TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

OPENING SESSION – WELCOME

Welcome to Seattle, Greg Nichols...................................................................................... 1

Conference Welcome, Ron Sims........................................................................................ 2

PLENARY SESSION — THE FUTURE AIN’T WHAT IT USED TO BE

That Was Then/This Is Now, Katherine F. Turnbull............................................................ 3

Greetings from the TRB HOV Systems Committee, Dave Schumacher............................... 4

HOV Facilities in the Puget Sound Region, Aubrey Davis................................................... 5

HOV Facilities and WSDOT, Doug MacDonald................................................................ 7

Transit and HOV Facilities, Jim Jacobson........................................................................... 9

Setting the Context – What Is Different Today Compared to 1991, Agnes Govern.............. 10

PLENARY SESSION — TOO MANY, TOO FEW, JUST RIGHT: CHALLENGES

TO THE HOV CONCEPT............................................................................................. 13

HOV Facilities: Challenges and Opportunities, Katherine F. Turnbull................................. 13

Legislating HOV Rules: Two Stories from California, Antonette Clark................................. 17

Are HOV Lanes the Best Solution for the Money?, Jim MacIssac...................................... 18

The Need for Performance Monitoring, Darren Henderson................................................. 20

KEYNOTE LUNCHEON SPEECH — HOV FACILITIES IN THE SEATTLE

REGION, Grace Crunican................................................................................................ 23

PLENARY SESSION — MEETING THE CHALLENGE: SOLUTIONS AND STRATEGIES 29

Responding to Issues: Experiences from Washington State, Charlie Howard...................... 29

Promotion and Education: Painting the Picture of Success, Heidi Stamm............................. 30

Managed Lanes – Survival of The Fittest?, Hall Kassoff..................................................... 32

Become More Transit Intensive and Transit Friendly, Dave Schumacher............................. 33

PLENARY SESSION — THE FUTURE OF HOV FACILITIES: EVOLUTION

OR REVOLUTION?...................................................................................................... 37

State Transportation Agency Perspective, Connie Niva...................................................... 37

Federal Perspective, Jon Obenberger................................................................................. 39

Transit Perspective, Agnes Govern..................................................................................... 41

Consultant Perspective, Chuck Fuhs.................................................................................. 43

HOV SYSTEMS TRACK

Monitoring and Applying Performance Standards........................................................ 45

HOV Mid-Day Use: A Surprising Finding from Recent Performance

Monitoring.............................................................................................................. 45

Central Puget Sound Freeway HOV Lanes Hours of Operation Evaluation................... 46

Options for HOV Lane Performance Monitoring, Data Collection Analysis,

and Reporting........................................................................................................ 49

HOV Project Case Studies............................................................................................. 51

The Twin Cities HOV Study........................................................................................ 51

HOV Experience in the Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington Region............. 54

HOV System Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region............................................. 55

San Francisco Bay Area HOV Lane Master Plan......................................................... 57

Performance and Policy in Southern California............................................................ 61

Overview of Southern California HOV Activities.......................................................... 61

Southern California HOV Performance and Policy – Caltrans Perspective..................... 63

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority HOV Performance

Program................................................................................................................ 64

HOV Cost Effectiveness.............................................................................................. 65

The Santa Monica Diamond Lane Evaluation................................................................ 66

Enforcement, Incident, and Event Management.......................................................... 69

The Truth about HOV Enforcement............................................................................. 69

Incident Management in Washington State.................................................................... 70

Bus and HOV System on I-278 in New York City – Pre and Post 9/11....................... 71

Evaluating HOV in Salt Lake City, Utah....................................................................... 73

Direct Access – The Puget Sound Experience.............................................................. 77

Evaluation of TSM and TDM Alternatives of the Sound Transit HOV

Direct Access Program.......................................................................................... 77

Direct Access Design Issues........................................................................................ 79

Direct Access Design Case Study – Kirkland............................................................... 79

Community Coordination Case Study........................................................................... 80

Developing the HOV Market........................................................................................ 81

Estimating Changes in Travel Habits From HOV Lane Implementation.......................... 81

The Rideshare Group – Catalyst for HOV Advancement.............................................. 82

Successful TDM for HOV Access............................................................................... 84

CommuterLink: Alternative Transportation Management.............................................. 84

Expanding HOV Lane Use for Express Buses.............................................................. 86

BUS RAPID TRANSIT TRACK

Integrating BRT with Freeway HOV Lanes................................................................. 89

Integrating Freeway BRT Operations – Experience and Lessons

Learned from Canada, New Zealand, and Australia................................................ 89

BRT Freeway Station Design: San Diego I-15 Project................................................. 90

Integrating HOV and BRT in the Toronto Area............................................................ 91

HOV and Transit Priority Solutions on I-90 in Seattle................................................... 93

Integrating BRT with Arterial HOV Facilities.............................................................. 95

Arterial Bus Rapid Transit for Santa Clara County........................................................ 95

Rapid Bus or Rapid Busway on Wilshire Boulevard...................................................... 96

Viers Mill Road BRT Study......................................................................................... 97

Traffic Control and Transit Priority: San Fernando BRT Project................................... 99

Transit Priority Treatments in King County................................................................. 101

Development of Business-Access and Transit Lane Concept for

Aurora Avenue in Seattle....................................................................................... 101

Arterial BRT Plan Development................................................................................... 102

TSP Interactive Model................................................................................................. 104

King County Signal Priority Program............................................................................ 105

Evaluation of Signal Priority on Aurora Avenue............................................................. 106

BRT Flavor of the Month or Long-Term Solution?...................................................... 109

What’s the Fuss about BRT?....................................................................................... 109

BRT Program Summary............................................................................................... 111

Lessons Learned in Development of BRT Planning and Implementation

Guidelines.............................................................................................................. 112

HOV Funding: Issues and Initiatives........................................................................... 115

State and Local Financing Issues.................................................................................. 115

TEA-21 Reauthorization Status Report........................................................................ 116

FHWA Value Pricing Programs................................................................................... 116

FTA Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration Program........................................................... 118

Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Studies.............................................................................. 121

HOV Lanes on the Long Island Expressway: When Carpools Aren’t

Enough, Think Bus Rapid Transit........................................................................... 121

BRT and Arterial HOV Planning in Smaller Urban Areas – the SR 303

Corridor Study Experience.................................................................................... 123

HOV, HOT, and BRT Analysis in Portland, Oregon..................................................... 125

Incorporating BRT into Alternatives Analysis................................................................ 126

MANAGED LANES TRACK

Introduction to Managed Lanes.................................................................................... 129

Managed Lanes – A “New” or a “Renewed” Idea?...................................................... 129

Life-Cycle Graphical Representation of Managed HOV Lane Evolution........................ 131

A Legislative Framework for Operating Managed Lanes.............................................. 132

Telling the Managed Lanes Story................................................................................. 135

Concept Marketing of Managed Lanes........................................................................ 135

Telling the Managed Lanes Story – San Diego’s North I-15 Corridor........................... 136

Public Attitudes about Managed Lane Concepts in the Puget Sound Area..................... 138

Value Pricing, Part One.................................................................................................. 143

Pricing Status on SR 91............................................................................................... 143

The New Texas Turnpike Authority and Texas Toll Roads – Evolution

Or Revolution?...................................................................................................... 144

Violations: The Achilles Heal of Electronic Toll Collection............................................. 146

Puget Sound Regional Council Congestion Pricing Demonstration................................. 148

Value Pricing, Part Two.................................................................................................. 151

Tel Aviv Fast Lanes – Implementing a Prototype “HOT” Lane in a Middle

Eastern Metropolitan Area..................................................................................... 151

Maryland Variable Pricing Study – Lessons Learned.................................................... 152

Six+ Years of HOT Lanes: What Have We Learned?................................................. 154

The Current Status of High-Occupancy Toll Lane Applications

In the United States: Practice, Politics, and Potential.............................................. 155

Managed Lanes Corridor Planning............................................................................... 159

Managed Lane Feasibility on I-405 in Seattle............................................................... 159

Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines for Managed Lanes Value Pricing

Project in San Diego.............................................................................................. 160

Planning for Managed Truck Lanes.............................................................................. 161

Using Managed Lanes During Construction.................................................................. 162

Context Driven Design................................................................................................... 163

I-90 Case Study: Predicting Safety Impacts of Non-Standard Geometric

Design Elements.................................................................................................... 163

Urban Freeway Context Sensitive Design..................................................................... 165

HOV Director Access Guidance for Washington State................................................. 167

Managed Lanes Design Issues..................................................................................... 168

Transit-Related Design Requirements for Streets and Highways.................................... 170

CONFERENCE REGISTRATION LIST................................................................................. 173

OPENING SESSION ¾ WELCOME

Jerry Ayers, Washington State Department of Transportation, Moderator

Welcome to Seattle

Greg Nickels

Mayor, City of Seattle

Good morning and welcome to Seattle. We are very pleased that you have chosen to hold the 11^th International High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) conference here. I understand that the last HOV Conference in Seattle was in 1991.

We continue to work to address the transportation problems in the region. You are in a city that is working very hard with its regional partners – Sound Transit, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), King County, and our neighboring cities – to address the transportation issues in the area. I think we are at the forefront of many exciting transportation activities.

We are moving forward with a light rail transit (LRT) system. A week from tomorrow voters will be considering a monorail measure, a transportation approach somewhat unique to Seattle. Also, a little over a year ago the Seattle area experienced an earthquake. It showed that the 1950s style double-deck freeway along the harbor front needs to be replaced. We have begun planning to remove the freeway and to eliminate it as a barrier between the downtown and the beautiful harbor front.

Those are just a few of the activities underway to create a transportation system to serve the area in the 21^st Century. As all of you know, there is no magic answer to the transportation issues facing major metropolitan areas. We are proud to have King County Metro, which operates one of the finest bus systems in the country. We also have one of the largest vanpool programs in the nation. Of course, you are all familiar with our extensive HOV system.

Is it an exciting time in Seattle’s history. I hope you will get a chance to experience the city while you are here. The National Association of Housing and Community Redevelopment Officials is meeting at the Convention Center this week. We know the importance of linking housing, transportation, and economic opportunities to increase livable communities.

We hope that while you are here that you have the opportunity to enjoy all the city has to offer. You are a few blocks from the famous Pike’s Place Market and in one of the most vibrant downtown retail cores in the country.

Thank you for selecting Seattle for your conference. I hope you do not wait another 11 years to come back. I wish you a very productive conference.

Conference Welcome

Ron Sims

Executive King County

I would like to welcome all of you to Seattle. Mayor Nickels has done a great job establishing a vision for the city. Transportation, including the new LRT system, is a key part of that vision.

The theme of your conference focuses on HOV facilities as evolution or revolution. I would like to stress the need for revolutionary zeal in addressing the issues facing us today, including transportation. The Interstate system was built with a vision of linking the country. It is one of the finest systems in the world.

We know that the Interstate system is not enough, however. You cannot evolve additional capacity, you have to revolutionize behavior. You must bring revolutionary zeal to addressing transportation issues. We cannot build our way out of congestion. HOV lanes provide additional capacity for Metro transit to move some 100 million people per year in the region. HOV lanes allow Sound Transit and its Regional Express system to grow.

As you discuss the issues related to HOV facilities over the next few days, I hope you will focus on being revolutionary, on taking risks. You need to be on a mission to provide facilities for buses, vanpools, and carpools.

The issue is not on the differences between areas and between agencies, but on the ability to find commonality of views and purposes. Everyone is essential if we are going to build a transportation system of roads, HOV facilities, bus rapid transit, vanpools and carpools, LRT, commuter rail, and ferries. Everyone is important in making these opportunities happen. So be revolutionary in your zeal. Then we will touch the stars and see forever. Thank you.

PLENARY SESSION ¾ THE FUTURE AIN’T WHAT IT USED TO BE

Mark Hallenbeck, Washington State Transportation Center, Moderator

That Was Then/This Is Now

Katherine F. Turnbull

Texas Transportation Institute

Thank you Mark. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to participate in the opening session of TRB’s 11^th International HOV Conference. I am also pleased to help fill in for Don Capelle, who was not able to attend the conference due to knee surgery.

My charge is to provide an overview of the changes that have occurred with HOV facilities on a national level since 1991 when the last HOV conference was held in Seattle. I thought it might be of help to set these changes in the context of other cultural changes that have occurred over the past 11 years.

For example, in 1991 George Bush was President of the United States. George W. Bush is currently President. You could mail a first class letter for 25 cents in 1991. Mailing that same letter today will cost you 37 cents. In 1991, most of us did not have any idea what the Internet was, while today some 581 million people worldwide use it daily.

On the sports scene, the Minnesota Twins won the 1991 World Series, while the Anaheim Angles just captured the Series title last night. The New York Giants won the Super Bowl in 1991. The New England Patriots are reigning champions. At the movies, Silence of the Lambs was the Best Picture of 1991, while a Beautiful Mind took the Oscar in 2002.

We have seen significant changes in the HOV scene over the previous 11 years. In 1991, there were 43 HOV projects on freeways and in separate rights-of-way in 21 metropolitan areas in North America. These facilities accounted for approximately 365 lane miles. Today we have 131 projects in 31 metropolitan areas, accounting for slightly over 1,400 lane miles. The newest HOV lane on Route 50 in Maryland just opened last week.

We have also seen a change in the types of HOV lanes in operation. In 1991, concurrent flow HOV lanes accounted for about 58 percent of the operating HOV facilities, with exclusive lanes accounting for 29 percent. Today, concurrent flow lanes represent 81 percent of the HOV projects and exclusive facilities comprise 10 percent. Busways and concurrent flow HOV lanes represented seven percent and six percent of the projects in 1991 and five percent and four percent today. The term managed lanes was not in our vocabulary in 1991, while today the concept is being implemented in some areas.

The theme of the 1991 conference was HOV Facilities Coming of Age. The conference theme this year is HOV – Evolution or Revolution. Travel Demand Management (TDM), Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems (IVHS), enforcement, marketing, and design were some of the major topics discussed at the 1991 conference. Major topics at this conference include Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), managed lanes and value pricing, and performance monitoring. While planning, designing, marketing, and enforcing HOV facilities are still important topics, there appears to be less emphasis on these items at this conference.

Don Capelle was Chair of the TRB HOV Systems Committee in 1991 and Dave Schumacher is the current Chair. I had the pleasure to serve six years as Chair between these two distinguished gentlemen. With the help of many of you in this room, the HOV Systems Committee has been one of the most active TRB committees over the years. Since 1991, the Committee has held six international HOV conferences. These conferences have been held in Ottawa, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Toronto, Dallas, and now Seattle. The Committee started an awards program at the Dallas Conference. This years awards will be presented at today’s luncheon.

The Committee has sponsored numerous sessions at TRB annual meetings. The Committee regularly holds mid-year meetings. For many years the Committee published a newsletter. Thanks to the efforts of Danny Wu and others, the Committee Internet site was introduced this year. The Committee has developed numerous research problem statements, which have resulted in projects such as the National Cooperation Highway Research Program (NCHRP) HOV Systems Manual, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) HOV Marketing Manual, and the FHWA HOV Demand Estimation Procedures Manual.

What might we expect to see in another 11 years when Seattle again hosts the International HOV Conference in 2013? Given the past 11 years we might anticipated that George ? Bush will be President, the U.S. Postal Service will have become the U. S. Internet Service, and the Best Picture will be Silence of a Beautiful Mind. The Seattle Mariners would have won the World Series and the Seattle Seahawks will be the Super Bowl Champions, of course. The theme for the HOV Conference will be HOVs – Coming of Age in the Evolving Revolution.

We will hear more about the future of HOV facilities over the next three days. I think HOV facilities will continue to play important roles of providing mobility options and helping address congestion in metropolitan areas throughout North America. I hope you enjoy the conference. I encourage you to participate in the conference sessions and to talk to your peers from throughout North America. Thank you.

Greeting from the TRB HOV Systems Committee

Dave Schumacher

Metropolitan Transit Development Board

Good morning. I am pleased to provide a welcome from the TRB HOV Systems Committee. A great deal has changed since 1991 and it is appropriate that the conference is being held in Seattle again.

I think HOV facilities have evolved over the last 11 years. Managed lanes are an important component in many areas today. This approach allows local areas to tailor the lanes to specific needs. We know that one size does not fit all areas, and managed lanes, value pricing, and BRT are all important approaches today. Many transit agencies are becoming more interested in how HOV lanes and managed lanes can improve bus service in an area.

The HOV Committee needs to continue to work with a variety of TRB committees, professional organizations, and federal agencies involved with HOV facilities, managed lanes, value pricing, and BRT. The Committee has identified a number of research topics over the years. FHWA has recently developed a pooled fund study to help examine some of the current research issues. Jon Obenberger is heading this effort for FHWA. Some state departments of transportation and regional agencies will be pooling resources to help support this effort. Currently, five or six agencies are involved and approximately $400,000 has been allocated for research projects.

There are numerous examples of the Committee promoting successful information dissemination efforts. The Committee Internet site has been developed through the efforts of Danny Wu and Chuck Fuhs. You can find it at www.hovworld.org. We hope to make the Internet site the source for all information about HOV facilities. Please take the time to log on and let us know your thoughts and ideas about the site.

I think HOV facilities and managed lanes have important roles to play in promoting regional mobility. I think we are just starting to see the benefits from these facilities. A recent study in Los Angeles shows there is widespread support for the HOV lanes in the county. HOV lanes provide priority treatments for buses, carpools, and vanpools. HOV and managed lanes are steps toward designing and operating facilities to promote ridesharing and bus use, not just providing space for single-occupant vehicles. We are starting to see the positive changes from these approaches.

Finally, we need to communicate our successes. HOV facilities have enhanced regional mobility over the past 10 years. HOV and managed lanes should continue to provide numerous benefits in major urban areas in the future.

HOV Facilities in the Puget Sound Region

Aubrey Davis

Washington State Transportation Commission

It is a pleasure to discuss the changes that have occurred since 1991 with HOV facilities in the Puget Sound region. It is clear to me that the HOV concept in the Seattle area was revolutionary in the 1970s. Since that time, HOV facilities have been more evolutionary.

My comments will focus on a review of the HOV program in the Puget Sound region, HOV policy development, state and local policies supporting HOVs, and possible future directions. The objectives of the HOV system are to increase mobility by increasing the people moving efficiency and capacity of freeways, to provide reliable travel time savings to HOVs, and to improve the efficiency and safety of both the transit and the highway systems. Examples of the measures of success for the HOV system in the region include moving more people than the general-purpose lanes, maintaining travel speed and trip time reliability, bypassing congestion, and maintaining public support.

There are state and local policies that support HOV facilities. The Washington Growth Management Act and the Commute Trip Reduction law, which were adopted in the early 1990s, support the HOV concept. The Washington State Transportation Plan and the Regional Metropolitan Transportation Plan include HOV projects. The Sound Transit Express Regional Bus system includes a commitment to use HOV facilities and to develop bus direct access ramps.

The policy history in the region includes a regulatory directive to reserve portions of state highways for HOV lanes for the exclusive use of public transit vehicles and private vehicles with multiple occupants. The Blue Streak Express Bus project was initiated in the 1970s. This project was followed by a Memorandum of Understanding between WSDOT and Metro to develop and operate a series of park-and-ride lots and flyer stops. The HERO program was also initiated for reporting violators of the HOV lane-occupancy requirements. There was also a pro-HOV group called SHOV that promoted the development of HOV lanes on I-5 South, which WSDOT did by modifying the shoulder.

In 1991, after a long review, WSDOT adopted an HOV System Policy. The policy defines the core HOV system in the Puget Sound region. In 1996, WSDOT re-examined many policy issues and established a local process for advising the Department on the use of HOV lanes. A process was established through the MPOs that could result in different approaches in different parts of the state. Committees established through the MPOs included representatives from the local transit agencies, the State Patrol, local communities, and other groups. The committees meet annually and provide advice to WSDOT on operation of the HOV facilities.

The HOV policy has been amended several times. In 1992, a speed and reliability standard was adopted. According to this standard, HOV lanes should operate at 45 mph measured over a six-month period 90 percent of the time. A 3+ occupancy requirement was initially used with the HOV lanes in the area, which was in keeping with the FHWA policy at the time. In 1998, FHWA policy became more flexible. The 3+ requirement remained in use in the Puget Sound region until the early 1990s. Legislation requiring a 2+ occupancy level was vetoed by the governor on the understanding that WSDOT would conduct a demonstration on the I-5 North HOV lanes. The 2+ vehicle occupancy requirement was ultimately adopted as the WSDOT standard.

The Department also examined a policy for converting general-purpose lanes to HOV lanes. Although there was a successful lane conversion on I-90, the general policy is not to convert general-purpose lanes. Conversion will be considered before adding general-purpose lanes, however. In 1992 and 1993, a policy was adopted establishing HOV operations on a 24 hours a day, seven days a week (24/7) basis. The potential of tolling HOV lanes was examined and there was general agreement that HOVs should be given favorable consideration. The tolling issue was tabled, however, as there were no toll facilities in the region. There are still none today, although one is being developed. This issue may be coming back up for further consideration.

Currently, allowable user groups on the HOV lanes in the area are 2+ carpools, buses, vanpools, motorcycles, fuel efficient vehicles, and emergency vehicles. The State Patrol provides good levels of enforcement for the HOV lanes. The HERO program has also been effective at deterring violators from using the lanes.

In 1991 there were approximately 60 lane miles of HOV facilities in the region. In 2002 there are 205 lane miles of HOV facilities. There are an additional 91 lane miles to be constructed in the core HOV system. This growth accounts for an approximate 300 percent increase in HOV lane miles.

There has been a constant growth in the use of the HOV system. On I-5 North, there has been a 50 percent increase in HOV use compared to a 12 percent growth in volumes in the general-purpose lanes. The HOV lanes on I-5 South have experienced an 85 percent growth, on I-405 growth has been in the 52 percent range. The HOV lanes represent the only real capacity, with the exception of I-90, that has been added in the region.

HOV Facilities and WSDOT

Doug MacDonald

Washington State Secretary of Transportation

Thank you, Mark. It is a pleasure to welcome you to Seattle and to the HOV Conference. By way of introduction, I have been the Secretary of Transportation for one and one-half years. I have found HOV facilities to be one of the most interesting topics facing WSDOT today.

Like other state agencies, WSDOT focuses on accountability to the public and utilizing resources efficiently. We live in a world of constrained resources, so maximizing the efficiency of the existing transportation system is critical.

I hear a good deal about HOV facilities from the public at different types of meetings, on talk radio, and from the legislature. It did not take me long to start asking the staff questions about the HOV lanes in the area. The answers to these questions are that the HOV lanes carry more people than the general-purpose lanes and provide travel time savings and trip time reliability to users.

While you might think this statement closes debate on the issue, it does not. The statement that the HOV lanes carry more people than the general-purpose lanes is true in some places, some of the time. HOV lane utilization rates are complex and even the data about utilization is confusing and not altogether available. It is very clear that in some places at some times and in some places all the time, the HOV lanes are not carrying more people than the general-purpose lanes. These situations are a problem because they go to the core of the fundamental efficiency question.

A second problem is that public support for HOV lanes is a very complicated and ambiguous question. There are many different ways to measure support for the HOV system. By some measures it is clear that public support for the HOV system is strong. The public generally supports the HOV system in the region. People who drive in the HOV lanes or take the bus strongly support the facilities. People in the adjoining general-purpose lanes are not so sure, especially if they are traveling in congested general-purpose lanes next to lightly-used HOV lanes. Public opinion on HOV hours of operation appears to be very mixed, especially related to maintaining the 24/7 operating policy. It appears that the support for 24/7 operation may be less strong today than in the past.

This change in public perception is important. Public support is critical for HOV lanes. Public support is even more critical for investments in a balanced transportation system, of which HOV expansion is one element. Referendum 51, which will be voted on next week, includes funding for a wide range of transportation investments, including the expansion of the HOV system. It also includes significant state operating support for transit. If Referendum 51 is not passed, it will be difficult to address many of the mobility needs in the region.

I do not think we will see any kind of revolution related to HOV facilities in the region. HOV facilities are an important part of the transportation system in the region. HOV facilities contribute a number of positive benefits. According to the latest census figures, Seattle ranks seventh in the nation in the number of work trips made by transit, above many areas with heavy and light rail systems. Without the HOV lanes, we would not have this high a ranking.

Currently, approximately 6.7 percent of the work trips in the region are made on transit. This figure represents an increase from 1990. All but one city above Seattle in the ranking has lost transit market share. San Francisco is the only city, like Seattle, to have seen an increase in transit journey-to-work trips. The growth in San Francisco is lower than that in Seattle. Thus, it is clear that the HOV facilities in the region play a critical part in increasing mobility. The HOV lanes have contributed to the growth in transit ridership and to encouraging vanpooling and carpooling.

There is also a commitment to completing the HOV lane system in the region. The SR 525 project includes expansion of HOV components on the eastside. The new Vancouver Narrow Bridge project includes provisions for HOVs. The completion of HOV lanes to the south in Pierce County is also an important project included in Referendum 51.

WSDOT is currently conducting an evaluation of HOV operations in the Puget Sound region. Charlie Howard will be speaking on the evaluation at other sessions. I will focus my comments on the pressures that HOV facilities may face in the future.

First, it is critically important for transit and vanpooling that the travel time savings provided by HOV lanes be protected. This guarantee is a very expensive lock on highway capacity, however, if it extends to portions of the system that are not being used by either transit or vanpools. This situation is what causes concern among drivers in the adjacent general-purpose lanes. The unused capacity of HOV facilities is valuable. The issue is what is the best and highest use of public sector investments in freeways.

This issue becomes even more difficult to address as the cost of providing needed additional general-purpose lane capacity becomes prohibitively expensive. The value of unused capacity continues to increase. There are a number of factors influencing the increased value of the unused capacity. First, adding capacity is expense. Second, some groups question adding general-purpose lanes for environmental reasons. If we can not add capacity in the general-purpose lanes, the value of the unused capacity in the HOV lane increases.

There are a variety of other ways that the unused capacity in the HOV lanes could be allocated. From an economical standpoint, HOV lanes are a rather crude method of allocating capacity. Managed lanes, HOT lanes, and other capacity allocation techniques present more economically rational allocation methods. HOV lanes do work. If the rest of the system does not work, however, pressure will continue to be applied to try other allocation techniques, especially pricing. There is a need to address both personal mobility and freight mobility in the region. The movement of goods is critical to the economic development in the region. Moving produce to ports, moving goods to stores in the region, and moving freight through the region are all important.

All of these are complex issues that do not have easy answers. WSDOT will continue to examine different ways to maximize the use of the HOV system, as well as alternative strategies to meet the two goals of pursuing and enforcing the benefits of the HOV system and achieving an optimization of public investment in the highway system. Thank you.

Transit and HOV Facilities

Jim Jacobson

King County Metro/Sound Transit

I have been asked to speak about the HOV issues in the Puget Sound region from the perspective of the local transit operator. The decade of the 1990s was a great time for HOV facilities in the Seattle area. In the early 1990s there were several segments of HOV lanes in place and additional projects were being planned and constructed. While there were gaps in the system, transit was beginning to realize the benefits of faster travel times and more reliable trip time.

A statute was passed in the early 1990s requiring large employers to develop programs to proactively reduce the number of employees driving alone to work. The law also provided funding to help make the program work. This statute encouraged commuters to use transit.

A number of HOV-related policies were being discussed in the 1990s. The use of the inside or the outside lane for the HOV lane was one of the policy questions. This issue effects transit operations. From a transit perspective, inside lanes favor long distance commute trips, while outside lanes provide better access to freeway flyer bus stops and park-and-ride lots. Inside HOV lanes became the recommended approach in the area. A second issue being discussed in the early 1990s was the use of a 2+ or a 3+ vehicle-occupancy requirement. The 2+ requirement became the standard in the region.

There are three key realities associated with the HOV system from the perspective of a transit operator. First, we no longer have just HOV segments. There is an HOV system of over 200 miles in the region. Second, traffic congestion has increased significantly throughout the region. Third, the increase in population and growth, while occurring throughout the region, has accelerated in suburban areas. As a result, there is more reverse-commuting and two-way congestion on many freeways.

Bus schedule reliability and travel speeds have improved in corridors with HOV lanes. Predictability is critical to transit and to attracting and maintaining riders. The ability to operate services reliable at all times has allowed us to redesign our system to better serve development patterns in the region. Transit ridership has increased by almost 25 percent over the past 10 years. There are more than five times as many vanpools today as 10 years ago. According to the census, the Puget Sound region is one of the few metropolitan areas where transit market share increased. As a bonus, evening and weekend transit services have been extended to serve major traffic generators, like the baseball and football facilities. Therese services have enabled thousands of people to get to and from sporting events quickly and easily.

We are still struggling as a region to reach a consensus on some fundamental HOV concepts. One question is how to manage the system to provide incentives for that next person to decide to take the bus, ride in a vanpool, or form a carpool. Another is how to structure a management system that will have the strength to increase restrictions in use as traffic conditions in the HOV lanes deteriorate. A major question is how do you define what full means? A full lane of traffic moving at 65 mph visually looks very different than a full lane of stop-and-go traffic. Those are very difficult educational traffic engineering concepts to explain to the general public.

Because we lack unity on many of these issues we continue to revisit issues related to the relaxation of HOV restrictions. We also have some transit operational issues due to the missing links in the system. For example, there are reversible HOV lanes rather than two-way lanes in the I-90 corridor. This situation causes problems during periods of strong demand for travel in both directions.

Expanding the HOV system onto the arterial streets is also critical from a transit perspective. Most of the transit service and transit ridership is on the arterial street system. Addressing signal priority for buses, removing parking for some locations, and providing passenger facilities would all benefit buses.

We have come a long way in the past 10 years. We have seen an emerging HOV system develop into a mature system. The HOV network is an integral part of the transit system in the region. I do not know how the transit system would function without the HOV system. Thank you.

Setting the Context – What is Different Today Compared to 1991

Agnes Govern

King County Metro/Sound Transit

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to participate in this Opening Session. Katie and Dave have provided a national overview and Aubrey and Doug have given a state perspective. Jim has discussed transit service in the region. My focus is on the partnerships and challenges related to the HOV facilities in the area, especially as we look to the future.

The Central Puget Sound area is the economic engine of Washington State. Over half of the state’s population, some 2½ million people in the three-county area, are squeezed between waterways and mountains. Given geographic constraints, bus-based transit is an essential component of fully utilizing limited freeway capacity to move people. Improving regional mobility is dependent on transit and dependent on the extensive HOV lanes built by WSDOT.

Regional coordination and cooperation is critical to making the transportation system work. Transit is a key element of the Puget Sound regional mobility strategy. Dependable and reliable service is essential for attracting and maintaining transit ridership. About 10 years ago a regional transit plan was being developed. The planning process involved transit agencies, the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), WSDOT, and local jurisdictions. The plan, approved by the voters in 1996, called for implementation of light rail transit (LRT), commuter rail, and express bus network.

My comments today focus on the express bus component of the plan. The bus component of the plan included a $1.4 billion investment over 10 years. Of this, $550 million was for service and $850 million was for capital facilities, including, $500 million in HOV direct access ramps, in-line stations, and arterial street HOV projects. The HOV projects came directly from the predesign report completed by WSDOT and the Sound Transit express bus network relied on existing and planned HOV lanes built by WSDOT. The Sound Transit goal is to create transportation choices that give people viable alternatives to driving alone. Increasing ridership depends on speed and reliability. The HOV facilities are critical to achieving the regional bus network.

The partnerships have not come easily. Partnerships require ongoing work. Building and maintaining effective relationships is critical to successful projects, however. There are numerous examples of the partnership between WSDOT and Sound Transit. Sound Transit is contracting with WSDOT to design and build the direct access projects, as well as other HOV projects that will become part of the state system upon completion. This approach leverages the expertise available at both agencies to ensure projects are delivered on time and within budget.

Transit agencies all share a common interest in well-functioning HOV systems. Local jurisdictions are also interested in HOV projects, especially access to local streets. Elected officials, staff of key stakeholders, environmental groups, and good government and citizen advocacy groups also pay important roles.

There are many challenges ahead for the HOV partnership in the Puget Sound region. Maintaining the performance of the existing HOV system is critical. The current performance standard related to occupancy levels is maintaining operating speeds of 45 mph for 90 percent of the peak hours. We can build a constituency for raising occupancy requirements where needed to keep the system working effectively, for raising fines to help enforcement and keep violation rates low, and for making sure operational decisions work for transit.

We are continuing to build partnerships. Planning studies are underway on Translake and I-405 with WSDOT and Sound Transit as co-leaders on setting priorities with limited resources and moving into final design and construction. Partnerships also help address competing constituencies, such as transit vs. roads, when we both are needed.

Other forces are also at play in the region. Initiatives and state legislation affect various agencies differently. We need to continue to keep the partnership strong rather than going our separate ways. We can work regionally, reaching beyond our specific agency mandate to meet regional objectives.

Related to the theme of the conference – evolution or revolution – we may only know in the long term if steps taken now advance the overall goal of HOV facilities. Evolution reflects adapting that can lead to either survival or extinction. Since the winners write the history books, it may be a long time after the specific revolution is over that we know the outcome.

I look forward to learning from all of you over the next few days. Thank you.

PLENARY SESSION ¾ TOO MANY, TOO FEW, JUST RIGHT:

CHALLENGES TO THE HOV CONCEPT

Jon Obenberger, Federal Highway Administration, Moderator

HOV Facilities: Challenges and Opportunities

Katherine F. Turnbull

Texas Transportation Institute

Thank you, Jon. It is a pleasure to discuss some of the challenges and the opportunities facing HOV facilities from a national perspective. My comments will focus on four general topics. First will be a summary of current HOV projects in North America. Second will be an overview of the public and political perspectives relating to HOV facilities. Third will be a highlight of opportunities with HOV projects. My closing comments will address the ongoing challenges facing HOV facilities.

With the opening of the HOV lanes on US 50 in Maryland last week, there are 131 HOV lanes operating in separate rights-of-way or on freeways in 31 metropolitan areas in North America. These projects account for some 1,400 miles. There has been a steady growth since the 1970s in the number of HOV lanes in operation and the route miles. In 1970 there were 11 route miles in operation. By 1980, there were 120 route miles and by 1990 there were 400 route miles. Currently there are a little over 1,400 route miles in operation.

Concurrent flow HOV projects are the most common type of HOV facilities comprising 81 percent of the current projects. Exclusive freeway HOV facilities represent 10 percent of the total projects, followed by busways at five percent and contraflow lanes at four percent.

A total of 52 percent of current projects maintain the HOV requirement 24 hours a day, seven day a week (24/7). Some 43 percent operated as HOV lanes only during the morning and afternoon peak-periods. About 5 percent have extended HOV operating hours beyond the peak-periods, but not full time.

The most common vehicle occupancy requirement is two or more (2+) persons per vehicle. Currently, 84 percent of HOV facilities in North America use a 2+ requirement. Some 8 percent of the projects are reserved for buses only. A three or more (3+) persons per vehicle occupancy requirement is used on 5 percent of the facilities. There are 3 projects, the Katy (I-10 West) and Northwest (US 290) HOV lanes in Houston and the El Monte Busway in Los Angeles that use a variable occupancy requirement (3+/2+).

As noted by the title for this session, maintaining appropriate vehicle volumes is an issue with some HOV facilities around the country. Too few vehicles using a lane raises concerns over the empty lane syndrome. Too many vehicles using a lane results in congestion levels that degrades the travel time savings and trip time reliability that makes HOV lanes an attractive alternative to driving alone. So, like the three bears, how do we get the porridge, or the vehicle volumes in this case, just right.

Looking at utilization levels on HOV projects around the country, most fall into the about right to slightly over utilized categories. One of the breakout sessions will focus on how to address over utilization concerns. There are a few projects that appear to be underutilized or that have not yet attained the forecasted volumes.

I was asked to talk briefly about the dedesignation of two HOV lanes in New Jersey in the late 1990s and the recent legislatively-directed demonstration lowering the vehicle occupancy requirements on the El Monte Busway from 3+ to 2+. These case studies provide insight into public and policymaker’s perceptions of HOV utilization.

FHWA sponsored a study in 1999 examining the dedesignation of the HOV lanes on I-80 and I-287 in New Jersey. Planning studies on both projects occurred during the early 1980s. The HOV lanes on I-80 opened in March 1994 and the HOV lanes on I-287 opened in January 1998. The HOV designation was removed on the facilities in November 1998.

The policy and regulatory environment in the early 1990s, when the planning process was underway, was much different than that in the late 1990s when the dedesignation occurred. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments contained a strong mandate, including the employer trip reduction (ETR) requirement for addressing transportation-generated air pollution. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 implemented many of the transportation-related measures for the Clean Air Act Amendments. The New Jersey Traffic and Air Pollution Act of 1993 contained similar provisions at the state level. The New Jersey Executive Council also took a strong role in promoting travel demand management strategies and other related measures. Many of these provisions had been modified or weakened by the time the HOV lanes were opened.

I-80, an east-west radial travel corridor, serves trips into and out of the Newark/New York City area. Planning for adding a fourth lane was underway in the early 1980s. The results of the planning study recommended that the additional lane be reserved for HOVs during the peak hours. Funding for construction of the lane came from the state’s allocation of the Federal-Aid Program.

The I-80 HOV lanes opened in March 1994. A 2+ vehicle occupancy requirement was used. Marketing efforts introduced the HOV lane to the public and promoted its use. Extra enforcement was provided during the opening and the early phases of operation, as well as periodically throughout the life of the project. The corridor was served by transit, with buses operating in the HOV lanes. New and existing park-and-ride lots served buses and carpoolers in the corridor.

The I-80 HOV lanes were well utilized. About 900 vehicles used the HOV lane during the morning peak hour during the first few weeks of operation. Morning peak hour use levels increased to about 1,200 vehicles during the life of the project. Vehicle volumes in the afternoon peak hour started at 1,000 vehicles, increasing to 1,400 over time. The violation rates ranged from four percent to 21 percent, depending on the level of enforcement.

I-287 serves a suburb-to-suburb travel market, with diverse origin and destinations. The facility experienced congestion during the peak-periods and planning was initiated to examine possible options. Funding for the HOV lane was specifically earmarked in a federal appropriations bill. Construction of the HOV lane occurred over a six-year period. Segments of the HOV lane were initially opened during the construction period, but were changed to allow general-purpose use due to concerns over congestion.

The full 28 miles of the I-287 HOV lanes were opened in January 1998. The HOV lanes operated during the morning and the afternoon peak periods with a 2+ vehicle-occupancy requirement. A marketing program was conducted to promote opening the lanes. Extra enforcement was also provided. There was no bus service in the corridor. There were no park-and-ride lots in the corridor and little supporting services or programs were provided.

Utilization levels on the I-287 HOV lanes were relatively low during the first months of operation. Volumes in the morning peak hour averaged 330 vehicles. Volumes in the afternoon peak hour averaged 650 vehicles. Violation rates ranged from five percent to 75 percent depending on the level of enforcement.

The media coverage on the I-80 HOV lanes was generally favorable, both immediately after the opening of the lanes and on an ongoing basis. The nature and the tone of the media coverage changed significantly with the opening of the I-287 HOV lanes. Articles and columns in local papers took a negative perspective toward the lanes. Examples of headlines included, HOV Lanes: Paved with Good Intentions but Impractical, Honk If you Hate HOVs, and HOV to LOV. A Lanes of Pain column was a regular feature in one newspaper. Commuters also formed a sHOVe it Group and organized a, Internet site and other efforts to promote changing the HOV lanes to general-purpose lanes.

The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) initiated a review of the HOV lanes in response to the public concern. The state congressional delegation held a fact finding forum. Waiving repayment of the federal funds used for the I-287 HOV lanes was included in the appropriations bill. The governor of New Jersey informed the U.S. Secretary of Transportation that the HOV requirement would be rescinded on both I-80 and I-287. The lanes were officially dedesignated in November 1998.

A number of key elements appear to have influenced the dedesignation process. First, the policy and regulatory environment was much different in the early 1990s when the planning process was underway compared to the late 1990s when I-287 was opened. Second, the characteristics of the I-287 corridor were not generally conducive to HOV operations. The diverse origins and destinations and the dispersed travel patterns in the corridor are difficult to serve with transit and by carpooling and vanpooling. Third, there was a lack of supporting components in the I-287 corridor. Finally, the negative press was very difficult to overcome. While most transportation professionals would argue that the I-80 lanes were operating well, they were not able to survive the problems encountered with the I-287 lanes.

The El Monte Busway demonstration provides a different example of legislative involvement with the operation of an HOV project. The El Monte Busway on the San Bernardino Freeway in Los Angeles represents one of the longest operating HOV project in the country. Opened in 1973 as a bus only facility, 3+ carpools were allowed to use the lanes on a full-time basis in 1975. The facility operated with the 3+ designation until Senate Bill 63 was passed by the California Legislature in 1999. Senate Bill 63 directed the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to lower the vehicle-occupancy requirement on the Busway from 3+ to 2+, and to study the effects of this change. Based on the results of the monitoring program, legislation was passed increasing the vehicle-occupancy requirement back to 3+ during the morning and the afternoon peak-periods effective July 2000.

FHWA also sponsored a study to assess the influence of the 2+ demonstration based on data available from Caltrans and other local agencies. The change to the 2+ requirement had a negative effect on the operation of the Busway. The increase in 2+ carpools caused congestion in the lanes, resulting in a decline in operating speeds and travel times. Trip time reliability declined. Bus operations were negatively effected. Bus schedule adherence and on-time performance declined significantly and passengers reported delays. At the same time, significant improvements were not realized in the general-purpose freeway lanes.

Morning peak-hour travel speeds on the Busway declined from 65 mph to 20 mph with the change to the 2+ vehicle occupancy requirement. Morning peak-hour Busway vehicle volumes increased from 1,100 to 1,600 with the 2+ designation, but the number of persons carried declined from 5,900 to 5,200. The freeway lane vehicle volumes and passengers per lane per hour remained relatively similar. Bus operating speeds and on-time performance declined during the 2+ operation, and extra buses had to be added to maintain schedules. Bus riders were very vocal in their opposition to the 2+ demonstration.

Value pricing, managed lanes, and BRT represent opportunities to potentially enhance HOV facilities. Buses have been a key part of HOV facilities since the first projects on the Shirley Highway in the Washington, D.C. area and the El Monte Busway in Los Angeles. Buses play a significant role in increasing the people moving capacity of many HOV lanes today. The BRT concept builds on and expands on this success. BRT encompasses additional elements, including unique vehicles, convenient fare payment methods, revised routes and schedules, and priority measures on arterial streets.

Value pricing and managed lanes provide additional methods for allocating use of a facility. Freeway lanes could be managed by occupancy levels, vehicle types, time-of-day, pricing, access controls, and even a driver’s hair color.

Transportation professionals will continue to face challenges in planning, designing, and operating HOV facilities. Institutional arrangements will continue to be a challenge since HOV facilities require the coordination and cooperation of state departments of transportation, transit agencies, state police, and other groups. This multi-agency coordination and cooperation becomes even more complex with value pricing and managed lanes, as toll road authorities and other diverse groups may be involved. Project champions will continue to be important in advancing and maintaining HOV facilities.

Performance monitoring programs will also continue to be critical to ensure that data is available on projects. Communicating this information to policy makers and the public on an ongoing basis is also critical. Finally, funding for construction and operation will always be a challenge.

Legislating HOV Rules: Two Stories from California

Antonette Clark

California Department of Transportation

Good morning. It is a pleasure to participate in this conference and to represent the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). I have been asked to share our experiences with legislative challenges. My presentation this morning will cover two major topic areas. First, I will provide a brief overview of California’s HOV lane program, the key reasons behind the HOV strategy, the types of HOV facilities in operation, and the growth in HOV facilities in the state. Second, I will discuss recent political activities and criticisms, including proposed and enacted legislation, and the importance of ongoing monitoring and evaluating of HOV facilities.

HOV facilities have been built and operated in metropolitan areas across the country for a number of reasons. These facilities provide priority treatment to carpools, vanpools, and buses, generally vehicles carrying at least two or more persons. The idea behind HOV facilities is to increase the person-movement capacity of roadways rather than the vehicle capacity.

HOV projects have been implemented across the country as a means to address declining mobility and worsening air quality. In some cases, federal and state legislation, such as the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, have supported or directed the application of HOV facilities. Our challenge at Caltrans is to serve commuters in six major metropolitan areas. These metropolitan regions are Sacramento and San Francisco in the north-central part of the state and Los Angeles, Orange County, San Bernardino and San Diego in the southern part of the state. Although California currently operates over 40 percent of the nation’s HOV lanes, we still consider our system to be only half-complete.

The HOV system in the state has grown since the opening of the El Monte Busway in 1973. The system grew gradually in the 1980s during a time of experimentation. More aggressive growth occurred in the 1990s, with HOV facilities as a traffic management strategy.

Currently there are some 1,061 lane miles of HOV facilities in the state. Approximately 162 lane miles are under construction. Proposed HOV projects through the year 2030 account for some 1,114 lane miles, a doubling of the current system.

With such a large HOV program, the HOV Coordinators in the six major metropolitan Caltrans district offices play a key role in the day-to-day operations and maintenance. They are also responsible for coordination with local planning agencies and the California Highway Patrol (CHP).

The coordination with Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO’s), the Regional Transportation Planning Associations (RTPA’s), Air Districts, FHWA, and CHP has been critical to the success the of HOV system in California. Caltrans is working to formalize its role at the regional level.

A number of factors have influenced recent legislative interest in HOV facilities. Media attention has tended to focus on the perception that lanes are underutilized. In addition, the media highlighted the New Jersey decisions to convert two of their HOV facilities back to regular lanes. These changes are often used as proof that HOV lanes are being decommissioned across the country.

The public often views Caltrans as being inflexible, unresponsive, and biased in our analysis. A recent independent study by the State Legislative Analyst’s Office concluded that the impact of HOV lanes on carpool formation is unclear and that Caltrans lacks comprehensive performance criteria for HOV facilities.

There have been numerous legislative challenges to HOV operations in the state. For these reasons, there has been statewide criticism of HOV facilities in the media, and bills have been introduced to either eliminate HOV facilities altogether, to limit their operations, or to mandate performance studies. Examples of recent legislation include allowing paratransit vehicles to “deadhead” in HOV lanes, and a dual (2+/3+) occupancy requirement demonstration on I-10 El Monte Busway.

Caltrans and other agencies have taken proactive approaches to address these criticisms. Two HOV Summits were held in southern California to help focus discussion on HOV facilities. The first HOV Summit was for technical staff, while the second focused on policy makers and public officials. There have also been studies to encourage transit utilization, as well as park-and-ride facilities. Finally, public information campaigns have been undertaken.

Caltrans and other agencies have also realized the importance of ongoing monitoring and evaluation programs. These efforts are important to meet federal and state requirements, to identify project benefits and causal factors, and to determine if project goals and objectives are being met. By establishing uniform methods for data collection, analysis and reporting, monitoring programs provide the basics for marketing and education purposes. The information provides input for operational adjustments and diagnosing problem areas. Lastly, the program provides information for future planning activities and for model calibration.

Caltrans will continue to work with its partner agencies to ensure ongoing monitoring and evaluation efforts. The information obtained through these studies provides the basis for ongoing communication with the legislature, other stakeholders, and the public.

Are HOV Lanes the Best Solution for the Money

Jim MacIssac

Transportation Consultant

It is a pleasure to participate in this conference. I may be the mystery speaker at this session, as I am not well known outside the Seattle area. My comments focus on the challenges and the opportunities facing HOV facilities in the Puget Sound region. I will highlight the Seattle region HOV lane program and home-to-work travel mode statistics. I will also discuss if HOV lanes have helped create new vanpoolers, carpoolers, and bus riders. I will close with a few comments on specific projects.

During the 1990s and early 2000s, the Puget Sound region had one of the more aggressive HOV development programs in the country. There were few HOV facilities in the area in the 1980s. In 1990 there were approximately 60 HOV lane miles in King County. By 2000, this figure had increased to 182 HOV lane miles in King and Snohomish counties. By 2010, 330 HOV lane miles are projected to be in operation in King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties. By 2030, 504 HOV lane miles are forecast to be in operation in the four-county region.

Even with this growth in HOV miles, census journey-to-work person trips by mode figures indicate that transit and carpooling declined between 1980 and 1990, and then increased between 1990 and 2000. The 2000 percentages for HOV modes are still below the 1980 levels, however. The 2000 figures are also lower than the Puget Sound Regional Commission’s estimates for 1998, which raises questions about the even higher 2010 forecasts. Journey-to-work vehicle trips by mode reflect similar trends.

A number of issues may need to be addressed with the HOV lanes in the area. Increasing 2+ carpools may overload some HOV lanes. Forecasts indicated that if the vehicle-occupancy requirement is raised to 3+, however, up to 80 percent of the HOVs go to the general-purpose lanes and less than five percent of vehicles qualify as HOVs. Other issues relate to hours of operation and coordination with LRT and BRT.

The two project examples are SR-520/Trans-Lake Corridor and I-405 Corridor/Central Bellevue. A number of alternatives were examined in the SR-520 corridor. One option was to maintain the existing two lanes in each direction on the floating bridge to serve the estimated 173,200 daily person trips in 2020. A second option was to widen the bridge to add a pedestrian/bicycle lane and wider shoulders at a cost of $1.9 billion. The preferred alternative was to expand option two and include an HOV lane in each direction for a total of three lanes. The cost for this option is approximately $3.5 billion. A fourth alternative would add both the HOV lane and another general-purpose lane in each direction at a cost of $4.8 billion. A managed six-lane alternative has also been suggested at a cost of $0.7 billion. The I-405/ SR-520 Interchange includes freeway-to-freeway HOV connection in three quadrants. The cost of the HOV connection is very expensive, raising a question if they are really needed.

In closing, I would like to suggest a few questions for further discussion. First, we need to ask if transit and HOV priority is a viable future course. Second, we need to consider if our plans stimulate popular choice. Third, is encouraging carpooling, vanpooling, and riding the bus working? Finally, what do we need to do to make our alternatives a choice of the people?

The Need for Performance Monitoring

Darren Henderson

Parsons Brinckerhoff

Thank you Jon. I am pleased to participate in this session on HOV challenges and opportunities. My comments focus on the four challenges of the empty lane syndrome, establishing realistic rather than great expectations for HOV facilities, elsewhere envy or comparing facilities on a national level, and legislative initiatives. All of these challenges relate to the need for ongoing performance monitoring programs.

The perceived under-utilization of HOV lanes, termed the empty lane syndrome, seems to be the easiest target when criticizing HOV lanes. HOV lanes are often expected to solve more problems than is reasonably possible. These great expectations place unrealistic goals on HOV facilities.

HOV needs vary greatly in different areas. Comparing HOV lanes in different metropolitan areas often leads to consideration of changing operating policies, hours of operation, minimum occupancy requirements, and value pricing. Too often it appears that operational changes are implemented by legislative initiatives without appropriate evaluation.

The biggest challenge in many areas may simply be answering questions about how the HOV lanes are performing. All transportation planning professionals involved in HOV system planning will be asked to answer the question of HOV lane performance. Answering these questions is not always possible for a number of reasons.

First, HOV goals and objectives are often unrealistic, poorly defined or non-existent. Second, although HOV performance monitoring is common, data availability, evaluation measures, and analysis methodologies vary widely. Third, there is often a disconnect between HOV goals and objectives and performance monitoring. The recent experience in Southern California is consistent with these observations, despite defined goals and objectives at state and regional levels, and Caltrans monitoring efforts.

There are ways to address these issues. First, locate the target by defining appropriate HOV goals and objectives that can be used as a basis for assessing performance. Second, identify appropriate measures of effectiveness that ensure consistency with goals and objectives and the availability of data. Finally, identify only realistically attainable and useful data sources and determine regularity of collection and analysis within resource constraints.

Unfortunately HOV performance monitoring is often an afterthought for many agencies. There is a need to explore creative and innovative ways to conduct data collection, including utilizing existing data collected for other purposes, sampling, and using technology to automate the process. It is also important to keep the data collection process and the analysis procedures simple. Be careful not to unnecessarily overcomplicate performance monitoring, as the most fundamental information can be very telling.

A number of interesting themes emerged from the recent evaluation of HOV facilities in Los Angeles County. First, people like the HOV lanes. Survey results indicate that 88 percent of Los Angeles County residents support having HOV lanes. Second, HOV lanes save time. All Southern California lanes save time and provide trip time reliability, which may be as important as time savings. Third, HOV lanes encourage carpooling. Over half of all Southern California HOV lane users previously drove alone. Fourth, over-utilization of Southern California HOV lanes is a bigger challenge than under-utilization. Fifth, both public and private transit providers indicate the HOV lanes are important in the provision of services. Finally, one size does not fit all. There are compelling reasons to deal with HOV lanes differently in different areas.

There is a full session on Tuesday morning devoted to HOV performance and policy in Southern California. More detailed information on the various aspects of the recent study and other activities will be presented at this session. Thank you.

KEYNOTE LUNCHEON SPEECH – HOV FACILITIES IN THE SEATTLE REGION

Grace Crunican

Seattle Transportation Director

City of Seattle

Thank you all for coming to this conference and to Seattle. I am relative newcomer here myself, but, after nine months of living here, I can truly say that this is a fine place.

It is no wonder that Seattle continues to rank as one of the top five places to live in the nation. Of course, along with this elite status, we have the dubious distinction of being on the “top five” list for traffic congestion. Despite our highly debatable congestion ranking, I can safely report to you that matters would be far worse, were it not for our world-class HOV system.

I have been asked to describe Seattle’s HOV system. I want to be clear that while I am an admirer of the system, I take no credit for the past. My tenure began this year and I am working to support the system, but I deserve none of the credit for the terrific and flexible mode currently in use today.

After investing nearly $1 billion into HOV facilities, I am proud to report that we have one of the most successful HOV programs around. There are approximately 31 metropolitan areas in the United States with HOV lanes totaling approximately 2,200 HOV lane miles. About 10 percent of that total is located here in Seattle. We are planning to increase our 200-centerline miles by at least 100 more centerline miles.

Every central Puget Sound freeway has HOV facilities. We are beginning to create more and more lanes on arterials and bridges to address the overflow traffic from our major freeways.

Our users generally understand that the HOV lanes are a critical element of transit, carpooling and vanpooling programs. These lanes form a critical “third mode,” the complexities of which are generally understood.

We need to begin to talk about and plan for these facilities as though they are a unique third mode. The HOV lanes themselves are part of the basic infrastructure to host this third mode. But, this mode has many other complex components.

These other components are the transit plans and operations, which utilize the express nature of the lanes. They are the policies, programs, and partnerships that support vanpooling, carpooling, better land use, and commute trip reduction implementation.

To leverage existing HOV lanes, we are building more connections – a web of HOV service to increase the efficiencies of the system. Already, during peak periods, buses, which only make up 2 percent of the highway vehicles, carry 40 percent of the people into downtown Seattle. Additionally, on I-5 in the peak, one HOV lane carries the same number of people as three lanes of general-purpose traffic.

The 2000 census data reports that approximately 12 percent of the King county population carpools or vanpools to work. Those that carpool and vanpool get the typical economic benefits of pooling that anyone who shares travel costs nationwide would get. But, here in the Puget Sound region, they get the added benefits of predictability, reliability, and timesaving from their trip.

It is not as simple as “build it and they will come.” But, here in the Puget Sound region, it was built and they did come. Many other metropolitan areas have not experienced the same success. Other areas have had to re-designate HOV lanes back to general-purpose lanes due to public pressure.

That scares me, because while they may have experienced the short-term apparent gain of adding one more general-purpose lane at the expense of HOV, they have lost options for their future. Remember that 3-to-1 ratio on I-5 that was achieved during peak periods? Think of it as paying for the construction of four lanes and getting the capacity of six.

Before getting into some of the threats and opportunities the HOV system is currently facing, I thought it would be best to first discuss how we got to where we are today. In 1970, WSDOT, the City of Seattle, and King County developed the first transit only-lane to serve Blue Streak, the region’s first express bus system. Augmenting that initiative, the City of Seattle, the Downtown Seattle Association, and the Building and Office Managers’ Association, joined together to start a carpool program in 1973, in response to Federal Clean Air requirements. These players knew that if they did not begin reducing emissions, they would face federal sanctions.

Just a year later, in 1974, the transit only lane on I-5 was converted to an HOV lane. As part of the designation, WSDOT, the City of Seattle, and King County signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) calling for the construction of 24 park and ride lots and 35 bus stops. This reinforced the purpose of HOV lanes and guaranteed their use.

Can you imagine the great leap of faith that was called for to make this move? It took visionaries to understand the future demand for such facilities. I am not sure that we would be able to implement that program today – even knowing how successful it has become in other cities.

But, Seattle’s lead on the HOV curve did not end there. Having made the investment in the infrastructure, they went further and designed programs to feed and feed off of the investment. They nurtured the program concept and physical infrastructure with human initiative.

Early enforcement let people know that the program would be taken seriously. Washington started its HERO program in 1984 to deter single-occupancy vehicles from violating the 2+ person requirement on HOV lanes. Since then, hundreds of thousands of reports have been called in and tens of thousands of tickets have been issued. As a result, violation rates range from one to seven percent here, compared to the 10 to 15 percent national average. It is considered good citizenship to protect the lanes for intended use.

Another step occurred in 1990. That year, Seattle was one of the first cities to incorporate trip reduction requirements into its land use codes through the Major Institutions Ordinances. These ordinances required hospitals and universities to develop plans to reduce their drive-alone trips by 50 percent.

This ordinance made employers with more than 100 employees a major part of the equation in promoting transit use, carpooling, and vanpooling and ultimately in HOV lane use. The city and state reinforced that program by developing reduced-rate parking for carpools and vanpools at convenient downtown locations. Effectively, commuter pools paid very little to participate in a program from which they could reap large rewards. Today, King County’s Commuter Pool Program is still nationally known. Per capita, King County has the largest vanpool fleet in the country.

When the state and the locals first decided to build HOV facilities, much of the funding came from federal sources. As part of the Interstate withdrawal and substitution program in the 1970s, Seattle chose to use highway funds for HOV lanes instead of building more highways. Now, the HOV system represents a partnership between the state, the city, Sound Transit, and King County. The state provides the construction and the design of the lanes. The state and Sound Transit provide funding. King County Transit coordinates the program.

The city guides land use and commuter trip reduction policies. These commitments and combined investments continue to pay off. The central Puget Sound region is one of only two metropolitan areas to increase its HOV participation over the past 10 years, according to the U.S. Census. The other area is Washington, D.C.

This fact shows that you cannot assume that HOV use will increase over time. You cannot assume that if you build it, they will come. In the Seattle area, they have not assumed anything. Instead, they are always reviewing their policies to make sure that they are keeping up with the times and that the incentives offered by HOV facilities continues to entice users. They treat HOVs as a separate and very real mode that continuously needs attention.

As most of you know, HOV policies and practices do not happen overnight. Before getting aboard the HOV bandwagon, a community needs to make a commitment to all or some of the following steps:

· giving priority to transit through land use and building codes;

· providing travel time savings through speed and reliability;

· providing incentives to use alternatives to driving alone;

· connecting neighborhoods – developing a web of HOV services – not just one facility;

· investing in additional infrastructure to support the HOV lanes, such as on and off ramps from park-and-ride lots; and

· enforcing the program so there are disincentives to violating HOV guidelines.

With the breadth of issues involved, you can see why I consider HOV lanes to be the third mode. It takes a complex equation to establish a successful HOV system. It takes all public agencies, business associations, and citizens to make it work.

For users, the benefits of HOV are clear:

· predictability of time travel;

· reliability of the mode;

· personal travel time saving – and except for the drivers, personal time put back in your day;

· environmental friendly with fewer cars creating less congestion and lower emissions.

· savings to businesses – employees spend less time in traffic, and employer-provided parking compensation is less of a consideration; and

· parking space demand and use is greatly reduced leaving the space for building owners and operators to put to more productive use.

Unfortunately, many HOV operators and participants take these benefits for granted. We do not take the time to explain to people all of these opportunities because we assume they know.

We assume as single-occupant vehicles are stuck in traffic, drivers see these HOV cars go flying past and think, “Boy I should start a neighborhood vanpool program.” We’ll we’re wrong.

A lot of the single-occupant vehicle drivers are sitting there wondering, “how can I get around the system, how can I be a part of that free-flowing traffic?” They are not considering behavior modification; rather they are figuring out how to manipulate the system.

Recently, in Seattle, a woman with a mannequin strapped in her passenger seat caused a six-car pile up trying to get into an HOV lane. How sad it is that someone so desperate to skirt the HOV regulations could end up causing delays for thousands of HOV users.

We cannot assume that everyone gets it. And in that regard, we have to play with an offense. We need to be touting our successes at every given opportunity. I am sure that everyone at this conference understands the benefits of the HOV system. And to us, this seems intuitively obvious. But, it is not to everyone.

Portland launched an HOV lane in the 1970s, but backed away. The state of New Jersey re-designated two HOV systems on two major highways after determining that the facility did not encourage carpooling. These are major setbacks because if and when they ever consider another HOV system, everyone will remember the first experience as a waste of time and resources.

Minnesota considered converting HOV lanes to general-purpose lanes, but eventually rejected the initiative. It will take more efforts to overcome future initiatives. In a fairly remarkable situation, Massachusetts overcame two failed HOV attempts in the 1970s to re-launch HOV service in the 1990s. Transportation officials were savvy enough to know that they could not just put it out there and hope for the best. They invested a substantial budget into marketing the new facility and the results were great.

How many of us consider marketing as part of the equation? It is far too easy to be myopic and look so closely at the system that we miss everything else that is going on around the system. But, there are those that keep their eye on the prize. According to WSDOT, it will take an additional $1.8 billion to complete the Central Puget Sound HOV system. That figure, as intimidating as it is, has not deterred us.

Now the news is not all rosy here. I need to say something about the threats that we currently are facing. The theme of this year’s conference is “Evolution or Revolution.” It poses an interesting question. My response is that we cannot afford to let HOV programs evolve or else we will be facing extinction.

A local anti-tax advocate has filed an initiative with the Legislature that would open the HOV lanes to general traffic except from 6 to 9 a.m. and 3 to 6 p.m. WSDOT conducted a study to identify the impacts of such a change. To date, they have focused primarily on the impacts of transit. They found there were no real benefits to opening HOV lanes to single occupant vehicles during weekends and evenings. Furthermore, they discovered there were some very real costs to such a $6 million initiative.

Unfortunately, some have interpreted the “no real benefit,” to also mean, “no real harm.”

So, as you may have heard, WSDOT is still considering opening HOV lanes during off peak hours. WSDOT officials have told me that they support the HOV system. This move is being pursued as a means of “saving” HOV from the initiative process. Reasonable people can disagree. As our mayor has stated previously, we believe this move threatens our ability to move forward on critical major projects.

There are two major projects under study across Lake Washington. The political agreements WSDOT is advocating have the assumption of trust included in them. They have HOV commitments, which we are supposed to assume, will be followed through on in years to come. It is difficult to trust with these other HOV proposals on the table. Reinforcing that belief, studies show that non-work and weekend trips now account for 75 percent traffic in Washington State. And, peak hours continue to grow. In the central Puget Sound region, carpool lanes are used most heavily on the weekends, in many areas. In 1996, voters in Washington State approved $850 million in HOV connections that provide a 5-to-10 minute reduction in travel time. Now that commitment is at risk.

So, nothing is perfect here either. Now that we have begun to see real success with HOV as a third mode, we cannot back down. We must continue with an offense. Our strategy should keep the benefits of the third mode – HOV – top in the minds of users and non-users alike. Part of this strategy involves pointing out what is at risk when HOV lanes are converted. We cannot let a minority of those who question the value of the system during evening and weekends fundamentally change the way it works. We need to become a part of the HOV Revolution. We need to be thinking about change even when we are experiencing success.

There are four key conclusions I hope you take away from our lunch together today. First, HOV is a unique and third mode which requires its own transportation focus. TRB is one organization that has recognized this fact. Second, we cannot just build HOV facilities and expect that the users will come. We have to support it with programs, policies, and partnerships. Third, we have to better understand and explain the third mode – even to transportation professionals. We have to tell people how the HOV system works and how it helps them in their daily life. We have to guide the design of the infrastructure. We have to guide the policies which govern the use and political construction of the facilities. We have to guide the programs which integrate our users with our policies. We have to reinforce the partnerships which fund, design, and integrate the many components of this third mode.

Finally, we have to market, market, market the program. We have to show people how it benefits their pocketbook, their lungs and the community’s economy. We have to market the convenience of vanpooling. We have to market the independence of carpooling. We have to market the time back in your life from transit. We have to market the shorter trip for all HOV users. We have to market the taxpayer savings from not having to build added lanes to move people, one person at a time, one car at a time. We have to market the cleaner streams from reduced highway runoff. We have to market the economics of land use and the productive use of space for things other than parking.

We can take nothing for granted. And for that, I thank you for putting your energy and brainpower to work at this conference and beyond. It is up to all of us to make sure the HOV systems are never referred to as a thing of the past. Thank you!

PLENARY SESSION ¾ MEETING THE CHALLENGE: SOLUTIONS & STRATEGIES

Rob Fellows, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Moderator

Responding to Issues: Experiences from Washington State

Charlie Howard

Washington State Department of Transportation

Thank you. It is a pleasure to participate in this session. My role this morning is to advocate for monitoring and evaluating HOV facilities on an ongoing basis. Maintaining an ongoing monitoring program has been important for the HOV facilities in the Puget Sound region. Performance monitoring programs provide critical information for operating agencies, policy makers, and the public.

The HOV facilities in the area are intended to serve multiple objectives. It is important to realize that these objectives may change over time, which may result in changes to the monitoring program. Obviously, a monitoring and evaluation program has to be tied to the goals and objectives of the HOV facilities in the area.

A monitoring program should provide information that can be used by the operating agencies, which typically include the state department of transportation, the transit agency, and the state patrol. Performance data is critical to managing the system. Management uses the information from the monitoring program to make needed adjustments in the system.

The information from monitoring programs should also be used to communicate with state and local policy makers. Too often we take for granted that these individuals understand the benefits of HOV facilities. Ongoing outreach efforts are needed, especially given the turnover in elected officials. The same information can be used to communicate with neighborhood organizations, special interest groups, and the public.

The HOV lanes are just one part of the transportation system. While they are an important component, the monitoring program must also cover the general-purpose lanes, public transit, incident management, and other elements. All of these components must be working together to maximize the efficiency of the total system.

There are limits to data collection and monitoring systems. There is never enough funding to measure all of the elements you would like to measure. Trade-offs often typically have to be made. It is critical to focus on the main measures of effectiveness linked to the objectives of the HOV lanes.

A number of issues continue to be examined in the Puget Sound region. The information from the ongoing monitoring program is critical to help explore these issues. While there will always be differences of opinion, having sound information to base discussion and decisions on is critical.

Promotion and Education: Painting the Picture of Success

Heidi Stamm

HS Public Affairs

Good morning. I would like to provide you with some ideas on how to paint a picture of success for HOV facilities in your area. A successful HOV facility has high use and the adjunct general-purpose lanes are full. A number of speakers over the past two days have stressed the importance of public education and marketing with HOV lanes. My presentation focuses on the education aspect of building consistencies for HOV facilities. I will talk about the specific education actions you may want to consider in your region. These actions will help ensure that your audience understands and embraces HOV facilities. It is one thing to like HOV facilities, but it is another thing to have a call to action. My comments will focus on how you can develop a call to action in your area. A good education program is just as important today as it has been in the past.

This is not a presentation about how to convince people to use HOV lanes. I am assuming that your HOV facilities are operating fairly well. I will talk about how to define HOV success, who should embrace HOV success, and ways to talk about HOV success.

What is the evidence of HOV success and how do we talk about HOV success? The measures of success vary by metropolitan area, and sometimes even by facilities within the same area. Success can be defined in a number of different ways.

System success is often defined by differences in the performance measures used with HOV projects throughout the country. We also see that performance measures may change over time. In California, 800 vehicles and 1,800 persons an hour was used as one measure of success in the early years of the development of the HOV system. In Washington, Texas, and Massachusetts, recommended use levels are more dependent on the individual facility. With mature HOV lanes, one common measure is that the HOV lane should carry more people than the adjacent general-purpose lane.

In terms of travel speeds and travel time savings, an early measure used was that an HOV lane should provided at least one minute per mile in travel time savings over the general-purpose lanes. In Washington, there is a policy that HOV lanes should operate at 45 mph or better 95 percent of the time over a six-month period. HOV system success may also be defined by low violation rates. A violation rate of 10 percent or lower is used in many areas. In many cases, violation rates are more a measure of enforcement levels and public perceptions than of demand for a facility.

Another measure of success may relate to an area’s commitment to an HOV system vision. California and Washington both have written policies relating to HOV facilities. Other states may have written policies or guidelines. The link to land use may also be included in measuring the success of HOV facilities. These measures may be defined in regional transportation plans and carried out through specific projects.

The success of HOV facilities may also be measured from the user’s perspective. Two measures that appear important to HOV lane users are travel time savings and trip time reliability. Surveys in many areas indicate that trip time reliability is becoming the most important measure for users.

It is also important to examine HOV success from the perspective of taxpayers. Public acceptance of HOV lanes provides one possible measure of taxpayer’s support for HOV lanes. A recent survey in Los Angeles County showed that 88 percent of residents thought HOV facilities were good. A recent survey in the Puget Sound region showed 72 percent of single-occupancy vehicle drivers and 95 percent of HOV lane users support HOV facilities.

All of these measures may be used as indicators of success. One question to ask is who do you want to embrace this evidence? You will want to package the information on measures of success differently for different audiences. Typical groups you may want to communicate with include elected officials, policy makers, community groups, special interest groups, print and broadcast media, and law enforcement and judicial representatives.

Elected officials typically are one of the most important groups to educate about HOV facilities. Policy makers are also every influential in making day-to-day operating decisions. Community groups may represent commuters in a certain area. Special interest groups may include environmental organizations, business interests, or mobility groups. The media really helps shape public opinion and should be treated as a separate market. Finally, law enforcement agencies and the judicial system should not be overlooked, as these groups are key to effective enforcement.

There are many techniques that can be used to present HOV messages. We often talk about the need for HOV project champions. In most cases, project champions do not appear out of the blue. Thought should be given to nurturing and educating project champions. Try to identify potential project champions early in the planning process and work to educate and inform them. Let them know how important they are. I think developing project champions is an area where we could all do better. I challenge you to identify people in your area who could be project champions and think about ways to nurture their support.

Presenting the HOV message is more then just producing a newsletter. It is important to match the appropriate technique to the various markets. I would suggest you think about focusing on four elements. Prioritize, personalize, pursue, and enlist in developing your information technique for each market.

To prioritize you should match the success evidence to the interest of the audience. For example, the success measure that HOV lanes move more people than the general-purpose lanes can be tailored to different markets. With elected officials you might want to add that HOV lanes have a high taxpayer approval rating. With adjacent neighborhood groups you might want to stress the land use sensitivity of HOV lanes. With policy makers you might want to highlight that HOV lanes are consistent with, and support regional transportation visions.

To personalize a message, include examples of how the prioritized evidence directly relates to the audience. For example, with law enforcement officials you might stress that when violations creep above 12 to 13 percent it leaps quickly to 25 to 30 percent, which is why it is important to keep violation rates at around 10 percent. With elected officials, you might want to stress the percent of HOV approval in their district. Always look for the spin that touches the heart of your audience.

You need to pursue your market. Go where your audience goes and talk to people your audience talks to. With elected officials, talk to their aides, attend committee meetings, and schedule briefings. With policy makers, meet with their staff, comment on draft policies, and present “white paper” analyses of existing policies. With community groups, talk to their officers and attend meetings. Meet with the board of directors of special interest groups, media, editorial boards, and provide briefings for law enforcement and judicial officials.

The last step is to enlist their support. Ask them for a specific action and follow-up to make sure it happens. With elected officials you might ask for support for existing policy or propose new legislation or funding. With policy makers you may ask for support for existing programs, propose new policies, and monitor activities and funding sources. With community groups and special interest groups you can ask them to lobby elected officials and policy makers to extend support to HOV facilities or educate their constituency about HOV facility benefits and successes. The media may be asked to support HOV policies through editorials. Law enforcement and judicial representatives can support HOV safety and utility through enforcement and by upholding fines and penalties in court.

In closing, remember to first define HOV success from the perspective of the HOV system, users, and taxpayers. Embrace HOV success by educating and informing elected officials, policy makers, community groups, special interest groups, the media, and law enforcement and judicial representatives. Prioritize, personalize, pursue, and enlist support from these groups.

Managed Lanes – Survival of the Fittest?

Hall Kassoff

Parsons Brinckerhoff

My comments this morning focus on embracing a broader set of management tools for HOV facilities through managed lanes. If there if too little demand for an HOV facility, single-occupant vehicle drivers are frustrated. On the other hand, if there is too much demand in a lane, HOV users are frustrated. Both of these conditions can lead to political action, which can frustrate transportation professionals.

Other speakers have stressed the importance of having accurate data to respond to these situations. The lack of adequate performance data frustrates rational decisions. The bottom line is that if HOV lanes are terminated, changing to general-purpose lanes is kind of a one-way street that will frustrate any future managed lanes options.

As other speakers have mentioned, a main justification for HOV lanes is moving more people in less time than the general-purpose lanes. Some of the essential criteria for HOV lane success include congestion in the general-purpose lanes and the potential for travel time savings. Adequate HOV demand must exist in a corridor. When these factors are not present, HOV lanes will not succeed.

One of the ironies of HOV lanes is that too much demand can result in the failure of a successful facility. Too little demand at a 2+ occupancy level can result in a failure, while too little demand at a 3+ demand occupancy level is even more of a dilemma. The challenge is to achieve the correct balance. This goal is not easy to accomplish as HOV lanes have an inherent instability of success. Too little demand, of lower than 800 vehicles an hour, may result in political failure. Too much demand, of 1,800 or more vehicles an hour, can result in operations failure. The challenge is how to maintain demand at approximately 1,500 vehicles an hour.

One possible approach to improving the odds of success is to think of HOVs as just one special application of managed lanes. Converting HOV lanes with low use levels to managed lanes may improve the chance of success. This approach offers dedicated lanes for one or more use classes. This approach manages use to achieve a higher level of peak period service and maximizes the use of scarce resources. User groups may include carpools, vanpools, buses trucks, toll paying vehicles, and other categories. Ultimately, the decision to sustain HOV lanes, to move toward managed lanes, or to move toward managed lanes with value pricing will be a political one.

One example of this approach is converting an overused HOV lane with a 2+ occupancy requirement to a combination 3+ and HOT lane. Managed lane options may serve different user groups based on occupancy requirements, express trips, buses, commercial vehicles, zero emissions vehicles, high energy efficiency vehicles, and pricing.

Examples of current managed lanes include the bus and truck lanes on the New Jersey Turnpike, the I-5 truck lanes in Los Angeles, and the Express Lanes on SR 91 in Orange County, California. Managed lanes provide use with options that go well beyond the original creation of HOV lanes. Maybe it is time for the TRB HOV Committee to change its name to the Managed Lane Committee.

Transit and HOV Lanes – A Great Combination

Dave Schumacher

San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to talk about HOV lanes from the perspective of a transit operator. I think HOV and transit represent a great combination. Thus, the title of my presentation. Transit operators have historically been slow to learn the advantages of HOV and managed lanes. Most transit operators are focused on implementing their vision for the future. The current regional transportation plan for San Diego includes high speed transit lines and local service. Our Transit First strategy focuses on creating a spine of high speed transit service throughout the region. I think more metropolitan areas in North America are realizing the important role transit can play in helping address regional mobility.

Increased congestion is pressuring transit to assume a greater role in addressing regional mobility issues. The emergence of BRT provides opportunities for HOV facilities to help assume this larger role. A number of characteristics distinguish BRT from more traditional bus operations on HOV lanes.

First, BRT provides rail-like vehicles that have features to improve comfort, speed, and safety. There is also more attention to station design that creates pleasant and attractive places for riders. BRT has distinctive designs, styling, and graphics that provide the look and feel of rail transit.

BRT pays attention to the little details that will help attract new market segments to transit. BRT uses multiple door, low floor vehicles for ease of boarding. It includes Smart Card fare collection to speed fare payment and to make it easier for passengers. It also includes advanced technologies, such as next-vehicle information.

As you all well know, congestion in the mixed traffic lanes also causes delays and slows travel speeds for buses. Millions of dollars are spent annually to keep buses on time due to congestion. For transit to be effective, speed and reliability are essential. The success of transit in attracting new riders greatly depends on implementing transit priority measures.

In seeking solutions to this problem, it is important to consider all parts of the transit trip. Thus, freeways, access ramps, stations, park-and-ride lots, and arterial streets all need consideration. A wide range of arterial street transit priority measures can be used, including signal priority, curb lanes, median lanes, and guideways.

I think Houston really pioneered the development of transit use of freeway HOV facilities. Houston uses direct access ramps to ensure easy access to transit stations. BRT can build on the experience with freeway HOV facilities and add to it with the local street components.

The I-15 corridor in San Diego provides an example of multi-modal systems planning. The facility includes an eight-mile reversible HOV lane, which has been expanded into a HOT lane. Express bus service operates on the lane. Ridership growth has occurred with increases in service. Further, approximately 80 percent of the passengers are choice riders who have an automobile available for the trip, but elect to use transit.

The future of the I-15 freeway is planned to be a 20-mile managed lane facility. The cross section includes four bi-directional lanes and a movable barrier. Direct access ramps to transit stations will be provided. State-of-the-art transit coaches will be used. The facility represents a $700 million capital investment. This approach creates a cost-effective, multi-modal facility, one that helps to broaden support for HOV and managed lanes.

It is interesting to see the change in thinking of many residents and community groups. When the planning process started, most groups favored LRT in the corridor. Once they had a better understanding of all the BRT elements, they began to favor BRT over LRT. One community requested Caltrans to widen a freeway bridge deck as part of the freeway construction, to better accommodate a transit station, transit-oriented development, and adjacent land uses. It also included a gateway plaza to provide a focal point for the community. The community is very excited about the project, which shows the potential of BRT.

The North I-15 corridor managed lanes/BRT project will be completed in sections. Stage One construction is set to begin in 2003, with completion estimated in 2007. The regional transportation plan includes an HOV and managed lane system.

We hope to accomplish a number of objectives with these improvements. Transit currently does not serve many of the suburban activity centers in the region. There is an increase in transit services in many of these areas to address growing levels of traffic congestion. We think the HOV and managed lane system combined with BRT can have a significant influence helping reduce traffic congestion and increase mobility in these areas. We think we can increase transit mode split in suburban activity centers to around 20 percent.

PLENARY SESSION ¾ THE FUTURE OF HOV FAICLITIES: EVOLUTION OR REVOLUTION

Paula Hammond, Washington State Department of Transportation, Moderator

State Transportation Agency Perspective

Connie Niva

Washington State Transportation Commission

Rather than start by telling you what I will cover this morning, I will tell you what I will not talk about. I will not talk about the revolutionary concept discussed the in first session or a HERO Hot Line to report vehicles in the general-purpose lanes that qualify for the HOV lane. I am sure many of you have wished an HOV would get over into the HOV lane and stop taking up the capacity of the general-purpose lanes.

We have not experienced having an HOV facility taken away because it was managed poorly. The dedesignation of the HOV lanes in New Jersey had a significant effect on the Washington legislature, however. There was a good deal of interest in introducing legislation to open the lanes to general-purpose vehicles based on the situation in New Jersey.

A related concept that seems to have little support with the driving public is to convert a general-purpose lane to an HOV lane. There are some groups that continue to promote this approach. The experience with the Santa Monica diamond lane seems to indicate that this concept can do more damage than good.

HOV lanes are inherently controversial because they give travel priority to some groups over others. Space on freeways in all parts of the country has become very dear to commuters. Since not everyone can choose to use the HOV lanes, some groups will always question their application.

Recent surveys in the Puget Sound region seem to indicate that there is less support for HOV facilities today than there has been in the past. The lack of investment in alternatives, as well as additional infrastructure, may be resulting in a negative backlash toward the HOV lanes. At the same time, transit agencies and other transportation providers strongly favor maintaining the HOV facilities. These groups are some times critical of WSDOT for examining alternatives, while legislation is directing that the Department conduct the examination.

It is no secret that the nation’s growth in infrastructure has not kept up with the growth in the demand for travel. The gap between infrastructure and demand is evident in almost every metropolitan area in the world. In the Puget Sound region this gap is putting more pressure on all elements of the transportation system, including HOV facilities.

During my nine years as Transportation Commissioner, I have witnessed a significant growth in the complexity of the environment in which decision makers work, both politically and economically. I recently read an article “The New Politics of Mobility,” by Robert Atkinson. The premise of the article is that the key to solving the nation’s mobility problem is political. He also suggests that the loss of our mobility is directly related to the rise of different coalitions opposing transportation policies. Herein I believe lies the revolution. I do not think this situation existed when I was appointed to the Transportation Commission in 1993. At that time there was more support for advancing the transportation agenda.

I think there are a number of reasons for this change. First, are the anti-tax conservatives that see public transportation polices as wasteful. HOV hours of operation was a major debate at the annual convention of one of the political parties in the state. I would not think HOV operating hours would be that high on the political party’s agenda, especially compared to issues like how to address the $2.3 billion state deficit.

On the other end of the political spectrum there is an alliance of environmentalists, urban planners, and academics who blame transportation policies for encouraging sprawl, greater reliance on the automobile, and the rapid disappearance of green spaces. Whenever HOV lanes are presented as a way to get people to change their behavior, opposition picks up as most people think they make rational decisions.

These positions have polarized in the policy debate over transportation. This polarization is evident in the debate over Referendum 51, which is on the ballot in next week’s election. I think HOV systems will only weather these challenges in the long run if they are not presented in an ideological way. The high ground will be held by those who can articulate their position based on facts, not as unwavering political philosophy.

Many speakers have stressed the value of communication. Every traveler on the freeways and local roadways is an owner of the system. We need to ask their opinions and we need to listen to their answers, even if we might not like what we hear. We also heard a number of success stories related to HOV projects, BRT, and managed lanes. I am not sure we have done a good job of communicating these success stories to the public or to legislators and other public officials. The Puget Sound region has had great success with commuter trip reduction. There are some businesses in downtown Seattle that have almost 90 percent of their employees using modes other than driving alone to get to and from work. I think these numbers are amazing.

Speakers have also pointed out the importance of building support. A few legislators who were strong supporters of HOV facilities in Washington recently retired. Who will take their place in advocating for HOV projects is not known at this time.

The point that we manage what we measure was also made by other speakers. I would suggest that efficiency is the most important measure. It certainly is right now here in Washington. Efficiency is key to identifying the transportation strategies that best address transportation needs. We have to squeeze more utility out of every current transportation element and optimize the utilities of every new transportation component. It is hard to promote HOV facilities if you do not have data on how they compare to the general-purpose lanes to show the public.

Another theme we have heard throughout the conference is how to make changes when needed rather than having change legislated. How do you know when changes are needed? To take a proactive role in addressing issues and concerns may not be easy, but it will pay off in the long run. Compromise may sometimes be needed. In the Puget Sound region and other areas studies have often been conducted at the request or direction of the legislature.

I believe by these three things – communication, performance evaluation, and evaluation of potential changes – you can address the critics of HOV facilities. There is an old saying “you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.” I do not think we want a revolution with HOV facilities right now. Rather I think we want to keep evolving. Thank you.

Federal Perspective

Jon Obenberger

Federal Highway Administration

Thank you, Paula, for the introduction. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to address the question of “evolution or revolution” for HOV facilities. I would first like to thank TRB and the TRB HOV Systems Committee for sponsoring this conference on behalf of FHWA. Most importantly, I would like to thank the many individuals from WSDOT, Sound Transit, local agencies and other interests who hosted and worked to make this conference a success. This conference would not have been possible without your commitment, energy, and hard work.

Prior to addressing the theme of this panel, I would like to provide a few perspectives on some of the key issues and challenges that HOV systems are facing around the country. If you look at the length of time that HOV lanes have been in existence, the use of occupancy as an operational strategy should still be considered in its infancy. Over the past 30 years, the use of occupancy as an operational strategy has increased significantly, from only three facilities operating as tests or demonstration projects in 1970, to over 2,500 lane-miles in operation today in over 31 metropolitan areas.

The use of occupancy as an operational strategy is expected to continue to grow at a significant rate into the future, with over 3,700 lane-miles projected to be in operation by 2010, accounting for an increase of approximately 50 percent. Initially deployed on freeways located within radial corridors servicing the central business districts of only the largest metropolitan areas, today over half of the lane-miles where occupancy is being used as an operational strategy are located on non-radial freeway corridors.

At the same time, the route-miles of general-purpose roadway capacity has increased a rate of slightly more than 1 percent, while the vehicle-miles of travel have increased 72 percent over the past 20 years. These trends have contributed to significant increases in congestion that has resulted in reduced mobility, decreased productivity, and inability to meet the public’s demand to travel or expectations for reliability. Traffic congestion is a problem that we are all facing, which requires action on a number of fronts.

From a pure roadway perspective, where we may have the most immediate and direct ability to influence traffic congestion, we need to employ strategies that include: 1) increasing roadway capacity when and where appropriate, 2) proactively managing the operation and use of roadways; and 3) managing the publics demand to travel in the most effective and efficient manner possible. All of these approaches should embrace and include the consideration of occupancy as a key strategy that is integrated and used in all of the decisions and actions that may be taken throughout the life cycle of a roadway facility.

FHWA has, and will continue to serve into the future as a champion to promote the values and benefits of HOV systems. FHWA strongly supports the consideration of occupancy, or HOV facilities, as a regional or system wide strategy, to help move more people along congested urban and suburban corridors. The use of occupancy is a proven, cost-effective, environmentally friendly, and efficient operational strategy to improve the mobility, accessibility, and productivity of the surface transportation system, specific corridors, or facilities.

Throughout this conference there have been sessions, presentations, and perspectives offered that provide unique perspectives and insight on how to answer the question of “evolution of revolution” related to the use of occupancy as an operational strategy. Prior to addressing this question, I would like to mention some of the innovative techniques that have been presented at this conference. The following examples provide an excellent “roadmap” for agencies and metropolitan areas on approaches to integrate the consideration of occupancy as an operational strategy throughout the policies, programs, strategic planning, services provided, and decisions that are made throughout the life-cycle of roadway facilities:

· understanding, measuring, and continuously tracking the expectations of our customers;

· establishing measures that can be used to assess the performance of occupancy as an operational strategy across the region and along specific facilities;

· documenting and reporting on the benefits of using occupancy and how HOV facilities contribute or influence agency and regional goals and measures;

· continuously monitor, evaluate, and report on the performance of HOV facilities;

· proactively manage and operate HOV facilities;

· provide the resources that are appropriate to manage, operate, and provide the necessary services that are critical to the successful operation of HOV facilities;

· integrate the use of occupancy as a key strategy in the strategic transportation plans of each agency and the region;

· HOV facilities should be cooperatively managed, decisions made, and resources provided by all of the key interests within a metropolitan area;

· develop and maintain an long-range plan for the ultimate build-out of the HOV system;

· develop and maintain a multi-year HOV system plan that identifies the support services, improvement projects, functions to be provided, and resources required to manage the HOV system; and

· continuously market the value of HOV facilities to the public, elected officials, public agency managers, and the media.

My answer to the question posed to this panel, is that HOV facilities are facing both an evolution and a revolution, both nationally and within every metropolitan area. Every time a new HOV facility is planned within a corridor, or for the first time an HOV lane is opened for operation in a metro area, it may be considered a revolution. Modifications in the operation of HOV facilities for the first time may be considered a revolution in some metropolitan areas. Evaluating and documenting the benefits of the performance of HOV lanes for the first time, may also be considered a revolution in some metropolitan areas. Understanding that HOV facilities are actually over prescribed and additional HOV lanes are needed or an increase in the occupancy level for the first time may be considered a revolution in some metropolitan areas.

For each difficult issue that arises, it may appear to be a revolution and significantly influence or change the course of direction related to a particular HOV system. However, from a national perspective, hopefully these are all viewed as mini-revolutions in the natural progression and growth with use of occupancy.

Transit Perspective

Agnes Govern

Sound Transit

Thank you Paula. It has been a very productive conference. The Conference Planning Committee did a great job organizing very interesting and informative sessions. Over 200 people attended the conference from 17 states and three other countries. It truly has been an international conference. I have learned a great deal from listening to the presentations. It is interesting to hear the applications being used in different areas and the challenges being faced. I thank you all for your participation in the conference.

I have been asked to provide a perspective from the public transportation sector, specifically on the challenges transit is facing and the ways that HOV facilities and transit can work together. From a personal perspective, I have been a member of the TRB HOV Systems Committee for four years. Initially it was a fairly daunting group to join. At the conference, one of the breakout group tracks was devoted to BRT, and transit was a key element in the other tracks. So, when I think of evolution, I think of both my own personal involvement with the HOV Committee and the increased interaction between transit and HOV operations.

The challenge facing transit today is to increase ridership. A number of speakers addressed this issue and presented approaches for greater interaction between HOV and transit operations to increase ridership.

Presentations highlighted projects that were able to show the number of new riders attracted because of the benefits offered by the HOV lanes. As Dave noted earlier, there is a natural connection between HOV facilities and transit. Patrick deCorla-Souza indicated in his presentation that there might be public resistance to managed lanes because people see them as a weak solution. If you want to promote a managed lanes project, highlighting the transit aspects and the transit benefit may help.

There are a few things I would suggest we all think about as we work to implement and operate HOV projects. First, the concept of total trip time is important for transit riders. Many times we focus on the time savings for just the freeway HOV segment. Expanding our thinking to consider the need for arterial street HOV lanes, signal priority for buses, or direct access ramps from park-and-ride lots will help focus on the total trip, not just the freeway portion.

Second, I would like you to think of the concept mentioned by Grace Crunican at Monday’s luncheon of HOV as a third mode. Involving transit agencies in the early development of HOV facilities can ensure that transit is an integral part of a project. A few speakers at the breakout sessions indicated difficulty with getting transit agencies to operate bus service on HOV lanes. This situation may exist in some cases because transit was not considered in planning for the facility or the HOV lane may not be located in an area with bus service. I think if you include representatives from transit agencies early in the planning process they will become champions for the projects. HOV facilities can greatly enhance bus operations.

It is also important to consider all the elements needed to support HOVs as the third mode. The lack of supporting elements appears to be a key reason for the problems associated with the I-287 HOV lane in New Jersey. Consideration should be given in the planning process to all of the components needed for a successful HOV facility, including transit.

Considering HOV as a third mode should also be continued into the performance measurement and evaluation process. Including bus riders, along with other HOV user groups in surveys to measure support for HOV is important. Bus riders are usually significant supporters of HOV facilities.

The third point I would like to highlight addresses the integration of modes. In addition to buses, carpools, vanpools, and general-purpose traffic, we also need to consider bicycles and pedestrians. We should not forget these last two transportation modes. There is a lot we can learn from approaches in Europe and other parts of the world on low cost solutions that encourage integration of all modes.

Finally, partnerships are critical to the success of HOV facilities. Key players include FHWA, FTA, state departments of transportation, transit agencies, and local jurisdictions. The regional HOV policy advisory committee established a few years ago by the Washington Transportation Commission provides a good example of the multi-agency coordination that is needed for successful HOV facilities. This committee includes representatives from transit agencies, FHWA, local jurisdictions, the American Automobile Association, and other groups. All of the key stakeholders are involved in the committee, which helps advise the Transportation Commission on HOV policies.

Given the nature of HOV projects, it is natural that FHWA and state transportation agencies are often thought of first. FTA and transit agencies should also be actively involved. Local jurisdictions are key players with arterial street HOV facilities and for linking freeway and local facilities.

In terms of the Conference title – Evolution or Revolution – I would suggest that it is evolution and revolution. The challenge we face as HOV facilities evolve is to ensure that any changes are part of a long term commitment. We need to respond to short term issues keeping the long-term goals of HOV facilities in mind.

Consultant Perspective

Chuck Fuhs

Parsons Brinckerhoff

The other speakers have done an excellent job of providing perspectives from the state and federal levels and from public transportation. Having attended all 11 HOV conferences, I will focus my comments on both a look backward and a look forward.

Over the years, I think we have seen a generational shift in the practitioners of HOV activities related to planning, designing, and operating HOV facilities. We have also seen a generational embracing of the HOV concept. The results from a number of surveys that have been conducted in different metropolitan areas over the past few years shows strong support for HOV facilities. The results from these surveys show acceptance of HOV facilities ranging from 70 to 90 percent among residents and general-purpose drivers.

The theme I would like to leave you with this morning is to keep your eye on the prize. Often when we get too caught up with a specific issue or problem, we may forget to focus on larger goals and objectives. Other speakers have highlighted the major goals and objectives of HOV facilities. Providing travel time savings, trip time reliability, and moving more people than the general-purpose lanes are frequently cited goals of HOV facilities. We may ask ourselves how much travel time is needed to justify a project or how many more people should be carried.

I would suggest that the ultimate goal of HOV lanes or any type of dedicated lane is to do more. Those two simple words – do more – should be repeated to very stakeholder. These two words are flexible, however. Doing more in the peak hours may mean one thing, while doing more in the off-peak or for multiple user groups may mean entirely different strategies.

You only need to review the themes for previous conference to see how far we have come. The theme from one of the first conferences was HOV Lanes – A New Alternative. The theme from the third conference in Minneapolis was HOVs – Coming of Age. The theme for this conference is HOVs – Evolution or Revolution.

Many of the presentations at this conference focused on how to enhance the operation of HOV facilities. I think these presentations reinforce the notion that we are continuing to strive to do things better.

One term that was used a few years ago was “build it and they will come.” Another comment you might have heard previously was “if a project is justified, you can always find funding.” One final comment you might have heard was “if you were not sure, let’s call it a demonstration.”

I am also surprised that, as we look back, many of the things we thought were going to be revolutionary turned out to be just bumps in the road. At the time, many people thought that what happened with the Santa Monica Diamond Lane or the two HOV lanes in New Jersey were going to be revolutionary. Looking back, both did not result in major changes to HOV lanes throughout the country. Every one of the bumps helped the local areas look at things more innovatively and creatively.

Those projects were challenges, but they were also opportunities. The use of buffers really came out of questions raised by different groups in southern California. There are many more opportunities that will emerge from the challenges we face. It will be years from now before we know the outcome of these opportunities.

The use of advanced technologies also holds numerous opportunities. We have smarter roadways and better use of technologies. We also have much more knowledge about performance measures and operations.

Providing mobility is at the core of HOV lanes, managed lanes, BRT, and other approaches. Change is inevitable. It is how we manage and embrace change that is important. I encourage you to keep your eye on the prize as you deal with change in your area. Thank you.

HOV Systems Track

Monitoring and Applying Performance Standards

Kevin Haboian, Parsons Transportation Group, Moderator

HOV Midday Use: A Surprising Finding from Recent Performance Monitoring

Chuck Fuhs

Parsons Brinckerhoff

Mr. Chuck Fuhs discussed the use of HOV lanes during the midday. He summarized the results of recent studies in Los Angeles, Orange County, and Seattle that show relatively high levels of midday use of the HOV lanes in those areas. Mr. Fuhs covered the following points in his presentation.

· Currently, approximately half of the concurrent flow HOV lanes in the country operate 24-hours a day, seven days a week (24/7). All day operations are most typical in southern California and the Puget Sound region. Both areas have extensive systems of HOV lanes.

· A recent examination of the HOV lanes in Orange County, California, sponsored by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), showed high levels of midday use. Weekday midday volumes on the HOV lanes averaged 750 vehicles an hour. Weekend midday volumes in the HOV lanes averaged 1,500 vehicles.

· The HOV Performance Study sponsored by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority included extensive data collection activities on use of the HOV lanes in the county. Weekday midday HOV use levels averaged around 750 vehicles an hour, although there was variation among the different facilities.

· The ongoing monitoring studies of HOV lanes in the Puget Sound region records midday utilization levels. Although variation exists, the average midday use is 700 vehicles an hour.

· For all the three areas, weekday off-peak use of the HOV lanes averages 30 to 50 percent of daily use. Weekend midday use levels are higher than on weekdays. It appears that during the off-peak times the main benefit from using the HOV lanes is trip time reliability rather than travel time savings. In most cases, these off-peak benefits are not accounted for in project planning.

· These results indicate a number of trends worth considering. First, there may be generational acceptance fueling reliance on HOV lanes. Second, trip time reliability, in addition to travel time savings may cause spatial shifts. Third, these results may provide more justification to expand HOV hours of operation or to maintain 24/7 operation.

Central Puget Sound Freeway HOV Lanes Hours of Operation Evaluation

Charlie Howard

Washington State Department of Transportation

Mr. Charlie Howard discussed the HOV lane hours of operation study conducted by the WSDOT. He summarized the background to the study, the analysis process, the study results, and the anticipated next steps. Mr. Howard covered the following points in his presentation.

· The HOV lane hours of operation analysis was initiated at the request of the Washington House Transportation Committee. While WSDOT periodically reviews the performance of the HOV system with stakeholders, this study provided an extra focus on the hours of operation. There is currently a high level of public interest in the HOV operating hours.

· The HOV hours of operation analysis was initiated in March 2002. The technical analysis was completed in August 2002. The Puget Sound Regional Commission (PSRC) HOV Policy Advisory Committee provided comments on the analysis in October 2002. WSDOT staff will present the study conclusions to the Transportation Commission in November 2002. A public comment period will be provided from November 2002 to January 2003.

· The analysis was designed to address two specific questions. The first question addressed how the HOV lanes are currently performing. The second question examined the feasibility of opening the HOV lanes to general-purpose traffic during the off-peak periods.

· Specific segments of the Puget Sound region freeway HOV system were analyzed in the study. Segments included in the study were I-5 North between Northgate and South Everett; I-405 from Bellevue to Lynnwood; SR 520 from Bellevue to Redmond; I-90 from Bellevue to Issaquah; I-405 from Tukwilla to Bellevue; SR 167 from Auburn to Renton; I-5 from South Des Moines to Seattle; I-90 from Seattle to Bellevue; and SR 520 from Medina to Bellevue.

· A number of facilities were not considered due to operational limitations. The facilities not being considered include arterial HOV lanes; HOV bypasses at ramp meters; freeway HOV queue jumps; Sound Transit direct access ramps; and specific segments of SR 520, I-90, and I-5.

· A number of work tasks were completed as part of the study. Reports were prepared on these elements, which included HOV and general-purpose lane usage, HOV lane travel time and reliability performance, transit and vanpool operations, safety/operations issues, environmental considerations, experience in other states, financial obligations and impacts, costs, and public attitudes and opinions.

· Four preliminary alternative hours of operation were explored. The first option was to open the HOV lanes to general-purpose traffic at night from 8:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. The second alternative was to allow general-purpose traffic to use the HOV lanes during the midday from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The third option was to open the HOV lanes to general traffic on weekends. The fourth option was to open the HOV lanes when the general-purpose lanes are not congested. Under this option corridor-specific HOV operating hours would be established based on facility performance.

· The analysis examined the use of the HOV lanes during the peak and off-peak hours. During the weekday peak periods, the HOV lanes provide a travel time advantage in all corridors. The HOV lanes are most heavily used during peak commute times. The HOV lanes move more people, generally, than the adjacent general-purpose lanes during peak periods. The HOV lanes on SR 167 and I-90 do not currently move more people than the general-purpose lanes, but use is growing. The HOV lanes on SR 520 work well as a limited shoulder bypass, largely for transit. It is the only HOV lane that requires 3+ occupancy. In general, the HOV lanes do not perform as well in the “reverse commute” direction.

· The HOV lanes do not provide a travel time advantage between 8:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. The HOV lanes experience a decrease in volume after the evening peak and use drops during the midday in all corridors. The use of HOV lanes on weekends tends to mirror general-purpose lane conditions.

· Transit use of the HOV lanes was examined and the effect on transit of opening the lanes to general-purpose traffic was explored. In general, transit service and ridership decrease dramatically after 8:00 p.m. and the HOV and general-purpose lanes flowing freely after this time. Transit travel speed and reliability could be affected in high volume locations during the midday if the HOV lanes were opened to general traffic. Transit ridership and service levels on the weekends are far below weekday levels. A high percentage of vehicles using the freeways are HOV eligible on weekends.

· The possible effects on vanpools from opening the HOV lanes to general-purpose traffic were examined. The freeway HOV system is an important factor in encouraging vanpooling in the region. Approximately 90 percent of vanpools operate during the peak hours. Vanpool use is growing in the region.

· The possible effects on safety and operations were explored in the study. The analysis indicated that there would be a negligible affect on merging collisions if direct access ramps remained restricted to HOV traffic only. The potential for an increase in run-off-the-road collisions could be offset by safety improvements.

· The environmental analysis indicated that the environmental impacts of opening the lanes to general-purpose traffic was minor or non-existent. No air quality conformity issues are anticipated. PSRC modeling of air quality indicates negligible increases in emissions, which would be well within the regional emissions budget. Air quality impacts must be documented for federal and state regulatory agencies. No commitments from prior freeway HOV projects have been found that would preclude part-time HOV lane operations. The I-90 operating agreement would require concurrence from signatory agencies if a change is proposed for I-90.

· The assessment examined the experience in other sates with HOV operating hours. This assessment showed that both peak hour and all-day HOV policies are used. Large metropolitan areas with extensive interconnected systems tend to have uniform HOV policies, either all 24/7 or all peak-period. Larger systems tend to have few system-wide changes. Changes in HOV operating policies have usually been toward less restrictive policies.

· The funding and financial effects of opening the lanes were examined in the study. The assessment found that FHWA must agree with changes in major HOV lane operation. It appears that no FHWA sanctions would be imposed as long as HOV lanes are reserved for HOVs during the peak hours. The FTA formula funding would not be lost with peak hour HOV lane operation. Sound Transit has expressed concern about their investment in direct access ramps.

· An estimate was made of the costs associated with new signing and other changes necessary to implement part-time HOV operations. A total of $6 million was estimated for implementing opening the HOV lanes at nights and on weekends. Approximately $2 million of this amount would be for fixed signs and $4 million would be for safety improvements. Opening the HOV lanes during the midday may require additional safety improvements and additional funding. More sophisticated signage, like dynamic signs, required to open lanes to all traffic whenever conditions allow would cost much more, with estimates upwards of $55 million.

· Public attitudes toward HOV lanes were examined in the study. Maintaining the HOV lanes during commute hours enjoys overwhelming support. Public opinion on opening the HOV lanes to all traffic in off-peak hours is sharply divided. People who drive alone are more likely to favor opening HOV lanes to all traffic during off-peak hours.

· According to a 1999 household survey conducted by PSRC, 42 percent of the respondents disagreed that the HOV lanes should be open to all traffic during the off-peak hours, while 46 percent agreed. A 1999 panel survey conducted by PSRC found that 40 percent disagreed with only enforcing the HOV lanes during the peak periods, while 48 percent agreed. Surveys of HOV lanes users conducted by the Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC) at the University of Washington annually from 1994 to 1998 found that slightly over 80 percent disagreed that the HOV lanes should be open to all traffic. Surveys of single-occupant vehicles over the same period included less support for opening the HOV lanes, with approximately 60 percent disagreeing that the HOV lane should be open to all traffic.

· There was more support among both user groups to opening the HOV lanes during non-commute hours. Approximately 40 percent of the HOV lane users support opening the lane in non-commute hours, while slightly over 40 percent disagreed. Approximately 60 percent of the single-occupant drivers agreed with opening the lanes during non-commute periods, while a little over 40 percent disagreed. Responses to the 1999 PSRC household survey indicated that 37 percent of the respondents agreed that more HOV lanes were needed, while 32 percent disagreed, 28 percent were neutral, and three percent did not respond.

· The study results will be presented at the November 2002 Transportation Commission. Action may be taken by the Commission at that time. A public comment period would follow any proposed action. Final Commission action would probably occur in early 2003. The Legislature would have to fund the costs associated with changing the hours of operation.

Options for HOV Lane Performance Monitoring, Data Collection Analysis, and Reporting

Mark Hallenbeck

Washington State Transportation Center

Mr. Mark Hallenbeck discussed HOV lane performance monitoring. He described why it is important to monitor the performance of HOV facilities, the types of data that may be available, and other resources that may be used to obtain additional information. He noted that there is no formal HOV performance monitoring conducted at the national level. Mr. Hallenbeck covered the following points in his presentation.

· The basic need is to monitor HOV facility use and performance over time. Common elements examined include vehicle use, person use, travel speeds and travel times, and trip time reliability. Some of the measures typically of interest include a comparison of HOV and general-purpose travel times, the on-time performance of buses, changes in mode split, and changes in vehicle-occupancy levels. Other items of interest may include public attitudes, accident rates, and violation rates. Use levels during different times of the day, on weekends, and during special events may also be of interest.

· Performance monitoring programs should provide for the collection of adequate information at the lowest cost. Monitoring programs should allow for comparison to be made between modes and strategies to be made, as well as the tracking of policy decisions. A number of data types and sources are used in most performance monitoring programs. Data on vehicle volumes, vehicle speeds, occupancy levels, transit ridership, incidents, and public attitudes are frequently collected.

· Permanent counters are typically used to collect vehicle volumes. Permanent counters provide information on variation over time, which is key for understanding the public’s real experiences. Vehicle volumes for both HOV lanes and general-purpose lanes are needed. Loop detectors or other technologies such as cameras may be used. Freeway management data may be available in some areas that can be used. Transit operators may maintain records of bus volumes and ridership and changes in the number of buses and passengers over time.

· Data collection locations are important. Usage varies by location and facility performance varies by location. The effects of congestion and merging on data accuracy and utility must be considered.

· Existing detectors may be able to be used to provide speed and travel time data. They may also help provide a picture of the frequency and the location of congestion. Other speed and travel time data sources may also be available. These include data from transit automatic vehicle location (AVL) systems and probe vehicles with global positioning systems (GPS) or toll tags. Travel time runs represent another technique to collect travel time information.

· In examining speed and travel time data consideration must given to corridor travel times compared to detailed segment-by-segment travel times. Permanent, routine data collection is needed to learn about reliability, variation from day-to-day, and the influence of special events.

· Collecting vehicle-occupancy data is staff intensive. Limiting the number of locations can help reduce costs and maintain consistency. Locations should be carefully selected to ensure the ability to see and the safety of personnel. Data collection locations should also be representative of the corridor. It is best if the transit ridership can be obtained from the transit authority. It is important to remember that vehicle-occupancy is a highly variable number. The same count program can provide the measurement of compliance or the violate rate.

· Mode split is another important performance measure. Person volume is equal to vehicle volume data plus vehicle-occupancy data plus transit ridership data. Comparisons of HOV person volumes to person volumes in the general-purpose lanes are typically made.

· Accident and incident information is also desirable. Data on the time of the occurrence, the duration of occurrence, and the location of occurrence is beneficial. This data is often difficult or impossible to obtain.

· Information on special event traffic including the time and the location of the event and any special transit services is of help. Public attitudes are typically measured through surveys. Approaches may include random surveys of area residents, on-board surveys of bus riders, and surveys of HOV and general-purpose lane users. HOV users and motorists surveys are typically conducted by recording vehicle license plate numbers and sending mail out/mail back surveys. Infractions, such as the number of tickets issued or calls to HERO programs, may also be part of ongoing monitoring programs.

HOV Project Case Studies

Chris Wellander, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Moderator

The Twin Cities HOV Study

Paul Czech, Minnesota Department of Transportation

Krista Jeannotte, Cambridge Systematics

Mr. Paul Czech and Ms. Krista Jeannotte discussed the results of an HOV study conducted in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. The study, which was mandated by the Minnesota State Legislature during the 2001 legislative session, was conducted to determine the potential effects of opening the HOV lanes in the area to general traffic. The study, which was conducted by Cambridge Systematics for the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), was completed from September 2001 to March 2002. Mr. Czech and Ms. Jeannotte covered the following points in their presentation.

· The study examined the HOV lanes on I-394 to the west of downtown Minneapolis and I-35W to the south of Minneapolis. The I-394 facility includes both two-lane reversible barrier separated HOV lanes and concurrent flow lanes. Concurrent flow HOV lanes operate on I-35W. A 2+ vehicle-occupancy requirement is used on both facilities and the HOV lanes operate in the peak hours.

· In 2001, the Minnesota State Legislature directed Mn/DOT to study the effects of opening the HOV lanes to general traffic and to report the study findings during the 2002 legislative session. The legislation specifically prohibits Mn/DOT from physically opening the lanes if it will jeopardize federal funding.

· The HOV study objectives were to estimate the impacts of opening HOV lanes to all vehicles using a non-intrusive approach, which did not actually open the lanes to all drivers. The impacts included those on the I-394 and I-35W exiting carpool segments and on the region as a whole. Other study objectives included the compilation of research regarding the benefits and costs of HOV lanes, identifying the public’s perception of opening the HOV lanes, researching congestion pricing, and reporting and documenting results for the 2002 legislature.

· A number of major findings emerged from the study. First, the study results indicate that the HOV lanes are not operating at their full potential during the entire morning and afternoon peak periods. Second, when congestion is at its peak, the HOV lanes are moving more people than the general-purpose lanes. Third, the situation is forecast to be similar in the future, but the model does not account for many potential changes. Fourth, the lanes do provide significant time, reliability, and cost savings to users. Fifth, opening the lanes would result in a net positive benefit/cost ratio, but total one-time costs range from $40 to $41 million or approximately $4.7 to $6.4 million annually. Sixth, the lanes experience high violation rates due to design constraints on enforcement. Seventh, users of the lanes are highly supportive, non-users have mixed views, and no group favors opening the lanes to general-traffic.

· The study included a number of recommendations. The first recommendation was to continue to reserve the lanes for HOVs and to maintain long-term advantages for transit and carpools. The second recommendation was to apply the lessons learned to existing and/or new lanes related to enforcement, design, and eligibility.

· The I-35W HOV System consists of 5.7 miles northbound from Burnsville Parkway to 86^th Street and 7.5 miles southbound from 66^th Street to Trunk Highway 132. There are plans to extend both the north and the southbound lanes to 46^th Street in Minneapolis. The HOV lanes operate in both directions weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. All traffic may use the lanes at other times. Unlike I-394, the non-peak direction is still restricted to HOVs during the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

· The I-394 HOV System consists of 10.4 miles eastbound from CR 101 to I-94 and 8.8 miles westbound from I-94 to Carlson Parkway. Approximately three miles are reversible, barrier separated lanes, and the remainder is concurrent flow HOV lanes. The HOV lanes operate eastbound weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and westbound from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. All traffic may use the concurrent flow HOV lanes at other times, but not the reversible lanes. Operating hours for the reversible lanes are eastbound from 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and westbound from 2:00 p.m. to Midnight.

· Violation rate counts were conducted on both facilities as part of the study. Violation rates on the barrier-separated lanes on I-394 were 6 percent eastbound in the morning at Penn Avenue, 12 percent in the afternoon westbound direction. The violation rates on the concurrent flow facilities on I-394 and I-35W ranged from a low of 19 percent on I-394 to a high of 41 percent on I-35W.

· An analysis was conducted of the peak period travel time and mode shift impacts without HOV lanes in 2000 and 2020. Travel times for carpoolers and bus riders on both I-394 and I-34W would increase if the HOV lanes were open to all traffic. Travel times for single-occupancy vehicles on both I-394 and I-35W would decrease if the HOV lanes were open to all traffic. Some 6 percent of bus riders would change modes on I-35W if the HOV lanes were open to all commuters and 11 percent would change modes on I-394. A total of 21 percent of the carpoolers would change modes if the HOV lanes were open to all commuters.

· A benefit/cost analysis was conducted to examine the cost of opening the HOV lanes to all traffic. This analysis indicated that there was a positive benefit/cost ratio to opening the lanes to all traffic in 2000 and 2020. The benefit/cost ratio was examined with and without having to pay back federal funding used to construct the HOV lanes.

· Surveys of HOV lane users were conducted in both corridors. The results indicate that the sample was mobile, as well as educated, with high income levels. Most of the respondents were between 18 and 49 years of age. Between half and three-fourths of the sample was college educated. There was a high level of vehicle ownership, with a majority owning two or more cars. Nearly half to two-thirds of the sample report an annual household income greater than $65,000. Downtown Minneapolis is the destination of choice for bus and carpool riders. Travelers in the general-purpose lanes and random population samples had more varied destinations.

· Individuals were asked if they thought the HOV lanes should be continued, modified, or opened to all traffic. On I-35W, 67 percent of the carpoolers and 62 percent of the bus riders using the lanes favored continuing current operations, compared to 27 percent of the random survey respondents and 16 percent of the single-occupancy vehicle drivers. The random respondents and single-occupant travelers were more likely to favor modifying the operation of the lanes or opening them to all traffic. On I-394, 75 percent of the carpoolers and 72 percent of the bus riders favored maintaining the current operations compared to 27 percent for both travelers in the general-purpose lanes and the random sample.

· A total of 11 percent of the bus riders on I-394 and 6 percent of the riders on I-35W responded that they would change modes if the HOV lanes were discontinued. Some 16 percent of the carpoolers on I-394 reported they would change to driving alone and 8 percent said they would change to taking the bus if the HOV lanes were discontinued. A total of 15 percent of the carpoolers on I-35W said they would change to riding the bus.

· The main conclusion from the surveys was that people who use the lanes like them; people who do not use the lanes are much more mixed in their views. I-35W commuters are in general less supportive than I-394 commuters. Most people who carpool and ride the bus do so for cost and time savings. Most people who do not carpool or take the bus believe they cannot do so for jobs, family, or other reasons. There is not clear-cut support for any specific modification strategy. Any change would require major educational and marketing efforts. Removing the HOV requirement would result in some mode shifting but less than predicted by the model.

· At a national level there are some 2,500 miles of HOV lanes in North America. Lane miles are expected to double in the next 25 years. On average HOV lanes carry 3,400 to 4,000 persons/lane. The Minneapolis HOV lanes carry about 2,300 to3,000 persons/lane. Violation rates are in the 10 to13 percent range, which is lower than in the Minneapolis experience.

· Keys to successful HOV projects appear to include high level of congestion, strict enforcement, and few alternate routes. Synergy with parking, transit, and ridesharing policies, trip reduction ordinances, and public and policy maker support are also important. The most significant deployment of HOT lanes are in California, with SR 91 and I-15. These two projects appear to have high usage, low violation rates, increasing popular support, and minor income disparities among users.

· The major recommendations from the study were to preserve the lanes for HOV use to continue to provide advantages for transit and carpooling. The second recommendation was to consider the lessons learned in designing new lanes and opportunities. These elements include the increase use of barrier separation, providing left shoulder enforcement areas, increasing violation fines, adjusting hours of operation, using lanes during major incidents, making geometric improvements at access/egress points, and developing strategies for increasing person throughput including HOV lanes.

· Mn/DOT and HOV stakeholders are in the process of jointly developing an HOV Operations Management Plan that will comprehensively evaluate options for improving the HOV system including hours of operations, law enforcement, geometric improvements, types of vehicles allowed, and marketing.

HOV Experience in the Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington Region

Chris Christopher, Washington Department of Transportation

Dennis Mitchell, Oregon Department of Transportation

Mr. Dennis Mitchell and Mr. Chris Christopher discussed the pilot HOV lane project on I-5 in the Portland/Vancouver metropolitan area. They described the design and operation of the lanes, the current performance of the lanes, and the experience to date. They highlighted the following points in their presentation.

· The Vancouver I-5 southbound HOV lane complements the Portland northbound HOV lane. The lanes provide commuters with faster and more reliable trips between home and Portland employment centers. Additional HOV lanes are being considered in the area.

· There are eight goals for the Vancouver HOV lane. These eight goals are moving more people per lane, travel time reduction, minimize impacts to other traffic, increased use of HOV modes, maintain safety, provide adequate enforcement, provide HOVs with travel time reliability, and maintain and improve public opinion. Currently five of these eight goals are being met. The HOV lane is not currently moving more people per lane, although use levels have been increasing. It is also providing only partial travel time reductions and public opinion appears mixed.

· The experience with the Vancouver HOV lane points out the importance of park-and-ride facilities to the success of HOV projects. The hours of operation are also important. The project also illustrates the importance of the support and involvement from local policy makers.

· A decision on the future of the Vancouver HOV lane on I-5 should be made by the end of the year. One question will be what should be done if the decision is made to dedesignate the HOV lane. Other topics that may need to be considered are allowing the system to mature and considering HOT lanes.

· There are four goals for the HOV lanes on I-5 in Portland. These goals are to increase person throughput, reduce peak period travel time for HOV users, understand public opinion regarding HOV lanes, and maintain current levels of traffic operations.

· The experience with the HOV lanes in Portland highlights the importance of enforcement, addressing operational concerns, and public support. Enforcement issues include providing adequate funding and personnel for effective enforcement. Operation issues focus on safety concerning incidents and transitions for the lanes. Public support can be determined through surveys and violation rates.

· There are also some issues that must be addressed by both states. These concerns include the limitations of the I-5 Bridge over the Columbia River and the hours of HOV operation.

HOV System Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region

Carol Carter, Parsons Transportation Group

Ms. Carol Carter discussed HOV projects and activities in the Atlanta region. She described the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) HOV System Implementation Plan that is under development. She summarized the study background, the scope of work, the development of HOV systems guidelines, and the HOV project analysis, ratings, prioritization, and implementation strategy. She noted the assistance of Mr. Tommy Crochet, McGee Partners, with the presentation. Ms. Carter highlighted the following points in her presentation.

· The provisions for HOV lanes in Atlanta were included in the reconstruction of the downtown freeways in the mid 1980s. None of the designs were implemented, however. Thirty-eight miles of two-way concurrent HOV lanes were implemented in preparation for the 1996 Olympics on I-20, I-75, and I-85. The lanes on I-85 were extended for 12 miles. The expansion of the HOV system is an integral part of the current 2025 Atlanta Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

· This study was undertaken in response to a number of issues. First, air quality non-attainment restrictions indicated a need for greater investment in alternative modes. Second, increased traffic congestion and longer commutes have become a way of life in the region. Third, recommendations are needed for 2030 RTP Update. Fourth, extended and updated HOV facilities are needed to compliment expanded regional bus service. Finally, the Governor’s Transportation Choices Initiative announced in 2001 emphasizes alternative modes, included accelerating expansion of the HOV lane system.

· The scope of work included a number of tasks. Major activities included conducting a multi-city scanning tour of HOV facilities, developing guidelines for the system implementation, identifying needed projects, and prioritized these projects. Further, for each project identified, the typical section, access locations, and access types were determined, and cost estimates and schedules were prepared. The major environmental impacts were also identified for each project. The two final tasks were to develop enforcement guidelines and to develop a financially sound implementation plan.

· The development of the HOV system guidelines was led by the Texas Transportation Institute. National experience and a national HOV scanning tour of Dallas and Houston, Texas and Orange County and San Diego, California, were used to assist with this task.

· Seven HOV system goals were identified. These goals are to reduce and manage traffic congestion; to improve air quality; to maximize the use of carpools, vanpools, and transit; to ensure integration with transit; to attain positive public perception; to plan for a complete HOV system that is integral and critical to the entire transportation network; and to maintain the integrity of general use lanes. The measures of effectiveness (MOEs) associated with these goals focus on person throughput, travel time reliability, travel time savings, vehicle occupancy, violation rates, and accident rates.

· A level of service (LOS) HOV warrant was also developed. The warrant is a LOS E and/or 50 percent of the posted speed in the general lanes for a minimum of one hour, four out of five days. The warrant also includes providing a travel time savings of a minimum of one minute per mile and at least a total of five minutes of time savings. For HOV lane operation, a LOS is C on four out of five days is acceptable. If the acceptable LOS is exceeded, consideration should be given to adding capacity or increasing vehicle occupancy requirements.

· Typical sections were developed for different types of HOV facilities. Reversible lanes were identified for use only where the directional split is greater than 60-40. Further, reversible lanes were recommended for consideration in constrained areas. Barrier separation was identified as the most desirable for separation between HOV and general use lanes. Buffer separated lanes with vertical delineators were identified as acceptable, pending test studies. Striped buffers with concurrent flow lanes were identified as a minimum. The designs should include flexibility for expansion, reconfiguration, and other possible changes.

· Access guidelines were also developed. Access point locations should be consistent with land use in the area and preference should be given for transit connections. Direct access ramps and slip ramps are desirable. HOV direct access to transit facilities and park-and-ride lots should be strongly considered.

· HOV access considered for terminal treatments and intermediate points included direct merge access and slip ramps. Direct access ramps, such as drop ramps, t-ramps, flyover, wishbone, and y-ramps were examined. System-to-system ramps were also explored.

· The HOV system enforcement guidelines included development of a maximum violation rate of six percent, which is the existing guideline. Provisions for enforcement should be included in the design of an HOV facility. Other enforcement guidelines focus on incorporating ITS into all HOV facilities, reviewing legislation to address enforcement issues, and using a comprehensive monitoring program.

· Project prioritization was accomplished by a consensus of planners and engineers in partnership with GDOT, FHWA, the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), and the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA). A total rating was developed for each project based on planning ratings, constructability ratings, and other RTP projects in the corridor. Interim project rankings were prepared in February 2002. Final prioritization is due in December 2002, with projects prioritized by tier. The rating categories in planning included peak-period congestion, connections to major activity centers, system connectivity, transit and express bus connectivity, travel time savings, and safety. Rating categories for constructability were available right-of-way, typical cross-section considerations and costs, bridge replacements, and environmental impacts.

· The implementation plan will include a series of recommendations for phasing the HOV projects, which will be listed by tiers in order of priority. Elements of the implementation program beyond the scope of this study included refining the typical cross-section and access design during the project development process, a detailed enforcement plan, and the data collection, monitoring and reporting on the measures of effectiveness. Marketing and education efforts are also beyond the scope of this project. Strong partnerships will be required between GDOT, FHWA, GRTA, transit agencies, enforcement agencies, and the judicial system for the success of HOV facilities in the Atlanta region.

San Francisco Bay Area HOV Lane Master Plan

Bill Loudon

DKS Associates

Dr. Bill Loudon described the development of an HOV Lane Master Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area. He noted the assistance of Doug Kimsey, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, with the project. Dr. Loudon summarized the project purpose and background, described the evaluation of system performance and the HOV lane speed estimation process, and highlighted the study recommendations.

· HOV lanes have been in operation in the San Francisco Bay Area since the 1980s. Most lanes operate with a 2+ vehicle-occupancy requirement, although some use a 3+ requirement. The lanes allow continuous entry and exit and operate with the HOV designation only during the peak-periods.

· This project represents the third HOV master plan for the Bay Area. The first plan was completed in 1990 and a second plan was undertaken in 1997. In 1990 there were four HOV facilities in the region, accounting for about 60 lane miles. By 1997, HOV lanes were in operation on nine freeways, accounting for some 260 lane miles. Both lane miles and use levels have increased since 1997.

· The current planning effort re-evaluated the policies relating to HOV facilities in the area. Vehicle occupancy requirements, hours of operation, enforcement practices, and opportunities for value pricing were all examined. Assessing possible system expansion was also a major focus of the study. Potential expansion includes gap closures, new corridors, express bus networks, and supporting facilities. The study further examined the air quality effects of the HOV lanes including maximum benefits, variation by alternatives, and policy implications.

· Five key performance measures were used in the study. Lane use was measured by HOV eligible vehicles and people per hour. Lane productivity was measured by HOV lane people per lane per hour compared to the mixed flow lanes people per lane per hour. Travel time benefits were measured by time savings per mile. Violate rates were examined. The final measure examined user characteristics and attitudes.

· The performance of the HOV lanes in the area varies. The vehicles per hour in 2001 ranged from a high of slightly over 2,000 on US 101 to a low of about 600 on SR 4. There are four HOV lanes that carry between 4,000 to 5,000 persons per hour. There are 11 HOV facilities had lane productivity indexes above 1.0, while three were at 1.0 or below. The I-880 HOV lanes save users the greatest amount of time, approximately 2.6 minutes per mile. Only the HOV lanes on SR 4 do not provide travel time savings. Violation rates range from a low of 2 percent on US 101 to a high of 11 percent on I-880. A total of 10 of the 14 HOV lanes have violation rates lower than 4 percent.

· The California Highway Patrol (CHP) is responsible for enforcement of the HOV lanes. There are few enforcement areas or shoulders on most of the HOV lanes. Enforcement is conducted by regular safety patrols, plus targeted supplemental enforcement. Caltrans funds the overtime pay of two officers for the supplemental enforcement. There is no electronic surveillance or ticketing and only limited citizen reporting.

· Survey results indicate that some 78 percent of the HOV lane users are making work trips. The survey results also indicate that 60 percent of the carpools are comprised of family members. The HOV lanes are important factors in the decision to carpool, with 69 percent indicating that the HOV lanes greatly influenced their decision to rideshare.

· A number of recommendations for further analysis emerged from the study. First, the need to move to a 3+ occupancy requirement over the next 20 years was identified. Second, the need to expand the hours of operation as appropriate to a consistent maximum was recommended. Third, photo surveillance was recommended for further consideration as a supplemental enforcement tool. The fourth recommendation was to consider low-cost HOT lanes as an interim measure when shifting to a 3+ occupancy requirement. Expanding the Bay Area express bus network was also recommended. Finally, expanding the HOV system and support facilities was recommended.

· Currently, 98 additional miles of HOV lanes are included in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and 139 HOV lane miles are included in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The recommendations from the 2002 HOV Master Plan include 70 new HOV lane miles, new freeway-to-freeway HOV connections, and three new direct access ramps. Other recommendations include two major on-line freeway express bus stations and 17 new minor express bus stations and park-and-ride lots.

Performance and Policy in Southern California

Darren Henderson, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Moderator

Overview of Southern California HOV Activities

Darren Henderson

Parsons Brinckerhoff

Mr. Darren Henderson provided an overview of recent HOV-related activities in southern California. He described the exiting HOV system, recent legislation influencing HOV facilities, and current performance studies and monitoring efforts. Mr. Henderson covered the following points in his presentation.

· The HOV system in southern California developed rapidly during the 1990s. Currently, there are approximately 715 lane miles of HOV facilities in operation in southern California. The HOV system is only partially completed, with more projects underway. The HOV lanes in the area typically operate on a full-time basis. The concurrent flow lanes are separated from the general-purpose lanes by a buffer. A 2+ occupancy requirement is used on all but one facility. Performance and policy questions have been raised recently by the legislature and other groups.

· Recent legislation has focused on HOV operations. Some measures have passed, while others have not. Senate Bill 63 lowered the occupancy requirement on the El Monte Busway to 2+ and Assembly Bill 769 changed it back to 3+ during the peak-periods. Assembly Bill 1871 recommends part-time HOV operation on SR 14. Assembly Bill allows Inherently Low Emissions Vehicles (ILEVs) to use HOV lanes. Senate Bill 545 requires evaluating HOV lane performance. Assembly Bill 2582 would allow paratransit vehicles to deadhead in HOV lanes, and Assembly Bill 44 would convert all HOV lanes to mixed-flow.

· Much of the recent interest in HOV lanes was generated by a report from the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO). The report suggested that many HOV lanes are operating below capacity and that air quality benefits from HOV lanes are unknown. The report also suggested that the HOV lanes are not being adequately evaluated. In addition, questions have been raised over variations in operating policies. There has been some negative media coverage related to the HOV facilities in the area.

· Caltrans has an ongoing HOV monitoring program. The Caltrans districts in southern California prepare annual reports on HOV facilities that includes data on vehicle volumes, occupancy levels, violation rates, and travel times.

· The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) recently sponsored the development of an HOV performance program for the county. The four major elements of the study included establishing an ongoing monitoring program, identifying the benefits accrued to date from the HOV lanes, assessing the impacts of the HOV facilities, and developing policy recommendations.

· One of the first activities of the MTA HOV performance program was to refine the goals and objectives for the HOV lanes in the county. The five major objectives for the HOV facilities focus on increasing person movement capacity, encouraging carpooling and transit use, providing travel time savings, providing air quality benefits, and promoting cost effectiveness.

· Measures of effectiveness were defined for each of the objectives. Data collection activities were begun to obtain the information needed to assess the measures of effectiveness. Information was collected on physical characteristics, vehicle volumes, occupancy levels, travel times, violation rates, transit use levels, and public attitudes. Data limitations had to be addressed for some of the measures.

· The performance of the HOV lanes was assessed based on survey results, mobility measures, cost-effectiveness, and air quality. The study, including data collection and analysis, was coordinated with Caltrans and other agencies.

· A number of key findings emerged from the study. First, there is widespread support for HOV lanes in the county. Second, all of the HOV lanes in the county provide travel time savings to users. Third, the HOV lanes move more people then general-purpose lanes and encourage carpooling. Fourth, the HOV lanes are a good investment. Fifth, many HOV lanes are nearly full. Finally, the HOV lanes help air quality.

· The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) initiated a related HOV study in three other counties in the region. This study builds on the MTA performance program by examining HOV facilities in Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. It will be used to help guide region-wide HOV policies.

· The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) recently completed an HOV operations policy study. This study reviewed HOV performance, addressed policy variations, identified best practices, and developed a decision-making framework. Key findings from the study included high peak utilization, high off-peak/weekend utilization, and extremely low violation rates. The implications of changing HOV operating policies were also identified.

· In general, the HOV lanes in southern California are popular with travelers and are a good investment. Media coverage has improved recently. The HOV facilities are being expanded and gap closures and connectors are being prioritized. An ongoing performance monitoring program is in place and the agencies are committed to review operational policies as necessary.

Southern California HOV Performance and Policy – Caltrans Perspective

Antonette Clark

California Department of Transportation

Ms. Antonette Clark discussed the HOV performance monitoring conducted by Caltrans in Southern California. She also highlighted Caltrans activities related to responding to legislative directives and other program. She covered the following topics in her presentation.

· Caltrans and other transit agencies continue to focus on maximizing the performance of investments made in the state’s roadways, while preserving safety and promoting cleaner air. HOV facilities represent one approach being used to respond to growing traffic congestion, declining mobility levels, and air quality and environmental concerns. Caltrans tries to communicate to the public that HOV facilities are not the single solution to those issues, but they are part of the solution.

· A comprehensive and coordinated system of related strategies is needed to combat traffic congestion. In addition to HOV facilities, other elements include BRT, ramp metering, park-and-ride lots, transit hubs, on-line stations, freeway-to-freeway connectors, drop ramps, and other facilities.

· Ongoing dialog about HOV effectiveness and the vision for HOV facilities is needed. With the turnover in elected officials, ongoing information programs and one-on-one dialogs are needed. Improved public information and education is also a need.

· Caltrans HOV operation policies vary between northern California and southern California. Freeway commute patterns differ widely throughout the state with respect to level of congestion, length of the peak and off-peak periods, and number of peak periods in the day. Maintaining consistent HOV hours of operation on a corridor basis as well as a region-wide basis are needed to avoid motorist confusion.

· Studies and demonstration projects have shown that full-time HOV operations provided greater benefits in relieving the rate of congestion, providing rideshare incentives, and making enforcement easier. As a result, HOV lanes in southern California typically operate on a full-time basis, although part-time demonstration projects are being investigated.

· Conversely, areas with commute patterns generally consisting of two short definable peak commute periods separated by a long midday off peak traffic period do not meet the basic traffic criteria for full-time HOV operations. As a result, HOV lanes in northern California are more likely to operate during the peak-periods.

· Formalizing a team of regional HOV stakeholders who would meet on a regular basis would benefit southern California. This group could agree on a set of performance measures and monitor the results of ongoing data collection and analysis studies. A statewide focus would be less helpful as conditions vary greatly across the six major metro areas in California.

· A number of things could be done to improve data collection and performance monitoring. First, there is a need for consistent and more accurate continuous loop data. Second, consistent and regular analysis of data, trends, and measures of effectiveness would help. There is also a need for automated violation enforcement systems. Additionally, there is also a need for calibrated air quality models to accurately measure HOV air benefits.

· Caltrans is conducting a number of activities to maximize the efficiency of HOV lanes, including expanding public information efforts. Immediate strategies include press releases, HOV facility grand openings, showcasing of study findings, more HOV information on maps, and the HOV information on the Internet. Longer-term strategies include public surveys and public information campaigns. Caltrans is conducting studies to encourage transit utilization and recently completed a park-and-ride/HOV facility 5-Year Master Plan and Program of Projects.

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority HOV Performance Program

Ray Maekawa

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Mr. Ray Maekawa summarized recent HOV monitoring activities conducted by the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). He highlighted the recently completed HOV Performance Program. Mr. Maekawa covered the following points in his presentation.

· The MTA recently reorganized into six area teams. Each team is responsible for multimodal planning and programming within a specific geographical area. Although each area has approximately 2 million people, the development patterns and nature of the areas are very different.

· The MTA sponsored an HOV Performance Program study. The study was part of the ongoing development of the HOV system in the country. This effort provides a systematic and technical basis for completion of the HOV system. Developing an HOV planning and marketing program to selectively increase transit ridership and ridesharing is another important activity. Establishing an ongoing monitoring and evaluation HOV program represents another key outcome of the study.

· Although the MTA provided the funding, the study represented a joint effort of the MTA and Caltrans District 7. Caltrans staff provided assistance with data collection, analysis, and establishing an ongoing monitoring program. The study was more than just a one-time snapshot of the performance of the HOV system. The ongoing monitoring and evaluation program is a key element of the study. The study also examined ways to improve the HOV system.

· The study also included surveys of HOV lane users, motorists in the general-purpose lanes, and area residents. Interviews were also conducted with key stakeholders. Even though data indicates that the HOV lanes in the county are meeting the identified objectives, there are still people who question their effectiveness. Ongoing information programs are needed to help continue to educate people on the benefits of HOV facilities.

HOV Cost Effectiveness

Brent Baker

Parsons Brinckerhoff

Mr. Brent Baker discussed the HOV cost effectiveness analysis conducted as part of the MTA HOV Performance Program. He described the analysis methodology and some of the key findings. Mr. Baker covered the following points in his presentation.

· Cost-effectiveness has many different meanings. For the Los Angeles study, a benefit-cost analysis was conducted to help assess if the HOV lanes were a good economical investment. A benefit-cost model developed for Caltrans on a different project was used in this study. The Cal BC model is the standard used by Caltrans to evaluate projects.

· Usually, a benefit-cost analysis is conducted to assess the feasibility of alternatives of a project. This study involved a change in perspective of looking backwards at completed projects to assess if they were good investments. The analysis involved looking backward and predicting what the situation would have been without the investments. Since HOV lanes are often directional specific, the model also had to be adjusted to account for this factor.

· A total of 15 HOV segments were evaluated in the cost-benefit assessment. The data requirements are typical of benefit-cost models and include items such as capital, maintenance, and enforcement costs. These costs were escalated to 2000 dollars. The time period used in the model is the conception duration and a benefit period of 20 years. Benefits were only measured for the peak period. The analysis of net present value had to consider that the lanes had different construction years and different construction year dollars. Other input data included project length and lane configuration; Average Daily Traffic (ADT) before construction, the opening year, and the first full year of operation; the current year; and the percent of trucks. A forecast was also developed for the opening year and the opening year plus 20. The actual growth in traffic was used for the period of time from the opening of the lane to the present. The MTAs travel demand forecasting model was used to project forward; using the assumption that HOV traffic would grow at the same rate as general traffic. The other inputs were the duration of the peak periods, HOV volumes, Average Vehicle Occupancy (AVO) before and after the project.

· A conservative approach was taken in considering possible benefits. The benefits included in the assessment were travel time savings, operating cost savings, and impacts on the general-purpose lanes. Possible safety and air quality benefits were not considered in the analysis. Induced demand was also not considered.

· Typical benefit-cost evaluation measures were used in the study. These evaluation measures included net present value, economic rate of return, and benefit-cost ratio. A new measure, the year of economic feasibility was created for the study. This measure represents the year that the present benefits of lanes exceed the project cost or the year the benefit-cost ratio is greater than one. Approximately half of the HOV lanes in the study have already passed their year of economic feasibility. Some 14 of the 15 projects had benefit-cost ratios in excess of one. One segment of the I-110 HOV lane did not have a benefit-cost ratio greater than one. This facility had a benefit-cost ratio of about 0.9, largely due to high capital costs.

The Santa Monica Diamond Lane Evaluation

John Billheimer

Systan, Inc.

Dr. John Billheimer described the evaluation conducted on the Santa Monica diamond lane project in 1976. He summarized the project, the evaluation, and some of the results. Dr. Billheimer covered the following points in his presentation.

· The Santa Monica HOV lane, called the diamond lane, was implemented in 1976. The project, which converted a general-purpose lane into an HOV lane, was strongly criticized in the media and by local politicians. As a result, Caltrans rescinded the HOV-designation after 22 weeks of operation.

· The evaluation of the project showed that there were benefits from the HOV designation. The freeway carried three percent fewer people in 10 percent fewer vehicles and the corridor carried one percent more people in five percent fewer vehicles during the project. Carpools with three or more people increased by 65 percent, bus ridership more than tripled, and travel speeds in the diamond lane were faster and more consistent.

· The evaluation also showed there were numerous negative effects from the diamond lanes. Accident rates increased, motorists in the general-purpose lanes lost more time than carpoolers gained, and public opinion was strongly against the project.

· The experience with the Santa Monica diamond lanes influenced the development of HOV facilities in southern California and other areas of the country. Although there are 750 miles of operating HOV lanes in southern California today, none have been created by taking an existing general-purpose lane. This trend holds true for most HOV lanes throughout the country. There are only a few examples of HOV facilities created by taking an existing general-purpose lane.

· There were some unrealized impacts associated with the Santa Monica project. There was an increased in fuel consumption shortly after the project started and no air quality improvements were documented.

· The media was critical of the project. There were frequent editorial cartoons criticizing the diamond lanes. The press conducted their own data collection activities and reported the results in stories and articles.

· There was a good deal of data collected during the project. There has also been an ongoing HOV data collection effort in southern California. A study started after the MTA project is examining the HOV lanes in Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. This study is just beginning. There appears to be a lack of data on many of the HOV lanes in these three counties. For example, Caltrans stopped collecting data on the Orange County HOV lanes in 1994 primarily because the HOV facilities were assumed to be part of the freeway system. As a result, there is little data on the impact of the HOV lanes during this period including the freeway to freeway HOV connectors. Caltrans has started completing annual reports on the HOV lanes again, but elements such as speed runs are still lacking in Orange County. Preliminary vehicle count data indicates that the HOV lanes in Orange County are carrying close to 1,650 vehicles in the peak hour. These high volumes raise a question if the HOV lanes are providing travel time savings over the general purpose lanes.

· Over the past 25 years there has been a change from a relatively few HOV lanes in southern California and a good deal of data on them to numerous projects with less available data. There has also been a change in public perceptions toward HOV lanes from the criticism of the Santa Monica project to fairly widespread support today. The media still appears to be critical of the HOV lanes at times.

Enforcement, Incident, and Event Management

Dave McCormick, Washington State Department of Transportation, Moderator

The Truth about HOV Enforcement

John O’Laughlin

PB Farradyne Systems

Mr. John O’Laughlin discussed enforcement of HOV operational requirements, including vehicle-occupancy levels. He described the goals and objectives of enforcement programs, HOV regulations, enforcement issues, staffing needs, and enforcement strategies and tools. Mr. O’Laughlin covered the following points in his presentation.

· Typical goals of HOV enforcement programs are to ensure motorist and officer safety, to provide reliable enforcement levels, and to help ensure motorist adherence with operating requirements. Typical objectives include maintaining a specific compliance rate and maintaining motorist acceptance. Other objectives may be to provide non-intrusive, but highly visible, enforcement and to maintain consistent applications.

· Enforcement focuses on ensuring that HOV operating requirements are met and not abused. Typical regulations that need to be enforced include vehicle-occupancy requirements and hours of operation.

· A number of issues typically need to be addressed in developing and carrying out an HOV enforcement program. Weather, visibility, and lighting may all be issues. Speeds, sight distances, and glide paths all need to be considered in developing enforcement areas and patterns. Enforcement approaches also need to be sensitive to avoid causing choke points, incidents, and congestion. Possible issues with seeing inside a vehicle to determine vehicle-occupancy levels include tinted windows, the use of dummies, children in carseats, and reclining passengers.

· Public information is an important element of enforcement programs. Targeting information to the news media and the public is important. The HERO self-enforcement concept has been used in some areas. The policy on public vehicle use of an HOV lane will influence enforcement approaches and the use of motorcycles or patrol vehicles will influence the enforcement techniques. Clean shoulders and emergency lights are also important elements.

· Enforcement staffing is an important consideration. Issues that need to be addressed with staffing include providing consistent coverage, providing consistent enforcement with multiple officers, and the halo effect.

· There are four basic types of enforcement strategies. These strategies are routine, special, selective, and self enforcement. A number of tools can be used to enhance these enforcement methods. These tools include video, photographs, spotters, motorcycles, and unmarked patrol cars.

· Enforcement should enhance HOV operations and effectiveness. Enforcement is also important to help ensure ongoing public support.

Incident Management in Washington State

John Bruun

Washington State Department of Transportation

Mr. John Bruun discussed the WSDOT incident response service. He summarized the mission of the service, the approaches used, the services provided, and the benefits of the program. Mr. Bruun covered the following points in his presentation.

· The mission of WSDOT’s incident response service is to assist drivers and to clear roadways faster. Quick response is provided to help traffic control and to assist motorists, to reduce incident duration, and to avoid secondary collisions. The major focus of the program is on the peak traffic periods, but service is provided 24 hours a day on state highways.

· Service is provided in response to requests from the Washington State Patrol (WSP). Roving patrols also cover the freeways, especially during the peak periods. There is a 90-minute clearance goal to help reduce traffic congestion. Elements of the WSDOT incident response service include response planning, incident detection, traffic flow management, incident command and coordination, incident clearance, and staff training.

· There are 44 units statewide, 40 of these are roving units, and four are on-call units. A variety of vehicles are available to help address incidents and crashes that are blocking or impeding the normal flow of traffic. Major functions focus on traffic control and incident clearance.

· Hazardous materials response is also a service. Services that may be needed to address a hazardous materials spill or incident include traffic control, specialist for dealing with petroleum and other products, unified incident command, and control and confinement. In some cases, vehicle-to-vehicle diesel fuel transfer may be required.

· A number of services focus on helping address traffic congestion. These services include contracted service patrols, enforcement of no parking zones, the steer-it-clear-it policy, joint interagency operational agreements, and roving patrols.

· Interagency coordination and cooperation is key to the incident response program. Agencies participating in the coordinated approach include WSP, local police, local public works departments, local fire departments, and the U.S. Department of Energy. The media is also a key group for disseminating information on problems or incidents. Interagency training is provided to help ensure a coordinated approach.

· Key elements of the WSDOT incident response program are providing quick response and controlling traffic at the scene. Coordination, cooperation, and communication among agencies is critical to the success of the program. The WSDOT incident response program has been successful at clearing roads and helping drivers.

Bus and HOV System on I-278 in New York City – Pre and Post 9/11

Ed Mark

New York Department of Transportation

Mr. Ed Mark discussed the bus and HOV system on I-278 in New York City before and after September 11, 2001. He described the development of HOV facilities in the area and recent activities. Mr. Mark covered the following points in his presentation.

· In 1976 the New York City Department of Transportation implemented a concurrent flow bus/taxi lane on the Gowanus Expressway between 72^nd Street and the Shore Parkway Interchange. In 1980, the New York State Department of Transportation and the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority implemented a contraflow bus/taxi lane between the Prospect Expressway and the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel. In 1992, the contraflow lane was converted into a median bus/taxi lane.

· In 1996 the Gowanus Expressway bus/HOV 2+ lane was implemented. It includes a contraflow lane from 54^th Street to the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel. The bus-only concurrent flow lane from 73^rd Street to 65^th Street was converted to bus/HOV 2+. In 1998 the bus-only ramp to the Staten Island Expressway (SIE) was opened. In 2000 the bus/HOV 2+ lane was extended to include the section from the Varrazano Narrows Bridge to 72^nd Street.

· The I-278 corridor mobility system includes the Gowanus Expressway bus/HOV lane, the SIE bus lane, Staten Island park-and-ride facilities, SIE Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS), and Commuter Link TDM services.

· The eastern portion of the SIE concurrent flow lane to the Varrazano Narrows Bridge is one mile in length. The western two-mile section is currently under design. The Gowanus Expressway contraflow lane is approximately five miles in length from 92^nd Street to the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel.

· The I-278 facility operates from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. on weekdays. It is only open to vehicles equipped with an E-Z pass, buses, taxis, vehicles with at least two occupants, and other authorized vehicles. There are a high proportion of express buses in the HOV lane. Approximately 500 vehicles use this lane in the peak hour entering Manhattan, including 275 buses. These vehicles carry approximately 16,000 passengers in the peak hour.

· The Gowanus Expressway bus/HOV lane was opened to buses and HOV 2+ vehicles from 1996 to September 11, 2001. After September 11, 2001 it was open to only emergency vehicles. It was re-opened for buses and authorized vehicles only in October 2001. On April 1, 2002 buses, HOV 3+ vehicles, and authorized vehicles were allowed to use the lane.

· Prior to September 11, 2001, approximately 1,285 vehicles used the Gowanus Expressway bus/HOV lane in the morning peak hour from 7:45 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. The vehicle mix was approximately 220 buses, 805 2+ carpools, and 180 3+ carpool. Some 3,425 vehicles were in the general-purpose lanes during the same time period. From October 2001 to March 2002 during the bus and emergency vehicle-only operation, some 510 vehicles used the lane. From April 2002 to the present, 690 vehicles use the lane in the morning peak hour, including 240 buses, 130 2+ carpools, and 110 3+ carpools. General-purpose lane volumes were 2,360 vehicle during that same period.

· A comparison of vehicle speeds on the Gowanus Expressway indicates a change before and after September 11. Prior to September 11, travel speeds in the bus/HOV lane were 34 mph, compared to 12 mph in the general-purpose lanes. During the bus-only operation from October 2001 to March 2002, speeds in the lane were 44 mph compared to 8 mph in the general-purpose lanes. With the return to bus and HOV operation from April 2002 to the present, travel speeds in the lane have been 49 mph compared to 14 mph in the general-purpose lanes.

· Bus ridership levels have increased since the lane was opened in 1996. From 1996 to 2000, bus ridership increased by 50 percent and ridership in the months prior to September 2001 was 43,600 to 44,100. Ridership levels declined to 22,700 in September 2001, but returned to 43,881 in October 2001. Weekday ridership from January to June 2002 averaged between a low of 43,910 and a high of 47,279. From May 2001 to May 2002, weekday express bus ridership from Staten Island increased 7 percent from 34,127 to 36,511 and ridership from Brooklyn increased 10 percent from 8,961 to 9,866.

· A number of enhancements to the I-278 mobility system are planned. First, an extension of the bus median shoulder concurrent flow lane to Slosson Avenue with exclusive bus entry ramps is in the planning stage. Second, expansion of the Staten Island park-and-ride facilities is planned. Currently, there is one lot with 190 spaces. There are two lots, with 400 spaces, under construction and four lots with 410 spaces are in the planning stage. These additions will bring the total number of lots to seven and the total number of parking spaces to approximately 1,000.

· There are arterial bus enhancements underway to support BRT implementation and integration. Elements include the Church Street Busway in Lower Manhattan, new BRT shelter designs and passenger amenities, arterial street bus priority and signal prioritization connecting to I-278 to the bus lane, multimodal transfer facilities, and multi-agency partnerships to develop a highway/local street BRT system.

· The bus/HOV system elements on the I-278 corridor are being implemented by NYSDOT working closely with other agencies. The I-278 bus/HOV mobility system is being built section by section as opportunities and resources become available. Cooperation among agencies and stakeholders, as well as a system orientation, have been critical elements in the process. Improving mobility on an ongoing system permits a more effective and flexible operation in both emergency situations and under normal conditions.

Evaluating HOV in Salt Lake City, Utah

Joseph Perrin

University of Utah

Dr. Joseph Perrin discussed the HOV lanes in Salt Lake City. He noted that Mr. Peng Wu and Mr. Peter Martin assisted with the evaluation information presented. Dr. Perrin provided an overview of the HOV lanes in Salt Lake City and the results of the recent monitoring efforts. Dr. Perrin covered the following points in his presentation.

· Utah’s first HOV lanes were opened on I-15 in May of 2002. The 16 miles of concurrent flow HOV lanes are separated from the general-purpose lanes by paint stripes. A 24/7 designation is used on the HOV lanes, which are opened to 2+ carpools, vanpools, buses, and motorcycles. There are also HOV ramps at some locations.

· HOV lanes have been implemented throughout the country to maximize the person-carrying capacity of existing freeways, offering travel-time savings and trip reliability benefits. However, their performance is often controversial. The Utah State Department of Transportation (UDOT), in conjunction with the University of Utah and Mountain Plains Consortium, conducted a two-year study, which began before the HOV lanes opened and continued throughout the first year of operation. The research objectives were to measure the effectiveness of HOV lanes by comparing them with national experience and to recommend any changes to the existing HOV operations policies or procedures.

· The study employed two types of evaluation methods, With/Without and Before/After. Several measures of effectiveness were used including vehicle and passenger volumes, travel-time savings and trip reliability, violation rates, and AVO.

· A variety of data sources were used in the study. Volume and speed data were obtained from the automated traffic monitoring system (ATMS). These data were supplemented by manually obtained volume and speed informatio


11th International Conference on High-Occupancy Vehicle Systems Conference Proceedings October 2002 Seattle, Washington

11th International Conference on High-Occupancy Vehicle Systems Conference Proceedings October 2002 Seattle, Washington

OPENING SESSION – WELCOME

PLENARY SESSION — THE FUTURE AIN’T WHAT IT USED TO BE

PLENARY SESSION — TOO MANY, TOO FEW, JUST RIGHT: CHALLENGES

TO THE HOV CONCEPT............................................................................................. 13

KEYNOTE LUNCHEON SPEECH — HOV FACILITIES IN THE SEATTLE

REGION, Grace Crunican................................................................................................ 23

PLENARY SESSION — MEETING THE CHALLENGE: SOLUTIONS AND STRATEGIES 29

PLENARY SESSION — THE FUTURE OF HOV FACILITIES: EVOLUTION

OR REVOLUTION?...................................................................................................... 37

HOV SYSTEMS TRACK

Monitoring and Applying Performance Standards........................................................ 45

Performance and Policy in Southern California............................................................ 61

Enforcement, Incident, and Event Management.......................................................... 69

Direct Access – The Puget Sound Experience.............................................................. 77

Developing the HOV Market........................................................................................ 81

BUS RAPID TRANSIT TRACK

HOV Funding: Issues and Initiatives........................................................................... 115

Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Studies.............................................................................. 121

MANAGED LANES TRACK

Telling the Managed Lanes Story................................................................................. 135

Value Pricing, Part One.................................................................................................. 143

Value Pricing, Part Two.................................................................................................. 151

OPENING SESSION ¾ WELCOME

Welcome to Seattle

Greg Nickels

Mayor, City of Seattle

Conference Welcome

Ron Sims

Executive King County

PLENARY SESSION ¾ THE FUTURE AIN’T WHAT IT USED TO BE

Greeting from the TRB HOV Systems Committee

Dave Schumacher

Metropolitan Transit Development Board

PLENARY SESSION ¾ TOO MANY, TOO FEW, JUST RIGHT:

CHALLENGES TO THE HOV CONCEPT

Jon Obenberger, Federal Highway Administration, Moderator

HOV Facilities: Challenges and Opportunities

Katherine F. Turnbull

Legislating HOV Rules: Two Stories from California

Antonette Clark

Are HOV Lanes the Best Solution for the Money

Jim MacIssac

PLENARY SESSION ¾ MEETING THE CHALLENGE: SOLUTIONS & STRATEGIES

Rob Fellows, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Moderator

Transit and HOV Lanes – A Great Combination

Dave Schumacher

PLENARY SESSION ¾ THE FUTURE OF HOV FAICLITIES: EVOLUTION OR REVOLUTION

Paula Hammond, Washington State Department of Transportation, Moderator

HOV Systems Track

Monitoring and Applying Performance Standards

Kevin Haboian, Parsons Transportation Group, Moderator

The Twin Cities HOV Study

Paul Czech, Minnesota Department of Transportation

Krista Jeannotte, Cambridge Systematics

San Francisco Bay Area HOV Lane Master Plan

Bill Loudon

Performance and Policy in Southern California

Darren Henderson, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Moderator

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority HOV Performance Program

Ray Maekawa

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Enforcement, Incident, and Event Management

Dave McCormick, Washington State Department of Transportation, Moderator

The Truth about HOV Enforcement

John O’Laughlin

Incident Management in Washington State

John Bruun

Bus and HOV System on I-278 in New York City – Pre and Post 9/11

Ed Mark

Evaluating HOV in Salt Lake City, Utah

Joseph Perrin

11th International Conference on High-Occupancy Vehicle Systems Conference Proceedings
October 2002
Seattle, Washington