angeles withinthe next twenty years. There is adequate political andpublic support for transit improvements, but the area wasdesigned for the automobile, which presents problems withretrofitting transit into the area.

l Fifty-six percent of LRT passengers in San Diego walkto the station. This indicates that pedestrian access to astation is very important to the success of a system. Thepopulation density in the I-15 corridor is low and theoffice parks are not located near the freeway. Pedestrianaccess to rail stations near the freeway would be virtuallynon-existent. This is one reason why a high-speed bus or

HOV system may be a better alternative.

- Most of the individuals living in this area are employedin various suburban office parks. The employment parksemploy fewer people than downtown areas, but occupythree to five times as much land. Each park could justifyservice, but these areas were not designed for transit.

- A system utilizing HOV lanes and buses would bemore cost effective than rail because it would increaseridesharing and could serve a greater percentage of non-work trips. Areas like shopping malls and medicalcenters would be difficult to serve by rail because of theirdesign.

- There are many areas where the sidewalks are locatedvery close to the freeway or do not exist at all. Thismakes waiting for a bus potentially dangerous.

- Buses could take people closer to their office than rail.Minimizing the walking distance may encourage ridership.

Improving the Estimation Process for HOV LaneDemand in a Multi-Modal CorridorJohn P. Long and John A. Gibb, DKS Associates

Mr. Long and Mr. Gibb discussed the problems associatedwith current HOV models, proposed model enhancements,and provided an overview of the HOV demand modeldeveloped for the Sacramento Council of Governments.The model has been used to determine the best way tophase HOV lanes and light rail on a section of US 50. Apaper on this topic, written by Mr. Long, Mr. Gibb, andMr. Gordon R. Garry was also available. The followingpoints were included in their presentation.

l Two items need to be considered for the phasing ofHOV lanes versus light rail: which should be built first,and the trade-offs between the two. When studying theseitems for the Sacramento study, there was concern that thecurrent models may overestimate how many cars willactually use an HOV lane. This overestimation mayfurther exaggerate tradeoffs between the two.

l Current HOV models usually consider HOV lanes asfacilities parallel to the freeway lanes. There are variousways to model and connect the mixed flow lanes to theHOV lanes as well as different ways of assigning traffic

72

to the lanes. Current models also assign virtually allHOVs to the lane even if there is only a slight differencein travel time.

l In developing the new model, counts were compiledfrom existing buffer separated or concurrent flow HOVlanes to determine the percentage of HOVs that actuallyuse the lane. It was determined that usually less than 60percent of the HOVs on the freeway were using the lane.If the data collected is accurate, than models that estimate90 percent or even 100 percent of the HOVs on a freewayfacility will use a new HOV lane are overestimating use.The study also indicated that there is no relation betweenthe percentage of HOVs in the HOV lane and the flow inthe mixed flow lanes.

l A few key areas of the model were targeted forimprovement. It was believed that HOVs weaving fromon-ramps to the median lane were not being accounted forin the models. This, in conjunction with distance travelledon the freeway, is a very important variable. In makinga short trip, weaving over to the median lane and weavingback to enter and exit the HOV lane may be difficult anddangerous.

l Trip purpose and trip frequency were also identified askey factors. An individual going to work is probablymore concerned with travel time then someone going tothe doctor or to an appointment. Travel behavior,demographics, and other issues were also believed to befactors in the decisions to use an HOV lane.

l The new model considers the difficulty of movingacross lanes of traffic to get into and out of the HOV lane,travel behavior, and demographic characteristics such astrip purpose and frequency, travel time savings, distancetravelled, and age of the driver.

l The demographic and travel behavior data wascollected on highway 101 in the San Jose and San Mateoarea. This is a 30 mile facility which has a 3+concurrent flow HOV lane. License plates of vehiclesentering the freeway were videotaped and questionnaires

were mailed those drivers. Questions included in thesurvey focused on HOV lane use, age, trip purpose, andfrequency of HOV lane use. Traffic counts were alsoconducted on a ten mile section of highway 101, at thesame time that the plates were being videotaped, todetermine the congestion levels that the vehicles wouldencounter.

- The information from the surveys and the traffic countswere analyzed and used to develop a statistical model.The data had to be screened to ensure that people wererecalling the right trips. A logit model was then fit to thedata. A logit model was used because it allows differentpeople under the same conditions to act differently.Individdals making trips, rather than the entire trafficstream, is used as the unit of analysis.

l A statistical hypothesis testing process was conductedwith various study models. Models with trip specificinformation about the individual and trip purpose weremore predictive than those which only depended on avolume to capacity (v/c) ratio. Time savings wereimportant, but less so with non-work trips. Difficulty inchanging lanes also had a significant effect. There was athreshold for how long the trip had to be before driverswould use the HOV lane. For trips under three miles,very few drivers used the HOV lane. Frequency of thetrip was shown to be significant, and age had some effect.

l Drivers least likely to use the HOV lane are those witha short distance to travel during heavy traffic. The HOVlane offers these drivers little time savings and weavingacross the mainlanes is a deterrent. The drivers who aremost likely to use the HOV lane are those who benefitfrom the most time savings, those traveliing a longdistance in heavy traffic.

l An alternate model was fit to non-work trips becausethey did not show as much sensitivity to time savings.Further research is needed to determine the significanceof time for these trips. The key variables for these tripsare the number of lanes that must be crossed to get intothe HOV lane, and the distance travelled.

7 3

Demand Estimation and Modeling Experience-Part 1Katherine F. Tumbull, Texas Transportation Institute-Presiding

Florida Interstate Highway System Plan Developmentand HOV Demand Estimation-An EmpiricalAnalysisYoussef Dehghani, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade &Douglas, Inc.

Mr. Dehghani summarized the major elements of a paperco-authored by Marie-Elsie Dowell, Parsons Brinckerhoff,Inc., on the HOV demand estimation procedure used onthe Florida Interstate Highway System Plan. This planfocused on the SR 874 corridor in the Miami area. Mr.Dehghani addressed the goals and objectives of the study,the HOV demand estimation procedures, and thepreliminary results in his presentation.

l The Florida Interstate Highway System (FIHS) policycalls for constraining the expansion of limited accessfacilities to ten lanes-six general-purpose traffic lanes andfour lanes dedicated exclusively to long distance throughtravel, HOVs, and possibly future rail transit. Thus, goalsof the FIHS policy are to increase the person-carryingcapacity of the interstate system, minimize environmentalimpacts, comply with Florida’s growth management laws,support energy conservation, reduce congestion, providefor high speed travel, and develop an affordable system.

l This study focused on the SR 874 corridor insouthwestern Miami. Currently, this divided expresswayvaries from four-lanes to six-lanes. The study looked atH O V d e m a n d i n t h e c o r r i d o r a n d a l t e r n a t i v eimprovements.

l The study utilized the Florida Standard UrbanTransportation Model Structure (FSUTMS). Additionalprocedures for estimating HOV demand were developedto complement the FSUTMS. First, the FSUTMS wasused to generate traffic volumes for the general purposelanes and through trips. The FSUTMS model was thenvalidated based on a comparative analysis of the estimatedand observed base year conditions. Capacity-constrainedand unconstrained highway assignments were conducted toestimate excess demand. Selected link analyses wereperformed for all constrained and unconstrained highwayassignments. The excess demand was calculated as thedifference between the daily demand volume estimated forthe general purpose lanes and the volumes estimated fromthe unconstrained assignments.

l The 1990 Census journey-to-work data was used as the

base for developing the percentage of HOV trips thatwould use the facility. Additional data on vehicleoccupancy levels was obtained for the corridor from DadeCounty. The HOV market share for commuters wasapproximately 12 percent. A similar figure was used fornon-commuter trips. HOV demand was estimated fromthrough trips based on the baseline HOV share for thecorridor and a pivot point analysis to estimate diversion toHOV resulting from travel time savings.

l The results of this analysis provided useful initialforecasts of potential HOV demand in the SR 874corridor. A number of areas for further research werealso identified. The need for sketch planning tools andsimple network-based models to estimate HOV demandwere highlighted as two of the more important areas foradditional research. The need for direct research focusingon developing a better understanding of ridesharingformation and estimation of HOV trip tables was alsonoted as important.

HOV Demand Estimation in Eastern MassachusettsKarl H. Quackenbush, Central Transportation PlanningStaff

Mr. Quackenbush presented a summary of the modelingtechniques used by the Central Transportation PlanningStaff (CTPS) in Boston to assist in the evaluation of HOVprojects in Eastern Massachusetts. The objectives of thepresentation, and the paper prepared for the conference,were to provide technical information to others interestedin modeling HOV facilities and to demonstrate theimportant contributions modeling can make to the HOVplanning process. Mr. Quackenbush highlighted thefollowing elements in his presentation.

l HOV projects are being considered in EasternMassachusetts for a number of reasons. Massachusetts isclassified as a serious air quality non-attainment area andHOV lanes are one approach being examined to addressthese concerns. In addition, HOV lanes are a means ofrelieving roadway congestion and enhancing the efficiencyof the transportation system.

l The area examined in this study includes a number ofradial highways, as well as a rapid rail system. HOV wasnot viewed as a competitor to the rail system due to thedifferent geographical markets served by each.

74

l The HOV modeling methods used by CTPS are fullyintegrated into the traditional four-step modeling process.The planning-level models are oriented toward regionaland corridor evaluations. The models are implemented inUTPS and run on mainframe computers. The models areused primarily to predict HOV lane usage based on traveltime savings, but they can also be used to predict HOVuse based on different policy options or strategies.

l The modeling process involves network building, tripgeneration, trip distribution, mode choice, and tripassignments. Each of these steps was briefly described.

l The CTPS regional highway network is made up of40,000 one-way links, and is tied to a zone systemcomprised of 888 internal zones and 102 external stations.The HOV facilities to be analyzed are represented in thisnetwork. The types of trips that will be assigned to thefacility are restricted by a code. Buses using the facilityare handled through a separate regional bus model.

l Regional person trips with at least one trip end in thestudy area are generated on a 24-hour basis for sixpurposes using DRAM/EMPL activity allocation models.Trip productions are stratified by geographic ring,household size, and either vehicle ownership or thenumber of workers. Trip production rates are estimatedbased on the results of a recent household survey, and tripattraction rates are generated using linear additiveequations whose independent variables consist ofemployment by type and the number of households.

. The heart of the HOV modeling process is the modechoice and trip assignment elements. The process uses amulti-modal logit model to estimate work trip shares forsingle-occupant vehicles, two-person HOVs, three-personHOVs, and transit. The model was estimated with the1991 household survey data and contains generically-specified time, cost, and traveler-specific variables.

l Developing the mode choice model was not easy,because there is only one HOV lane in the area, and thus,little local data. The prediction-success tables generatedin the estimation process indicate a good deal of accuracywith transit versus non-transit alternatives, but much loweraccuracy levels for different vehicle occupancy levels.The model also uses a generalized relationship for in-vehicle and out-of-vehicle times for the rideshare modes.The model is calibrated to 1990/1991 travel conditions.

l A number of outputs are produced by the model.First, traffic volumes and speeds for both the generalpurpose and the HOV lanes are produced. These results

can be used to determine the viability of an alternative.They can also be used to modify alternatives for retesting.The model outputs can be used to estimate travel-timesavings for HOVs and to estimate the person-movementcapability of different alternatives. The results can furtherbe used to evaluate possible impacts on other transitalternatives in the study area. This is especially importantin Eastern Massachusetts, which has extensive bus and railsystems.

l This process has been used on three corridors inE a s t e r n M a s s a c h u s e t t s - t w o r a d i a l a n d o n ecircumferential. In addition, it is being used in a system-wide HOV study to develop a long-range regional HOVplan. Enhancements, such as improving the accuracy ofmodeling different vehicle occupancy levels, are alsobeing explored.

HOV and Multi-Modal Modeling in FloridaPatrick J. Coleman, KPMG Peat Mat-wick, Inc.

Mr. Coleman discussed the development and use of amulti-modal modeling process in Florida. The new modelis an enhancement to the existing Florida Standard UrbanTransportation Modeling Structure (FSUTMS) and isdesigned to provide additional flexibility in evaluatingcomplex multi-modal alternatives. Mr. Colemansummarized the following elements from the paperpresented for the conference, which was co-authored byJeffrey M. Bruggeman, KPMG Peat Marwick, Inc.

l The FSUTMS has been used for many years by theFlorida Department of Transportation (FDOT). TheFSUTMS is a family of four modeling processes. Theseare the highway only process; the single-path, single-period transit (SPSP) process; the multi-path, single-period transit (MPSP) process; and the multi-path, multi-period transit (MPMP) process.

l In response to the requirements of the ISTEA and otherpolicies, several urban areas in Florida are updating theirlong-range transportation plans. The need to incorporatemulti-modal alternatives into these plans resulted in therecognition that improvements were needed to theFSUTMS . The revisions have been implementedincrementally with transit projects in Orlando and Miami,Interstate Master Plans in Central Florida, and multi-modal studies in Miami.

l The model structure for the updated system was basedon a nested logit formulat ion developed for theMinneapolis-St. Paul area. This model has an auto versus

7 5

transit nest, with drive alone and HOV auto submodes andwalk versus auto access transit submodes. Further, theHOV has two, three, and four or more person vehicleoccupancy submodes. This model was revised to betterreflect modal choices in Florida cities. Changes includedcombining the three and four or more person HOVsubmodes, creating a further submode in the transit walkaccess to include local versus premium transit, andcreating a nest below auto access for park-and-ride andkiss-and-ride trips. Further, when the model is used inthe Miami area, a nest is added to local transit for localbus and jitney services.

l The revised model is sensitive to inputs for bothhighway and transit elements. Highway sensitivitiesinclude low-occupancy travel times and distance/costs,HOV travel times and distance/costs, parking costs, out-of-vehicle time, automobile ownership levels, and thecentral business district (CBD) attractiveness. Transitsensitivities include walk access time, automobile accesstime, first wait time, transfer time, fares, automobileownership levels, and CBD attractiveness.

l The revised model estimates modal choice and autooccupancy levels. Thus, auto trips are output as bothperson trips and vehicle trips, with the latter used in thehighway assignment process and evaluation. Transit tripsare output only as person trips, with transit load factorsincorporated in the transit assignment and evaluation.Auto access, including park-and-ride and kiss-and-ride,are converted to vehicle trips and output for inclusion inthe highway assignment process.

l The FSUTMS process performs the highwayassignment using an equilibrium assignment process for afull 24-hour trip table with an assumed peaking factorused to invoke the capacity constraint algorithm. Thiscaused some problems with the overassignment of shorttrips and the speed differential between the HOV lanes andthe general-purpose lanes. These issues have beenaddressed in the model improvements by placing timepenalties on access links from the general-purpose lanes tothe HOV facility.

l The multi-modal model improvements provide greatercapabilities for regional and corridor studies. Furtherenhancements will be needed to ensure the modelcontinues to respond to changing travel demand and trippatterns. Thus, the improvement process should beviewed as an ongoing effort.

HOV Demand Estimation Techniques Used for theNew Jersey Turnpike HOV StudyC. David Dickey, Jr., Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade andDouglas, Inc.

Mr. Dickey discussed the HOV demand estimationtechniques utilized in a recent study on the New JerseyTurnpike. The New Jersey Turnpike is a major north-south artery in the state that serves all classes of vehicles.Like many other facilities, the Turnpike experiencesperiods of heavy use and congestion. Mr. Dickey coveredthe following points from the paper prepared for theconference with Irving F. Perlman, Parsons Brinckerhoff.

l The purpose of the study was to assess the viability ofimplementing HOV priority measures along a 38-milesegment of the New Jersey Turnpike. A number ofmainline HOV lane scenarios were examined. Theseincluded different vehicle occupancy requirements, as wellas bus-only options. The traffic, operational, and airquality impacts of the different alternatives wereexamined.

l The short project schedule and the need to presentdetailed operational analyses resulted in the utilization ofa unique application of existing HOV demand estimationtechniques and general traffic operations analysis tools.Many HOV studies start with a preliminary assessment todetermine if an HOV facility is warranted. A moredetailed analysis is then conducted that examines theunique demands and issues in the corridor.

l In this study, data on traffic volumes, vehicleclassifications, vehicle occupancy levels, travel speeds anddelays, and peak-period operations were examined in theinitial stage. A fatal flaw analysis was conducted todetermine the feasibility of an HOV lane in the corridor.The analysis indicated that current HOV volumes met oneof the fatal flaw criteria. High levels of recurringcongestion, another of the preliminary study fatal flaws,was only found at some Turnpike toll plazas, however.As a result, a methodology was developed to expand thestage one-or preliminary demand analysis-to include agreater level of detail.

l The methodology utilized before-and-after mode shiftanalyses for mainline operations, HOV demands, theimpact on revenue due to the mode shift, and the impactsof traffic operations on air quality. The componentsincluded in the methodology were traffic flow analyses,origin and destination travel time matrices, HOV demandestimation including mode shift analyses, air qualityanalyses, and revenue impact analyses.

7 6

l The traffic flow analyses included testing the peak hourvolume/capacity relationships of the roadway based on theanalysis techniques in the Highway Capacity Manual.Some refinements were necessary due to unique aspects ofthe Turnpike and the study, however.

l Origin and destination (O-D) travel time matrices weredeveloped from the mainline flow analysis to identifytravel times for trip O-D pairs on the Turnpike. Thetravel time differences were then used in the mode shiftanalysis.

l The HOV demand estimation process consideredprimary HOV diversion, secondary HOV diversion, andlatent demand. It was assumed that 85 to 100 percent ofthe existing HOVs would divert into the HOV lane. Itwas further assumed that a volume of up to 10 percent ofthe HOVs on the Turnpike was a fair order-of-magnitudefor the HOVs that would divert from parallel routes.Thus, the total number of primary and secondarydiversions were estimated to equal current HOV volumeson the Turnpike.

l The latent demand, or mode shift, was determinedusing the mode shift algorithm in the FREQ model, with

one iteration. Average travel time savings for each HOVscenario were used to determine the percent mode shiftfor each scenario. The percent mode shift was used torecalculate the HOV lane and general-purpose lanevolumes.

. The air quality analysis included estimating vehicleemissions by multiplying the vehicle miles of travel by thesum of the emission rate in grams per mile of pollutantfor each class of vehicle. Emission rates were calculatedfor hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and oxides ofnitrogen, using data from the FREQ model.

l The revenue analysis examined the potential loss inrevenue for each HOV scenario due to a mode shift fromSOV to HOV. The change in revenue was calculatedfrom the person O-D trip mode shift table which wasconverted into a vehicle O-D trip table by vehicleclassification. This was necessary since toll rates vary bytrip length.

l The methodology provided an appropriate level ofdetail for this study and was manageable within the shorttime frame. The results appear to be comparable to thosethat would have been obtained through other models.

7 7

Demand Estimation and Modeling Experience-Part 2Katherine F. Turnbull, Texas Transportation Institute-Presiding

Development of an HOV Demand EstimationProcedure for Use in a Multi-Modal System PlanChristopher M. Poe, Pennsylvania TransportationInstitute

Mr. Poe summarized the development and use of an HOVdemand estimation procedure which was developed by theTexas Transportation Institute for the Dallas District of theTexas Department of Transportation. The process wasused to analyze a multi-modal system plan for the Dallasarea. Mr. Poe covered the following points from a paperprepared for the conference and co-authored by Mr.Russell Henk, Texas Transportation Institute.

l The development of the multi-modal system planrepresented the collective efforts of multiple agencies inthe Dallas area. The planning effort was conducted by theTexas Transportation Institute (TTI) under contract to theTexas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). TheNorth Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)and Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) were also involvedin the planning process.

l The goal of the plan, which focuses on the year 2015,is to provide an intermediate step between the macroscopiclevel of planning conducted by NCTCOG and the detaileddesign and analysis performed by TxDOT. To accomplishthis goal, a unique process was used to examinealternative scenarios for HOV and general-purpose laneimprovements. The process involved five steps. Thesesteps were: data input, development of differentalternatives, cost analyses, prioritizing and selectingalternatives, and operational analyses.

l The process focuses on providing integrated, cost-effective solutions with an emphasis on peak-periodoperation. This analysis uses a more microscopicapproach to analyze peak-period operation, interchangesbetween and along facilities, and shifts between highwayand transit facilities. This approach allows for severaladditional alternatives to be analyzed in each corridorwhich may arise from the public review process or fromchanges in available funding.

l The first phase of the process included the collectionand analysis of a wide range of information on existingconditions. This included data on vehicle volumes,occupancy rates, origin-destination information, andsystemwide constraints. Future peak hour volumes were

estimated based on this information.

l This information was used to analyze potentialalternatives in each corridor. The alternatives evaluatedincluded general-purpose lanes, express lanes, HOV lanes,and different combinations of these. To analyze thesealternatives, an iterative procedure was used to estimatethe split between peak hour general-purpose trips andHOV trips. In all cases, the person trips in each corridorwere held constant during the peak hour.

l Adjustments in vehicle volumes due to congestionthrough both time and modal shift were built into theprocess. Using data from the Houston HOV lanes, arelationship indicated that HOV ridership increasesproportionally with increased congestion levels. Houstonand Dallas have different K and D factors, however. TheK factor is the percentage of total traffic occurring duringthe peak hour and the D factor is the directionaldistribution of the traffic. The differences in the K and Dfactors were adjusted for the Dallas conditions and plottedon a graph. The results work well in the analysis ofradial HOV and freeway facilities, although they do notappear as accurate with circumferential facilities.

l For each corridor, the NCTCOG ridership projectionsas a percent of average daily traffic were plotted againstthe daily traffic volume per lane. The locations on radialfacilities in Dallas have good correlation with the Houstonequation. The circumferential facilities in Dallas do notcorrelate well with the Houston model, which is notsurprising, given that the Houston data are from radialfacilities.

l Approximately ten to 15 alternatives were developedand examined for each freeway corridor. For example,in one corridor the alternatives examined included no-build, additional general-purpose lanes, express lanes, twoHOV lanes, and one HOV lane. Both 2+ and 3+ vehicleoccupancy requirements were evaluated. The critical lanevolumes were then examined for each alternative. Amaximum vehicle volume of approximately 2,400 vehiclesper hour was used as the upper limit, as congestioncontinues to occur before and after the peak hour at thislevel.

l A cost analysis of the different alternatives was alsoconducted. This included estimating the congestion delaycost to identify the total cost to the public. Using this

7 8

method, the no-build alternative was the most expensiveoption and the two-lane HOV alternative was the leastexpensive. The different alternatives were ranked basedon these general costs. If two alternatives had similarcosts, the option that provided greater system continuity orflexibility was rated higher.

l The last step examined the operational issues associatedwith each alternative. Concerns associated with weavingand merging were studied for all options.

l The methodology developed in this study appears toprovide a reasonable tool for estimating future demand forHOV facilities during preliminary planning phases. Thegeneral approach could be easily modified and applied toother locations with regional data to account for localinfluences on HOV lane utilization.

Application of Simulation Models for InvestigatingHOV SystemsVinton Bacon, University of California, Berkeley

Mr. Bacon summarized the results of a study assessing thepotential use of simulation models as tools in the designand evaluation of HOV facilities. The Santa MonicaFreeway corridor in Los Angeles was used to test the useof two computer simulation models, INTEGRATION andFREQ. Mr. Bacon highlighted the following points fromthe paper prepared for the conference with Loren D.Bloomberg, John R. Windover, and Adolf D. May, fromthe University of California, Berkeley.

l The purpose of the study was to assess the potential useof simulation models as tools in the design and assessmentof HOV facilities. Two computer simulation models,INTEGRATION and FREQ, were used to simulate aportion of the Santa Monica Freeway corridor in LosAngeles. The results of the models were examinedagainst field data and compared against one another. Thestrengths and weaknesses of both models were alsoexamined to identify the best applications.

l There are a number of models that can simulate variousaspects of HOV facilities. These can be divided intotravel demand models and traffic flow models. Traveldemand models are needed to determine the modal choiceof commuters and hence the demand for the roadway.Traffic flow models are used to determine the trafficconditions that result from a given mode split. The twomodels used in this study, FREQ and INTEGRATION,can be categorized as traffic flow models. Both contain anumber of features that are typical of travel demand

models, however.

l The first version of FREQ was developed in 1970 byAdolf D. May and others at the University of California,Berkeley. The model has gone through a number ofmodifications yielding the current parallel versionsFREQl IPL and FREQllPE. FREQ simulates theperformance of a mainline freeway divided intosubsections. Each subsection represents a change in thesupply and/or demand along the freeway. The subsectionsare assumed to be physically homogeneous and thedemand is evenly spread across an individual time slice.The current version allows the user to specify 38subsections of freeway and to simulate a total of 24 timeslices.

l The INTEGRATION computer simulation model wasdeveloped in 1984 at the University of Waterloo inOntario, Canada. Updates to the model were developedat Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. The modelwas designed explicitly for use with IVHS facilities and iscapable of simulating integrated freeway/arterial corridors.INTEGRATION is a relatively new model and studiesusing the model are limited. The model simulatesvehicles on an individual basis allowing it to performtraffic assignment based on dynamic queuing.

l As part of an effort to simulate the entire Santa MonicaFreeway (I-10) corridor with the INTEGRATION model,the freeway portion of the corridor was coded with FREQand INTEGRATION. Due to time limitations, this studyanalyzed only the eastbound freeway mainline networkwith both models. This network consists of roughly ninemiles of the I-10 freeway between the San Diego Freeway(I-405) and the Harbor Freeway (SR-110). The timeperiod analyzed was between 6:30 A.M . and 2:30 P.M.The analysis focused on adding an HOV lane with anestimated capacity of 1,600 vehicles an hour. A 2+vehicle occupancy level was used on the facility.

l A series of sensitivity analyses were conducted usingboth models. In both cases, the percentage of persons inHOV vehicles had to be converted into a percentage ofHOV vehicles. This was accomplished with a simplespreadsheet. First, the existing number of vehicles(135,800) was multiplied by the existing occupancy (1.12)to yield the total number of passengers in the network.(152,096). Given the percentage of passengers in HOVvehicles, the spreadsheet was used to calculate thepercentage of high-occupancy vehicles in the network.This calculation was needed since both models use thenumber of vehicles as their input. As the percentage ofHOV passengers changes, the total number of vehicles to

7 9

be simulated will change as well. The spreadsheet alsocalculated the total number of vehicles that resulted fromany change in the percentage of passengers in HOVvehicles.

l Simulation runs were then made using both models forthe baseline conditions and the HOV alternatives. Forthese runs a total of eight hours of demand were used, butthe simulation time was nine hours to allow for all of thevehicles to exit the network. This is important becausequeued vehicles must be allowed to clear the network inorder to calculate the travel times for all of the simulatedvehicles. For all of the simulation runs the parameters ofinterest were the average trip speeds and trip times forboth HOV and non-HOV vehicles.

l Changes in trip time and vehicle speeds were examinedfor the different alternatives. For example, the run with20 percent HOV passengers and 10.2 percent HOVvehicles represents essentially the existing conditions withan HOV lane added. In this scenario, average speedsincrease to about 49 mph and average trip times decreaseto 5.7 minutes. The HOV vehicles enjoy most of thebenefit, with a trip time of just under four minutes, whilethe non-HOV vehicles only receive about a six secondaverage trip time improvement from the baseline.

l The study results indicate that both the FREQ and theINTEGRATION models simulated an existing real-worldcondition and generated results that matched expectedresults from the field. The FREQ model focusesprimarily on the freeway portion of a corridor, while theINTEGRATION model can be used for an entire freewaycorridor.

CALINK: An HOV Travel Demand and SimulationModeling FrameworkWilliam R. Loudon, JHK & Associates

Dr. Loudon summarized the design, development, andmethodology of CALINK, an HOV travel demand andsimulation modeling framework. The development of themodeling framework was conducted by JHK & Associatesfor the California Department of Transportation. Dr.Loudon covered the following points from a paperprepared for the conference and co-authored by MichaelAusiam, California Department of Transportation.

l The goal of the project was to develop a softwareprogram for predicting the impacts from HOV facilities.The focus was on improving methods for forecasting modeshift, route diversion, and mobile source emissions

resulting from HOV facilities and other freewayoperations strategies. The model framework integrates aregional planning model with the FREQ freewaysimulation model and the DTIM emissions model.

l Existing transportation planning models are capable offorecasting HOV demand, their ability to accuratelyestimate the operational effects of HOV facilities, such asaverage delay, speed, and queuing, is limited. Further,planning models are often not able to represent the traveltime differences between occupancy levels that may beintroduced by HOV or ramp meter facilities. Freewaysimulation models, on the other hand, are capable of moreaccurately estimating travel times by link and evaluatingthe operational impacts of HOV facilities. These modelsare not designed to predict regional mode shift or routechoice, however, and are not capable of estimating all ofthe effects of HOV facilities on demand.

l By developing an interface between a transportationplanning model and a freeway simulation model, theCALINK model framework can produce more accurateestimates of HOV demand forecasts, the operational andemission impacts of HOV facilities, and theinterrelationship between the two. The CALINK softwarehas been developed to produce a direct linkage betweenthe freeway simulation software FREQ and the SYSTEMII, MINUTP and TRANPLAN transportation planningsoftware packages. Only minimal adaptations are requiredto link CALINK with most other regional planningsoftware packages. The emissions model framework alsoprovides the structure within which different emission ratemodels may be used.

l Within the general model system structure, theplanning and simulation analysis is executed in an iterativeprocess. Estimates of mode split and assigned trafficvolumes produced by the planning model are input toFREQ via the planning/ simulation model interfaces toproduce new revised freeway and ramp speeds. Therevised speeds are then input to the planning model foruse in a new mode split assignment. The process isrepeated until the travel speeds and volumes convergefrom iteration to iteration.

l Several methodologies were tested to determine thebest approach to achieve travel speed and volumeconvergence. It was determined that using a runningaverage of speeds and volumes from iteration to iterationresults in a stable convergence pattern. Further, severalvalidation runs were conducted to determine how well themodel replicated actual 1990 baseline conditions asreflected by volumes, speeds, and queues. In the

8 0

validation of traffic volumes, the accuracy of CALINKpredictions were found similar to that generated by theplanning model. Validation of speeds and queuesindicated that CALINK performs significantly better thanplanning models because it properly locates queues andspeeds in space and time and can therefore predict delaymore accurately.

l The I-880 corridor in Alameda County of Californiawas used to test CALINK. Four scenarios were evaluatedusing the CALINK Interface software. A 1990 no-buildscenario was first modeled using the 1990 network and1990 volumes. This was used to validate CALINK. A1995 no-build scenario was modeled using a 1990 networkand 1995 volumes. This was considered the base againstwhich other scenarios were evaluated. The third scenarioconsisted of implementing an HOV lane in the I-880 studycorridor. The fourth scenario combined HOV facilities,ramp metering, and ramp meter bypass lanes for HOVvehicles.

l The outcome of this analysis produced logicallyconsistent results. When an HOV lane was added to the1995 baseline, the freeway vehicle miles of travel (VMT)increased because the added capacity attracted someexternal trips to the freeway. Conversely, VMT on theparallel arterial decreased, as many trips diverted to the

freeway. The overall area VMT decreased, mainlybecause some single occupant vehicles (SOVs) convertedto carpools to take advantage of travel time savings in thenew HOV lane. Further, because of the increasedcapacity and lower VMT, freeway, arterial, and areawidespeeds increased.

l There are several advantages of CALINK. First, it isbased on proven and reliable tools that are being used bymost transportation agencies throughout the country.CALINK was designed with a modular structure thatallows it to work with most commonly used transportationplanning models including SYSTEM II, MINUTP,TRANPLAN, and EMME/2. CALINK is transferrable toany region that has developed a network model fortransportation planning purposes. Further, it is fullyautomated and can operate on a single personal computer.CALINK’s travel demand modeling component allows theuser to assess regional effects, mode shift, and routediversion caused by the deployment of HOV lanes andother traffic management services. The freewaysimulation component allows the user to perform detailedanalysis of traffic operations at freeway mixed-flow lanes,HOV lanes, and ramps. Finally, CALINK’s emissionsanalysis component allows the user to assess the impact ofHOV lanes on air quality by facility type, emission typeand impact region.

81

Arterial HOV TreatmentsBob Huddy, Southern California Association of Governments-Presiding

Arterial Street HOV Treatment in the City of LosAngelesJohn E. Fisher, City of Los Angeles

Mr. Fisher discussed the issues associated with arterialstreet HOV facilities and specific projects in the LosAngeles area. He also described other related projectsthat can enhance bus operations in the arterial streetenvironment. Mr. Fisher covered the following points inhis presentation.

l A number of bus-only special treatments are used inLos Angeles. The oldest application is to exempt busesfrom the no-left turn provision at many intersections.Buses are also exempt from mandatory right-turn laneprovisions at some intersections. Special bus entrancesare also used at some facilities-such as the multimodaltransfer center at Union Station. This allows buses tomove quickly in and out of the station.

l The ten-block bus lane on Spring Street in downtownLos Angeles provides buses with faster travel timesthrough the downtown area. The Spring Street HOV lanewas opened in 1974. A short bus lane is also operated onFlower Street, providing buses with direct access to theBunker Hill area.

l Traffic signal priority is another approach for providingbuses with travel time savings. The Ventura BoulevardBus Priority Signal Timing Project was implemented in1986. Emitters on buses can activate an extension oradvancement of the green phase of the signals. Anevaluation indicated that average travel time savingsimproved by 4.2 percent, partly because operators usedthe system only when they were behind schedule. Delaysat intersections were reduced by 21 percent, however.

l Priority treatments have also been provided for LRTand heavy rail in the Los Angeles area. LRT operates onsome surface streets, taking as much as 50 percent of thestreet capacity. Improved signal timing has also been usedto enhance rail operations on arterial streets. In someareas the signals are set to detect the presence of a railvehicle and to change the signals to green as the vehicleprogresses down the street.

l Caltrans has also implemented a number of prioritytreatments for buses, carpools, and vanpools. Oneextensive treatment is the use of HOV bypass lanes at

most metered freeway entrance ramps. The city tries tocoordinate surface street HOV treatments approaching thefreeway HOV bypasses. A nHOV right turn only laneleading into the HOV bypass lane is one example of this.At other locations, one of two left turn lanes is for HOVsonly.

- The Harbor or I-110 Transitway, which is currentlyunder construction and is scheduled to open in 1996, willprovide an exclusive elevated HOV lane. It endsapproximately one mile from the downtown area,however. One-way streets will be extended to provideHOVs using the Transitway direct access into and out ofdowntown.

- A number of HOV treatments were used to help movetraffic after the January 17, 1994, Northridge earthquake.HOV treatments and the automated traffic signal systemplayed major roles in helping to respond to theearthquake. HOV detour routes were developed fortraffic diverted from the freeway. These routes movedHOV traffic around the severed portions of the freeway.This provided HOVs with significant travel time savings.Special traffic signal timing and phasing were also usedalong the HOV surface street routes to provide additionaltravel time savings.

Arterial HOV Treatments in Metropolitan TorontoThomas W. Mulligan, Metropolitan TorontoTransportation Department

Mr. Mulligan provided an overview of arterial street HOVapplications in the Toronto area. He discussed thebackground of HOV planning and operation in Toronto,provincial and municipal policies, the current status ofprojects, and future plans. Mr. Mulligan covered thefollowing points in his presentation.

l The population of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) iscurrently approximately four million people, and it isforecast to increase to six million within the next twentyyears. Metropolitan Toronto is a federation of six localmunicipalities and is responsible for water filtration,sewage works, local transit, major arterial roads, andtraffic signal controls. Local municipalities areresponsible for local land use planning, local roads, andother local services.

8 2

l The GTA is well served by transportation servicesincluding local and major roads, highways, buses,subways, and commuter rail. Inadequate capacity, trafficcongestion, and environmental concerns are issues in thearea, however. This is especially true in developingsuburban areas. Changes in land use, TDM, HOVtreatments, and other approaches are all being used toaddress these concerns.

l HOV lanes on arterial roads are one of the techniquesbeing implemented to respond to these issues. In manyareas, the needed right-of-way is not available to expandarterial streets. From a policy perspective, arterial streetHOV development focused initially on good opportunities,3+ vehicle occupancy levels, curbside operations, andproviding priority to transit first. Other key aspects of thedevelopment of the arterial street HOV network includeutilizing a grid network, integrating with existing rapidtransit lines, providing priorities for buses, and focusingon suburban areas.

l Implementation of the arterial street network will occurin stages. The Dundas Street HOV lane was opened in1992 in conjunction with the City of Mississauga.Additional arterial street HOV lanes were opened in 1993.Currently a total of seven arterial street HOV lanes are inoperation between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M., and 3:00P.M. to 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday.

l A number of supporting programs are also beingimplemented to enhance the arterial street HOV projectsand to encourage greater use of HOVs. These includeridesharing strategies, carpool parking facilities, travelinformation centers, employer outreach programs, andenforcement programs.

l Issues to be considered with arterial street HOVfacilities include obtaining public and policy support,public education and marketing, and enforcement. Aspecial information program was developed around the 3 +Diamond Rider theme. Newspaper, radio, brochures, anda special news conference were used to educate the publicand promote the project. Extra efforts were also made toeducate the media.

l The preliminary monitoring and evaluation programindicates positive results from the system. Transit travelt ime savings are averaging about five minutes.Approximately ten to 20 percent of vehicles using theroadway segments are in the HOV lanes. There have beensome problems with violators, but increased enforcementlevels have begun to address this.

l A number of lessons have been learned fromimplementation of the Toronto arterial HOV lanes. Policyand public support is critical. The lanes must be planned,designed, and operated in a safe and efficient way.Enforcement must also be present. Coordination with allagencies and groups is important. Public and mediaeducation programs and marketing programs are alsoneeded.

Automatic Vehicle Identification for Puget SoundRegionEllen N. Bevington, Seattle MetroKern L. Jacobson, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade &Douglas, Inc.

Ms. Bevington and Mr. Jacobson discussed thedevelopment of a regional transit traffic signal prioritysystem in the Seattle metropolitan effort. This processhas involved three counties, four transit operators, andalmost 40 jurisdictions. Ms. Bevington summarized the rationale for the system and the background to the study.Mr. Jacobson highlighted different elements of the study.

- The majority of the bus service operated by SeattleMetro use the arterial street system. Approximately 75 to80 percent of the annual service hours are operated on thearterial street network. This is common for most transitsystems. Thus, Metro and other transit operators areseverely impacted by increasing congestion levels onarterial streets. Congestion causes slower bus operatingspeeds, which may require adding buses to a route.Metro spends almost $500,000 annually on schedulemaintenance to address problems caused by congestion.

. Intersect ions account for most of the delaysexperienced by buses on arterial streets. This ultimatelyis the driving force for signal improvements that providesome type of priority for transit. Although there has beeninterest in improving signal systems to enhance transitoperations for over 20 years, it is just within the last fiveto ten years that both the technology and public policyhave combined to make it a realistic option. Electedofficials are much more supportive of transit, and trafficengineers are more open to different ideas.

l There are a number of general goals for the study.One goal is to work with the traffic engineeringcommunity to select a technology, test and implement thattechnology, and to support the development of controlstrategies and the ultimate ownership and maintenance ofthe system. A second goal is to conduct an interactiveevaluation process to select the best technology. A third

83

goal is to develop ongoing coordination mechanisms toinstitutionalize the management and operations of thesystem. Although the systems should be maintained bytraffic engineering departments, transit operators will needto be continually involved to communicate schedulechanges, new services, and other modifications.

l Metro is using a negotiated procurement process in theselection of the signal priority system. This is not a lowbid process. Rather, this procurement method allows forthe development of technical specifications and evaluationcriteria for use in selecting the technology. The initialtests are also being kept small. The transit signal prioritysystem will be tested initially in two corridors; one with27 signals and one with five. Extensive testing of theselected system is planned in these corridors.

l Once the technology has been tested and accepted, it isanticipated that a long term agreement will be executedwith the successful team. Any public agency in the statewill have access to this agreement. This will reduce costsand time for other municipalities and will help ensure acoordinated system.

l The consensus building process has not been easy.Bringing together transit, traffic, and transportationprofessionals, and policy makers, from all the differentagencies takes time and a good deal of effort.

l There are two basic elements of any signal prioritysystem. One is the component that allows the bus tocommunicate with the traffic signal controller and theother element is the logic package that drives and directsthe traffic signal. The system is being designed to meetthe needs of today as well as those over the next five toten years. The system will be expandable to accommodateadditional functions in the future. A wide range oftechnologies are available to meet this requirement.

l There are numerous logic unit packages or signalcontrol strategies that can be used to provide transitvehicles with priority at traffic signals. These includeconditional priority strategies, extending green time ortruncating red time, adoptive strategies, and lift strategies.The conditional priority strategy is being used inBremerton, Washington.

l The procurement is focusing primarily on the automaticvehicle identification (AVI) system, the communicationbetween the bus and the traffic signal. It is important thatsimilar AVI systems be used throughout the area, althoughcontrol systems can be different. Selection criteria for theAVI technology was developed early in the study. A wide

range of technologies are being explored for the system.

l A range of communication and control strategies canbe used between the transit vehicles and the trafficsignals. Approaches vary in the level of sophisticationand the type of priority provided.

l Extensive computer simulations have been run toevaluate the potential benefits of different controlstrategies. A one-third reduction in total system delaywas identified in the preliminary analyses. The systemcurrently in operation in Bremerton has resulted in anapproximately 10 percent travel time savings.

l It is important to develop realistic expectations whenstarting a project like this. These should focus on thecritical issues and the technologies appropriate to addressthese concerns. It is also important to establish goodworking relationships among the different agencies.

Contraflow Bus Lane on Arterial Streets-Taipei’sExperienceS. K. Jason Chang, National Taiwan University

Dr. Chang discussed the use of contraflow bus lanes onurban arterials in Taipei, Taiwan. Currently contraflowbus lanes are in operation on two major arterial streets:Xin-Yi Road and Zen-Eye Road. Dr. Chang covered thefollowing elements in his presentation.

l Like other major cities, Taipei has a problem withserious traffic congestion. A variety of approaches arebeing taken to address these concerns. Although a rapidrail system is being implemented, buses still represent thebackbone of the transit system. Ridership on buses hasdeclined recently, however.

l Contraflow bus-only lanes were implemented on twomajor arterial streets, Xin-Yi Road and Zen-Eye Road, in1989. The roads, which are parallel, connect the olderdowntown area with the newly developing business andresidential area to the east. The Xin-Yi bus-lane is moreheavily used, with approximately 80-100 buses during thepeak hour.

- One of the contraflow bus lanes was implemented bymodifying a two-way street into a one-way street with abus lane. Near-side bus stops are used in most cases tohelp speed the movement of buses. Diamond markingsare used on the lanes, along with extra signs.

l Evaluations have been conducted on the lanes, focusing

8 4

on travel speed changes, travel time savings, and accidentrates. Ridership levels and operating costs have also beenmonitored. Travel speeds for buses increase dramaticallyin the morning peak hour. Accident rates have notchanged significantly, but there have been three pedestrianfatalities. Ridership has increased on some of the routesusing the lanes.

l The contraflow lanes appear to be working well.Further analysis is needed to determine if the lanes shouldbe open to carpools. Additional HOV lanes are also beingconsidered in other parts of the city.

85

HOV Systems OperationsWilliam A. Kennedy, California Department of Transportation-Presiding

Managing HOV FacilitiesMike Raney, Metropolitan Transit Authority of HarrisCounty

Mr. Raney discussed the experience with raising theminimum vehicle occupancy requirements from two (2 +)to three (3 +) persons in the peak hours on the KatyFreeway (I-10 West) HOV lane in Houston, Texas. Healso provided an overview of the HOV lane system inHouston and future plans for the expansion of differentelements. Mr. Raney included the following points in hisdiscussion.

l There are currently approximately 60 miles of HOVlanes in operation in Houston. All of the HOV facilitieshave a minimum vehicle occupancy requirement of 2 + ,except the Katy Freeway HOV lane, which has a 3+minimum occupancy requirement during the morning andafternoon peak hours. The decision to raise the occupancyrequirement was made based on the high vehicle volumesexperienced at the 2+ level; travel speeds were as low as35 miles per hour and travel time reliability was degradedduring the peak hours.

l The number of carpools at the 3 + level was lower thanat the 2+ requirement, but the total number of peopleusing the lane was similar. Both the number of carpoolsand the number of people using the facility have continuedto increase over time. Recent studies indicate that theaverage peak hour speed on the Katy HOV lane is at least55 mph. Increasing the occupancy requirements on twoother HOV lanes is being considered.

l Enforcement has been a problem, with the variableoccupancy requirement on the Katy HOV lane. Most ofthe problems relate to 2+ carpools entering the lane justbefore the start of the 3 + per iod . Also, policevehicles-both marked and unmarked-with just oneofficer are allowed to use the lane. Both of these issueshave caused public perception problems.

l A few serious accidents, including two fatalities,occurred during the past year, these were all the result ofwrong way movements in the HOV lane. Alcohol wasinvolved in one of the fatalities. Enforcement measureshave been increased considerably since these accidents.The number of officers assigned to the HOV lanes hasbeen increased to 18.

l The HOV lanes are monitored by at least two policeofficers during all hours of operation. Violators receivea $75 ticket. Today the violation rate is about fourpercent. Most of the enforcement is administered at theexit points of the HOV lanes.

HOV System Operations in the Seattle AreaRob Fellows, Washington State Department ofTransportation

Mr. Fellows talked about the past, present, and future ofthe HOV system in the State of Washington. Hedescribed recent studies conducted by the WashingtonDepartment of Transportation (WSDOT) examiningvehicle occupancy requirements and supporting policiesand facilities. Mr. Fellows discussed the followingelements in his presentation.

- There are currently approximately 95 miles of HOVlanes in Washington State, the majority of these in theSeattle area. Another 60 miles of HOV lanes are underconstruction. Future plans include a total system ofapproximately 288 miles. Most of the HOV lanes areconcurrent flow lanes, located on the inside of thefreeway. A few barrier separated HOV lanes are inoperation, however. Further, there are some concurrentflow HOV lanes located on the outside freeway lanes.The HOV lanes operate on a 24 hour basis.

l WSDOT adopted a formal procedure for examiningHOV policies, and created an interjurisdictional policycommittee, made up of representation from transitagencies, W S D O T , t h e s t a t e p a t r o l , a n d l o c a ljurisdictions. This committee helps developrecommendations for consideration by senior WSDOTmembers and FHWA representatives. The developmentof the HOV policies occurred over a two year period andthe document is updated periodically.

l In 1991, WSDOT undertook a demonstration projectlowering the vehicle occupancy requirement on the I-5North HOV lanes from 3 + to 2+. A preliminaryanalysis of this demonstration indicated that many 3+carpools disappeared. The number of two person car-poolsincreased initially, but appeared to then level off. Transitridership appears to have stabilized or even decreasedslightly, although prior to the demonstration transitridership had been increasing.

86

l The increased number of vehicles in the HOV lane andthe freeway design, which includes a lane drop, caused abottleneck at the end of the HOV lane in the afternoonnorthbound direction. Congestion at this bottleneckresulted in an increase in travel times for all drivers ofapproximately 3 to 5 minutes.

l The 2 + vehicle occupancy requirement is still in effecttoday on the I-5 North HOV lane. The demonstration didresult in agreement on a performance standard for futureHOV lanes, however. This standard sets a minimumspeed of 45 mph that must be maintained during 90percent of the peak-period over a three month periodbefore a change in the occupancy requirement will beconsidered.

l There may be cases where converting an existinggeneral purpose traffic lane to an HOV lane is justified inWashington. F o r e x a m p l e , o n I - 9 0 , W S D O Timplemented a project that was a combination of laneconversion and lane addition through restriping. Currently,there is an effort to formulate a policy to identify whenlane conversion is or is not acceptable. It is anticipatedthat this will be added to the overall WSDOT HOVpolicies.

l The issues associated with inside and outside HOVlanes continues to be discussed in the Seattle area. Onhighway 405, the HOV lane is partially on the outside laneand partially on the inside lane. To continue on the HOVlane, HOVs must cross the general purpose traffic lanesin a fairly congested area. In general, outside HOV lanesare used where there are no parallel arterials and wherebuses need to make frequent stops. The purpose behindoutside HOV lanes is to provide buses with easy access toexit ramps to pick up riders. Studies are currently beingconducted to determine the advantages and disadvantagesof HOV lanes that are located on the inside and outsidelanes.

l In addition, a number of studies are underwayexamining operational issues. Studies are being conductedexamining travel markets, lane conversion, safety, andenforcement. In addition, there are four corridor accessstudies, and studies to address arterial HOV facilities,direct connectors, and a central HOV corridor throughSeattle. Each individual study has its own advisory group.

HOV System Operations in Orange CountyJoel El-Harake, California Department ofTransportation

Mr. El-Harake summarized the current status of HOVlanes in Orange County and discussed plans for acomprehensive HOV system in the county. Mr. El-Harake summarized the following points in his discussionof the Orange County system.

l The HOV program in Orange County began in 1985.The first HOV lanes were a rehabilitation project onRoute 55. Initially, the shoulder lanes were reserved forHOV travel during a 90-day demonstration project.Although there was skepticism regarding the HOVconcept, severe congestion in the corridor prompted awillingness to undertake an initial demonstration. Forexample, the average daily traffic on Route 91 doubledbetween 1981 and 1986.

l Caltrans decided to use the shoulder on Route 55 forthe HOV lane as an easy and inexpensive alternative.Al though the project was in i t ia ted as a 90-daydemonstration prqject, it was extended to six months, toone year, and then became a permanent facility. TheHOV lane moves almost the same number of vehicles asan average mixed flow lane.

l The HOV lanes on Route 405 have also been asuccess. This project is 24 miles long with lanes in eachdirection.

l To continue the commitment to HOV lanes, OrangeCounty has 12 freeway to freeway exclusive HOV directconnections planned. Four of these connections arecurrently under construction. These direct connections arepart of a vision for an HOV system, not just HOVcorridors.

l Drop ramps are also a significant part of the long termHOV plan. Eight drop ramps are planned, and three areunder construction at the present time. Drop ramps arealso being considered on the toll facilities in OrangeCounty.

l Two key elements of any HOV design are flexibilityand forgiveness of the design. Capacity problemsresulting from the merging of two HOV lanes from twodifferent freeways into a single HOV facility could be aproblem in the future. To address this concern, a duallane HOV system was designated in some areas,

l Another important aspect that must be considered in the

87

design and operation of HOV lanes is accessibility. Inaddi t ion to drop ramps and f reeway to freewayconnections, HOV lane egress and ingress points arelocated every mile and a half in Orange County. Accesslocations are important in terms of lane utilization andviolation rates. Although the HOV lanes are bufferseparated, the painted access points are used to reduceviolations by single occupant vehicles. The violation ratehas decreased from 30 percent to a current rate of 3percent. This is due in part to the high fines for violators.A driver in a single occupant vehicle in the HOV lane isfined $271. Furthermore, if the single occupant vehiclecrossed the painted buffer, there is an additional $271fine, resulting in a total fine of $542.

Bay Area HOV FacilitiesH. David Seriani, California Department ofTransportation

Mr. Seriani discussed the implementation and enforcementof HOV lanes in the San Francisco Bay Area. Hedescribed the history of HOV lanes in the area, and thefuture goals and plans. Mr. Seriani highlighted thefollowing points in his presentation.

l In the nine Bay Area counties, there are currently 155lane miles of contiguous, part time HOV lanes. Plans forthe year 2005 encompass an HOV system with more than400 lane miles.

l In the early 1980s, political pressure resulted in theopening of an HOV lane on Route 580. After two weeks,the HOV lanes were changed back to mixed flow trafficdue to the underutilization of the HOV lanes and highlevels of congestion in the mixed flow lanes. Legislation

was passed prohibiting HOV lanes in the unincorporatedarea of Almeda County. Although there will probably bea need for HOV lanes in this area in the future, this willnot be possible until the legislation is repealed.

- The California Highway Patrol is responsible forenforcement. Adequate enforcement is important toreduce the violation rates on HOV facilities. Enforcementof many of the HOV lanes in the Bay Area is difficultbecause the right-of-way width is generally small.Current HOV lanes have a median shoulder width varyingfrom two feet to fourteen feet. Where there is a fourteenfoot shoulder, officers can pull violators over adjacent tothe HOV lane. In areas where the shoulder is narrower,violators are forced over to the right shoulder. FutureHOV facilities will be designed and constructed withbetter enforcement areas. Signs posting the violator finesare being used in an attempt to reduce HOV laneviolations.

l On Route 237 in Santa Clara, the HOV lane is locatedon the right hand side. This is a signalized facility andthe intersections and the left turns would interfere with aHOV lane in the middle of the facility. Real-timechangeable message signs have been installed to eliminateconfusion about when HOV lanes are open and closed.

l The San Francisco Bay Bridge initially had a bus-onlylane in the early 1970s. A short time after the laneopened, carpools were allowed in the lane. Today thereare four HOV lanes, two on the left side and two on theright side. These four lanes, which can be used by busesand 3 + carpools, carry anywhere from 38 percent to 50percent of the people crossing the bridge in the morningpeak-period. The Bay Bridge HOV lanes provide a traveltime savings of approximately 20 minutes.

88

Marketing HOV SystemsHeidi F. Van Luven, Maryland State Highway Administration-Presiding

The Program to Gain Public Acceptance ofTennessee’s First HOV LanesLuanne Grandinetti, Tennessee Department ofTransportationJanice E. Nolen, Regional Transportation Authority

Ms. Grandinetti and Ms. Nolen discussed the marketingefforts that accompanied the opening of the I-65 HOV lanein the Nashville area. Ms. Grandinetti and Ms. Nolencovered the following elements in their presentation.

l In September 1993, Tennessee’s first HOV lanesopened on I-65 between Nashville and Brentwood, whichis a suburb south of Nashville. The facility is eight mileslong. The Tennessee Department of Transportation(TDOT) incorporated the HOV lanes into an existingf r e e w a y i m p r o v e m e n t project in response to therequirements of the ISTEA and the higher federal fundingshare provided for HOV lanes.

l The HOV lane has achieved a high level of politicaland public support, largely due to a collaborative approachby TDOT, the Regional Transportation Authority, andother state and local jurisdictions. The marketing effort tointroduce the HOV lane was a cooperative effort by theseagencies and further strengthened the political and publicsupport for HOV lanes in middle Tennessee.

l Transportation planning for the Nashville/MiddleTennessee region has focused primarily on adding capacityby expanding the existing roadway network. Although the1980 Major Route Plan included HOV lanes in most of theinterstate corridors, when the I-65 corridor was widenedin the early 1980s, HOV lanes were not included. The1990 update of the Major Route Plan omitted anyreference to HOV lanes, because there was no policycommitment to the HOV lanes at that time. Increasingtraffic congestion, concerns that there would be gridlockin the future, and the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendmentscontributed to a change in policy.

l The I-65 HOV lane begins in Brentwood, a wealthycommunity south of Nashville in suburban WilliamsonCounty. Williamson County has the highest per capitaincome of any county in Tennessee, and is one of thefastest growing counties. It’s population grew 155 percentbetween 1980 and 1990. It has several suburban styleoffice parks and numerous housing developments.Brentwood is also the location of the first transportation

management association (TMA) in Tennessee. As a resultof the efforts of the Brentwood Area TMA, localbusinesses and the community in general are aware of thetransportation issues, especially the need for ridesharing.

l The expansion of this segment of I-65 included addinga third general purpose lane, as well as the HOV lane.The HOV lanes are non-separated concurrent flow lanesin the inside lane. The HOV lanes are operationalinbound from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M., and outbound from4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. Although the HOV lanes are newto the area, they represent a key element of the long rangeplan. For this reason, it was important that the marketingefforts establish a foundation for future HOV lanes.

l Currently the ADT on I-65 is approximately 65,000vehicles. This level of traffic is not typically a candidatefor HOV lanes, because congestion is not a majorproblem. Thus, the message communicated to the publicwas that the HOV lanes are being implemented inanticipation of future traffic congestion, not to solve anexisting traffic problem. Air quality concerns were alsoemphasized because Nashville is a nonattainment area.The marketing program also focused on developingaccurate expectations. This inlcuded communicating thatthe lane would not look too full when it was opened.

l Specific messages were targeted to different audiences.Policy makers were generally aware of the air qualityissues, but needed a better understanding of the otherreasons for the HOV lanes. On the other hand, thegeneral public needed to know the basics, including whatan HOV lane is, and how to use it. Transportation andlaw enforcement personnel needed more technicalinformation, such as how it would be used, maintained,and enforced. Finally, the business community needed tounderstand why the HOV lane was being implemented,and the effect it may have on their employees.

l Both free media and paid advertising were used in themarketing effort. Messages were conveyed using anewsletter to public policy makers, and a direct mailing to38,000 residents. Paid media included both newspapersand TV. For every paid dollar of advertising, anotherdollar’s worth of advertising was provided. Bus benchboards, signs on buses and outdoor billboards were alsoused.

l One tactic that proved to be very effective was hosting

89

a lunch for radio and television traffic reporters. TheDOT commissioner was the main speaker at this event,which included a short presentation, and a question andanswer period. In addition, some traffic reports weresponsored as part of the marketing campaign.Transportation and law enforcement officials were alsotargeted. A seminar on the HOV lanes was held toprovide technical information, and to help refine some ofthe details about the project. Meetings were also heldwith the Chamber of Commerce and other groups withinthe business community to help them understand theproject.

l There was a great deal of promotion at the openingevent, which was held in the morning rush hour. TheGovernor opened the lane at a park-and-ride lot.

l The cost of the campaign was just over $100,000.TDOT paid for the advertising and mail expenses, and forthe media spots. The RTA paid for the production costsof the advertising. Broad support was received from localand state officials. There are two additional HOV projectscurrently in the planning stages, and a regional HOVstudy is being conducted by an engineering consultant.

l A few lessons were learned from the marketing effort.The Sunday full page advertisement may not have been ascost effective as other medium. More radio advertisingmay have been better. Billboard placement could havebeen better; most of the billboards were in corridors otherthan the I-65 corridor. One of the key findings was thateach of the many audiences needed messages targetedspecifically to them. It is also important to try everyapproach you can think of to get attention, both free andpaid. It is the total package that is important, and bothfree and paid alternatives are needed for success.

Marketing I-80 in New JerseyJames J. Snyder, New Jersey Department ofTransportation

New Jersey has one of the nation’s most successful HOVfacilities on the Exclusive Buslane serving the LincolnTunnel, and has experienced an HOV lane failure on theGarden State Parkway (GSP). Learning from theseexperiences and others, New Jersey embarked on a $2.5million federally funded marketing campaign to supportthe new HOV lane on I-80 in suburban Morris County.Mr. Snyder discussed this marketing effort. He includedthe following elements in his presentation.

l The I-80 HOV lane opened on March 7, 1994. It is a

concurrent flow HOV lane that operates only in the peak-period. A 2+ vehicle occupancy requirement is used. Itwas an important event in New Jersey. It was importantfor this facility to be successful because of past concernswith the GSP and because it is the first step in a largerHOV program. Construction began this year on a 21-mileHOV lane on I-287, and the New Jersey TurnpikeAuthority is examining other HOV facilities.

l The GSP HOV lane was a success from an operatingstandpoint. A number of mistakes were made duringimplementation, however, and the press and public raisednumerous concerns. The decision to close the HOV laneon the GSP was not an operational decision, but a politicaldecision fueled by pressure exerted by the press.

l When the feasibility study for I-80 was initiated twoyears ago, a public opinion survey of 1200 people andexecutive interviews with key decision makers in theregion were part of the process. Results indicated thatalthough the GSP project was ten years old, many peoplestill remembered it. This indicated the need to not onlymarket a new HOV lane for I-80, but also convincedecision makers that the I-80 project was different thanthe GSP.

l Fortunately, New Jersey has an outstanding relationshipwith the local FHWA office. FHWA recognized theimportance of the HOV lane and provided $2.5 million forthe marketing campaign. The marketing effort was amultimedia campaign focusing on an audience ofapproximately seven million people.

l There were six goals to the marketing campaign.These were:

- Heighten public awareness of the HOV mission.

- Bui ld const i tuencies and par tnerships wi themployers, and elected officials at the local, county,and state level.

- Increase public confidence.

- Develop accurate expectations.

- Encourage HOV facility use and mode shift.

- Enhance future HOV project planning.

l A number of marketing and public informationstrategies were used. The first strategy was targeted tomedia relations with the print media. Editorial boardbriefings were held with the newspapers and reporterswere provided with ongoing status reports. A completemedia data sheet on the initial operation was disseminatedto all of the media before noontime on opening day. This

90

helped the reporters make their deadlines, and it fosteredthe perception of cooperation.

l The second strategy targeted television and radio. Oneof the highlights of this effort was a half hour interviewon the HOV lane for the New York City ABC station.This interview reached an audience of 7 to 10 millionpeople. Traffic reporters were also briefed on a regularbasis.

l The third strategy targeted special events. A numberof press conferences were held at different points in theproject development.

l The fourth strategy targeted mailings and distributions.One million people were reached through direct mailingsto commuters, and through fliers in automobileregistration. and license renewal notices. Inserts wereprovided for employers to put in internal newsletters.Desk top displays for employers to put in public placesprovided information directly to employees were alsoused. Letters were sent to police chiefs, judges, and localelected officials explaining the lanes. Palm cards aboutthe HOV lane were distributed to motorists at toll booths.Every violator receives a brochure about the benefits ofthe HOV lane, and why it should not be abused. Lettersare responded to, typically in three days or less.Congressional and legislative aids, who are responsible foranswering letters to elected officials, were also briefed andprovided with a number of standard responses. An I-80hotline was maintained. On the first day the lane opened,50-60 calls were received. Six weeks later, the calls weredown to 3-4 per day, and last week, there were only about2-3 calls.

l Advertising was expensive. The media was verycooperative, however, and additional ads were oftenprovided for free.

l The speakers bureau arranged over two dozenpresentations in the three month period before the laneopened. The HOV message was also incorporated into theemployer trip reduction program. This made the HOVmessage a part of 100 trip reduction briefings that wereconducted in the same three months. Overall, more than2,000 employers were covered.

l The HOV lane is working very well. As of last week,the peak hour volume was 1,200 vehicles carrying 2,800people. This means that one-third of the people travelingon I-80 during rush hour are now using the HOV lane.An extensive evaluation program is being conducted,which will include an evaluation of the different marketingstrategies.

Marketing Features and Benefits of Carpool Lane-sDonna Carter, Frank Wilson and Associates

Ms. Carter discussed her experience marketing carpoollanes. She included the following points in herdiscussion.

l Many HOV lane projec ts are implemented inconjunction with major highway reconstruction programs.This can make marketing difficult. In most cases, thebest approach is to present the system as a whole, and toprovide a perspective that looks at the HOV lanes as partof a multimodal system.

l A good deal of research has been conducted, focusingon the reaction of motorists to HOV lanes and carpooling. Focus groups, interviews, and surveys were used as partof this research. One finding is that people find theterminology, particularly the name HOV, to be confusing.

l Research also seems to indicate that people think interms of time, not miles. Consequently, HOV incentivesshould be presented in terms of time. At the same time,there is a need to focus on more than just time savings.A minimum time savings of 20 to 30 minutes wasidentified by some motorists before they would considerusing an HOV lane. Marketing not just the HOV lane,but the total multimodal system, may help overcome thisthinking. Elements such as HOV bypass lanes became animportant strategy component. Ensuring that HOV lanesdo provide travel time savings and are part of a regionalsystem is also important. Preferential parking, park-and-ride facilities, and other incentives are all part of the totalsystem.

l Research also indicates that people tend to overestimatethe HOV violation rate. In some areas, commutersthought that violations were as high as 50 to 70 percent.In reality, violations were under 5 to 10 percent. It is’important that the marketing effort emphasize that thelanes are enforced, that violators will be fined, andexplain what actions will result in a fine.

l Safety must also be emphasized, especially inCalifornia where the high number of uninsured motoristsmake safety an important consideration. Unless motoristsare educated, the perception exists that HOV lanes are notvery safe. HOV lanes often look different which maycontribute to a perception that HOV lanes are less safe.

l It is important that marketing efforts continue once anHOV lane is opened. Ongoing communication with thepublic about the benefits of HOV lanes and how to usethem is critical. The HOV message needs to becontinually reinforced among commuters.

91

Lane Conversion Strategies-Historical ExperiencesKarla Snyder-Petty, Federal Highway Administration-Presiding

Santa Monica Freeway Diamond Lanes: AnOverview and EvaluationJohn W. Billheimer, Systan, Inc.

Mr. Billheimer discussed the evaluation of the SantaMonica diamond lanes completed during the 1970s. Hisdiscussion was accompanied by a paper he wrote that wasoriginally presented at the Transportation Research BoardAnnual Meeting, Washington D.C., 1978. Mr. Billheimarincluded the following points in his presentation.

l The Santa Monica diamond lanes opened in March1976. The project took one the busiest freeway mainlanesin the nation away from general purpose traffic andrestricted it to use by buses and 3 + carpools. Bumper tobumper traffic, 30 minute freeway delays, ramp meterdelays, numerous accidents, upset motorists, and negativepress all occurred on the first day of use. As time wenton, the freeway operations improved, but public opinionand the media response got worse. After 21 weeks, theproject was halted by a US District Court decisionmandating additional environmental impact studies.

l Ramp metering was implemented in the two years priorto the opening of the diamond lanes. Prior to rampmetering, speeds in mixed flow lanes were approximately50 mph; when the diamond lanes opened, speeds droppedto approximately 40 mph. Speeds on the surface streetsalso decreased slightly when the diamond lanes wereimplemented. By the end of the project, trips using themixed flow lanes were 1 to 4 minutes longer due tofreeway delay, and 1 to 5 minutes longer due to delay atthe metered ramps. Speeds in the diamond lanes wereapproximately 52 mph. The ramp metering providedmore travel time savings to HOV lane users than thediamond lanes did, and did not create any controversy.

l The number of 3 + carpools on the freeway increasedby 65 percent after implementation of the diamond lanes.After the diamond lanes closed, the occupancy rateremained slightly higher than it had been before theproject. Express bus service increased fourfold, andridership increased threefold during use of the facility.Although violation rates were initially high on thediamond lane, t h e v i o l a t i o n r a t e w a s d o w n t oapproximately 10 to 15 percent by the end.

l The implementation of the diamond lanes resulted in asignificant increase in accidents. Accidents increased by

a factor of 2.5 over the life of the project. The increasein accidents may be attributed to the significant speeddifferential between the diamond lane and the adjacentgeneral purpose lanes, and the unlimited access to thediamond lane. There was a significant increase in thenumber of rear-end accidents in the lane next to thediamond lane.

l After implementation of the diamond lanes, thefreeway served 2 percent fewer people in 10 percentfewer vehicles, and the corridor served 1 percent morepeople in 5 percent fewer vehicles. Carpools increased 65percent, and bus ridership more than tripled. Thediamond lane speeds were faster and more consistent thanbefore the project was implemented.

l Some of the expected benefits did not materialize.These included fuel savings and air quality impacts. Inaddition, there were a lot of negative impacts. Forexample, accidents increased significantly, mixed flowtraffic lost more time than carpoolers gained, and mediaand public opinion was solidly against the project. Infact, a survey of motorists indicated that 86 percent of thedrivers surveyed in the corridor, including more than 50percent of the carpoolers, thought that the project waseither worthless, or actually harmful. As a result, thefuture of preferential treatment projects was impaired inCalifornia and elsewhere.

l It has been suggested that the Santa Monica diamondlanes failed due to inadequate marketing, and if the projecthad been marketed correctly, the outcome might havebeen different. However, the marketing plans for theSanta Monica diamond lanes included almost all of thethings that should have been done. In fact, $350,000 wasspent on marketing. By contrast, the I-394 project inMinnesota, generally regarded as one of the best marketedprojects, spent $400,000 on marketing. There are one ortwo things that could have been better. For example, themarketing effort could have been started earlier, and therecould have been more constituency building withpoliticians. There was a lot of constituency building doneboth with politicians and other public agencies, however,once public sentiment turned against the project, thepoliticians and other public agencies also turned againstthe project, and Caltrans was left to defend the projectalone.

l Both positive and negative lessons were learned from

92

this project. On the negative side, the accident raterepresents a significant problem, while on the positiveside, the performance of the ramp meter bypass lanes wasterrific.

l Although this project prompted Caltrans to implementa policy against taking away a mainlane for an HOV lane,taking away a lane has worked in some places. The SantaMonica diamond lanes were implemented on one of thebusiest freeways, however, and combined with the 3+carpool requirement, resulted in a shock to the trafficsystem that was hard to overcome.

A Perspective on the Santa Monica Diamond LanesDave Roper, Roper and Associates

Mr. Roper discussed his perspective on the Santa Monicadiamond lanes. Mr. Roper included the following pointsin his presentation.

l Prior to the implementation of the Santa Monicadiamond lanes, there was congestion on the freeway, butit was no worse than on other freeways in the Los Angelesarea. Caltrans initially had political support on theproject. When the public and media turned against theproject, however, the politicians also abandoned theirsupport. A number of politicians used their positionagainst the diamond lanes to help win reelection.

l Although the diamond lane was carrying many people,the public just saw an empty lane. Although accidents didincrease a little, the public saw accidents all of the time.An effort was made by the public to change the vehicleoccupancy requirement from 3 + to 2+, but Caltranswould not make this change.

l People came up with all kinds of ways to beat thesystem. Under one-“rent a student”-commuters wouldrent a student for a dollar, then all of the students wouldride back to Santa Monica together in the HOV lane andstart over again. People used dummies as passengers.You would get a $25 ticket then; today, a $271 fine isimposed.

l Perhaps the public had a right to be upset. The bottomline is that it was a political decision to remove the HOVlanes.

l The Santa Monica diamond lanes set the HOV programin Los Angeles back ten years. At Caltrans, the wordsdiamond lanes were not even mentioned. It was verydifficult to even open reasonable dialogue; the subject was

too controversial.

l In New Jersey, there was a take away lane project onthe Garden State Parkway a few years ago, this projectwas also terminated. But now New Jersey hassuccessfully implemented an HOV lane on I-80. Historydoes not have to be repeated. It is better to have a goodproject and keep it, than to develop the perfect project,with significant time savings for carpools, and lose it.

Lane Conversion Strategy for the I-80 HOV Lane inNew JerseyBarbara L. Fischer, New Jersey Department ofTransportation

Ms. Fischer provided an overview of New Jersey’sexperience in implementing an HOV facility on I-80. Herfindings were also discussed in a paper. Ms. Fischerincluded the following points in her discussion.

l The decision to implement HOV lanes on I-80 wasmade after construction for an expansion on I-80 hadbegun. The decision was made approximately half waythrough the project; at this time, one third of the new lanewas open to general purpose traffic. The HOV facility,called the diamond express lanes, has been open sinceMarch, and has been fairly successful.

l The HOV facility primarily serves two kinds of trips.These are the suburb to suburb commute and part of thecommute into New York City. The average trip lengthserved is 40 miles. The cross section of the entirefreeway is four lanes in each direction. During the peak-period in the peak direction, the inside lane is restricted to2+ HOVs, motorcycles, and buses.

l The 10.5 mile HOV facility is an inside lane,concurrent flow facility, and is not separated from thegeneral purpose lanes. Ingress and egress is continuous.The eastbound HOV lane is operated in the morning peak-period, and the westbound HOV lane is operated in theevening peak-period. All other times, the lanes are opento general purpose traffic. There is a 9 foot insideshoulder in both directions. For enforcement purposes,the shoulder is 14 feet on one side and 4 feet on the otherside in some locations.

l In 1991, there were up to 700 2+ HOVs using thissection of I-80. Eleven percent of the traffic was 2+carpools, and there were 20 to 40 buses along thecorridor. There was significant congestion. Since thelane opened, there is congestion in the three general

93

purpose lanes, which provides an incentive to use theHOV lane. The HOV lane carries approximately 1,000vehicles an hour, moving one third more people in half asmany vehicles as the general use lanes. There is a 5 to 10percent violation rate. Four troopers patrol the ten-milesegment. Large trucks are allowed in all the generalpurpose lanes, which has resulted in some complaints thatthey are blocking general purpose traffic. This may bemore of a problem of perception, than a real operationalproblem.

l A project steering committee was formed to review theconsultant’s study findings, offer suggestions, reachconsensus, and recommend particular courses of action tothe New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT)Commissioner. The committee involved NJDOT as wellas outside agencies, including the state police, FHWA,county agencies, and New Jersey Transit.

l Alternatives considered initially included four generalpurpose lanes, and three general purpose lanes and anHOV lane. Although projections indicated that the facilitywould not be congested when the lanes opened if therewere four general purpose lanes, estimates for five to tenyears indicated that traffic operations would be better ifthe HOV lane were implemented.

l Construction staging was an important factor. Threemiles of the additional lane had already been opened togeneral purpose traffic when the HOV study began.There was also one mile that was complete, but had notyet been opened. Commuters could see that it wasfinished, and, rather than keep it closed for three yearsuntil the construction work for the HOV lane wascomplete, it was opened to general purpose traftic.

l There was another three mile section that wasscheduled for paving and opening. In this section, thenew lanes looked different due to a different surfacematerial, which served as an advantage when the decisionwas made to delay the opening. Construction drums wereplaced along the length of the lane, and it was striped asa very wide shoulder. The final paving was deferred untilthe construction was completed. Interim signing was thelast thing to be done, and will be replaced by permanentsigns.

l Telephone surveys were conducted with commuters andexecutives as part of the planning process. Publicinformation centers, to meet with the public one on one,were not used. Because the last HOV facility in NewJersey, implemented on the Garden State Parkway in1980, was shut down, public acceptance of the HOV lanes

on I-80 was especially critical.

l The marketing campaign emphasized that HOV lanesare the way of the future, and a good long-termtransportation improvement. The marketing campaign,which emphasized the benefits to both users and non-users, included radio and television advertisements, talkshows, a newsletter, press releases, a speakers bureau,and posters. $2.5 million was spent on the marketingcampaign, and it seems to have worked. The press hasbeen fair. There has been positive press, but someoperational problems have also been noted by the press.

l Some of the most successful aspects of the projectincluded the multi-agency steering committee, the publicrelations, the t raf t ic character is t ics of I -80, theconstruction staging measures, postponing the finalconstruction in those three miles, the flexibility in puttingup interim signing, and the effective and visibleenforcement.

l There were elements that could have been better,however. For example, more direct involvement by theI-80 commuters would have been good. More detailedanalysis of the key locations of significant congestionwould have also helped. It would have been better tointroduce it as an additional lane rather than a generalpurpose lane that changes to an HOV lane in the best ofapproaches. Finally, partnering with the contractor wouldhave facilitated the construction changes.

The Dulles Toll Road ExperienceWilliam C. Jeffrey, Virginia Department ofTransportation

Mr. Jeffrey discussed the Dulles Toll Road experience.Mr. Jeffrey included the following points in hisdiscussion.

l The Dulles corridor connects Washington D.C. withthe Dulles airport. In 1962, the Dulles access roadopened from 28 to I-495, concurrent with the opening ofthe Dulles Airport. In 1982, we entered into anagreement with the Airport Authority, and beganconstruction of the Dulles Toll Road, from 28 to I-495.In 1983, a Dulles connector road was constructed,extending access from the airport past I-495 to I-66. Thisprovided a direct link into the Washington D.C. area, andmade what was previously a 45-50 minute trip into a 25minute trip.

l However, the volumes on the facility increased much

94

faster than expected. One year after opening, the facilitywas near capacity. The high volumes may be explainedby the relatively low toll rate, which is about eight to ninecents per mile, and the fact that all of the parallel facilitieswere at capacity.

l In 1988, with the traffic volumes still increasing,Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) decided touse the center roadway to the airport as an HOV facility,and the Airport Authority agreed. But the CongressionalOversight Committee vetoed it, although they did agreethat buses could be allowed on the facility. It importantto remember that this project is in the Airport Authorityright of way. Everything must be approved not only bythe Airport Authority, but also by the CongressionalOversight Committee.

l Then VDOT widened the toll lane to six lanes. All ofthe counties along the corridor, the state legislature, andCongress wanted the new lanes to be HOV lanes. So thefacility opened as an HOV 3 + facility in September 1992.VDOT felt that an HOV 2+ was not an HOV. Lookingback, this may have been one of the biggest mistakes.

l Congress asked VDOT to suspend the HOV operation.At this time, local and state elections were being held inVirginia, and the HOV lanes became a campaign issue.Congress ordered that the HOV restriction be lifted inJuly. The VDOT Secretary extended it another year, untilApril 1994. The Secretary appointed a task force to lookat all of the options and alternatives in the corridor.Today there are no HOV lanes. Rather, there are sixconventional lanes, and three conventional lanes on theaccess road in the middle.

l VDOT did not do much marketing initially. Sincethen, a four-year $3 million campaign has been initiated.Numerous pieces of legislation were passed in 1993requiring VDOT to look at different issues associated withHOV lanes.

l A task force, which included representatives from stateand local jurisdictions, Congress, the public, and VDOTwas established to look at these issues. The task forcelooked at a number of issues, including:

- An HOV facility on the access road, but no HOVfacility on the toll road.

- Use of the median shoulder as an HOV lane duringthe peak-period.

- Widening the toll road for $25 million.

- An HOV facility on the access road.

- Widening the access road.

- An HOV facility in the median, where a rail facilityis ultimately planned.

- Congestion pricing. This suggestion was quicklyabandoned, however.

l A roadway improvement alternative was suggested bythe task force, and accepted by the board. As a result, a2+ HOV lane will be added. The board also agreed toprovide funds to assist in building rail in the corridors.The existing rail line will be extended from Falls Churchto the airport, and eventually to Williamsburg. The railextension is being targeted for the year 2005. Theultimate typical section will include three conventionallanes, one diamond lane, three conventional lanes on theaccess road to the airport, and rail.

l One problem with the initial project was theconstruction sequence. Part of the facility was completedbefore the entire facility was. Three possible alternativeswere considered. These included not opening it, openingit to HOVs, and opening it to general purpose traffic.The decision was made to open it to general purposetraffic, and then take it back for the HOVs when all theconstruction was completed. This appears to have been amistake. More marketing may have also helped theproject.

l Another important consideration is demographics. Inthis case, the demographics are different in the Dullescorridor than they are in other corridors in theWashington D.C./Northem Virginia area. Commuters inthe Dulles corridor do not work for the Federalgovernment, and they often need a car as part of their job.It is important to identify factors such as these in theplanning phase. It is also important to decide if there areenough incentives to get people out of their cars.

The California Perspective on Lane ConversionsJ. Michael Auslam, California Department ofTransportation

Mr. Auslam discussed Caltran’s perspective on laneconversions. Mr. Auslam also provided a paper on thistopic. Mr. Auslam included the following points in hispresentation.

l Since the 1976 Santa Monica diamond lane project,

95

HOV lane conversions have been discouraged inCalifornia. Since that time, HOV lanes have beenimplemented as added lanes. Lane conversion applicationsin California are limited. Lane conversions are used onlyfor construction staging, prqject continuity, and emergencymeasures.

l An example of a construction staging application oflane conversion is the HOV lane on Route 91 in RiversideCounty. In this case, the Route 91/I-15 interchange wasconstructed first, and the plan was to delay striping thenew lanes until the east and west segments were complete.Pressure from the public and the press resulted in achange in plans, however. Caltrans decided to open thelanes to mixed flow traffic, and when the connectingsegments were completed, the lanes were re-striped asHOV lanes.

l An example of a project continuity application of laneconversion is the connection of an existing HOV segmentwith one under construction on Route 85, near San Jose.In this case, the southbound inside lane through theinterchange was re-striped for HOV use in 1990. This re-striping was executed to connect the existing HOV lanesto the north with the HOV lanes under construction to thesouth. When construction is complete, there will be 25miles of continuous HOV lanes. This project wassuccessful because the Route 85/280 interchange currentlycomes to a dead end, and there is capacity available forlane conversion. Furthermore, no congestion was createdby this conversion. It is important to allow the public tosee the logical progression of construction, so they can seethe plan unfolding.

l HOV conversions have also been used as emergencymeasures to help compensate for the loss of capacitycaused by disasters. For example, the 1989 earthquake inSan Francisco resulted in the collapse of major freeway

segments. To encourage ridesharing, numerous shoulderand bridge lane conversions were implemented in thenorth part of the San Francisco Bay area to help movetraffic during the reconstruction process.

. The recent Northridge earthquake caused the collapseof major freeway structures in the Los Angeles area. Oneof the structures destroyed was on the Santa Monica I-10,and two other structures collapsed in the WashingtonFairfax area. As a result of these collapses, the mixedflow traffic had to detour on a longer route that weavedthrough arterial and side streets, while the HOVs wereallowed to remain on the freeway. The detour was inplace for about 3 months while construction crews worked24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to re-open the collapsedfreeways and bridges. When construction was complete,the freeway reverted back to mixed flow.

l Another example of an emergency measure in LosAngeles is the I-5/Route 14 interchange. In this case,temporary HOV lanes were established on Route 14.These lanes provided travel time savings of 10 minutes forHOVs, who were able to bypass a two mile long trafficqueue. Volumes on the HOV lanes average about 2,000vehicles per hour in the morning peak-period, but were ashigh as 2,200 vehicles per hour in the peak hour.Caltrans is currently evaluating the feasibility of retainingthese HOV lanes on a permanent basis.

. All of these lane conversions were successful becausethere was strong local governmental support, theconversion appeared logical to the motorists, they did notresult in congestion in the mixed flow lanes, and they hadthe support of local traffic authorities, who did anexcellent job working with Caltrans to educate the publicand the media. Presenting a logical plan to the public andnot giving false promises is critical to successful projects.

96

Lane Conversion Strategies---Studies and Future ConversionsKarla Snyder-Petty, Federal Highway Administration-Presiding

Lane Conversion in SeattleLeslie N. Jacobson, Washington State Department ofTransportation

Mr. Jacobson discussed the status of projects in the Seattlearea converting general purpose lanes into HOV lanes.He also discussed the policies addressing this developedby the Washington State Department of Transportation(WSDOT). He included the following elements in hispresentation.

l The first bus-only ramp was opened in downtownSeattle in 1970. This ramp was successful and wasextended initially as a bus-only lane and then extended intoa freeway HOV lane. There is generally a favorableattitude toward HOV lanes in the Seattle area due in partto environmental concerns.

l In 1991, WSDOT established a policy which essentiallyeliminated the possibility of converting an existing generalpurpose traffic lane into an HOV lane. In 1992, thispolicy was modified, however. The current policy statesthat when new capacity options are proposed, one of thealternatives to be considered shall be the conversion of ageneral purpose lane to a HOV lane. This change inpolicy allowed one of the three general purpose lanes tobe converted into a HOV lane during the recentconstruction on I-5 South.

l On I-90, 12 lane miles of roadway were converted intoa barrier separated, reversible, HOV facility. There wasa significant effort to gain public approval and acceptanceof this change. Consensus building began before the finaldecision was made to convert the lanes. The three aspectsof this process included public involvement, agencycoordination, and securing the support of elected officials.

l A number of strategies were used to inform the publicof the plans for the HOV lane. These included publicmeetings, flyers, newsletters, newspaper advertisements,and media involvement. There was only one majorconcern raised at the public meetings. This issue, whichwas voiced by a small neighborhood group, concerned thefact that construction of the noise walls were linked to theconstruction of the HOV lanes.

l The main goal of the agency coordination effort was toobtain agency support, preferably written support.

Official briefings, formal council briefings, and informaldiscussions were held to inform elected officials of theproject status and to encourage their support.

l A research project is currently being conducted toevaluate this program. The evaluation will include publicsurveys, and will examine traffic data, including vehicleoccupancies and travel times, accident analysis, and theeffect of public transit.

l The public surveys are being conducted to identifychanges in commuter modes, to determine opinions aboutthe lane conversion, and to evaluate how effective thepublic education effort was. Spot checks indicate freeflow operations on the HOV lane, with approximately 600vehicles per hour.

- The Seattle experience to date indicates that convertingan existing general purpose lane into an HOV lane can beclone successfully. Such a project should be well planned,however, and should include a major focus on consensusbuilding.

The Proposed HOV Lane Conversion for I-75 andI-85 in AtlantaArthur B. Riddle, Georgia Department of Transportation

Mr. Riddle discussed the plans for HOV lanes in Atlanta,Georgia. These projects, which are scheduled to openlater this year, involve the conversion of existing generalpurpose lanes into HOV lanes. Mr. Riddle included thefollowing points in his presentation.

l The regional development plan adopted in 1975 by theAtlanta Regional Commission (ARC) has includedpreferential treatment of HOVs. In the 1970s and 1980s,the Atlanta freeway system underwent extensiverebuilding. New inside lanes for HOV use were part ofthese improvements.

l In 1979, however, the decision was made to allowgeneral purpose traffic to use these lanes because littlecongestion was anticipated. Today the freeway system inAtlanta is nearing capacity, and vehicle volumes continueto increase every year.

l For the last two years, the Georgia Department ofTransportation (GaDOT) has been planning to convert

97

these lanes into HOV lanes, with a 2+ vehicle occupancyrequirement. The conversion of these lanes is scheduledto occur later this year.

l A major marketing effort is planned because theserepresent the first HOV lanes in Georgia. The marketingprogram will include an educational program to inform thepublic of the purpose of the HOV lane, how they willoperate, and the benefits the lanes will provide. Plans arebeing made to meet with large employers and convincethem to provide special incentives for HOV users.

l A marketing firm will be utilized to conduct marketresearch activities, to design the educational classes, andeven to inform GaDOT employees on the purpose of theHOV lanes. GaDOT employees will meet with the publicand help with the educational classes. All of theseactivities are being conducted in an attempt to gain publicacceptance of the HOV lanes.

l The inside lanes on I-75 and I-85 were built 14 feetwide. To convert the lanes, a solid white 8 inch line willbe painted on each side of the existing dashed line. Thiswill provide a 3 foot buffer zone, in addition to existing6 to 10 foot wide inside shoulders. Cameras, loopdetectors, and overhead changeable message signs willalso be incorporated into the HOV system.

l The success of the HOV lanes will depend on theeffectiveness of the marketing effort, utilization of therideshare program, cooperation from large employers, andthe development of additional supporting facilities, such aspark-and-ride lots.

Public Attitudes Toward Lane ConversionPaul Jovanis, University of California, Davis

Mr. Jovanis discussed the results of surveys conducted toassess the public perception of HOV lanes in California.Mr. Jovanis covered the following points in hispresentation.

l The objective of this study was to evaluate publicperception of HOV lanes in general, with special emphasison HOV conversion. The study was prompted by theexperience with the Santa Monica diamond lanes, whichinvolved conversion of general purpose lanes and byinterest in lane conversion in areas where the addition ofnew HOV lanes is not an option. To assess the publicopinion, a literature review was completed, focus groupswere held, and a survey was conducted. The surveyutilized a computer aided interview format.

l Approximately 1,100 people over the age of 18 wholived in cities with HOV lanes were included in thesurvey. Thus, people with some knowledge of HOVlanes, and who might use the HOV lane were targeted inthe survey. The procedures to select the participants andthe survey process are described in a paper that waspresented at the 1994 TRB Annual Meeting, and will bepublished in a forthcoming edition of the TRB ResearchRecord.

- Females comprised 55 percent of the sample, 60percent were home owners, and 72 percent wereemployed, with the other 28 percent largely retiredindividuals or college students. There were 460 responsesfrom the Los Angeles area, 575 from the Bay Area, anda few from the San Diego area. This allowed a separateanalysis to be conducted in each of the two regions.

- Results indicated that there is more support for HOVlane conversion in the Bay Area than there is in the LosAngeles area. This may reflect the general perception thatthe Bay Area places more value on transit, whilecommuters in Los Angeles prefer to drive alone. Thirty-three percent of the respondents in the Bay Area favoredlane conversion over the addition of a new HOV lane, orreconstruction of the shoulder. This number dropped to27 percent in the Los Angeles area.

l In March 1994, a similar survey was conducted in theSacramento area. A total of 606 respondents wereincluded in this study. In general, there was a good dealof agreement in the responses among the residents in threeareas.

l The first part of the survey included a series ofquestions and statements which participants responded toon a four point scale. The scale ranged from stronglyagree to strongly disagree.

- The first statement was that HOV lanes were not fairto non-users and people who cannot carpool. Seventypercent of the people in both Los Angeles and SanFrancisco disagreed or strongly disagreed with thisstatement. The second statement was that carpool lanesare a strong incentive to carpool. Approximately 73percent of the participants agreed or strongly agreed withthis statement. In response to the statement that carpoollanes were a safety hazard, 70 percent disagreed orstrongly disagreed. As a whole, these results indicatevery strong support for HOV lanes. In Sacramento, theresponses were even more supportive of HOV lanes.

l The next section of the survey asked respondents to

identify their preference among the following threeoptions: build a new lane, rebuild the shoulder, orconvert a lane into a carpool lane, given a desiredobjective.

l When the object ive was to have the b iggestimprovement in traffic flow, building a new lane was themost common choice. This was followed by rebuildingthe shoulder lane conversion.

l When implementing the HOV lane with the leastexpense and with the least construction time and trafficdelays was the objective, lane conversion was identified asthe preferred choice.

l The most significant question was the last one, whichasked respondents the identify the preferred alternative fora freeway that they commonly used. Responses indicatedthat rebuilding the shoulder was the most preferredalternative. On average in all the regions studied,however, 30 percent of the respondents supported the laneconversion option.

l The survey results seem to indicate that the publicappears to be receptive to at least the concept ofconverting a mixed use lane to an HOV lane. The notionof alleviating congestion was the most important factor inany of the analyses conducted. This indicates that the laneconversion option should not be summarily dismissed.Lane conversion can be successful if the implementationis well managed, and includes marketing and publicsupport activities.

Strategies for Optimizing Roadway SpaceChristopher Leman, Institute for Transportation and the

Environment

Dr. Leman discussed HOV conversion and related issues.This topic was also addressed in a paper prepared for theconference. Dr. Leman included the following elementsin his discussion.

l Most evaluations of HOV lane construction have failedto consider the impact on transit. In many ways, therelative position of transit is diminished by theconstruction of new HOV lanes. Furthermore, new HOV

lanes may produce additional single occupancy vehicles(SOVs). The result of the new capacity created byremoving buses and carpools from the general purposelanes is similar to building a new general purpose lane forSOVs. The costs often associated with new HOV lanestend to be fairly high. All of these factors warrant acautious approach to the construction of new HOV lanes.

l There have been several cases where a facility wasdesigned as an HOV lane, but has been converted back toa general purpose lane. There are also a number ofexamples where vehicle occupancy requirements havebeen reduced or relaxed. Many years ago, exclusive laneswere called bus lanes. Now these lanes are HOV lanes,and acceptable occupancies are as low as 2+ persons pervehicle.

l There are no safeguards to avoid this type ofdegradation. One reason occupancy requirements havebeen reduced on some facilities is the dreaded empty lanesyndrome. As a result, there are less efficient HOVfacilities that do not pursue the original goals of masstransit. One of the most successful HOV facility in theworld is the contraflow lane on the approach to theLincoln Tunnel in New York City. It carries more peoplein the peak-period than any other facility.

l A more careful examination of lane conversionalternatives is needed, given the high cost of HOV lanesand these issues. It is rare for conversion studies to beconducted. Conversion was not even evaluated as anoption in many recent studies.

l There may be more public opposition to new HOVlanes than to converting existing lanes for HOV use. Thefact that there is a lot of money being spent to market newHOV lanes should not be forgotten.

l It is important to compensate for any potential usesassociated with conversion. For example, in Toronto, theMinistry of Transportation responded to public concernabout conversion and made adjustments as necessary.This resulted in a facility that was more attractive to thepublic. It is important that transportation engineers makea concerted effort to seriously consider lane conversion inthe future.

99

HOV Design and Safety IssuesCharles J. O’Connell, California Department of Transportation-Presiding

Effective HOV Design with Non-Standard Features:The Cross Westchester Expressway ExperienceBernard Kalus, HNTB Corporation

Mr. Kalus discussed his experiences retrofitting a barrierseparated HOV lane onto the Cross WestchesterExpressway. A paper on the Cross Westchesterexperience was also available. The following points werecovered in his presentation.

l Congestion is one of the most serious problems facingmany metropolitan areas today. At the same time, issuesrelated to the environment, the economy, right-of-wayavailability, and numerous regulations prevent simplywidening the roadways. In response, innovative methodsto use existing facilities more efficiently must bedeveloped. HOV lanes are one example of usingroadways more efficiently.

l The Cross Westchester Expressway corridor is a veryheavily travelled corridor. This corridor was one of thefirst candidates the New York State Department ofTransportation considered for a possible HOV facility.l The Cross Westchester Expressway is located just northof New York City. Like many other cities around thecountry, people have started moving out of New YorkCity. Westchester County was one of the first places inthe New York area that people moved to.

l The Cross Westchester expressway acted as a magnetfor development. Since opening of the Expressway in1989, almost 50 percent of all new development in thecounty has occurred within two miles of the corridor.This has caused the volumes on the Expressway to exceedcapacity.

l Three design alternatives were developed to helpreduce congestion in this corridor. The first was a basicrehabilitation, which maintained the facility as a six lanefreeway and implemented some operational improvements.Another design added a lane in each direction, resulting inan eight lane facility. A third design included a barrierseparated, reversible HOV lane. A reversible lane was areasonable alternative because although the CrossWestchester Expressway is located in a suburb-to-suburbcommute corridor, it has an unbalanced directionaldistribution, peaking in the eastbound direction in themorning, and in the westbound direction in the evening.

l Each of the three design alternatives satisfied the goalsand objectives established for the corridor, but the HOVoption was the only one that satisfied all of the goals andobjectives. Further, it did the best job of accommodatingfuture growth. The only problem was that the HOValternative is estimated to cost approximately $500 millionfor the eight miles of reconstruction. Much of this cost isdue to the frequency of bridges that carry or cross themainline. There are 30 bridges in the eight mile section.

l Modified alternatives were developed to help reducethis cost. For example, the lane and shoulder widths werereduced underneath the bridges. The typical cross sectionincludes I I foot lanes, 4 foot left shoulders, and a fulloutside shoulder.

l If a reduced cross section was implemented throughoutthe entire corridor, approximately $100 million could besaved. Safety concerns had to be addressed, as did theissue of whether FHWA would approve the reducedstandards.

l Since New York had very little experience in the areaof HOV lanes, other agencies that had experience withreduced lane and shoulder widths were examined.Houston and California were the leaders in this area. TheHouston system was used as a basis for the research anddevelopment for the construction of the HOV lanes on theCross Westchester Expressway.

l Preliminary analysis indicated that reducing theshoulders would cause the barrier separations to interferewith the line of sight to a 6 inch object. As a result, thethree main points considered were the reduction of lanewidth, the reduction of shoulder width, and theobstruction of sight to a 6 inch object.

l It was discovered that the modifications beingconsidered have been used in a number of places.Caltrans has had this kind of facility for over twentyyears, and Houston, Denver, and Boston also haveexperience with reduced width facilities. Accident ratesin these cities before and after implementation of the HOVlanes with reduced standards were compared. In mostcases, the accidents decreased with the implementation ofthe HOV lanes. Apparently the level-of-serviceimprovements overshadowed any safety impacts of thereduced sight distance.

100

l Left shoulder reductions seem to have very little, ifany, impact on traffic operations. Right shoulderreductions, however, should be avoided at all costs.Studies indicate that improvements to a roadway to allowsight of a 6 inch object are not very cost effective.

l All of the research indicated that the modificationsproposed were safe, if correctly implemented. A prioritylist of reductions was developed. This list suggested thatreductions should be made in the following order:

- The left shoulder should be reduced to 4 feet.

- The right shoulder should be reduced from 10 feet to8 feet.

- The lane width should be reduced to 10 feet.

- The left shoulder should be reduced to two feet.

- The right shoulder should be reduced, but never eliminated.

l The corridor was analyzed using the prioritized list tofind where reduced standards could save money. Forty-seven sites were found where reduced lane and shoulderwidths would reduce the cost, and minimize the impact onthe right-of-way, and the environment. Cost estimateswere prepared for these areas to determine potentialsavings. Fifteen of the sites chosen were evaluated ingreater detail, modification to these 15 sites resulted insavings of more than $60 million in construction costs.But only three of the 15 reduced width locations wereaccepted by FHWA.

l Four lessons were learned from this experience:

- If federal funding is involved, FHWA should beinvolved very early in the planning process

- Do not expect blanket approval from FHWA.

- Cost impacts alone are not sufficient to justifyFHWA approval.

- There may be differences in the approaches ofdifferent FHWA districts.

Freeway Signing Needs for HOV UsersMarty T. Lance, Texas Transportation Institute

Ms. Lance discussed user information needs for HOVlanes and ways to present this information to drivers. A

paper on this topic was also available. The followingpoints were covered by Ms. Lance in her presentation.

l The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD) does not contain a specific signing policy forHOV lanes. As a result, signing practices differthroughout the country. A range of drivers, fromexperienced bus drivers to unexperienced or unfamiliardrivers use HOV lanes. Thus, signing should take thesedifferences into consideration.

- According to a 1971 highway user information needstudy, drivers need information on:

- Control, which includes stopping, starting, a n dcontrolling speed.

- Guidance, which includes reacting to traffic andweather conditions.

- Navigation, which includes following a route o rplanning a trip.

l Drivers have expectancy regarding road conditions,signs, access, when information should appear, and whatthe information should look like. HOV signs shouldfollow driver expectancy and need to be distinguishablefrom the freeway signs.

l Extensive information needs to be relayed at theentrances of HOV lanes. Information on occupancyrequirements, permitted vehicles, time of day restrictions,and future access points must be conveyed. Thisinformation should be presented so that drivers candetermine their eligibility and make a smooth transitioninto the lane and not experience information overload.

l Advance signing would be one way to avoid driverinformation overload. One suggestion is to place signsindicating which side the motorist would enter the HOVlane one to one-half miles prior to the entrance. Signsrelaying occupancy requirements, vehicle and time of dayrestrictions should appear about one quarter of a milefrom the entrance. A sign listing vehicles which are notpermitted on the HOV lane should follow this sign.Directly over the entrance, the occupancy and time of dayrequirements should be displayed again. This sign shouldbe large and easy to read for motorists who may havemissed previous signs.

l Once on the HOV lane, real-time information can beprovided by lane use control signals. Speed limit signsfor the HOV lane should appear on the right side of the

101

lane. The signs should be standard speed limit signs withthe addition of a diamond in the top corner. Emergencyresponse signs, indicating where a motorist should go incase of a breakdown, should also appear on the HOVlane.

l Advanced signing of exits, similar to those onfreeways, should be used. The signs should also containthe destination and location of future exit points. Guidesigns with arrows pointing out the specific exit locationshould indicate the destination. Warning signs at HOVentrances are needed to alert motorists travelling on theHOV lane to merging traffic.

l The MUTCD classifies traffic signs into three differentcategories: regulatory, guide, and warning. HOV lanesigns should also use these three categories. Theregulatory signs should include information on vehicletypes, occupancy, and time of day restrictions. Thesesigns should be black on white panels. The warning signsshould provide information on when the lane will end orwhen traffic will be entering the lane. These signs shouldbe black on yellow panels. Guide signs should informdrivers of upcoming exits and should be white on green.The white on black diamond should appear on all threetypes of signs.

l Signs on HOV lanes should appear on overheadstructures whenever possible except for speed limit orguide signs. These signs do not contain a large amount ofinformation and can be easily read when mounted on thebarrier.

l A few changes to the MUTCD would alleviate some ofthe problems with HOV signing. These changes includethe use of the term HOV lane in addition to thereservation of the diamond symbol exclusively for HOVlanes, the additional text explaining HOV regulatory signs,and the inclusion of a typical signing layout.

Tight HOV Designs and Construction Detours thatWorkGeorge R. Hale, HNTB Corporation

Mr. Hale discussed the operation of HOV facilities withreduced cross sections. He also outlined some of theeffects construction of freeway and HOV lanes may haveon traffic conditions. He described various roadways anddiscussed the operation of different HOV facilities. Apaper on this topic was also available. Mr. Hale includedthe following elements in his discussion.

l Reduced cross sections are often considered due tolimited right-of-way. There are many treatments tominimize the impact of reduced cross sections; however,these include the use of the edge of the foundation of thesign structure for the vertical wall section and use of ataper into the barrier to maintain as much shoulder aspossible. The placement of lighting may also influencethe configuration of reduced cross sections. Additionallighting using the median may justify a new barrierconfiguration to avoid an accordion shape along thebarrier.

l A number of treatments can be used to help managetraffic during construction. For example, one of the firstthings done on a construction site in California is theerection of some type of visual screening on top of thetemporary barrier, so drivers are not distracted by theconstruction work. This has been extremely effective,although it should be recognized that visual screening mayrestrict sight distance.

l Construction activities often cause detours throughareas with less than desirable roadway conditions.Fortunately, motorists seem to be able to adjust to thetemporary conditions. Providing adequate signing andadvanced information about detours is important formotorists.

l Construction access to the median may also be aproblem with many projects. Access points should beidentified early in the process and adequate taper distancesshould be provided.

- It appears that most areas where a tight design hasbeen used, drivers become used to the reduced sectionsand ad-just their behavior accordingly.

Safety Experience of the Pie-IX BoulevardContraflow Bus Lanes and Other Corridors inMontrealRobert Olivier, Societe de Transport de la CommunaateUrbaine de Montreal

Mr. Olivier discussed the impacts a contraflow bus lanehas on traffic operations in Montreal. A paper on thistopic was also available. Mr. Olivier included thefollowing elements in his presentation.

l The contraflow bus lane was implemented in place ofa subway that was planned. The lane, which operatesduring peak hours, is eight kilometers long, and has 39intersections.

102

l Traffic signals are used to alert drivers and pedestriansof the contraflow bus lane. The system is operated mainlywith traffic signals and signs, but there are still someintersections with cones. In some places, intersectionswith small streets are being completely closed.

l When the system is operating and the bus lane is beingused, there is a sign with a red X to show that the lane isclosed. Green arrows indicate allowable movements.

l The buses are equipped with a blinking arrow to helpalert motorists. A radio communication system is alsoused to help bus operators, central dispatchers, and othertransit personnel. There are separate traffic lights for thebuses. Overhead signals notify drivers if there is anobstruction in the zone being entered.

l As passengers leave the bus shelter, there are signsreminding them to look for the buses. Safety is a majorconcern, since the buses are travelling opposite thedirection expected. Pedestrian crossings are also clearlymarked.

l The bus shelters are equipped with telephones that areconnected to the 911 service. Overhead signs provideinformation on bus schedules and can be used to alertpassengers of any problems.

l The contratlow bus lane began operations in mid 1990.In the first six months, there were sixteen accidentsinvolving buses. Most of these were caused by

automobiles making illegal left turns. Since then, theaccident rate has continued to decrease. In the first fivemonths of 1994, there has only been one bus accident.The accident rate for the curb side buses has alsodecreased. The total number of accidents has decreased,although the number of buses has almost doubled.

l There have only been three pedestrian accidents in thecontraflow bus lane, all of which occurred during the firstyear of operation. Two of the accidents were minor, thethird was a pedestrian trying to commit suicide. Therehave not been any fatal accidents.

l When the intersections were looked at one by one, itwas discovered that some of them were quite dangerous.As a consequence, left turn restrictions have increased.Initially, left turns were prohibited only during peak-periods. Now left turns are prohibited throughout the dayat some intersections.

l Passengers were asked to evaluate the overall safety ofthe lane. Ninety-two percent thought it was safe overall,and 68 percent thought the left turn aspect of the systemwas safe. Walking to the median shelter, and walkingwithin the shelter was also considered safe.

l Potential actions to improve the system may includelimiting left turns to one or two intersections, increasingenforcement of illegal left turns, continuing education fordrivers and pedestrians, and adding traffic signs.

103

Bus Transit Operations on HOV SystemsSteve Parry, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority-Presiding

The Impact of HOV Facilities on TransitVukan R. Vuchic, University of Pennsylvania

Dr. Vuchic discussed the impact that HOV facilities haveon bus operations. A paper on this topic written by Dr.Vuchic, Shinya Kikuchi, Nikola Krstanoski, and YongEun Shin was also available. Dr. Vuchic highlighted thefollowing elements in his presentation.

l In the 1970s, the importance of creating a separateright-of-way for transit to make it competitive with theautomobile was recognized. Excellent bus systems weredeveloped around the world to create more balancedtransportation systems.

l Bus services in most cities operate on arterial streetsand highways with general purpose traffic. Buses on theseroutes make frequent stops to pick up and drop offpassengers. In order to attract more commuters, transitsystems need to provide an attractive alternative topersonal autos. Approaches to accomplish this couldinclude attractive buses, special infrastructure, and highperformance services.

l Bus transit systems should utilize a separate right-of-way to provide higher speeds, increase reliability, andenhance safety. Priority treatments give buses a moredistinctive image, in addition to enhancing performance.

l For a bus system to be complete, routes need to servemultiple origins and destinations throughout the day. Asystem that centers on a single location, such as adowntown area, and provides service only during thepeak-periods will only attract commuters and will notprovide adequate mobility to individuals withoutautomobiles. Transit systems that focus primarily oncommuter traffic may be the least distinctive of all prioritysystems.

l The implementation of separate HOV lanes has helpedpromote HOVs, and has increased the efficiency ofhighway facilities. Previously, exclusive bus facilitieswere not always filled with buses, which created theempty lane syndrome. Now, HOVs are allowed to usemany of these facilities, on the premise that bus servicewill not be compromised.

l A number of issues arise when busways are changedinto HOV facilities. On the positive side, travel times arereduced for vanpools and carpools, congestion isdecreased on parallel general purpose lanes, and theproductivity of the entire facility is increased. On thenegative side, the performance of buses is decreased dueto the mixed flow, bus service loses the distinct advantagepreviously held, and consequently some bus patrons maydivert to automobiles or carpools. This may result in aloss of revenue to the transit system. The positiveimpacts affect non-bus users and all the negative impactsaffect bus users and bus operators.

l A study was conducted at the Univers i ty ofPennsylvania to determine whether lane conversion or laneaddition was more favorable. This study suggested thebest case was to take a facility without any HOV or transitsystem, and convert a lane for exclusive bus use. Theworst case was to add an HOV lane. If HOVs are toshare a lane with the buses, the best case wasimplementation of a 4 + vehicle occupancy requirement onthe HOV lane.

l The current trend in some cities is to transition fromvery favorable conditions for transit to the least favorableconditions for transit. This is counterproductive, becauseit does not discourages the use of SOVs, as required bythe Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the ISTEA.This trend needs to be reversed by treating buses as apriority mode of transportation, rather than as asupplementary mode of transportation.

l The study recommended that conversion of existinglanes should take precedence over the addition of newlanes. It also suggested that transit funds should not beused for HOV facilities unless the development of theHOV facilities would benefit buses. Further, changes inbus or HOV facilities should be subjected to theenvironmental impact statement process. Finally, thestudy suggested that HOV facilities should not bedeveloped as a substitute for busways.

l Although HOV facilities are an effective and positiveway to maximize the number of riders, the success ofHOV facilities should not come at the expense of transitridership. The public should be educated on both the longrange goals of the area, and the transportation system.

104

Bus Transit Issues and Services on Connecticut HOVLanesLisa Rivers, Connecticut Department of Transportation

Although representatives from the Connecticut Departmentof Transportation were unable to attend the conference, apaper on this topic written by Ms. Rivers was madeavailable. The paper included the following points.

l There are currently two 10 mile long HOV facilities inHartford, Connecticut. These HOV lanes are separatedfrom the general purpose traffic lanes, and have a 2+vehicle occupancy requirement. Access to the HOV lanesis provided via the mainlanes, and via direct access ramps.Information about use of the HOV lanes is providedthrough signs and through low wattage radio broadcasts.

l The HOV lanes have improved on-time performanceand consistency for transit and HOVs. Some commuterexpress routes that operate on the HOV lanes haverealized a five minute reduction in travel time.

l Following a reduction in the minimum occupancyrequirement in 1993, HOV lane utilization increaseddramatically. HOV lane utilization increased from 3 15 to913 vehicles in the three hour morning peak-period.

l Both of the HOV facilities terminate prior to thedowntown area. A study is currently in progress todetermine the potential for extending these facilities intothe city of Hartford. There is also a project underconsideration to install traffic signal pre-emption at variousintersections to further reduce commuter express bustravel time, this would be implemented in conjunction withan HOV lane on one of the routes.

The El Monte Busway: A Twenty-YearRetrospectiveCarol Silver, Los Angeles County Metropolitan TransitAuthority

Ms. Silver discussed the El Monte Busway and thechanges that have occurred in operations over the years.A paper on this topic written by Jon Hillmer and StevenT. Parry, both from the Los Angeles County MetropolitanTransit Authority, was also available. Ms. Silver coveredthe following topics in her presentation.

l The El Monte Busway links the San Diego Valley areato downtown Los Angeles. The construction of thefacility began in 1969, and over seven miles werecomplete by 1973. The first segment operated from

Santina Avenue to the Long Beach Freeway. The ElMonte bus station initially had parking spaces for 700automobiles.

l The western segment of the facility opened a year anda half later. A one mile extension into downtown LosAngeles was complete in 1989.

l A number of features make the El Monte Busway anexceptional transit system. It has two on-line stationslocated at the University and the Medical Center, and theEl Monte Station, which is off-line. Ten express busroutes access the busway and interface with ten localservice routes at the El Monte Station. At the El Montebus station. There are 1,800 parking spaces at thisfacility and access ramps connecting to Del Mar Avenueand the I-7 10 Freeway are provided. The busway hasextensive feeder lines, as well as park-and-ride facilities.Pedestrian walkways are located at the University andMedical Center stations to provide easier and safer accessfor bus riders.

l Service on the busway has continued to evolve. In thebeginning, the El Monte Busway served approximately4,000 riders daily on 30 peak and 42 off-peak trips.Three years later, there were 270 peak and 225 off-peakvehicle trips. In 1976, there were 330 peak and 495 off-peak vehicle trips. Also in 1976, the busway was openedto 3 + carpools.

l In retrospect, it appears that even though the runningtime of buses has not changed, allowing HOVs on thebusway has had a detrimental effect on the buses. Theprice of parking, the length of the commute, and otherfactors have made carpooling more attractive than takingthe bus for many commuters. As a result, ridership levelshave decreased in recent years. Eliminating HOVs fromthe busway would have a negative impact on ridesharingoverall, however.

Proposed Bus Operations and Facilities on the I-110Harbor TransitwayR. Scott Page, Los Angeles County Metropolitan TransitAuthority

Mr. Page discussed the plans for the existing buswayalong the I-l 10 Harbor Freeway in Los Angeles. Hesummarized the different alternatives for this transitwayand the advantages of each. A paper on this topic writtenby Mr. Page, Stephen T. Perry, and Jon Hillmer, fromthe Los Angeles County Metropolitan TransportationAuthority, was also available. Mr. Page summarized the

105

following points in his presentation.

l The Harbor Transitway runs from downtown LosAngeles to the Artes ia Sta t ion. I t encompassesapproximately 10.3 miles of exclusive guideway with 2.6miles elevated, and 7.7 miles at-grade. There are twolanes in each direction and nine on-line stations. Eight ofthe stations will have park-and-ride lots with a total of2,750 parking spaces. Currently there are six existing busroutes using the Harbor Freeway with 3,000 riders daily.On the local routes, there are approximately 9,300 dailyriders.

l There were three alternatives that were considered forfurther study. The first alternative maintains operation ofthe existing express routes, and includes modification ofthe local surface street routes to connect to the stations.The second alternative would create a single hub HOVsystem. The Artesia Station would act as the hub. Underthis system, high frequency express service would beprovided to downtown Los Angeles. Current HarborFreeway express routes would be redesigned to act asfeeder routes. The final alternative was a dual hub HOV

system linking the Harbor Transitway and the El MonteBusway. Linking these two systems would reduce thelayover time, and would reduce costs. This option wouldincrease capacity and reduce trave times.

l The hub and spoke concept was designed to provide aninterface point where short distance, lower demand, andlow frequency routes could feed into a common hub.Passengers then change buses to utilize the high speedservice. Many airlines operate using this concept.

l These are a number of issues that must be worked outwith the alternative. Transit services must be integratedto eliminate duplication and reduce operating costs.Existing terminals must be redesigned or expanded toincrease capacity. The El Monte Bus Station is one ofthese terminals. Articulated buses must be acquired andmodification of the existing facilities will be needed toaccommodate theses buses. A new fare structure and newfare collection procedures will need to be established.Finally, procedures to comply with the competitivebidding guidelines mandated by FTA will need to bedeveloped.

107

APPENDIXConference Attendance List

Kathy A. AlaIusiUniversity of Washington6609 SW Admiral Way # 1 5Seattle, WA 98116

James R. AndriniConnecticut DOT2800 Berlin TurnpikeP. 0. Box 317546Newington, CT 0613 l-7546

Tamirija A. ArraraoOntario Ministry ofTransportation1201 Wilson Avenue3rd Floor West TowerDownsview, Ontario, M3M lJ8CANADA

J. Michael AuslamCalifornia DOT1120 N StreetDivision of TrafficSacramento, CA 95814

Gerald D. AyresWashington State DOTP. 0. Box 47370Olympia, WA 98504-7370

Michael S. AzerNew York State DOTState Office BuildingVeteran Memorial HwyHauppauge, NY 11788

Vinton W. BaconUniv of California, Berkeley108 McLaughlin HalIBerkeley, CA 94720

Gerald W. BareCALTRANS District 7120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

Gerald J. BarilGannett Fleming, Inc.1240 N. Lakeview AvenueSuite 170Anaheim, CA 92807

Salah BarjSociete de Transport L’OuTaour111 Jean - ProulxHull, Quebec, J8Z lT4CANADA

Mark D. BartlettFHWALeo W. O’Brien Federal Bldg.9th FloorAlbany, NY 12207

Paul N. BayBRW Inc.2001 Western Avenue, Suite 400Seattle, WA 98121

Sandra K. BeaupreWisconsin DOT4802 Sheboygan AvenueP. 0. Box 7913Madison, WI 53707

James A. Be&withWisconsin DOT141 N.W. Barstow StreetWaukesha, WI 53 188-3789

Lew L. BedollaCALTRANS District 7120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

David BeilinsonMagazine for Business &Technology1900 Avenue of the StarsSuite 1025Los Angeles, CA 90067

William E. BennettASL Consulting EngineersOne Jenner, Suite 200Irvine, CA 92718

Terrance W. BeuthlingRust Environment & Infra.10325 Odana RoadMadison, WI 53719

Tim BevanCH2M Hill777 108th Avenue NEBellevue, WA 98008

Ellen BevingtonDepartment of Metro ServicesKing County821 Second Avenue, MS-51Seattle, WA 98104

John W. BillheimerSystan, Inc.343 Second StreetLos Altos, CA 94022

Terry BlankCALTRANS District 7120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

John P. BoenderC.R.D.W.P. 0. Box 376710 BA EdeEde,THE NETHERLANDS

Tom W. BogardOCTA550 S. Main StreetP. 0. Box 14184Orange, CA 92613-1584

Robert W. BrindleyParsons Brinckerhoff18 Fenwick StreetFramingham, MA 01701

108

James BunchCOMSIS Corporation8737 Colesville Road, Suite 1100Silver Spring, MD 20910

Robert L. CadyFHWA980 9th Street, Suite 400Sacramento, CA 95812

Donald E. CapelleParsons Brinckerhoff505 S. Main StreetOrange, CA 92668

Robert H. CarleyRobert Bein,William Frost & Assocociates14725 Alton ParkwayIrvine, CA 92619

Frank CarlileFlorida DOTHayden Bums Building605 Suwannee StreetTallahassee, FL 32399-0450

Duane P. CarlsonIllinois DOT201 W. Center CourtSchaumburg, IL 60196

Richard L. Cary-BrownDeLeuw Cather & Company290 Roberts StreetEast Hartford, CT 06018

Humberto L. CastilleroCALTRANS District 7120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

Frank G. CastroConsultant1241 E. Dyer RoadSanta Ana, CA 92705

Ross T. CatherCALTRANS4120 Taylor StreetSan Diego, CA 92186

Jerry A. ChampaCALTRANS650 Howe Avenue, Suite 400Sacramento, CA 95825

Peter ChanCalifornia DOT247 W. Third StreetSan Bemadino, CA 92402

Shyue Koong ChangNational Taiwan University1 Roosevelt Road, Sect. 4Department of Civil EngineeringTaipei, TAIWAN

George ChenLACMTA818 W. Seventh Street, Suite 300Los Angeles, CA 90017

Charles ChenuCalifornia DOTP. 0. Box 942874MS-80Sacramento, CA 94274-0001

Dennis L. ChristiansenTTITexas A&M UniversityCollege Station, TX 77843

Gerald R. CichyWilbur Smith Associates2921 Telestar CourtFalls Church, VA 22042

Chandra A. ClaytonVirginia DOT1401 E. Broad StreetRichmond, VA 23219

Thomas J. CoadTransportation Discussion Group6016 NE Keswick DriveSeattle, WA 98105

Patrick J. ColemanKPMG Peat Marwick8150 Leesburg Pike, Suite 800Vienna, VA 22182

Dan CollenSanta Clara CountyTransportation Agency3331 N. 1st StreetBuilding B, 2nd FloorSan Jose, CA 95134-1906

William C. CoplingDallas Area Rapid TransitP. 0. Box 660163Dallas, TX 75266

Heather L. CreightonMinistry of Transportation1201 Wilson Avenue6th Floor Atrium TowerDownsview, Ontario, M3M lJ8CANADA

Donald CrossDaniel, Mann, Johnson &Menden3250 Wilshire Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90010

Lloyd R. CrowtherTRB2101 Constitution Ave, NWWashington, DC 20418

Kenneth E. CudeLos Angeles DOT200 N. Spring StreetRoom 1200Los Angeles, CA 90012

Richard C. V. DahiligParsons BrinckerhoffTwo Waterfront, Suite 220500 Ala MoanaHonolulu, HI 96813

Joy W. DahlgrenUniv of California, Berkeley1200 Idylberry RoadSan Rafael, CA 94903

Don G. DahlingerTennessee DOTJames K. Polk BuildingSuite 1000Nashville, TN 37243

109

Dennis G. Dal SantoPACE550 W. Algonquin RoadArlington Heights, IL 60005

Charles M. DanKocsikCastle Rock Consultants18 Liberty Street, SWLeesburg, VA 22075

Diane J. DavidsonTMA Group109 Third Ave. SouthFranklin, TN 37064

Aad De WinterMinistry of TransportP. 0. Box 10313000 BaRotterdam,THE NETHERLANDS

Youssef DehghaniParsons Brinckerhoff999 3rd Avenue, Suite 801Seattle, WA 98104

Michael J. DelseyIBI Group230 Richmond Street West5th FloorToronto, Ontario, M5V lV6CANADA

Charles D. Dickey, Jr.Parsons Brinckerhoff506 Carnegie Center DrivePrinceton, NJ 08540

Bill A. DillonCALTRANS District 112829 Juan StreetSan Diego, CA 92186

Steven I. DonatDelcan Corporation133 Wynford DriveDon Mills, Ontario, M3C 1KlCANADA

Richard P. DoyleCALTRANS District 7120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

Larry R. DreihaupFHWA1720 Peachtree Road, Suite 300Atlanta, GA 30367

William F. EdmondsCH2M HillP. 0. Box 15960Santa Ana, CA 927050960

Joseph El HarakeCalifornia DOT2501 Pullman StreetSanta Ana, CA 92705

David ElbaumOCTA550 S. Main StreetOrange, CA 92613-1584

Michael S. EllegoodDeLeuw Cather & Company199 S. Los Robles, Suite 740Pasadena, CA 91101

Robert EllisonLACMTA818 W. 7th Street4th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90017

Jerry EmersonFHWA400 7th Street, SWRoom 3408Washington, DC 20590

Zahi FaraneshCALTRANS District 7120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

Brent R. FelkerCalifornia DOT2501 Pullman StreetSanta Ana, CA 92705

Robert E. FellowsWashington State DOTOffice of Urban Mobility401 2nd Ave S., Suite 307Seattle, WA 98104

William B . FingerCity of Charlotte DOT600 East 4th Street, 6th FloorCharlotte, NC 28202-2858

Peter L. FinnMetropolitan Transit Authority1201 LouisianaP. 0. Box 61429Houston, TX 77208-1429

Barbara L. FischerNew Jersey DOT1035 Parkway AvenueCN-600Trenton, NJ 08625

Richard T. FischerParsons Brinckerhoff506 Carnegie Center DrivePrinceton, NJ 08540

John E. FisherCity of Los Angeles DOT200 N. Spring StreetRoom 1200, City HallLos Angeles, CA 90012

Ronald J. FisherFTA400 7th Street, S.W.Washington, DC 20590

Bradley T. FlomParsons Brinckerhoff505 S. Main Street, Suite 900Orange, CA 92669

Kevin S. FloraCalifornia DOTP. 0. Box 9428741304 0 StreetSacramento, CA 94274-0001

110

Nicholas J. ForteyFHWALeo O’Brien Federal Bldg.9th FloorAlbany, NY 12207

H. Jonathan FrankBarrier Systems1100 E. Williams StreetSuite 206Carson City, NV 89701-3104

Myra L. FrankMyra L. Frank & Associates811 West 7th Street, Suite 800Los Angeles, CA 90017

Chuck FuhsParsons Brinckerhoff505 S. Main Street, Suite 900Orange, CA 92668

Ottavio GalellaTRAFIX Consultants, Inc.157 St. Paul Street West,Suite 105Montreal, Quebec, H2Y 1Z5CANADA

Tyrone J. GanProctor & Redfem Limited45 Greenbelt DriveDon Mills, Ontario M3C 3K3CANADA

Bruce H. GarrettConnecticut DOT2800 Berlin TurnpikeNewington, CT 0613 l-7546

Gordon R. GarrySacramento Area COG3000 S. Street, Suite 300Sacramento, CA 95816

John A. GibbDKS Associates8950 Cal Cntr. Dr., Suite 340Sacramento, CA 95826

Keith GilbertAutomobile Club of

Southern California2601 S. Figueroa StreetLos Angeles, CA 90007

Keith E. GilesNY State Thruway Authority333 South BroadwayTarrytown, NY 10591

Roy D. Gilstrap, Jr.CALTRANS District 7120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

Robert G. B. Goode11CALTRANS District 7120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

Luanne C. GrandinettiTennessee DOTJames K. Polk Building,Suite 700Nashville, TN 37243-0349

Michael L. GriffisSanta Clara CountyTransportation Agency3331 N. First StreetBuilding B - 2nd FloorSan Jose, CA 95134-1906

Robert J. GrimmNew Jersey Turnpike AuthorityP. 0. Box 1121New Brunswick, NJ 08903

Anita Gulotta-ConnellyMilwaukee County Transit Syst.1942 North 17th StreetMilwaukee, WI 53205-1697

Kevin A. HaboianParsons Brinckerhoff505 South Main Street, Suite 900Orange, CA 92668

Ali Haeri-AzadCity of Los Angeles DOT205 S. Broadway, Suite 408Los Angeles, CA 90012

Walt HagenCALTRANS District 122501 Pullman StreetSanta Ana, CA 92705

George R. HaleHNTB36 Executive Park, Suite 200Irvine, CA 92714

Gabe HamidiCALTRANS120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

Paula J. HammondWashington State DOTP. 0. Box 47440Olympia, WA 98504-7440

Bruce B. HartmanCalifornia DOTP. 0. Box 9428741304 0 StreetSacramento, CA 94274-0001

Stuart H. HarveyCALTRANS District 114120 Taylor StreetSan Diego, CA 92186

Joseph HeckerCalifornia DOT2501 PullmanSanta Ana, CA 92705

Mami C. HeffronThe TRANSPO Group14335 NE 24th Street, Suite 201Bellevue, WA 98007

Russell H HenkTTITexas A&M University SystemP. 0. Box 40San Antonio, TX 78291-0040

Samuel HerreraFHWA18209 Dixie HighwayHomewood, IL 60430

111

Earle HerschenhomNew York State DOT1220 Washington AvenueBldg. 4, Room 206Albany, NY 12232

Dawn R. HickeyCALTRANS District 7120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

William HillerAnn Arbor TransportationAuthority2700 S. Industrial HwyAnn Arbor, MI 48104

Raymond L. HintonCALTRANS District 7120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

Morrie A. HoevelFHWA315 West Allegan, Room 207Lansing, MI 48933

Michael G. HoglundMetro600 NE Grand AvenuePortland, OR 97232

Tong HongSanta Clara CountyTransportation Agengy3331 N. 1st StreetBuilding B, 2nd FloorSan Jose, CA 95134-1906

William A. J. HoverstenCalifornia DOT1120 N StreetSacramento, CA 95814

Kang HuCity of Los Angeles DOT200 N. Spring StreetRoom 1004Los Angeles, CA 90012

Sarah HubbardTTITexas A&M UniversityCollege Station, TX 77843-3 135

Robert H. HuddySouthern California

Association of Governments818 West Seventh StreetLos Angeles, CA 90017

Roberta HughanAir Resources Board2020 L StreetSacramento, CA 956 14

George E. HumanCity of Richardson, Texas1510 Amesbury DriveRichardson, TX 75082

William E. HurrellWilbur Smith Associates360 22nd StreetOakland, CA 94612

Milton H. IkedaCALTRANS District 7120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

Kathy IngleDallas Area Rapit Transit1401 Pacific AvenueDallas, TX 75266-7212

Robert JacksonLACMTA818 W. 7th Street, 4th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90017

Eldon L. JacobsonWashington State DOT1107 NE 45th Street, Suite 535Seattle, WA 98105

Kern L. JacobsonParsons Brinckerhoff999 Third Avenue, Suite 801Seattle, WA 98104

Leslie N. JacobsonWashington State DOTP. 0. Box 330310MS-120Seattle, WA 98133-9710

Phil JangCALTRANS1120 N StreetSacramento, CA 95814

Richard JaramilloLos Angeles DOT205 S. Broadway, Suite 408Los Angeles, CA 90012

James T. JarzabPace550 W. Algonquin HeightsArlington Heights, IL 60005

William C. JeffreyVirginia DOT1401 E. Broad StreetRichmond, VA 23219

Ron T. Jensen-FisherFTA400 7th Street, S.W.TGM-22Washington, DC 20590

Jeff JohnsonLACMTA818 W. 7th Street, 4th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90017

Bob JohnstonUniversity of California, DavisInstitute of TransportationStudiesDavis, CA 95616-8576

Gregory M. JonesFHWA819 Taylor Street, Room 8400Fort Worth, TX 76102

Adam D. JosephsonMinnesota DOT1500 W. County Road, B-2Waters Edge BuildingRoseville, MN 55113

112

Bernard KalusHNTB Corporation400 Rella BoulevardSuffem, NY 10901

Victor N. KamhiLACMTA818 W. 7th StreetLos Angeles, CA 90017

Nancy C. KaysSacramento Area COG3000 S. Street, Suite 300Sacramento, CA 95816

William A. KennedyCALTRANS1120 N StreetSacramento, CA 95814

Ron R. KluszaCALTRANS District 7120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

Arthur KorfinBarrier Systems1100 E. Williams, Suite 206Carson City, NV 89701-3104

Ronald J. KosinskiCALTRANS District 7120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

Brian KrcelicASL Consulting EngineersP. 0. Box 661780Arcadia, CA 91066

Ram K. KumarKumar Consulting Services49-A Fano StreetArcadia, CA 91006

Siamak KushaAyres AssociatesN14 W23777 Stone Ridge Dr.Suite 130Waukesha, WI 53188

Cyrin S. KwongCalifornia DOT247 W. 3rd StreetSan Bemadino, CA 92402

Marty LanceTTITexas A&M UniversityCollege Station, TX 77845

Art LeahyLACMTA818 W. 7th Street, 4th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90017

Leo K. LeeDKS Associates1055 West 7th, Suite 2850Los Angeles, CA 90017

Stephen K. LeungCALTRANS District 7120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

James R. LightbodySanta Clara CountyTransportation Agency3331 North 1st StreetBldg. B., 2nd FloorSan Jose, CA 95134-1906

Jeffrey A. LindleyFHWA211 Main Street, Room 1100San Francisco, CA 94105

Timothy J. LomaxTTITexas A&M UniversityCollege Station, TX 77843

John P. LongDKS Associates8950 Cal Center Dr., Suite 340Sacramento, CA 95826

Carlos A. LopezTxDOT125 E. 1 Ith StreetAustin. TX 78701-2483

Harry C. LorickLorick Associates Consulting1147 Manhattan Avenue,Suite 310Manhattan Beach, CA 90266

Donna LottAir Resources Board2020 L StreetP. 0. Box 2815Sacramento, CA 95812

Richard C. H. LouMTC101 8th StreetOakland, CA 94607

Larry P. LoudonCALTRANS District 7120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

William R. LoudonJHK & Associates2000 Powell Street, Suite 1090Emeryville, CA 94608

Kelly LoveAtlanta Regional Commission37 15 Northside Parkway200 Northcreek, Str 300Atlanta, GA 30327

James I. McHughUniversity of Washington4819 183rd Place, SWLynnwood, WA 98037

Stephanie A. MacLachlanUniversity of Washington9007 184th Street, SWSeattle, WA 98026

Robert G MacLennanHouston METROP. 0. Box 61429Houston, TX 77208

John R. MackFHWA300 East 8th StreetAustin, TX 78701

113

Raymond K. MaekanaLACMTA818 West Seventh StreetLos Angeles, CA 90017

Jonathan D. McDadeFHWALeo O’Brien Federal Bldg.Room 7 19Albany, NY 12207

Thomas W. MulliganMetro Transportation55 John Street17th FloorToronto, Ontario M5V 3C6CANADAPeter C. Markle

FHWA980 Ninth Street, Suite 400Sacramento, CA 95814-2724

Kent L. McHenryGresham, Smith & Partners3310 West End AvenueNashville, TN 37202

Ken G. NelsonCALTRANS District 550 Higuera StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401Richard S. Marshment

University of OklahomaDivision of Regional

and City PlanningNorman, OK 73019-0265

Shane R. McLoudCounty of Los Angeles520 W. Temple, Suite 812Los Angeles, CA 90012

Janice E. NolenRTA211 Union Street, Suite 700Nashville, TN 37201

Marie MarstonIWA Engineering17390 Brookhurst StreetSuite 100Fountain Valley, CA 92708

Gary McSweeneyCALTRANS District 7120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

Kim NystromCalifornia DOT1120 N StreetSacramento, CA 95814

Phil MeyersLACMTA818 W. 7th Street, 4th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90017

Bob MartinDallas Area Rapid Transit1401 Pacific AvenueP. 0. Box 660163Dallas, TX 75266-0163

Charles J. O’ConnellCALTRANS District 7120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

Thomas A. MiconeCalifornia Highway Patrol2555 1st AvenueSacramento, CA 95818

Thomas D. O’GradyHNTB Corporation14114 Dallas Parkway, Suite 630Dallas, TX 75240

HNTB Corporation386 S. Oxford AvenueLos Angeles, CA 90005

Shirish V. MistryCALTRANS District 7120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

Jeff R. MatherCH2M Hill2510 Redhill DriveSanta Ana, CA 92705-0960

Andres OconLACMTA818 W. Seventh Street, Suite 300Los Angeles, CA 90017

Raja J. MitwasiCALTRANS District 7120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

John 0. MatthiasMNCPPC8787 Georgia AvenueSilver Spring, MD 20910

Charles Michael OfensteinWilldan Associates888 S. West Street, Suite 300Anaheim, CA 92802- 1845

Carlos E. MorgnerMorgner TechnologyManagement2566 Overland AvenueSuite 550Los Angeles, CA 90064

Brent OgdenKorve Engineering155 Grand Avenue, Suite 400Oakland, CA 94612

Earl T. McArthurASL Consulting EngineersOne Jenney Street, Suite 200Irvine, CA 92718

David L. McCulloughMichael Baker Jr., Inc.P. 0. Box 12259Pittsburgh, PA 15231

Robert OlivierSociete De Transport, Montreal800 de la Gauchetiere ouec.p. 2000 bureau F-12000Montreal, Quebec H5A lJ6CANADA

William A. MosbyCALTRANS District 7120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

114

Peter L. OlsonFHWA3250 Executive Park DriveSpringfield, IL 62703

Koorosh OlyaiDallas Area Rapid TransitP. 0. Box 660163Dallas, TX 75266-7212

James D. OrtnerOCTA550 S. Main StreetP. 0. Box 14184Orange, CA 92613-1584

Luisa M. PaiewonskyMassachusetts Highway10 Park Plaza, Room 3510Boston, MA 02116

Greg PaquetteMetropolitan Transit Authority120 1 LouisianaHouston, TX 77208-1429

Bijan ParhizgarCALTRANS District 7120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

Bob ParkerMetropolitan Transit Authority1201 LouisianaHouston, TX 77208-1429

Edmund Parker, Jr.Rhode Island DOT2 Capitol HillRoom 23 1DProvidence, RI 02903

LeAnn L. ParmenterMaryland State Highway Admin.7491 Connelley DriveHanover, MD 21076

Steve ParryLACMTA818 W. 7th Street, 4th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90017

Rollo ParsonsSanta Clara CTA3331 N. 1st StreetBuilding B, 2nd FloorSan Jose, CA 95134-1906

Carol T. PearceCalifornia DOTP. 0. Box 942874Mail Station 41Sacramento, CA 94274-0001

Fred PearsonParsons Brinckerhoff444 S. Flower Street, Suite 1850Los Angeles, CA 90071

Maria G. PerezTransmetrics, Inc.660 S. Figueroa Street,Suite 2000Los Angeles, CA 90017

Diane PerrineLACMTA818 W. 7th Street, 4th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90017

Richard A. PetersNew York State DOT103 Buckingham AvenuePoughkeepsie, NY 1260 1

Richard D. PilgrimBRW, Inc.620 C Street, Suite 300San Diego, CA 92101

John PingreeUtah Transit Authority3600 South 700 WestSalt Lake City, UT 84130

Allan PintMinnesota DOT1500 W County Road B2Roseville, MN 55113

Christopher M. PoePA Turnpike Commission201 Research Office Bldg.University Park, PA 16802

Jerry PorterCalifornia Private TransportationCompany1000 Kiewit PlazaOmaha, NE 68131

Victor P. PoteatPost, Buckley, Schuh & Jemigan1560 Orange Avenue, Suite 700Winter Park, FL 32789

Elizabeth A. PrestonRhode Island DOTTwo Capitol HillProvidence, RI 02879

Karl H. QuackenbushCentral Transp. Planning Staff10 Park Plaza, Suite 2150Boston, MA 02116

Walt E. QuesadaParsons Brinckerhoff505 South Main StreetOrange, CA 92668

Tracey QuintinPlacer Cty TransportationCommission853 Lincoln Way, Suite 109Auburn, CA 95603

Karl R. RachLA Department of Airports5930 W. Century Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90045

Gary M. RaneyHouston METRO1519 CapitolHouston, TX 77002

James Dale RatzlaffCalifornia DOT2501 Pullman StreetSanta Ana, CA 92705

Arthur B. RiddleGeorgia DOT2 Capitol SquareAtlanta, GA 30334

115

E . Ridlensham, Smith & Partners

5310 West End AvenueNashville, TN 37202

Craig A. RobinsonMinnesota DOT1500 West Count Rd, B-2Roseville, MN 55113

James R. RobinsonFHWA10 S. Howard Street, Suite 4000Baltimore, MD 21201

Eduardo RodriguezLebron AssociatesCall Box 50055Old San Juan StationSan 00901PUERTO RICO

Morris J. RothenbergJHK & Associates4660 Kenmore AvenueSuite 1100Alexandria, VA 22304

Martin RubinParsons Brinckerhoff707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2900Los Angeles, CA 90017

Dan RudeTransportation ImprovementBoardP. 0. Box 40901Olympia, WA 98504-0901

Karen R. RusakVirginia DOT1401 E. Broad StreetRichmond, VA 23219

G. Scott RutherfordUniversity of WashingtonFX-10Seattle, WA 98195

Donald R. SamdahlJHK & Associates16000 Christensen RoadSuite 304Seattle, WA 98188

Stephen R. ScheelXerox Corporation70 S. Aviation Blvd.ESM7-014El Segundo, CA 90245

Michael H. ScheibleCalifornia Air Resources BoardP. 0. Box 2815Sacramento, CA 95812

Sharon ScherzingerCALTRANS District 3P. 0. Box 942874MS 41Sacramento, CA 94274-0001

John G. SchoonNortheastern University360 Huntington AvenueDept of Civil EngineeringBoston, MA 02115

David E. SchumacherSan Diego MTDB1255 Imperial AvenueSuite 1000San Diego, CA 92101-7490

Carol L. SchweigerEG&G Dynatrend24 New England Executive ParkBurlington, MA 01803

Hanibal D. SerianiCalifornia DOT11 Grand AvenueOakland, CA 94623-0660

Wayne ShackelfordGeorgia DOTNo. 2 Capitol SquareAtlanta, GA 30334

Jim SimsCommuter Transportation3550 Wilshire Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90010

James J. SnyderNew Jersey DOT1035 Parkway AvenueTrenton, NJ 08625

Karla Snyder-PettyFHWA1720 Peachtree Road, N.W.Suite 300Atlanta, GA 30367

Emilie C. SosaNew York State DOTVeterans HighwayNYS Office BuildingHauppauge, NY 11788

Heidi J. StammPacific Rim Resources600 University Street, Suite 2010Seattle, WA 98041-4000

Steve StanisCALTRANS120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

Donald F. StankovskyHouston METRO1201 LouisianaHouston, TX 77002

William T. SteffensMassachusetts Highway Dept10 Park Plaza, Room 2810Boston, MA 02116

David K. StephensArizona DOT206 S. 17th AvenueMail Drop 061RPhoenix, AZ 85007

Robert D. StevensCentennial Engineering, Inc.17300 Redhill, Suite 150Irvine, CA 92714

116

Joel F. StoneAtlanta Regional Commission37 15 Northside Parkway200 Northcreek, Suite 300Atlanta, GA 30327

Peter SucherHNTB Corporation330 Passaic AvenueFairfield, NJ 07004

Martin T. SunwooMetropolitan Transit Authority1201 LouisianaP. 0. Box 61429Houston, TX 77208-1429

Tom A. TasakaReid Crowther & Partners LTD4634 E. Hastings Street,Suite 202Bumaby, Britich Columbia,V5C 2K5 CANADA

Antonio E. ThomasSouth Coast AQMD21865 E. Copley DriveDiamond Bar, CA 91765

Michael W. ThomasCALTRANS650 Howe Avenue, Suite 400Sacramento, CA 95825

Ronald E. ThompsonVanassee Hangen Brustlin, Inc.101 Walnut StreetP. 0. Box 9151Watertown, MA 02272

Eugenie P. ThomsonThomson Transportation Engrs.1516 Oak Street, Suite 105Alameda, CA 94501

William ThornewellNew York State DOTVeterans Memorial HighwayHauppauge, NY 11788

David L. TollettFHWA400 7th Street, S.W.HTA-3 1Washington, DC 20590

John C. ToneParsons Brinckerhoff230 West Monroe, Suite 350Chicago, IL 60606

Hamid R. ToossiCalifornia DOT120 S. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

Katherine F. TumbullTTITexas A&M UniversityCollege Station, TX 77843

Wayne UgolikNew York State DOTVeterans Memorial HighwayHauppauge, NY 11788

Heidi F. Van LuvenMaryland State Highway Admin.707 N. Calvert Street, Room 500Baltimore, MD 21202

Gary L. VetteseCALTRANS District 112829 Juan StreetSan Diego, CA 92186

Norman R. VoigtPort Authority Allegheny County2235 Beaver AvenuePittsburgh, PA 15233

Vukan R. VuchicUniversity of PennsylvaniaTowne BuildingPhiladelphia, PA 19 104-63 15

James R. WalterPort Authority Allegheny County2235 Beaver AvenuePittsburgh, PA 15233

Shawn D. WattsCalifornia Highway Patrol2555 1st AvenueSacramento, CA 95818

Frank WeidlerCALTRANS District 122501 Pullman StreetSanta Ana, CA 92705

Carl R. WestCALTRANS District 112829 Juan StreetSan Diego, CA 92186

Pat WestonCALTRANSP. 0. Box 942874Sacramento, CA 94274-0001

Douglas W. WiersigGreater Houston TransportationManagement Center701 North Post Oak, Suite 439Houston, TX 77024

Jon M. WilliamsMetro Washington COG777 North Capitol Street, NEWashington, DC 20002

Timothy G. WilsonArizona DOT205 S. 17th Avenue, Room 216EPhoenix, AZ 85007-3213

Norman C. WingerdCalifornia DOT1120 N StreetSacramento, CA 95814

James L. WrightMinnesota DOT117 University AvenueRoom 248St. Paul, MN 55155

Jack YbarraTransmetrics, Inc.660 S. Figueroa StreetSuite 2000Los Angeles, CA 90017

Martin YouchahNew York State DOTI220 Washington Avenue4 W.A. Harriman Office Bldg.Albany, NY 12232

Ken YunkerSoutheast Wisconsin RegionalPlanning Commission916 N. East AvenueP. 0. Box 1607Waukesha, WI 53187-1607

Theodore von BriesenParsons Brinckerhoff11270 West Park PlaceMilwaukee, WI 53224