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.

· 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.

Transit Priority Treatments in King County

Ellen Bevington, King County Metro, Moderator

Development of Business-Access and Transit Lane Concept for Aurora Avenue in Seattle

Tim Bevan

CH2M Hill

Mr. Tim Bevan provided an overview of the Aurora corridor project in the City of Shoreline, located to the north of Seattle. He summarized the background of the project, described the business access and transit lane concept, and highlighted some of the concept considerations and benefits. Mr. Bevan covered the following points in his presentation.

· Aurora Avenue is a major north/south roadway. It is highly congested and has high accident rates. Sidewalks are limited along the roadway and the general aesthetics of the corridor are poor. The roadway conditions are generally non-supportive for transit.

· The goals of the Aurora Avenue project are to improve safety for traffic and pedestrians, to optimize safe and efficient movement of people and goods, and to support increased use of transit. Other goals are to balance local and regional travel movements, to meet long-term travel needs, to improve aesthetics, to support a comprehensive plan, and to preserve neighborhoods in the corridor.

· A number of alternatives were examined in the study. These alternatives included bus and HOV lanes, landscaped medians, and center turn lanes.

· The preferred alternative contains a number of elements. Roadway elements included expanding intersection capacity, providing business access and transit lanes, providing transit signal priority, addressing safety and access management issues, and providing left turn lanes and U-turn lanes. Sidewalk and aesthetic elements include seven-foot sidewalks, landscape buffers, pedestrian crossings, landscaped medians, and additional illumination. Other elements include placing utilities underground and storm water management.

· A typical business access and transit lane striping signing plan was developed. Elements of the plan include far side bus stops, bus lanes approaching the stops, and signs with “Right Lane Must Turn Right/Except Buses.”

· Safety benefits of the preferred alternative were also considered. Currently, driveway densities are very high along the avenue, with an average of 60 per mile. The proposed alternative would combine some access points and eliminate others, reducing driveway-related accidents. It would also address business concerns regarding ease of customer access.

· Traffic operations benefits of the preferred alternative include improved traffic flow, accommodation of right turn traffic volumes at intersections, and increased corridor traffic capacity, reducing average delay time. Transit benefits include increasing transit speed, improving reliability, and increasing corridor person-movement capacity.

· The business access and transit lane concept represents part of a comprehensive solution to a unique problem. The concept provides several types of benefits to numerous user groups.

Arterial BRT Plan Development

Matt Shelden

King County Metro

Mr. Matt Shelden discussed King County Metro’s BRT program. He described the BRT elements currently provided, as well as those under development. Mr. Shelden covered the following points in this presentation.

· Metro is already employing many BRT elements. These elements include frequent limited stop and express bus services, transit priority lanes, and automated traveler information systems. Examples of priority treatments included the downtown Seattle bus tunnel, HOV lanes, and signal priority at some intersections. My Bus and BusView provide real-time bus information to riders.

· Other BRT elements are being developed and tested. Examples of these elements include SmartCard electronic fare payment and enhanced security tools, such as on-board cameras. Hybrid buses are also being examined. While these elements are in use or are being planned, Metro has not yet combined all of these elements together in a distinctive total BRT corridor package.

· Metro’s approach to BRT focuses on a number of concepts and elements. The approaches will focus on arterial BRT applications similar to the system in Los Angeles. It will start with one corridor to test elements and evaluate the potential for other applications. Initially implementation is occurring within current Metro budget and revenue sources. Opportunities for additional funding are being explored. The system will be enhanced as funds are available.

· Metro’s BRT program focuses on four major objectives. The first objective is to increase transit ridership and all-day market share. The second objective is to improve rider satisfaction. The third objective is to strengthen existing partnerships and to build new partnerships with other jurisdictions. The fourth objective is to assess the effectiveness of focusing and packaging transit service and facility improvements at the corridor level.

· There are five criteria are being used in the corridor selection process. The criteria are: 1) high travel demand corridors with the potential for significant transit ridership gains; 2) potential for significant improvements in transit reliability and/or travel time; 3) easy integration with existing transit system; 4) supports local and regional growth management efforts; and 5) affected jurisdictions are committed to making supportive traffic operations and facility decisions.

· The initial BRT activities focus on five basic elements. The primary defining element is providing service levels so that riders do not have to worry about schedules. Other elements are using a single-service pattern with limited stops and adding transit priority for improved reliability and travel speed. Distinctive service and facility branding with supporting marketing is also an element, along with the provision of real-time schedule information at transfer points.

· A number of possible future enhancements are being considered. These elements include wider use of real-time schedule information, off-vehicle fare payment, dedicated state-of-the-art vehicles, dedicated rights-of-way, enhanced stations, and vehicle guidance.

· Characteristics of the service pattern include less frequent stop spacing where BRT is added as an overlay service and more frequent stop spacing where BRT is the primary service. BRT service will always stop less frequently than local service.

· Basic elements of the transit priority treatments include a focus on transit signal priority and the use of available HOV lanes. Future enhancements include expanding the use of dedicated bus lanes.

· The BRT approach curently uses Metro’s existing fleet of standard high-floor buses. In the future, new low-floor articulated diesel-electric hybrid buses will be assigned to BRT service.

· Basic elements of BRT stations in the near-term will use augmented standard shelters, with additional lighting. Real-time schedule information at selected locations will also be provided. Future enhancements may include new shelter designs, distinctive wayfinding, separate stops, guided vehicles, SmartCards, and greater use of real-time information.

· The Aurora Avenue corridor is being used to test BRT elements and marketing. The results from the Aurora Avenue project will be applied elsewhere. Metro will expand successful elements to other corridors as funds are available.

TSP Interactive Model

John Toone

King County Metro

Mr. John Toone discussed the transit signal priority interactive model (TIM). He discussed the development of the model and provided examples of its application. Mr. Toone covered the following points in his presentation.

· TIM is a planning and pre-design tool for estimating the benefits of transit signal priority. It was developed at King County Metro in the spring of 2002. PB Farradyne provided review assistance. The model uses Microsoft® Excel and Visual Basic. It is applicable to transit signal priority systems using non-preemption priority.

· The model provides a consistent methodology for evaluating the benefits of transit signal priority (TSP). It has the flexibility to analyze multiple time-of-day signal plans and multi intersectional corridors.

· The time benefit to an individual bus is determined by the TSP settings and the point of arrival in the signal cycle in the intersection model. The benefit at a single point of the cycle is determined by the settings. The time of arrival can be generalized into the probability of needing priority. The average benefit when priority is granted and the probability of needing priority determine the expected benefit per trip.

· The intersection model includes four inputs. The phase split is the normal (not programmed) duration of each phase. The transit maximum is the force maximum duration of each phase when transit priority is activated. The green extension is the additional time a green light will be held when transit priority is activated. The progression efficiency is the probability an approaching bus will arrive during a green light, determined by phase splits if no value is entered.

· Inputs to determine the travel time savings include the number of priority-eligible trips-per-day and average passengers-per-trip of the average passenger load. There are three outputs provided. Benefit-per-trip is the expected or average time savings per event. Transit time savings is the total seconds of transit benefit-per-day. Passenger time savings is the total seconds of passenger benefit-per-day.

· There are four outputs provided for the transit travel time benefits. First, a summary is provided of the averages per trip. Second, a daily summary is provided of the transit, passenger, and total time and dollar benefit-per-day. Third, an annual summary provides transit passenger and total time and dollar benefit per year (250 weekdays per year). Finally, the marginal annual benefit is calculated of the annual benefit minus the annual operating cost.

· The three inputs to the benefit/cost analysis are capital and operating costs, inflation and discount rates, and equipment life. The outputs provided by the benefit/cost analysis include net present value (NPV) of capital and operating costs, NPV of transit and passenger benefits, net benefit, and benefit/cost ratio.

· The model results indicate there are two types of successful TSP projects. One is the creation of special conditions for transit, which are not very common and second is the accumulation of small effects, which are more common. Transit signal priority settings with the biggest impact are green extension and transit maximization of the phase preceding the green.

· TIM can be used in planning and in pre-design. In planning, the model can be used to identify TSP locations with favorable benefit/cost ratios and to identify the level of commitment required for successful TSP. In pre-design it can be used to estimate schedule changes. The model will continue to be refined with the incorporation of clearance timings and extended documentation.

King County Signal Priority Program

Ron Atherley

King County Metro

Mr. Ron Atherley discussed transit signal priority efforts in the Puget Sound region. He provided an overview of the basic steps in a TSP. Mr. Atherley covered the following points in his presentation.

· The three basic steps in TSP are detection, priority request, and control. Transit signal priority spans multiple subsystems. Priority requests may be generated by vehicles, transit management systems, and traffic management centers.

· Available detector technology includes loops, optical, infrared, radio frequency (RF), and AVL. Detector input types may be point, zone, and continuous. Bus detection messages may be simple vehicle detection or they may be data-specific messages depending on route, run, trip, lateness, ridership, and estimated time of arrival.

· Priority request generation (PRG) may be as simple as “if bus, then request priority.” Priority requests may also be conditional based on route, time of day, correct direction, lateness, passenger load, or other factors.

· Recommended transit signal priority input/output (I/O) parameters include functions of both PRG and controller, enable/disable, priority override, TSP detection lock/memory, and delay. Other parameters may include mappable, assignable, number of available I/O, reservice time, and max time-out.

· Examples of priority request messages include contact closure–controller input 24v and serial message (NTCIP SCP 1211). The later is more complex, and may be based on request identification, vehicle identification, vehicle class type, vehicle class level, service strategy number, time of service desired, and time of estimated departure.

· Priority control strategies are not preemption control strategies. Preemption transfers normal control of a signal and may disrupt normal traffic operations. Preemption is usually used only with emergency vehicles or with railroads. Transit priority provides preferential treatment without interrupting signal timing. It is non-emergency use and is usually not found in all controllers.

· Examples of the basic requirements for TSP include extending green time or shortening red time. Priority treatments should not shorten minutes, shorten clearances, skip phases, or break coordination. Priority control strategies may include green extension, early green, phase rotation, special phase, and phase skipping.

· Recommended TSP features include alternate splits for non-TSP phases, phase extension for TSP phases, keeping signal coordination, lead/lag operation, and coordinated and free. Desirable TSP featured include logging, TSP output for verification, programmable inhibit, front panel display TSP status, upload/download, and flexibility in settings.

· The TSP system equals detection, priority request logic, and TSP strategies. There is a need to understand the desired strategies and to understand system capabilities. The appropriate operational requirements can then be developed. It is also important to specify system components to match requirements and to keep within available budgets.

Evaluation of Signal Priority on Aurora Avenue

David Cantey

King County Metro

Mr. David Cantey discussed the evaluation of the TSP demonstration on Aurora Avenue. He summarized the evaluation process, the parameters used for granting signal priority to buses, and the evaluation results. Mr. Cantey covered the following points in his presentation.

· The Aurora demonstration project focuses on 20 intersections along a 6.2 mile segment of road. The intent of the study was to test the TSP system and to test traffic control strategies. All 20 intersections were included in the study. King County Metro received support from the City of Seattle and the City of Shoreline to examine alternative controllers and alternative control strategies.

· The evaluation methodology included a two week data collection period. One route with high ridership and frequent service was used. Schedules were “lifted” to avoid early service.

· The sample TSP parameters at North 105^th Street in the morning peak period were 358 eligible vehicles in the southbound direction. The frequency of TSP request was five minutes. The green extension was 16 seconds and the return to early green was 21 seconds. In the afternoon peak period there were 358 eligible vehicles in the northbound direction. The frequency of transit signal priority request was five minutes. The green extension was 15 seconds and the return to early green was eight seconds.

· There were four measures of effectiveness used in the evaluation. The measures were bus travel time, bus travel time variability, average intersection bus delay, and average intersection person delay.

· The results from the demonstration indicated the potential benefits of TSP. The test reduced peak bus travel time by five percent and reduced bus delay at signalized intersections by 25 percent. The percentage of buses arriving on red during the peak period was reduced by 14 percent. Trips with travel times greater than 30 minutes were reduced by 40 percent. Person delay at signalized intersections was reduced by a range of zero to six percent. The daily savings in bus travel time was 101 minutes. The potential savings in annual service costs was $30,000. The daily savings in passenger travel time was 31 hours.

· The results of the benefit/cost analysis indicated that two intersections had benefit/cost ratios greater than 3.0, four intersections had ratios of between 2.0 and 3.0, four intersections had ratios of between 1.0 and 2.0, and 10 intersections had ratios of less than 1.0.

· The demonstration results indicate the importance of focusing on corridors with high volumes of buses and passengers. It is also important to focus on intersections where buses experience delay. The results indicate a need to design for far side bus stops. There is also an ongoing need for traffic personnel to better understand transit operations and for transit personnel to better understand traffic operations.

Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Studies

Dennis Hinebaugh, Center for Urban Transportation Research, Moderator

HOV Lanes on the Long Island Expressway: When Carpools Aren’t Enough, Think Bus Rapid Transit

Marvin Gersten

Parsons Brinckerhoff

Mr. Marvin Gersten discussed the use of the HOV lanes on the Long Island Expressway (LIE) in New York. He provided an overview of the development of the lanes, current utilization, and future plans. He noted the assistance of Mr. Wayne Ugolik, NYSDOT, and Mr. Irving Perlman, Parsons Brinckerhoff, with the project and the presentation. Mr. Gersten covered the following points in his presentation.

· The HOV lanes on the LIE were first opened in 1994. Currently, 40 miles of HOV lanes are in operation during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Use of the lanes has grown over time. Eastbound afternoon peak hour volumes have grown from 370 vehicles in 1995 to 1,430 vehicles in 2002, a 64 percent increase. Westbound morning peak hour volumes have grown from 660 vehicles in 1995 to 1,170 vehicles in 2002, a 77 percent increase.

· A survey of HOV lane users was conducted in May 2001. The results indicated that the HOV lanes have influenced commuters to rideshare for some of their trips to take advantage of the travel-time savings offered by the lanes. HOV lane users reported typical travel time savings of 16 to 20 minutes. Approximately 85 percent of the HOV lane users and 53 percent of the general-purpose lane users favored extending the HOV lanes.

· The LIE HOV lanes move more people in fewer vehicles than the adjacent general-purpose lanes. Approximately 37 percent of travelers are in the HOV lane in the afternoon peak hour. The persons-per-vehicle in the HOV lane is 2.5, while in the general-purpose lane it is 1.1. The person-per-vehicle for all lanes has increased by 25 percent since 1993.

· Of the 1,430 vehicles in the HOV lane during the afternoon peak hour, 140 are 3+ carpools, 1,180 are 2+ carpools, and 65 are violators. Raising the vehicle-occupancy level to 3+ to address increasing use levels will be a difficult policy decision. An option to increasing the vehicle-occupancy level is implementing a BRT system.

· NYSDOT conducted a major investment study, the Long Range Congestion Management Plan for Long Island (LITP 2000), to examine these issues. The study examined current conditions and forecasts for the corridor. Currently each weekday morning between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. more than 1 million trips start in Nassau and Suffolk counties. Only 11 percent of these trips are destined for Manhattan, while 77 percent end in these two counties. By 2020, there will be 25 percent more households, 30 percent more jobs, and 27 percent more travel during the morning peak-period in the counties. Without a congestion management plan it is estimated that traffic congestion will more than double.

· The LITP 2000 process involved a 40-member Technical Advisory Committee, which included representatives from towns, counties, agencies, and the public. There was also an extensive public involvement process, which included a two-hour live televised town hall meeting to kick-off the study in 1997 and subcommittee visioning sessions. Over 500 suggestions were received through these efforts. The study process involved screening and technical evaluation of multi-modal alternatives.

· The first screening phase include evaluating 13 regional, but single-mode solutions that focused on TDM, HOV lanes, highways, and transit. The results of this screening indicated that no single-mode solution worked. The best performing elements were combined into four multimodal alternatives that were evaluated in more detail. The first alternative included a rapid commute transit system, priority lane system, rapid commute vehicles (RCVs), HOV 2+, and complementary roadway widening extensions. The second alternative included rapid commute transit system, priority lane system, RCVs, HOV 3+, value pricing, parking charges at destinations, and complementary roadway improvements. Alternative three focused on roadway improvements with 2+ HOV lanes on the Southern State Parkway. Alternative four involved roadway improvements with HOT lanes on the Northern State Parkway.

· The four alternatives were evaluated by a number of different performance measures. These included miles of automobile travel, the number of automobile trips, miles of congestion, hours of congestion delay, people per automobile, transit speed, automobile speed, hours of truck delay, percent transit, and tailpipe emissions levels. The performance measures were evaluated using the 2020 forecast for the morning peak-period. Alternative one emerged as the most effective alternative for the funding.

· Elements of the proposed plan include using RCVs, which would be sleek, rubber tired vehicles to provide surface rapid transit for Long Island. The system would be responsive to the diverse travel patterns on Long Island and would provide additional travel choices for residents. It would be coordinated with other travel modes for maximum efficiency. The system would be comprehensive and flexible. Routes could be adapted to address unforeseen changes in demographics and traveler needs. Modern sleek vehicles, using clean fuel technology would be used. The system is key to achieving long-term sustainable congestion relief. It is estimated that more than 200,000 daily customers would use the system in the completion year.

· Priority treatments on roadways and at signalized intersections are also key elements of the proposed plan. These elements include 68 miles of new priority lanes, transit priority at selected traffic signals, and bypass lanes at key intersections on arterial roadways.

· Additional elements of the proposed plan include local bus system improvements, enhancements to the Long Island Railroad, roadway improvements, and ITS. The roadway improvements include 122 miles of arterial street widenings and six miles of extensions. Other elements of the proposal plan include intermodal rail/truck facilities, increased railcar clearances, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, TDM, local safe streets and traffic calming programs, and the Nassau Hub transportation system.

· Public outreach was an important part of the study. There were 12 public information open houses held with more than 400 people attending. Public input was also obtained through surveys at a local mall. A total of 337 questionnaires were completed at the mall. Approximately 92 percent of those surveyed said the LIRC Transit System was needed. Some 85 percent indicated they would use LIRC if it provided frequent service, saved time, had reasonable fares, and had modern, comfortable clean-fueled vehicles. Further, 86 percent supported roadway widenings and extensions.

· The next steps in the planning process involve releasing the draft plan and a staged implementation strategy, obtaining public review and comment, obtaining review and approval of the final plan by the appropriate committees, and incorporating the final plan into the Long-Range Plan.

· The implementation strategy includes a major focus on transit solutions. More than half of all planned general-purpose roadway improvements would be implemented after 2015. Development of a financial plan for the new LIRC transit system is needed to outline capital and operating costs and to identify an agency to operate the system. The transit system would be implemented in stages, focusing on serving major travel generators first and making use of the existing investment in LIE HOV lanes. Early initiatives might include local transit improvements, traffic calming, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and TDM activities.

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

John Perlic

Parametrix

Mr. John Perlic discussed a project in the SR 303 corridor in Bremerton, Washington. The project combines arterial street HOV facilities, BRT, and local planning. He summarized the current conditions in the corridor, the study process, the alternatives examined, and the preferred alternatives. Mr. Perlic covered the following points in his presentation.

· The project is an example of combining arterial street HOV elements, BRT, and local land use planning. The SR 303 corridor is approximately 11 miles long. Silverdale, located at the north end of the corridor, includes commercial buildings, retail developments, and a major hospital. The south end of the corridor is in Bremerton, which contains the Puget Sound Navel Shipyard and the Washington State Ferry Terminal.

· Bremerton is experiencing significant redevelopment activities. A regional conference center is under development adjacent to the ferry terminal. A tunnel is also being planned to divert traffic to and from the ferry terminal away from the city streets. Traffic volumes in the corridor range from 30,000 in the north end to 42,000 in the south end.

· The study began with the development of 15 alternatives. An initial screening process reduced the number of alternatives to six. Elements in the initial alternatives included new bridge crossings, which were fairly controversial. Other alternatives included widening the 303 corridor, including the Warren Avenue Bridge and widening parallel arterials without increasing the bridge capacity.

· The study was funded through a four-agency partnership. The four agencies were WSDOT, Kitsap Transit, Kitsap County, and the City of Bremerton. A technical committee and a stakeholder committee helped oversee the study. These committees made recommendations to the policy committee, which was comprised of the Mayor of Bremerton, the Kitsap County Commissioner, the Director of Kitsap Transit, and the WSDOT Regional Administrator.

· The selected alternative focuses on adding arterial street HOV lanes between 11^th Street and Fairground Road. To address concerns expressed by business representatives in the corridor, a peak-period only HOV operation was recommended. Signal priority for buses was part of the selected alternative, as was elimination of some left turn lanes and U-turns.

· Once the preferred alternative was identified, consideration was given to integrating BRT into the arterial street HOV system. The current transit service in the corridor is somewhat disjointed and there are no direct routes from Bremerton to Silverdale. A BRT service plan was developed for the corridor. The service plan includes local feeder routes. Flex-routes were proposed as feeder service for some low density areas. Other elements of the plan include direct access for buses at the ferry terminal, transit centers, and improved park-and-ride facilities. There are also opportunities to integrate BRT into new developments in the corridor.

· It is envisioned that it will take 20 to 30 years to implement all aspects of the plan. Project elements will be phased to match available funding. The city is examining possible updates to its land use plan to support project elements. The partnership between the City of Bremerton, Kitsap County, Kitsap Transit, and WSDOT has been critical to advancing the project. The public outreach efforts throughout the study were also important to obtain support from community groups.

HOV, HOT, and BRT Analysis in Portland, Oregon

Alan Snook

DKS Associates

Mr. Alan Snook described recent studies and projects in Portland focusing on HOT lanes, HOV facilities, and BRT. He discussed the projects, the analysis methods used in the studies, and the results. He noted that Randy McCourt, DKS Associates, had developed the presentation but was unable to attend the session. Mr. Snook covered the following points in his presentation.

· The projects are located in three different corridors. The first project is in the Oregon 217 freeway corridor. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) sponsored study examined HOT and HOV treatments and the efficiency of the general-purpose lanes in a seven-to-eight mile segment. The second project, on US 26, is also under ODOT jurisdiction. A five mile section of US 26 was examined for possible HOT lanes. The third project is the South Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) study. This Metro project considered BRT, LRT, and busway alternatives.

· An analysis of HOT, HOV, and general-purpose lane options was conducted in the Oregon 217 Freeway study using the FREQ model. The assessment examined the performance of both HOV and HOT alternatives compared to general-purpose options, with widening of the facility by 2020. One of the biggest operational effects was capacity reduction on the freeway due to rain. The Portland area has about 250 days of rain a year, which requires calibrating the FREQ model to allow for seasonal variations. This adjustment reduces capacity by approximately 10 to 15 percent.

· The FREQ analysis examined user groups and trip lengths. The evaluation identified weaving problems associated with short trip lengths and substandard access spacing, which reduced the effectiveness of the HOV and HOT alternatives. Drop-in access would be important to reduce turbulence with weaving movements and to preserve operational benefits. Braided ramps became a key capital item. The frequency of access points is less then optimal for HOV and HOT operations, as the number of short trips limits possible benefits. Ramp meter bypass lanes and exclusive ramps were also identified as important. Finally, the analysis pointed out the benefits of a system-wide approach that considered facilities beyond Oregon 217.

· The US 26 HOT analysis focused on preliminary EMME/2 forecasts of tolling options in the corridor. The facility is currently very congested in both directions in the peak periods with travel speeds of approximately 20 mph. Current travelers experience 10 to 15 minute delays on the mainline with ramp meter delays of 5 to 10 minutes during the peak periods.

· The vehicle volumes in the 2020 forecast are 40 percent to 50 percent higher than existing levels, resulting in more congestion on the facility. The analysis indicated that toll lanes could achieve utilization up to 1,200 vehicle per hour (vph) at a relatively low toll of less than one dollar. The demand forecasts were very elastic to the toll level, with large demand reduction with higher tolls.

· One issue in the analysis was the location of the HOT lane. The assessment indicated that using the outside travel lane created problems with turbulence from vehicles merging through the lane. An analysis of the I-5 HOV lanes suggested issues associated with merge conditions. The more lanes on a facility the greater potential for impacts. Vehicles took 0.5 miles to merge through the first two lanes at speeds of 10 to 20 mph and 0.1 to 0.2 miles to merge across the last lane at speeds of 30 to 40 mph.

· The BRT, Busway, and LRT analysis in the corridor utilized the compute models VISSIM, Synchro, and EMME/2 to evaluate the operational effects of the options. Key issues with the BRT option included the length of the queue bypass, the impact on general-purpose traffic, and side street delay.

· The South Corridor study is still underway, but preliminary findings available using VISSIM provided an assessment with BRT and without BRT. The vehicle forecasts considered the build and no-build options. The value of queue jump lanes to bus transit operations is being assessed and pedestrian crossing impacts are being reviewed.

· A number of possible impacts from the BRT transit signal priority and queue jump are being examined. One preliminary result indicates a slight increase in side street delays. Queue lengths are reduced on the main line and increased slightly on side streets. Delays to transit vehicles are reduced. Vehicle travel times decreased on the main line and increased slightly on side streets.

Incorporating BRT into Alternatives Analysis

Roderick Diaz

Booz Allen Hamilton

Mr. Roderick Diaz discussed incorporating BRT into the alternatives analysis process. He summarized the unique characteristics of BRT, highlighted the development of BRT operating plans, and described approaches for incorporating BRT into the Alternatives Analysis process. Mr. Diaz covered the following points in his presentation.

· BRT incorporates many different transit solutions. BRT may address urban circulation, cross-town services, regional travel, and commuter services. BRT can serve many different markets.

· The building blocks of BRT can be implemented over time, which provides flexibility in system development. The main components of BRT include unique vehicles, some type of guideway or reserved lanes, control systems, passenger information systems, and fare systems.

· BRT operating plans provide flexibility through a toolkit approach. Elements of a BRT operating plan include the route structure, bus stop and station spacing, service frequency, span of service, and the network structure. BRT can be integrated with other transit services in the area.

· The BRT operation plan will dictate the appropriate building blocks. Vehicle elements include the size and length, floor height, propulsion system, and on-board diagnostics. Fare collection elements include the location of fare payment equipment and the method of fare validation.

· Factors to consider in determining the appropriate guideway include design speed, control of access, grade crossing control, links to vehicle location, illumination, and noise and safety barriers. Station design will need to consider platform length and height, canopy design, and integration with desired amenities. Communication systems may include operator dispatch, passenger information techniques (PA/VMS), and security monitoring.

· An overlapping route structure with high frequencies indicates the need for a wide guideway with passing at stations. If all-door boarding is desired, off-vehicle ticket vending and fare validating machines will be needed.

· BRT can be developed incrementally over time. The BRT building blocks can be staged to match available funding and the needs of specific areas. BRT systems can move from initial bus rapid transit, to intermediate stages of BRT, all the way to full BRT.

· BRT has a mutually supportive relationship with urban development. Supporting qualities of BRT include accessibility, land use integration, and pedestrian access. Requirements of other modes are characterized more by mobility, land use separation, and vehicle access.

· The characteristics of BRT have implications for how it is incorporated into the Alternatives Analysis process. Bus Rapid Transit incorporates many different transit solutions and the building blocks of BRT can be implemented over time. The operating plan itself can also be flexible using a toolkit approach. The operating plan drives what building blocks are required. BRT can be developed in several stages. BRT has a mutually supportive relationship with urban development.

· The development of a BRT operating plan can be accelerated. Elements of the operating plan can be matched with advanced technologies to provide additional priority treatments for buses and real-time information to passengers. Different levels of service can be evaluated to capture the range of options. A combination of building blocks can be identified and evaluated for each BRT alternative. For example, true low-floor vehicles and partial low-floor vehicles may be considered.

· The benefits of the different building blocks on improved service can be evaluated. AVL and TSP can result in greater reliability and reduced delay at stops. Low-floor buses, limited stops, and partial prepayment of fares can result in reduced dwell time and improved service and image. Separate lanes or rights-of-way and traffic signal preemption provides faster speeds, greater reliability, and improved safety. Full prepayment of fares, articulated vehicles, and reduced number of crossings results in greater capacity, increased user friendliness, and faster speeds. Full grade separation, electric propulsion, and electronic guidance provide maximum speeds, smoother rides, and a stronger service image.

· The synergies with other modes should be considered with the realization of different needs and requirements. For example, there are synergies with BRT and HOV. High- density corridors can often support both high-quality transit and HOV facilities. Requirements for all day bi-directional traffic can justify conversion, expansion, or construction of lanes for BRT/HOV use. Comprehensive BRT networks can incorporate HOV facilities for at least part of the network. Intermodal centers common at BRT facilities can serve to collect and distribute both transit passengers and HOV participants. There are also challenges in coordinating BRT and HOV. Design of regularly-spaced stations requires additional right-of-way for station sites, pedestrian access facilities, and bus pull-off facilities. High frequencies of buses require lower volumes of HOV traffic in order to maintain speed and reliability.

· The Alternative Analysis process can be used as a strategic document to jump-start initial BRT initiatives. The process identifies enablers and barriers to implementation. It can also help coordinate procurements and identify potential partners. Other qualitative benefits should also be considered. Possible benefits may include land use integration, community linkages, accessibility, and property value impacts.

· BRT’s qualities bring new imperatives to the Alternatives Analysis process. BRT allows for accelerated development of the operating plan. More than one BRT alternative can be analyzed to capture the full range of options. The combination of building blocks should be defined for each alternative in detail. Potential benefits should be accounted for when they accrue and qualitative benefits should be included. The process should consider synergies with other modes, but should be cognizant of different needs and requirements. The Alternatives Analysis process can be used as a strategic document to jump-start initial BRT initiatives.

Managed Lanes Track

Introduction to Managed Lanes

Carlos Lopez, Texas Department of Transportation, Moderator

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

Robert Spillar

Parsons Brinckerhoff

Mr. Robert Spillar discussed the managed lanes concept and provided examples of managed lane projects in North America. He summarized the WSDOT Puget Sound Managed Lane Study, which was conducted by Parsons Brinckerhoff. He noted the assistance of Mr. Robert Fellows, Parsons Brinckerhoff, and Mr. Charles Prestrud, WSDOT, with the presentation and project. Mr. Spillar covered the following points in his presentation.

· Managed lanes are a dedicated lane system for one or more user groups. Managed lanes provide tools to optimize lane throughput. The intent of managed lanes is to provide unimpeded travel during periods of peak demand. Managed lanes may provide benefits to both users and to the roadway system as a whole. Possible user benefits include more reliable travel times, reduced delay, and more choices. Potential system benefits include increasing throughput, opening up mainline capacity, encouraging transit and carpool use, preserving options in corridor, and enhancing emergency response.

· In many respects the ideas and concepts associated with managed lanes are not new. The I-5 and I-90 express lanes in Seattle, the Dan Ryan Expressway in Chicago, and the HOV lanes in Northern Virginia, Seattle, Houston, Los Angeles, and other areas all represent examples of managed lanes.

· While these projects and other similar facilities have been in operation for many of years, significant interest has recently focused on the managed lanes concept. There may be benefits to thinking of managed lanes as a renewed concept rather than a new concept. Public agencies often perceive risks associated with new concepts and new technologies. Change may also be uncomfortable for public agencies. There may be a perception of displaced traffic to arterials or general-purpose lanes with the managed lanes concept. Tolls may be controversial in some areas and the public may react negatively to perceived government management.

· The WSDOT Puget Sound Managed Lane Study was conducted for a number of reasons. The existing HOV system in the area is mature and well used at the 2+ occupancy level. Express lane networks have been operating on I-90 and I-5 for a long time. There are also arterial street HOV lanes and business access transit lanes in the area. To some extent, the HOV system in the area is at a crossroads.

· A number of criteria have been used to measure the success of HOV facilities in the region. These measures include travel time savings, person throughput, transit operations, modal shift, and vehicle volumes. A balance must be achieved with use of HOV facilities. Too little demand, with use levels lower than 800 vehicles an hour, can lead to political failure. Too much demand, with 1,800 more vehicles an hour, can result in operational failure.

· A broader management objective or theory may be appropriate in attempting to optimize throughput by managing the lanes. Other management objectives may address person throughput, transit speed and reliability, travel time savings, carpool incentives, maximizing revenues, and coordinating with land use and development.

· Vehicle eligibility, occupancy levels, access control, and pricing may all be used to manage a facility. Management by eligibility might focus on vehicle-occupancy levels, transit-only, vehicle type, and authorization by permit, time-of-day or destination. Examples of management by access control include express lanes with limited general-purpose entrances, additional HOV access, and reversible lanes by time-of-day. Management by pricing might include variable pricing by time-of-day, by vehicle type, and by occupancy levels.

· Automated tolling can greatly enhance access to managed lanes by reducing delay typically associated with toll booths. Automated tolling allows registered vehicles to travel through toll plazas at posted speed limits, bypassing delays at toll booths.

· Managed lanes can encourage HOV use through pricing. The SR 91 project initially allowed 3+ carpools to travel free of charge. Preferential pricing is now provided for 3+ carpools on the facility.

· The Puget Sound region has a number of existing facilities that can be categorized as managed lanes. These facilities include the I-5 and I-90 express lanes, the I-405 2+ HOV lanes, the SR 520 3+ HOV lanes, the Ferry Fast lanes for registered vanpools, the SR 522 transit-only lane, the SR 99 business access, arterial transit only lanes, and HOV pass lanes at metered freeway on-ramps.

· There are a number of new managed lane options that might be appropriate for further consideration in the Puget Sound region. One option would be to combine HOV and other user groups. This approach might involve pricing single-occupant vehicles and 2+ HOVs, while allowing 3+ HOVs to travel for free. Managing access by selected user groups represents another option. Arterial applications may also be appropriate. Dynamic user group restrictions, such as allowing HOVs in the peak periods and trucks or single-occupant vehicles in the off peak-periods, represents still another possible option.

· Many of the elements of the managed lanes concept have been in operation in Seattle and other areas for many years. There appears to be advantages to considering further application of the managed lanes concept to address congestion, mobility, and air quality concerns.

Life-Cycle Graphical Representation of Managed HOV Lane Evolution

Myron Swisher

Colorado Department of Transportation

Mr. Myron Swisher, described a graphical tool developed to help represent the evolution of HOV lanes into managed lanes. He noted the assistance of Dr. Bill Eisele and Ms. Ginger Goodin, TTI, and Mr. David Ungemah, UrbanTrans Consultants, Inc., in the development of the tool and some of the applications presented. He provided a definition of managed HOV lanes and described some of the concerns and opportunities with managed HOV lanes. He described the development of the life-cycle graphic and provided examples of its use. Mr. Swisher covered the following points in this presentation.

· The managed HOV lanes concept is to utilize any excess capacity on an HOV facility without jeopardizing travel speeds. Managed HOV lanes use a combination of design and operating strategies to maximize roadway capacity, while maintaining freeflow conditions and achieving corridor and community goals. Managed HOV lanes provide flexibility, as operational modifications may be made in response to changing conditions.

· While the HOV traffic grows over time, the vehicle capacity of an HOV lane is consistent. Managed HOV lanes can be used to address this problem by maximizing available capacity by allowing different user groups over the life of an HOV project.

· The graphical tool was developed by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) to address concerns about the managed HOV lane concept from local transit agencies and HOV advocates. Concerns were raised by these groups over the possible loss of travel speeds as non-HOV volumes grow. There were also issues raised that allowing other user groups to use the HOV lanes would be viewed by the public as a permanent change.

· The graphic tool was developed to demonstrate the concept of HOV lanes evolving into managed lanes. The tool shows how the vehicle-occupancy levels and vehicle eligibility can be raised and changed as vehicle volumes increase on an HOV lane. The tool has been tested using vehicle and person volumes from HOV facilities in Colorado, Texas, and California. It also highlights alternative management strategies that can be used to accomplish different goals. The graphic tool illustrates outcomes based on different alternatives.

· The use of the life-cycle graphic tool has a number of benefits. First, it helps explain the reason and the timing for possible single-occupant vehicle use of an HOV facility. It also helps illustrate the “Empty Lane Syndrome” and how to avoid it. The tool can be used to describe evolving operating scenarios for an HOV facility. It can help transportation officials establish user priorities and critical operating thresholds for managed HOV lanes.

· The life-cycle graphic tool appears to be appropriate for application in a number of scenarios. It could be used in an Alternative Analysis to examine the impact of the “no-build” option. The tool could be used to examine geometric alternatives, including access and enforcement locations. It could also be applied to consider operational alternatives, such as vehicle eligibility and operating hours. Finally, the tool may be appropriate in performance measurement, including examining person throughput and revenue maximization.

A Legislative Framework for Operating Managed Lanes

Beverly Kuhn

Texas Transportation Institute

Dr. Beverly Kuhn discussed legislative issues related to the implementation and operation of managed lanes. She highlighted the results of recent research conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) for the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). The multi-year project is examining a number of topics related to planning, designing, funding, and operating managed lanes. She noted the assistance of Debbie Jasek, TTI, in the development of the legislative analysis. Dr. Kuhn addressed the following points in her presentation.

· Managed lanes have been defined in this research project as “a facility that increases freeway efficiency by packaging various operational and design actions. Lane management operations may be adjusted at any time to better match regional goals.” Managed lanes may be a lane or group of lanes with a combination of operating and design strategies that maximize person moving capacity, optimize vehicle carrying capacity, provide travel options and increase flexibility, and achieve corridor and community goals. Managed lanes are designed for flexibility so service options can be modified over time.

· Examples of managed lanes include HOV lanes, HOT lanes, value-priced lanes, express lanes, bypass lanes, dual facilities, and lane restrictions. One of the first questions to be considered in the planning process for a managed lane project is what user groups should be served.

· The focus of the TxDOT managed lanes research project is to develop a better understanding of how managed lanes can improve mobility for people and freight. The two major project objectives are to investigate the complex and interrelated issues surrounding the safe and efficient operation of managed lanes and to develop a comprehensive manual to help TxDOT make informed decisions.

Telling the Managed Lanes Story

Bill Stockton, Texas Transportation Institute, Moderator

Concept Marketing of Managed Lanes

Tina Collier

Texas Transportation Institute

Ms. Tina Collier discussed approaches for marketing managed lane projects. She summarized the results of recent research conducted by TTI for TxDOT. The multi-year project is examining a number of topics related to planning, designing, funding, and operating managed lanes. She recognized the assistance of Ms. Ginger Goodin, TTI, in the study. Ms. Collier covered the following points in her presentation.

· Managed lanes have been defined in this research project as “a facility that increases freeway efficiency by packaging various operation and design actions. Lane management operations may be adjusted at any time to better match regional goals.” Managed lanes may be a lane or group of lanes with a combination of operating and design strategies that maximize person moving capacity, optimize vehicle carrying capacity, provide travel options and increase flexibility, and achieve corridor and community goals. Managed lanes are designed for flexibility so service options can be modified over time.

· The marketing and public education efforts associated with 10 managed lane case studies throughout the country were examined. The case studies explored the methods used communicate with the public, the messages, the techniques for gaining public support, and the perception of the public toward the project. The types of messages and the techniques that appeared to have the most influence were examined. The appropriate groups and individuals to deliver the messages were also identified

· A number of common themes or messages were found with successful managed lane projects. These themes included focusing on providing mobility choices, improving travel choices, and enhancing the efficient use of roadway capacity. Communicating how the facility will operate, how it would be enforced, how the revenues will be used, and how it will be funded was also identified as important.

· Marketing efforts for managed lanes focus on a number of different audiences. These audiences include elected officials, community and business leaders, special interest groups, neighborhood groups, the media, commuters in the corridor, and the general public.

· A project champion was also identified as an important element of successful marketing efforts. It appears that an individual or individuals, often not associated with the transportation agency, is the most effective spokesperson for a project.

· Numerous market research techniques and marketing approaches have been used with managed lane projects. These approaches include surveys, focus groups, stakeholder interviews, media coverage, Internet sites, mailings, and exhibits.

· The information obtained from the market research activities indicates negative and positive reactions may be common with the managed lanes concept. Common negative reactions focus on concerns over double taxation, inability to actually improve traffic conditions, and short-term approaches. Positive reactions focus on improving mobility, increasing revenue generation, and encouraging transit and ridesharing.

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

Dave Schumacher

San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board

Mr. Dave Schumacher discussed the I-15 managed lanes project in San Diego. He noted that the project represents the joint efforts of Caltrans, the North County Transit District, the Metropolitan Transit Development Board, and the San Diego Association of Governments. Mr. Schumacher covered the following points in his presentation.

· The North I-15 Corridor is located to the northeast of downtown San Diego. It is characterized by suburban land use patterns with long travel distances. I-15 is the only continuous north-south artery along the 20-mile corridor. The facility is currently congested. The existing freeway does not meet current demand and will not meet future demand.

· The existing HOV lanes were opened in 1987. They are eight miles in length. The facility is a two-lane, one-way reversible operation and is barrier separated. The FasTrak value pricing demonstration began in 1997. It includes dynamic pricing, with no tolls for carpools or transit.

· The FasTrak program developed out of a local elected official’s interest in improving transit services in the corridor. He saw the excess capacity on HOV lanes as an opportunity. The FasTrak demonstration program was successfully implemented due to a number of factors. It addressed the under utilization of the HOV lane and has support from local elected officials willing to try a demonstration program.

· The development of the North I-15 Corridor HOV/managed lanes project examined a number of issues. These issues included the need to ensure freeflow conditions for BRT, the desire to extend the FasTrak value pricing program, the need to respond to traffic emergencies, and the need to design for long-term demands. The recommendations included three main elements. The first element recommends pursuing a four-lane managed lanes facility with a moveable barrier. The second component was extending the FasTrak value pricing program. The third element was incorporating direct access ramps and BRT stations as integral parts of the project.

· A number of techniques were used to provide for community involvement in the project. Venues included meetings with established community groups, hearings with public officials, community newspaper articles, one-on-one communications, and multiple agency participation. Key elements of the strategy including developing first-name relationships with community leaders, developing elected officials as champions, and maintaining ongoing contact with community newspapers. One-on-one communications with community and business leaders played a key role. These approaches helped present a united front of coordinated agencies to the public.

· There was also extensive public involvement in examining extending the value pricing program. The key objective of these activities was to assess attitudes and concerns related to both the existing and the proposed projects. The community outreach program included focus groups, stakeholder interviews, intercept surveys, and a telephone survey.

· Focus groups were conducted with FasTrak users, transit users, and motorists in the general-purpose lanes. The focus groups results showed strong support for the managed lanes concept among all users. Equity was not an issue with the groups. The provision of transit was key in this perception, as was the feeling that the project did not take anything away from the various user groups. Pricing was viewed as fair in terms of paying for premium service.

· Stakeholder interviews were conducted with elected officials, local agency representatives, and members of public interest groups. The results of these interviews indicated that most people viewed the project as a transportation solution. The “Lexus Lane” stigma was muted by inclusion of BRT. Most people saw the project as offering ongoing congestion relief. Many business groups emerged as champions for the project. Support from elected officials was also key, especially during the demonstration phase.

· Carpoolers and transit users were interviewed at park-and-ride lots and bus stations in the corridor. Of the transit users, 84 percent considered pricing fair and saw a need for additional services. Of the 70 carpools interviewed, 92 percent considered pricing fair and 70 percent said that HOV lanes were a factor in their decision to carpool. Thus, the impact of the HOV lanes on carpool formation is noteworthy.

· The results of the qualitative research were used to develop a quantitative telephone survey. The telephone survey was conducted of 600 general-purpose lane users and 200 FasTrak users. The results indicated that 92 percent like the time-saving option, 77 percent agree on allowing single-occupancy vehicle use for a fee, 71 to 75 percent consider value pricing fair, and 84 percent favor the managed lanes project. There was little variation in responses across ethnic and income categories.

· The results of the community involvement were used to develop recommendations for the next steps. The recommendation included speeding up project delivery, enhancing marketing of services, providing transit tied to local needs, addressing long-range issues, considering operational flexibility, and enhancing public education.

· A number of conclusions emerged from the community involvement process. First, it appears FasTrak benefited from previous outreach efforts that forged close community ties. Second, the initial demonstration program benefited from having a local elected official as the project champion. Third, value pricing was woven into the overall multimodal transportation solution in the corridor. Fifth, research provided multi-faceted insight to the value-pricing concept. Finally, the multi-agency cooperation between the MPO, highway department, and transit agencies presented a united front to the public.

· The future pricing strategy focuses on the use of a skewed rate strategy to address value pricing with multiple access points. This strategy offers the best demand management tool, although the complexity of the approach will need to be addressed with motorists through ongoing education.

· The project budget includes funding of BRT stations and transit vehicles. One example of the BRT components is the direct access ramp BRT station at Rancho Bernardo. The Transit Plaza Median Freeway Station at City Heights provides another example of the BRT elements. It includes a freeway median station with elevator and stair access to arterial streets, an arterial street plaza with widened bridge decks, and dedicated transit lanes. Community and business groups have provided support and funding for station improvements.

· The first stage of construction is scheduled to begin in 2003 and should be completed by 2007. The success of the I-15 Corridor has lead to system-wide coordination of HOV and transit plans.

Public Attitudes about Managed Lane Concepts in the Puget Sound Area

Bruce Brown, Pacific Rim Resources

Mark McCourt, SCR

Mr. Bruce Brown and Mr. Mark McCourt discussed the results of recent surveys conducted in the Puget Sound region and Los Angeles County on public attitudes related to managed lanes. They summarized the research methodology and the results related to perceptions of congestion, HOV use, HOV support, and support for managed lanes and pricing options. Mr. Brown and Mr. McCourt covered the following topics in their presentations.

· In the Puget Sound region, a statistically valid telephone survey of 1,116 adults was conducted using random digit dialing. The survey had a margin of error equal to 2.93 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. The surveys were conducted in May of 2001. The respondents provided an accurate demographic representation for the Puget Sound region and Sound Transit sub-areas, including Snohomish, King, and Pierce counties.

· The Los Angeles County survey focused on all Los Angeles County residents 18 years of age or older. It was distributed by sub-region in proportion to population. The target was 3,200 completed surveys. A total of 3,273 surveys were actually completed. The results had an accuracy of ± 1.0 to 1.7 percent at a 95 percent confidence level.

· In the Puget Sound region, 76 percent of the respondents reported driving alone at least some of the time. Almost a third carpool some of the time, and almost a tenth use transit.

· In Los Angeles County, 74 percent of the respondents indicated driving alone as their normal commute mode. A total of 19 percent reported carpooling, five percent normally take the bus, and one percent each reported taking the train, vanpooling, and walking.

· Almost three-quarters of the respondents in the Puget Sound region reported traveling during the peak hours. Approximately 84 percent of the respondents in Los Angeles County reported commuting on a regular basis, with 64 percent indicating they normally travel during both the morning and afternoon peak periods.

· Most of the respondents in the Puget Sound region reported experiencing some degree of congestion on the freeways, with about a quarter experiencing extreme congestion most of the way. Some 52 percent of the Los Angeles County respondents reported experiencing extreme congestion during the peak hours, while 26 percent experienced congestion most of the time.

· Both surveys asked respondents to indicate the solutions they favored to helping improve traffic flow on freeways. In Los Angeles County, 21 percent favored more transit, 17 percent preferred more freeway lanes, 16 percent favored more HOV lanes, 14 percent preferred more freeways, and 13 percent favored more rail. Respondents in the Puget Sound region favored managing traffic, with many indicating they did not believe that more roads alone was the solution to addressing the congestion.

· A total of 75 percent of the respondents in Los Angeles County indicated they had used the HOV lanes during peak travel periods, while 73 percent reporting using the HOV lanes during off-peak times. Half the respondents reported only occasional use of the HOV lanes, while 26 percent said they generally use the lanes and 21 percent reported always using the HOV lanes. Travel time savings was the reported reason 57 percent of the respondents said they carpool or vanpool. Cost savings, 18 percent, companionship, 15 percent, and improving traffic conditions, five percent, were the next most reported reasons.

· Approximately 82 percent of the Los Angeles County respondents agreed that the policy approving the use of a portion of sales tax revenues for transit-related highway improvements should be continued. Some 88 percent responded that they supported having carpool lanes on freeways in the county. A total of 89 percent said the carpool lane system should be completed so there is a carpool lane on almost every freeway, and 43 percent strongly supported building more freeway to freeway HOV connections.

· Los Angeles County residents were asked their opinion of a variety of alternate uses of HOV lanes. A total of 44 percent of the respondents disagreed that low emissions vehicles should be allowed to use the carpool lanes regardless of the number of people in the vehicle, while 26 percent agreed that these types of vehicles should be allowed to use the lanes. Half the respondents disagreed that single-occupant vehicles should be allowed to use the carpool lanes if they pay a toll, while 23 percent agreed.

· In the Puget Sound region more than two-thirds of the respondents disagreed strongly with converting existing HOV lanes to HOT lanes. Most reported they would not reduce carpooling, vanpooling, or busing if HOT lanes existed.

· In Los Angeles County, 36 percent of the respondents indicated they would definitely continue carpooling if all carpool lanes were converted to regular lanes. While 38 percent said they would probably continue to carpool. Some 17 percent said they would probably stop carpooling and nine percent indicated they would definitely stop carpooling.

· Less than a third of the Puget Sound respondents support the 3+ HOV lane concept. A bit more expressed support for adding a second HOV lane rather than increasing the vehicle-occupancy level to 3+. Less than a third supported charging 2+ carpools while allowing 3+ carpools to use the lanes for free. Respondents in the Puget Sound region believe the HOV lanes save time, with over half reporting quite a bit to a lot of time saved.

· Some 42 percent of the Los Angeles County respondents felt the HOV lanes were under utilized, while 37 percent felt use levels were just about right, 8 percent said they were over utilized, and 13 percent were neutral or had no opinion. A total of 74 percent of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the HOV lanes are more efficient than regular freeway lanes. Approximately 61 percent indicated the carpool bypass lanes on-ramps were fairly effective or very effective in encouraging people to carpool.

· Half the Los Angeles County respondents felt that converting the existing carpool lanes to regular lanes would make travel on Los Angeles County freeways worse, while 25 percent felt conditions would be better and 25 percent felt it would have no impact. Statements receiving the most support from respondents include “carpool lanes are a strong incentive to get people to carpool,” “carpool lanes are more efficient than regular freeway lanes,” and “carpool lanes reduce congestion in all lanes.

· A little more than 40 percent of the Puget Sound respondents reported a willingness to pay tolls for a faster trip. A little more than a quarter are willing to pay tolls one to three times a week. There was no difference in willingness to pay tolls by income level.

· The public opinion findings from the Puget Sound region and Los Angeles County indicate that people believe HOV lanes save time. A majority disagrees or strongly disagrees with converting existing HOV lanes to HOT lanes. Most respondents would not reduce their carpooling, vanpooling, or bus use if HOT lanes existed. Most respondents in the Puget Sound region do not support a 3+ vehicle-occupancy requirement. A little more than 40 percent of the Puget Sound respondents are willing to pay tolls for a faster trip.

Value Pricing, Part One

King Cushman, Puget Sound Regional Council, Moderator

Pricing Status on SR 91

Kia Mortazavi

Orange County Transportation Authority

Ms. Kia Mortazavi discussed the SR 91 Express Lanes in Orange County, California. She summarized the legislation authorizing the project, the development and operation of the Express Lanes, the recent acquisition by OCTA, and the future outlook for the facility. Ms. Mortazavi covered the following points in her presentation.

· The SR 91 Express Lanes are located in the center median of SR 91 in northeastern Orange County. The lanes were developed through special state legislation allowing private toll roads on some state roadways. The legislation represents one approach taken in California to address the demand for roadways in a time of limited funding.

· The privatization concept focuses on the private sector building and maintaining new highway capacity within public roadway rights-of-way. The project includes a 35-year franchise agreement with the California Private Transportation Corporation (CPTC) to construct and operate the toll lanes. At the end of this period the road would be turned over to Caltrans.

· The franchise agreement included a non-compete clause. The non-compete clause created a 1.5 mile protection zone along each side of the SR 91. No improvements could be made in other freeways and roadways in the protection zone.

· This non-compete clause limited OCTA’s and Caltrans’ ability to respond to increasing demands in the corridor. Over the next 25 years Orange County is projected to add 540,000 jobs. Riverside County’s population is projected to increase by 1 million people, or some 85 percent.

· If the non-compete zone was kept in place it was expected that speeds in the SR 91 regular lanes would experience a decrease of 75 percent by 2030. In addition, the non-compete clause raised issues related to planning and funding other transportation facilities in the region.

· OCTA’s acquisition of the SR 91 Express Lanes offers a solution. OCTA is purchasing the facility for $207.5 million. OCTA will assume CPTC’s $135 million taxable bonds and pay $72.5 million in cash. The acquisition is contingent upon due diligence review, tolling legislation, and dismissal of pending litigation.

· The benefits of OCTA’s acquisition of the SR 91 Express Lanes include eliminating the non-compete clause, ending current litigation, and initiating work on other highway improvements in the corridor. Other benefits include optimizing traffic flow for the public good, allowing 3+ carpools to use the lanes for free, lowering financing costs, and returning the lanes to public ownership.

· The acquisition process included a number of steps. First, a technical analysis was conducted of maintaining the tolls or allowing free use. Second, a cash flow analysis was conducted. Third, numerous meetings were held with elected officials and legislators in the area. Fourth, an independent fairness opinion was obtained. OCTA reached an agreement with CPTC and legislation was drafted to allow for the acquisition.

· A number of near-term roadway improvements are being considered in the area. The improvements will proceed once the acquisition is finalized. Anticipated projects include building auxiliary lanes in some sections, adding storage at truck scales, and addressing problems at downstream interchanges. A number of longer-term improvements are also being studied, including adding through lanes, adding capacity in Riverside County, expanding freeway-to-freeway interchanges and access, and adding downstream capacity.

· The next steps in the acquisition process include signing the agreements and completing traffic and revenue studies. A corridor advisory panel will also be established. If the process progresses as planned, OCTA will assume CPTC’s debt and takeover operations in January 2003. Refinancing tax-exempt securities will occur by the summer of 2003.

· A number of lessons have been learned from the SR 91 Express Lanes. First, it appears that evolution follows revolution. While the Express Lanes concept was considered revolutionary at the time, the project evolved differently than was originally anticipated. In developing these types of projects, consideration should be given to LOS-based escape clauses. Developing new approaches is not always easy and often involves many unforeseen circumstances.

The New Texas Turnpike Authority and Texas Toll Roads – Evolution or Revolution?

Brett Jackson

Federal Highway Administration

Mr. Brett Jackson discussed the Central Texas Turnpike (CTTP) Project and the TxDOT Texas Turnpike Authority Division. He summarized the project and highlighted the financing, the design elements, and the future options. He also described recent legislation allowing for the creation of Regional Mobility Authorities (RMAs) in Texas. Mr. Jackson covered the following points in his presentation.

· The CTTP consists of 122 miles of new tolled freeway in central Texas. The project cost is currently estimated at $3.6 billion. The CTTP will serve the area around the city of Austin, which is located in the third fastest growing county in the country.

· The CTTP consists of four distinct projects. Separate Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) were completed on each segment in an average of 26 months. The first project is SH 45, a freeway on existing and new alignments. The second project is an extension of Loop 1, which connects to SH 45 and will eventually connect to I-35. The third project is US 183A, a bypass of the heavily congested US 183 around the city of Cedar Park. The fourth project is SH 130, a 90-mile section of new freeway being constructed under an exclusive development agreement. A design, build, warranty, maintain, and operate agreement is being used on the project.

· Innovative financing is being used on all four projects. Funding sources include bonds, a Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Loan, STIP funds, and contributions of local rights-of-way. The use of short term Bond Anticipated Notes (BANs) will save some $75 million.

· The four projects represent the first tolled highways in central Texas. They will also deploy the first system to use interchangeable electronic toll collection in the state. The projects incorporate state-of-the-art ITS traffic management systems and telecommunications technologies. They also represent the first delivery of state highway improvements through public-private partnerships and a wide range of innovative financing methods. The projects will provide relief to the region’s mobility crisis and deliver a safer, more economical transportation system.

· A typical cross-section includes three traffic lanes and three auxiliary lanes in each direction. The center median is reserved for future HOV lanes. Non-continuous frontage roads are provided.

· The anticipated tolls are based on a traffic and revenue study. The study included the examination of demographics, origin-destination pairs, traffic demand, and other factors such as NAFTA use and avoidance of I-35. The toll cost per mile of $.15 is competitive with other major projects in the country. Consideration will be given to use cost increases per year.

· Legislation allowing for the creation of RMAs in Texas was passed in 2001. Williamson and Travis counties are the first to establish an RMA. This approach provides more local input and takes some of the burden off the state’s financial and workload deficit. The RMAs first project is US 183A. Legislation to be considered in 2003 would allow the RMA to issue bonds.

· These projects are innovative in many respects. They represent the first use of the design-build approaches in Texas and are one of the largest projects in the country using this approach. Innovative finance is being used to fund the projects. A total of 120 miles of toll facilities will be completed in five years. The average EIS process is taking approximately 2.5 years.

Violations: The Achilles Heal of Electronic Toll Collection

Jerry Hautamaki

HNTB Corporation

Mr. Hautamaki discussed the use of electronic toll collection (ETC) with managed lanes and value pricing. He provided an overview of ETC, the benefits and challenges of ETC, and approaches for violation enforcement. He also reviewed the experience with ETC in the U.S. Mr. Hautamaki addressed the following points in his presentation.

· ETC is an enabling technology for managed lanes, congestion pricing, and other pricing-based strategies for reducing congestion. Using ETC on open-flow, non-stop roads, however, creates the opportunity for violations by driving without a transponder in the vehicle.

· Key components of ETC are the toll plaza with electronic readers and transponder tags on vehicles, which contain pre-paid accounts. The transponders are read as vehicles travel through toll plazas at posted speeds. The toll amount is electronically debited from the transponder account. The toll plazas are also equipped with cameras, which are activated electronically if a vehicle does not have a valid transponder. The license plate of the vehicle is photographed and a citation is sent to the vehicle owner.

· The use of ETC has significantly decreased delays at toll plazas, as vehicles with transponders no longer need to stop to pay tolls. Enrollment in ETC programs has grown dramatically over the past few years. Currently, ETC tag use includes some 8 million in the northeastern states, approximately 2.5 million in Oklahoma and Texas, 1.5 million in California, 1 million in Florida, and .5 million in Illinois. In addition, it is estimated that the trucking industry uses some 5 million tags.

· Enforcing ETC is important for a number of reasons including creating a credible deterrent to violators, recovering revenues, building customer loyalty and trust, and converting violators to customers. Political sensitivity and legal requirements will need to be factored into enforcement strategies. Without a credible and visible enforcement program, violations will increase. Experience indicates that violation rates are typically in the three-to-four percent range with enforcement programs and over 10 percent without programs. Revenues at a typical toll facility are in the range of $50 million to $500 million a year. Thus, every one percent of lost revenue due to non-payment represents between $500,000 to $5 million annually.

· Customer loyalty and trust are key components of a successful toll operation. If customers know that others are cheating and not paying, they will be angry. This anger may spill over and negatively impact the image of the toll operation.

· Most toll agencies try to convert violators to customers. Some agencies allow violators to avoid fines by establishing and maintaining an ETC account. All toll agencies operate within a political environment. Angry customers frequently voice their concerns to politicians. It is very uncomfortable to have to explain to a legislative hearing why people are cheating the toll agency.

· Most toll facilities are financed by the sale of bonds, backed by future toll revenues. Bond covenants typically require accurate and complete accounting of vehicles and revenues, and require that all users be charged. Violations can be interpreted as failure to comply with the bond covenants.

· Implementing an enforcement program involves a number of steps. First, enabling legislation authorizing violation enforcement must be in place. Second, cameras and other enforcement equipment must be installed. Third, a method must be established for processing the violations and collecting the fines. Processing violation requires staff. Problems may occur with video images due to dirt on license plates, small motorcycle plates, and tandem trailers.

· The experience at three agencies provides examples of toll violation enforcement. The first agency operates 225 toll lanes, of which 53 lanes have cameras. The agency experiences some 1 million transactions a day, with the camera lanes accounting for some 650,000 of these. The agency experiences 28,000 violations a day or about 4.3 percent. About 3,000 are billed to known customers. After three violations in 30 days a letter is sent to the vehicle owner with a $25 per violation fee. Thus, the minimum fine for the first letter is $75. Approximately 1,200 to 1,500 letters are sent a day. Approximately 40 percent of the violators pay upon receipt of the first letter. After 30 days, unpaid fines become a traffic citation and a violator has to go to court. The agency has never lost a case in court. The agency representative is in court one-to-two days a week. Approximately $1.25 million in revenues are generated each year from the fines. The agency employs 21 people in the violation department. The toll agency worked hard to educate courts and District Attorneys about toll violations. Approximately 30 percent of offenders get accounts through the Violation Waivers program.

· The second agency operates 235 toll lanes, of which 39 have cameras. There are 750,000 transactions a day in the camera-equipped lanes. There are 30,000 violations a day or four percent of the total transactions in these lanes. Of this amount, some 37 percent are one-time violators who are not seen again and 23 percent are two-time violators who are not seen again. After the third violation in 12 months a letter is sent to the vehicle owner. The fine is $15, plus $3 in tolls for a total fine of $18. The agency sends 37,000 letters a month or 1,800 a day. Approximately 80 percent of those receiving a letter pay the fine. A violator who does not pay is taken to court. The agency generates some $1.1 million in violation revenue a year from cases taken to court. The agency employs 21 people in the violation department.

· The third agency operates 38 miles of tollways, with all toll collection lanes equipped with cameras. The agency processes some 105,000 transactions a day and 6,700 camera images a day, which account for about six percent of the total transactions. Of these, 3,000 are billed to known customers. Letters are sent to the other violators. The first violation is $7 plus a $40 penalty for a total of $47. The second letter is a $60 penalty, the third letter is a $80 penalty, and the fourth letter is a $100 fine. The agency processes 500 letters a day and receives $2.5 million a year in violation revenue.

· The fourth agency operates 108 kilometers of tollway and has cameras in every toll collection lane. It is an all electronic tollway with no cash collection. Users are billed via transponders or via license plates. Use of the facility is 330,00 trips a day, of which 73,000 a day, or 22 percent, are billed from video images. There is a $1.65 video surcharge on these transactions. The toll collection system costs $55 million. Some $1.5 million in bills are sent each month. The collection staff includes 190 employees.

Puget Sound Regional Council Congestion Pricing Demonstration

Matthew Kitchen

Puget Sound Regional Council

Mr. Matthew Kitchen discussed a GPS-based pricing demonstration project in the Puget Sound region. He described the background of the demonstration, the technology that would be used, the elements of the demonstration, and the potential markets. Mr. Kitchen addressed the following points in his presentation.

· Marginal-cost pricing can address economic, financial, and social goals. It addresses management objectives related to alternatives to traditional road finance. Variable pricing provides a better option that optimizes investments, improves operational efficiency, and respects diverse needs and values.

· The Destination 2030 regional plan includes recommendations focusing on variable pricing. The plan recommendations include introducing variable roadway pricing where and when it is appropriate in the region; exploring and adopting transportation demand modeling improvements that better assess management strategies; planning, designing, and implementing a demonstration program prior to 2006; and developing and funding a detailed outreach effort.

· The FHWA Value Pricing program provides technical and policy support for local projects. It can help finance and organize a regional pricing conference and provides a clearinghouse for information exchange. FHWA awarded a $1.88 million grant for the Puget Sound study. The study will analyze pricing options in coordination with corridor studies. It is part of a broader effort to develop regional transportation financing capacity.

· GPS includes satellites orbiting the earth at an altitude of 20,000 km. The orbital period is 12 hours and global coverage is provided 24 hours per day. At least five satellites are visible at all times. Full operational capability (FOC) was declared by the Department of Defense (DOD) in April 1995 and selected availability was no longer an issue as of May 2000.

· GPS appears to be well suited for value pricing applications. GPS can be used to track the miles a vehicle travels and the time-of-day trips are made. Drivers can be charged accordingly. There are some measurement accuracy issues that will need to be addressed, however. GPS data involves elements of error, so standards of accuracy must be established and measurements verified. Match mapping presents additional challenges due to errors contained in digital maps.

· GPS is an element of a proposed project in Germany to collect freight tolls. The project, anticipated to be implemented in 2003, would provide an example of this approach.

· The Puget Sound study is a hold-harmless pilot project designed to understand user response to road pricing. It proposes using GPS to optimally price the roadway network. The project would test the technology, program design, and behavior. It would also examine broad policy implications and public attitudes.

· The project has two phases – a development phase and an implementation phase. Major activities in the development phase include selecting a price structure and framework, determining GPS utilization technology, and developing evaluation methodologies and participant sample requirements. The main elements in the implementation phase include preliminary implementation of the pilot study, full project implementation and management, assessment of associated policy issues, a public involvement and a public relations program, and project evaluation.

· A number of outcomes are anticipated from the study. First, the project will help familiarize the public and policymakers with an actual application of road pricing. Second, it will assist in developing an understanding of the technology components and applications of GPS with value pricing. Third, it will generate user response to price data for application in other analytical efforts, such as corridor studies, travel models, and revenue models. Finally, it will better define a set of policy issues to be addressed through actual program design.

· Pre-project planning has been initiated. The development phase activities are anticipated to be completed in 2003. The implementation phase efforts will start in mid-2003 and continue into 2005. The public relations program will run throughout the project.

· GPS provides the potential to manage the transportation system through markets. It may offer a significant contribution to facility and system management through improved performance. It provides a self-financed investment in transportation technology, opens new technology markets, and integrates existing markets. It can also be used for real-time travel and management information. Other ITS applications have increased public acceptance of active management strategies. GPS provides an approach that addresses recurring and non-recurring elements of congestion.

· Electronic toll collection involves a number of elements including in-vehicle, two-way communication and data links. It provides applications for facility management and an avenue for system data collection management. It allows for interface for in-vehicle display of real-time travel information. ITS functions include incident detection, traffic management, travel information, fleet management, route guidance, and planning analysis.

· GPS and other technologies can assist in evolving lane management. They can help manage for value not “values.” These technologies may facilitate markets that allow individuals to choose according to their own preferences. GPS can improve efficiency when managed lanes become the standard not the option. It appears that the best approach may be to let technology evolve as interest rises in system managed level approaches.

Value Pricing, Part Two

Michelle Hoffman, Maryland Department of Transportation, Moderator

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

Robert Daniel

URS Corporation

Mr. Robert Daniel discussed a proposed HOT lane project in Tel Aviv, Israel. He described the location of the project, the problems being addressed, the proposed solutions, and some of the anticipated challenges with the project. Mr. Daniel covered the following points in his presentation.

· Tel Aviv is located on the Mediterranean Sea coast. Like most metropolitan areas, traffic congestion is a major problem in Tel Aviv. Road 1 from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem experiences an LOS F in the morning peak period and a LOS D in the afternoon peak period. Road 4 in the eastern part of the metropolitan area experiences a LOS F in the morning peak period and a LOS E in the afternoon peak period.

· Approximately 6 million people live in Israel. The Tel Aviv region has a population of 2.5 million, with 350,000 individuals living in the city. There are approximately 330,000 daily commuters in the region. Approximately 60 percent of these commuters travel in private motor vehicles.

· Congestion or value pricing represents one possible approach for addressing traffic congestion in the area. Value pricing can be an equitable approach, especially if the revenue from congestion pricing is used for cross subsidization of shuttle bus from park-and-ride lots or bus other services. Other techniques can be used so the wealthy can help to finance travel of those less well off.

· Governmental actions in 1999 and 2002 provide direction for the possible use of value pricing in the region. The Fast Lanes for Public Transportation (Toll Lanes) law was passed by the legislature in 2000. It provided for studies of the value pricing concept and delegated authority for studies and projects among the Cross Israel Highway Company Ltd., Department of Public Works, Ministry of Transportation, and Ayalon Freeway Company Ltd.

· The proposed project on the Road 1 Tel Aviv Jerusalem Highway includes four major components. These elements are Fast Lanes, park-and-ride facilities, free shuttle service to the center city, and intermodal transfer centers.

· The Fast Lane would be approximately 7.5 miles in length and would be added capacity built adjacent to Road 1. The lanes would operate one-way only to the center city. Electronic tolling and variable tolls would be used on the facility.

· Park-and-ride sites along Road 1 have been identified. These facilities would allow commuters traveling to the center city to park and take transit for the remainder of their trip. Direct access ramps would be provided for buses to access the Fast Lane.

· Shuttle bus service would be operated from park-and-ride lots to the center city and other major destinations. A link to the existing rail line in the corridor would also be provided.

· The park-and-ride project has been approved by District Planning Commission. The Fast Lane is in the advanced stage of design. Cabinet level governmental approval of the project occurred in July 2002. Currently there is both political opposition and political support for the project.

Maryland Variable Pricing Study – Lessons Learned

George Walton

Parsons Brinckerhoff

Mr. George Walton discussed the Variable Pricing Study conducted for the Maryland State Highway Administration of the Maryland Department of Transportation by Parsons Brinckerhoff. He provided an overview of the study and his perspective on some of the issues encountered during the project. Mr. Walton covered the following points in his presentation.

· The Maryland Variable Pricing Study was a one-year effort that started in the fall of 1999. It was jointly managed by the State Highway Administration and the Maryland Transportation Authority. The study included proactive and interactive public participation programs that used newsletters and Internet sites. Other federal, state, and local agencies participated on the Steering Committee and various groups participated on the Stakeholder Committee.

· The study had two main goals and a number of objectives. The first goal was to determine the feasibility of a broad range of value pricing strategies to develop a series of recommendations for implementation. The five objectives under this goal were: 1) to identify a broad range of value pricing strategies for the 10 selected corridors and facilities in Maryland; 2) to evaluate the transportation system performance of identified variable pricing strategies; 3) to evaluate the cost and equity implications of the identified variable pricing strategies; 4) to evaluate implementation issues associated with the identified variable pricing strategies; and 5) to identify the next steps leading towards implementation.

· The second goal was to increase public awareness and understanding of variable pricing applications. The four objectives related to this goal were: 1) to identify the audience; 2) to develop and carry out a proactive public involvement process; 3) to provide documentation to the state legislature; and 4) to participate in national discussions of variable pricing.

· The study involved two phases of analysis. The first phase examined qualitative measures. The second phase focused on quantitative efforts, including travel demand and traffic analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, environmental and equity analysis, implementation requirements, technology and toll collection applications, infrastructure improvement needs, enforcement issues, and legislative needs.

· The study examined the feasibility of variable pricing strategies on six freeways, two tunnels, and two bridges. The study team investigated a range of strategies for each corridor or facility. The effectiveness potential within each corridor or facility was examined. Recommendations for further exploration or implementation were developed for each corridor and facility. The study was to serve as an “off-line” technical assessment of variable pricing and the findings were to have been linked into other ongoing planning studies.

· The results of the phase one study included recommendations to carry forward all the corridors and facilities into ongoing planning studies and to compare the variable pricing strategies with other options being considered. Moving forward with a demonstration project on US 50 was also recommended.

· The US 50 HOT lane demonstration focused on the 7.5 miles of HOV lanes under construction. The project was to use a 2+ vehicle-occupancy requirement with a 24-hour HOV operation. The demonstration was to examine how to differentiate between vehicles paying a toll and HOVs in the absence of a single point of entry. Human or machine vision would be used to verify occupancy and transponder validity. Alternative enforcement methods that could be put into place to ensure acceptable compliance levels were to be considered. Promoting safety and preventing vehicles from weaving in and out of the HOT lane to minimize their toll charge was considered. The demonstration was also to consider if the additional weaving of general-purpose and HOV traffic into and out of the HOT lane increased safety or operational concerns. The governor ended consideration of the demonstration project and other HOT lane options in the state.

· Others may be able to benefit from the experience with the study. First, the number of corridors selected for study may be been overly ambitious given the timeframe and budget. Second, there may have been too many issues, too many state agencies, and too many county agencies involved in the study. Some of the issues that emerged with the large number of agencies related to different operating conditions, different agency mission statements, existing versus new priced facilities, and competing interests.

· Although interested in examining the variable pricing concept, the agency representatives were cautious about actual implementation. FHWA was clearly interested in having another value-pricing project in place for monitoring and evaluation purposes.

· There may have been missed opportunities with the study. The public involvement plan was well-established, but more aggressive outreach with elected officials earlier in the process may be been beneficial. Early communication may have helped advance the demonstration project. A political champion for the demonstration was also missing. Several project team members championed the study, but could not generate enough support for continuation. There was a need for broad-based support throughout the study areas.

· The study also pointed out that enhancements to regional models are needed to adequately evaluate the demand for variable pricing projects. The tunnels and bridges in Baltimore appear to be more logical candidates for possible projects than roadways.

· Possible equity issues appear to be a major concern among policy makers. Communicating with all groups on the equity issue and other concerns is critical. The media plays a key role in information dissemination, so it is important to spend time with them. It is also important to communicate with local policy makers. Support from top policy makers is critical.

· The timing of grant application processes can also be an issue. It is important that the local decision-making process occurs prior to the federal application process.

· Concerns were raised over how variable pricing fits with Smart Growth. Some groups felt variable pricing would add capacity to a corridor, which did not support their concept of Smart Growth.

· It appears that the study may not have fully identified community perceptions related to variable pricing. As a result, it may not have been possible to address the local concerns related to equity and other issues.

Six Years of HOT Lanes: What Have We Learned?

Bill Stockton

Texas Transportation Institute

Mr. Bill Stockton discussed the experience with HOT lanes over the past six years. His comments focused primarily on I-15 in San Diego, SR 91 in Orange County, California, and I-10 West in Houston. Mr. Stockton covered the following points in his presentation.

· Concerns over equity are often raised as potential issues with HOT lanes. It appears that equity is a bigger issue in the minds of implementing agencies and elected officials than it is to the public. Survey results and other studies indicate that HOT lanes are used by travelers in all income groups.

· The perception of travel time savings by commuters continues to be much greater than the travel time savings recorded by operating agencies. It also appears that travel time reliability is more important to travelers than absolute time savings.

· It appears to be easier to attract new single-occupant vehicle drivers to a single-occupant vehicle-eligible HOT lane than to attract two-person carpools to HOV/HOT facilities with a three-person requirement.

· An ingenious way of enforcing HOV occupancy has yet to be discovered. Enforcement continues to be an important issue with both HOT lanes and HOV lanes.

· The projects to date indicate that pricing works. The understanding of price elasticity and extension to individual projects is still in its infancy.

· Experience also indicates that the more complicated the geometry of a HOT lane, the more difficult the operations. Both I-15 and SR 91 have one entry point and one exit point.

· In terms of policy implications, political support is still not very predictable, but improving. Having a political champion for a project is very advantageous.

The Current Status of High-Occupancy Toll Lane Applications In the United States: Practice, Politics, and Potential

Benjamin Perez

Parsons Brinckerhoff

Mr. Benjamin Perez discussed the FHWA sponsored A Guide for HOT Lane Development. The guide represents a two-year effort of Parson Brinckerhoff, with assistance from TTI. Mr. Perez covered the following points in his presentation.

· The focus of the guide is on educating about HOT lanes, not advocating them. The report identifies what is different with HOT lanes and summarizes the collective experience to date with HOT lanes. The development of the guide included input from technical specialists and extensive consultation with implementing agencies. FHWA personnel provided guidance throughout the process and reviewed the draft report. A peer review process was also used with the guide.

· The contents of the guide include eight basic sections. These sections are concept and rationale, planning and implementation, organization frameworks, achieving public acceptance, technical issues, operational issues, current experience, and lessons learned.

· HOT lanes are defined in the guide as “managed, limited-access, and normally barrier-separated highway lanes that provide free or reduced cost access to high-occupancy vehicles and also make excess capacity available to other paying vehicles not meeting occupancy requirements.”

· HOT lane management tools are described in the guide. The basic management tools include pricing, occupancy requirements, access points, electronic toll collection requirements, and program participation.

· HOT lane requisites were examined. The elements identified as important included high-density corridors, new managed lanes, and either congested HOV facilities or under utilized HOV facilities. Multi-lane facilities are also preferable.

· There are a number of potential benefits from the use of HOT lanes. HOT lanes provide travelers with a choice of paying for premium conditions. There is no service degradation in managed lanes. They provide travel time savings for users. HOT lanes can improve corridor mobility. HOT lanes can result in improved transit service. Environmental benefits may result from HOT lanes. Finally, HOT lanes may avoid pressure to convert under performing HOV lanes.

· There are a number of policy issues that may need to be addressed in considering HOT lanes. Equity appears to be one of the main issues. There may also be questions if tolls are acceptable to politicians and their constituents. Finally, finding respected project champions willing to lend public support may be an issue.

· Elements to consider in the HOT lanes implementation process include preliminary investigations, detailed planning, and final design/construction. Institutional issues, outreach efforts, and technical studies are needed in all three of these steps.

· Some realities of HOT lanes may be different than perceptions. Political perception of public opinion may not always be accurate. The public may be more willing than their political leaders to support HOT lane projects. Current projects have benefited from political champions. HOT projects that have not moved forward often involved elected officials actively blocking implementation. The importance of educating all stakeholders cannot be understated.

· An 800-person survey of I-15 FasTrack users completed in 2001 demonstrates that motorists of all income levels recognize the benefits of HOT lanes. The results indicated that 91 percent agree that FasTrack is a good idea. Approximately 66 percent of non-users support FasTrack. Some 73 percent of non-users agree FasTrack reduces congestion. A total of 89 percent of users support FasTrack extensions, and 80 percent of the lowest income users support the concept of paying for HOT lane use.

· Surveys in other metropolitan areas indicate there is public support for HOT lanes. A survey in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area showed 57 percent supported having an option to pay to use an uncongested freeway lane when in a hurry. In Seattle, 41 percent were willing to pay tolls for faster trips, with no statistically significant difference between income and willingness to pay tolls. In Lee County, Florida, 59 percent had a favorable opinion of paying to bypass congestion.

· A study of HOT lanes and value pricing in Maryland was terminated by the governor in 2001. He instructed the Maryland Secretary of Transportation to remove any proposals to study or implement HOT lanes from the Department’s overall strategy.

· A demonstration on the I-10 West (Katy) Freeway in Houston was initiated in 1998. The QuickRide project allows 2+ HOVs to use the HOV lane during the 3+ restricted period for a fee of $2.00. The Katy HOV lane is 13 miles long. It is a single reversible barrier-separated lane located in the freeway median. A similar approach was implemented on the US 290 (Northwest) Freeway in 2002. The HOV lane on the Northwest Freeway is approximately 15 miles in length and is a one-lane reversible barrier-separated facility.

· The SR 91 Express Lanes in Orange County, California, provide another example of value pricing. The SR 91 Express Lanes are 10 miles long and include two lanes in each direction. The facility was opened in 1995 and was privately financed through special legislation. HOVs were initially allowed to use the lanes for free under the state law and currently pay half price on the tolls. Currently, toll charges range from $0.75 to $4.75, depending upon the time of day. The project included effective public outreach and extensive data collection activities on pricing and utilization. The private finance added a layer of complexity and the non-compete clause has been problematic.

· The I-15 FasTrack demonstration in San Diego provides another example of a HOT lane project. The HOV lane on I-15 is a two lane reversible facility that is eight miles long. The demonstration started in 1996 allowing single-occupant vehicles to use the HOV lane for a fee. Currently a real-time variable pricing structure is used with tolls ranging from $0.75 to $4.75. The project appears to be popular with users of all incomes, as well as non-users. An effective outreach effort was undertaken with the project. Expansion is currently under consideration. The toll proceeds fund express bus service in the corridor.

· There is current interest in HOT lanes in a number of metropolitan areas. Recent HOT lane studies have been conducted on Route 101 in Marin and Sonoma counties in the San Francisco Bay area and on SR 36/I-25 corridor in the Boulder/Denver region. Possible projects are being examined in Miami, South Carolina, Portland, Seattle, Houston, Denver, Phoenix, Dallas/Fort Worth, and Lee County, Florida.

· A number of lessons have been learned from the current projects and studies. Outreach is critical in gaining public support. The backing of political champions is important in garnering public support. It is not unlikely that the future of a HOT lane initiative will lie in the hands of a single key individual. Surveys prove existing HOT lanes are popular with local drivers. Surveys also demonstrate motorists are likely to support new HOT lane applications and this support is consistent among motorists of all income levels. Support is consistent among motorists who only use HOT lanes occasionally. HOV conversions are often attractive options. A variety of institutional sponsors can be involved with HOT lane projects. Private sector financing adds a layer of complexity. Management tools, including price, need to be flexible. Reciprocity with other tolling agencies is desirable.

· With only four HOT lane facilities operating in the U.S., the concept is not always considered in situations where it might be appropriate. HOT lanes provide a cost effective opportunity to increase use of HOV facilities and highway capacity. There is a need to share the collective experience.

· The Guide for HOT Lane Development should be available from the FHWA in late 2002 or early 2003.

Managed Lanes Corridor Planning

Craig Stone, Washington State Department of Transportation, Moderator

Managed Lane Feasibility on I-405 in Seattle

Don Samdahl

Mirai Associates

Mr. Don Samdahl discussed the managed lane Feasibility Study on I-405 in Seattle. The study was conducted for WSDOT by Mirai Associates, Parsons Brinckerhoff, and David Evans and Associates. He noted the participation of Mr. Robert Spillar, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Mr. Ron Anderson, David Evans and Associates, and Mr. Crain Stone, WSDOT, in the study. He summarized the background to the project, the major tasks conducted in the study, and the results. Mr. Samdahl covered the following points in his presentation.

· Addressing transportation needs in the I-405 study area included numerous challenges. There has been strong economic growth in the area resulting in more demand on the transportation system. This growth is out-pacing the existing infrastructure. There are multiple jurisdictions in the corridor. There are also physical and financial constraints, as well as environmental concerns.

· A number of alternatives were examined in the study. A strong TDM program aimed at ridesharing, vanpooling, and transit incentives was one option. The HOV alternative included completing the series of direct access ramps. This would allow carpools, vanpools, and buses to access the HOV lanes without weaving through other traffic. The BRT option would expand transit services up to 100 percent in the corridor. It would implement a BRT-type service for most north-south transit travel and explore automated high capacity transit (HCT) options for the cross-lake (SR 520/I-90) Corridor. The roadway alternative would add up to two general-purpose lanes in each direction between I-5 in Tukwila and I-5 in Lynnwood.

· Managed lanes were also considered. Managed lanes were defined as a dedicated lane system for one or more user groups. Managed lanes provide tools to optimize lane throughput and to provide unimpeded travel during periods of peak demand. Managed lanes appear to be viable if they move more people, improve corridor speeds, increase mode splits, minimize diversion to arterials or neighborhood streets, and provide mobility for freight. Managed lane operational scenarios for short-term and for 2020 were examined. Management by access or user controls and operational variations during the day were also considered. The design implications for various approaches were examined and opportunities for pricing capacity were explored.

· The design concept for the HOV lane and the managed lanes alternatives were slightly different. The HOV alternative required a slightly wider cross-section. The managed lanes alternative included 2+ HOV peak periods, HOV direct access, and allowing all vehicles off-peak at selection locations.

· The analysis of the alternatives examined vehicle and person travel demand, travel patterns, lane utilization, throughput, and speed. The results of the analysis indicated that managed lanes are a viable alternative. The managed lanes option meets or exceeds the throughput provided by the HOV 3+ alternative. It allows HOV 2+ and provides available capacity for other users. Pricing is an additional management tool that can be used on an on-going basis.

· Potential early action strategies were examined. These strategies included phasing-in managed lanes on a single facility or by a corridor and considering limited pricing with the phased-in segments. The next steps in the process include defining an operational plan, analyzing system needs, and estimating revenues from a priced managed lane.

Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines for Managed Lanes Value Pricing Project in San Diego

Eric Schreffler

Eric Schreffler Transportation Consultants

Mr. Eric Schreffler discussed the monitoring and evaluation approach for the I-15 managed lanes value pricing project in San Diego. He provided an overview of the I-15 managed lanes project and described the evaluation objectives, the basic evaluation approach, and the performance measures. He also noted the before, during, and after data sets and analysis approach. Mr. Schreffler covered the following points in his presentation.

· Managed lanes are part of the expansion of Express Lanes on I-15. The managed lanes are anticipated to build on the success of the current FasTrak value pricing program on I-15. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) commissioned the value pricing study, Wilber Smith developed the concept plan, and Eric Schreffler Transportation Consultant (ESTC) developed the monitoring and evaluation plan.

· The existing I-15 facility allows 2+ HOVs to use the HOV lanes for free, while single-occupant vehicles pay a toll that varies by the level of congestion in the lane. The future managed lane plan includes four lanes in the center median of the freeway. The lanes would be separated from the general-purpose lanes by barriers. The lanes would be managed through the use of a moveable barrier. Variable value pricing would continue to be used on the lanes. The project also contains a BRT element, which includes direct access ramps and stations.

· The preferred pricing option is a skewed per mile rate with minimum tolls. Distance-based tolls are perceived to be more equitable. The toll per mile would be shown, with users calculating the cost for their trip. The per mile rate would be higher in congested areas. The main disadvantage of this approach is user comprehension.

· The evaluation objectives were to test the managed lanes as HOT lanes and to test the skewed per mile pricing scheme. The evaluation examined the impact of these approaches on users and non-users. Pricing was tested with multiple access points. The use of the movable barrier technology was also examined. The evaluation measured the impact of different alternatives on congestion. It also examined funding options for new BRT and HOV improvements.

· The basic evaluation approach focused on a four-tiered before and after assessment. The four tiers were measurement of system impacts, measurement of utilization, measurement of acceptance, and assessment of operations.

· The evaluation used eight performance measures. These measures were LOS, toll user volumes, changes in mode split, changes in vehicle classification, changes in trip making, changes in park-and-ride usage, changes in emissions, and changes in delay, travel time and speed.

· The before and after data set used in the evaluation included nine elements. Data on traffic counts, travel time, vehicle occupancy, park-and-ride lot use, HOV violation rates, and accidents were examined. A panel survey of FasTrak users and stakeholder interviews were conducted.

· The analysis focused on a number of key areas. First, utilization of the managed lanes was examined. Second, the impact on the managed lanes and the mixed use lanes was considered. Third, the cost of delay and emissions was analyzed. Fourth, an institutional analysis was conducted and potential equity issues were examined. Fifth, a technical assessment was conducted, which included a cost revenue analysis.

· A number of key recommendations emerged from the study. The first recommendation was to build evaluation into project planning. Assuring that an adequate budget is provided to conduct the before data collection activities was recommended. Including HOV users in the assessment was suggested. Using the results to improve the program on an ongoing basis was also recommended. Finally, providing the results in a straightforward manner that is easy to understand was recommended. More information on the project can be found at www.sandag.org/fastrak.

Planning for Managed Truck Lanes

James Douglas

Parsons Brinckerhoff

Mr. James Douglas discussed potential issues associated with planning managed truck lanes. He described the potential benefits from truck lanes, highlighted four current examples of truck lanes, and outlined issues to be examined in the planning process. Mr. Douglas covered the following points in his presentation.

· Truck lanes separate heavy commercial vehicles from automobiles and other lighter vehicles. Potential benefits from truck lanes include improved operations and improved safety. Operational benefits include eliminating the speed differential between trucks and other vehicles and reducing merging and weaving movements. Truck lanes may reduce crash rates for commercial vehicles.

· Examples of current truck lanes include the New Jersey Turnpike, I-5 in Los Angeles, and the South Boston Bypass. The New Jersey Turnpike includes a dual-dual roadway with automobile-only lanes. I-5 includes barrier separated truck lanes and interchange bypasses. The South Boston Bypass is a separate roadway for commercial vehicles.

· Applications guidelines for truck lanes include consideration of corridors with high truck volumes, high traffic volumes, and major truck generators. Truck lanes may involve extended corridors. Truck merging and weaving should also be examined.

· Potential issues to be considered in the planning process include vehicle restrictions, physical separation, the number of lanes, dual-purpose lanes, key design parameters, and the potential benefits to different user groups.

· Elements to be addressed in the planning process include establishing the need for a project, articulating the objectives, and addressing specific issues. Although there are only a few truck lanes currently in operation, there is interest in the concept in a number of urban areas.

Using Managed Lanes During Construction

Joel Marcuson

HNTB Corporation

Mr. Joel Marsucon discussed the use of managed lanes during construction. He provided an overview of the managed lanes concept, early adoption strategies, possible benefits of managed lanes, and the use of managed lanes to ease congestion during construction and reconstruction. Mr. Marsucon covered the following points in his presentation.

· The use of managed lanes during construction is a relatively new concept. Managed lanes can expand mobility during roadway construction and reconstruction. Managed lanes can provide better service to travelers during construction. Managed lanes can enhance transit service and HOV use during construction. Possible approaches for use during construction and reconstruction include dynamic managed lanes and reversible tidal flow lanes.

· Numerous benefits may be realized through the use of managed lanes during construction. First, the people moving capacity of a facility is increased. Second, mobility options for travelers are increased. Third, it is a way to provide an early introduction of the managed lanes concept in an area. Fourth, it can build public support for managed lanes.

· Depending on the approach, utilization of managed lanes during construction could increase the capacity of a facility by some 33 percent in the peak hour. The use of managed lanes during construction can provide benefits to HOVs, HOT vehicles, buses, and other users. Implementing managed lanes to help during construction can provide early public acceptance of the concept. The public receives benefits during construction and transportation agencies gain experience in operating managed lanes.

· A number of different approaches, design treatments, and operating plans may be considered. One example focused on reconstructing a freeway with one concurrent flow HOV lane and two general-purpose lanes in each direction. During reconstruction, a reversible managed lane could be operated in the center median. After reconstruction, the facility would include a managed lane, an HOV lane, and three general-purpose lanes in each direction.

Context Driven Design

Don Nelson, Washington State Department of Transportation, Moderator

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

Bill James

HNTB Corporation

Mr. Bill James discussed the I-90 case study in Seattle examining the safety impacts of non-standard geometric design elements. He summarized the I-90 HOV facilities and current corridor design features. He also described the factors influencing crash patterns and the crash projection methodology. He noted the assistance of Mr. Randy Hammond, HNTB, in the study. Mr. James covered the following points in his presentation.

· The current I-90 project is examining two-way transit and HOV operations. The intent is to improve transit and HOV reliability between Seattle and Bellevue. It is also intended to minimize impacts on the environment and other transportation modes. The I-90 project, which is a joint effort between Sound Transit and WSDOT, helps implement the “Sound Move” regional transit program. The project was initiated in 1998. The draft environmental impact statement (DIES) is currently being prepared.

· The current design and operation of I-90 is governed by a 1976 Memorandum of Agreement. This agreement reduced the lane configuration from four general-purpose lanes in each direction and two center reversible lanes to three general-purpose lanes in each direction and the two center reversible lanes. It also set priorities for the center lane users. The priority users are buses, carpools and vanpools, and Mercer Island motorists. The original project design criteria included a 50 mph alignment in Seattle, a 60 mph “minimum” alignment from I-405 to Lake Washington, and standard shoulder widths.

· The I-90 corridor features an urban environment. Some of the unique features include tunnels, the floating bridges over Lake Washington, and Mercer Island. There are a number of context sensitive design elements in the I-90 corridor. First, the footprint is reduced for tunnels and lids, as opposed to open cut proposals. There are three independent roadway alignments. The alignment on Mercer Island included the First Hill lid with active recreation facilities, “community bridges” with mini-lids, and a linear park with a regional trail facility. The architectural design guidelines also incorporated hardscape and landscape.

· There are a number of tradeoffs influencing safety considerations in the corridor. The physical constraints of the corridor limit options. Geometric compromises include lane widths, shoulder widths, and stopping sight distance. There are also policy considerations related to added capacity verses design compromises.

· A comparison of Interstate highway crash rates was conducted. The freeway segments included in this analysis were:

- I-90, Seattle to Bellevue, current and interim configurations;

- I-5 segments with standard geometrics, none with HOV lanes (1994-1996);

- I-5 segments with non-standard geometrics, all with HOV lanes (1994-1996);

- freeways with HOV lanes and non-standard geometrics in Virginia, Georgia, and California.

· The typical section of I-90 today includes the outer and center travel lanes. The outer roadway is comprised of 12-foot general-purpose lanes and 10-foot outside shoulders. The center roadway includes two 12-foot reversible lanes and eight-foot shoulders.

· The interim I-90 westbound configuration in 1993 had four westbound lanes, three for general-purpose traffic and one for HOVs. The general-purpose lanes were 11 feet wide and the HOV lane was 10.5 feet wide. A two and one-half-foot inside shoulder was provided, along with a six-foot outside shoulder. The interim I-90 eastbound design was three 11-foot general-purpose lanes, a two and one-half-foot outside shoulder, and a two and one-half-foot inside shoulder.

· The I-5 North HOV lanes were added as a retrofit project in the early 1980s. There are three-to-four general-purpose lanes and an HOV lane in each direction. The lanes are 11 feet wide, with a 10-foot wide outside shoulder, and a two-foot inside shoulder. The I-5 South interim HOV lane was developed in the early 1990s. The freeway included four general-purpose lanes and one HOV lane in each direction. The lanes are 11 feet wide with a 10-foot outside shoulder, and a two foot wide inside shoulder.

· Crash data was examined from a number of sources, including the 1995 NCHRP 369 report Use of Shoulders and Narrow Lanes to Increase Freeway Capacity. Crash data from California, Virginia, Texas, and Washington was also examined. Crash frequency and severity, including potential rate changes and increases or decreases in crashes were examined. Factors affecting crash rates include geometric standards, the degree of congestion by time-of-day, and traffic volumes. Estimates were developed for upper and lower bounds for standard verses non-standard interstates, and current versus interim I-90.

· A comparison of Interstate highway overall crash rates indicated that the current I-90 and I-5 standard operations are below the average for Washington State urban Interstates, while the interim I-90 operation, the I-5 non-standard, and other freeways with HOV lanes have crash rates slightly above the average.

· A number of safety mitigation strategies were identified for I-90. Speed management strategies included variable posted speeds and speed limit reductions. Improved illumination in tunnels, lids, and other elements were examined. Delineation included pavement markings, guide signs, and lane control signals. Incident management, including improved detection and increases in the number of WSDOT service vehicles and hours of operation were examined. Shoulder rumble strips were also considered.

· Operating strategies being further developed and evaluated include crash reduction measures for all the alternatives, managed lanes, and HOV eligibility requirements. Managed lane alternatives include time-of-day lanes on the outer roadways and value pricing in the center roadway. HOV eligibility requirements being examined include 2+ and 3+ vehicle occupancy levels.

· A variety of additional data needs and areas for research were identified. The influence of congestion relief and accident migration needs to be explored further. The special effects of lane width reductions, shoulder width reductions, and HOV and general-purpose lane speed differential need further analysis. Information on rural two-lane highways is available for many items, but more data is needed for the urban Interstate system.

· The study results indicate that the existing I-90 has some design standard compromises, but has a better than average crash record. In comparison, standard versus non-standard Interstate freeway facilities with reduced width cross-section elements typically have higher crash rates. These rates are within the range of commonly observed rates on urban Interstates, however. Finally, there is a need for better data specific to urban freeways with HOV facilities.

Urban Freeway Context Sensitive Design

Eric Shimizu

CH2M Hill

Mr. Eric Shimizu discussed the application of context sensitive solutions (CSS) with HOV facilities. He described common HOV design issues, presented a hypothetical case study, highlighted the major components of CSS, and explained how CSS could be applied to HOV design issues. Mr. Shimizu covered the following points in his presentation.

· A number of issues may need to be considered in the design of HOV facilities. Mainline design speeds typically govern geometrics and the need to maintain continuity of the corridor. Elevated or depressed HOV ramps may need to be considered in some cases. Other issues related to HOV design standards include the design vehicle used and separation of ramp traffic from mainline through traffic acceleration. CSS can be used to help address some of these concerns.

· CSS was applied to a hypothetical case study. The case study involved a freeway, with a design speed 60 mph, located in an urban setting. The biggest issue was the impact to an environmentally sensitive site north of the proposed HOV interchange, which included a bridge over a river. The accident analysis conducted for the case study showed a higher than average accident rate for a general-purpose on-ramp with non-standard acceleration length. Mainline accidents showed some rear end accidents, but no fatalities. The accident rate was less than the state average for similar highways.

· The case study analysis examined how the environmental and accident concerns could be addressed. The impact of a bridge widening was examined. Reconstruction costs for added piers and girders were examined. The environmental impacts were also explored. The impact to the salmon habitat narrows the construction window and the needed wetlands mitigation complicates the environmental process. All of these issues extends the project timeline and increases project cost.

· The application of CSS was examined to help address these issues. CSS focuses on the purpose and need of a transportation project, and then addresses equally safety, mobility, and preservation concerns. Preservation issues include aesthetic characteristics, historic and cultural resources, and environmental and other community values. Context sensitive solutions involve a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach in which citizens and agency staff are part of the design team.

· There are at least two ways to examine safety as highway engineers, planners, and stakeholders. Nominal safety is examined in reference to compliance with standards, warrants, guidelines, and sanctioned design procedures. Substantive safety is the expected crash frequency and severity for a highway or roadway. When design criteria can not be met, a question is raised if substantive safety is compromised.

· A simple model for meaningful discussion of safety on any project examines nominal safety and substantive safety. Any project or problem can be categorized in one of four quadrants that meet or do not meet these two concerns. The case study described met the nominal safety aspects, but did not meet the substantive safety concerns.

· Substantive and nominal safety drive decisions and projects approaches. When both nominal and substantive safety are met by infrastructure improvements there is no need or justification for geometric revision. When substantive safety is met, but nominal safety is not, reconstruction criteria may be considered to incorporate low cost safety enhancements. Upgrading to full standards may not be cost-effective. When nominal safety is met, but substantive safety is not met, targeted safety improvements may be needed and there may be a focus on cost-effective solutions. When both nominal and substantive safety are not met there is a need to completely reconstruct current criteria or to consider special targeted safety enhancements.

· A context sensitive solution for the case study would need to address mainline and HOV sight distance and grade, and future HOV volumes. Other possible alternative solutions might include narrowing freeway lane or shoulder widths, relocation of HOV interchanges, possible design exceptions, and possible reconstruction of the bridge.

· The conclusions reached from the case study highlights the importance of conducting a thorough risk assessment. It is also important to complete full documentation of the decision process, including the alternative analysis. The close coordination with the public and stakeholders is also critical. Context sensitive solutions are collaborative stakeholder decision processes that should result in balancing safety and mobility with aesthetics, the environment and community values.

HOV Direct Access Guidance for Washington State

Dick Albin and John Milton

Washington State Department of Transportation

Mr. John Milton discussed the development of HOV direct access guidance in Washington State. He summarized the need for revising the access guide and highlighted some of the issues that had to be addressed. Mr. Milton covered the following topics in his presentation.

· The development of the direct access guide was initiated in 1996 in response to interest from Sound Transit in providing improved bus, carpool, and vanpool access to HOV lanes from the left side. At the time, access to the HOV lanes was from the right side. Access to the HOV lanes from the middle or the left was not provided. The existing guidance was limited to right side access to the Interstate system. The HOV direct access ramps would essentially be left-handed on ramps.

· Left access is generally not favored from an engineering perspective. Left access may be appropriate in some cases to provide direct access to HOV lanes, however. A key issue in the development of the direct access guidance was how to revise a commonly accepted standard favoring right side access and provide for left side access to HOV lanes.

· The guidance at the time was focused on access from the right side. The access did not consider the operational effects of left side on-ramps. The new guidance for HOV direct access connections had to be sensitive to high speed, high volume, high safety, high real estate costs, and high environmental costs. Issues that had to be addressed in the development of the new guidance included parallel on-connections, longer acceleration lengths, longer merging lengths, and longer deceleration lengths.

· The parallel on-connection allows vehicles, including articulated buses, to attain an appropriate speed and to merge into an HOV lane from the left. Parallel on- connections help address possible operational issues associated with merges from the left.

· Longer acceleration lengths are needed to allow 60-foot articulated buses to obtain adequate speed before entering an HOV lane. At the same time, there may be limitations that restrict the ability to provide adequate acceleration, merge, and deceleration lengths.

· Another issue with developing the guidelines was to provide a design that was reasonable and flexible, and which meets federal requirements. It is critical that guidelines not degrade the operation and the safety of the freeway system. Flexibility is provided within the deviation process. FHWA personnel have been very helpful in working through the issues that have come up with the access guidances.

· A number of issues may have to be addressed in considering direct access to HOV lanes. First, acceleration and deceleration gap acceptance may need to be examined. The lengths of the acceleration and deceleration lanes are often a problem in urban areas due to bridges and other limitations on rights-of-way. Ramp shoulders, site distance, and grade may all add to the cost of a structure. Cost is obviously an important factor for all groups, especially the agency responsible for funding a project.

· Access management is another issue. Determining where a ramp starts and ends is more difficult with “T” ramps and other similar facilities. Identifying where a ramp ends and a city street begins is not always easy. This issue influences how full access purchases are measured and if they are 130 feet or 300 feet.

· Access reports are another possible issue. WSDOT is currently receiving a large volume of access reports due to developments along the state system. A different process is being followed for the report on the transit access ramps.

· The HOV direct access guide will become a chapter in the WSDOT Design Manual. Incorporating the guidance into the Design Manual formalizes it as a standard for the Department.

Managed Lanes Design Issues

Bill Eisele

Texas Transportation Institute

Dr. Bill Eisele discussed potential design issues related to managed lanes. He described the results from two research projects sponsored by TxDOT being conducted by TTI. He provided an overview of the managed lanes concept, examples of current projects, possible trends in design and operations, and planning issues associated with managed lanes. Dr. Eisele covered the following points in his presentation.

· The definition of managed lanes used by TxDOT and TTI on the research project is “a lane or group of lanes where a combination of operating and design strategies are used to maximize roadway capacity, maintain free-flow conditions, and achieve corridor and community goals. Managed lanes are designed for flexibility so that operations can be modified over time as conditions change.”

· There are a number of examples of operational and design strategies that may be used with managed lanes. These options include variations in user and vehicle group eligibility, time period-based eligibility, pricing, physical control, and operational control. Possible types of managed lanes include HOV lanes, HOT lanes, value-priced lanes, express lanes, separation and bypass lanes, dual facilities, and lane restrictions.

· The I-15 FasTrack project in San Diego provides one example of value pricing. Currently, 2+ HOVs are allowed to use the facility for free while single-occupant vehicles are tolled. Dynamic pricing is used and there is access control through one entry and one exit. Expansion plans include four managed lanes with an interior moveable barrier and BRT with direct access ramps. Single-occupant vehicles would continue to be tolled.

· The I-10 West (Katy) Freeway in Houston provides a second example of value pricing and managed lanes. The project uses fixed pricing with 2+ HOVs paying a toll and 3+ HOVs traveling for free during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Future plans include managed toll lanes with HOV preference. The lanes would be separated from the general-purpose lanes by plastic pylons.

· The SR-91 Express Lanes in Orange County, California, provide another example of the managed lanes concept. This facility uses differential pricing. Vehicle eligibility includes tolling 2+ HOVs and single-occupant vehicles, while 3+ HOV pay a reduced toll of 50 percent the normal rate. There is also access control with one entry and one exit.

· It is important to link design and operations of managed lane projects. Operational components that may need to be considered in the design of a facility include AVI or loop detectors, closed-circuit television cameras, full ATMS, dedicated tow trucks, changeable message signs (CMS), entry ramp metering, significant enforcement efforts, and lower speed limits at constricted points.

· The managed concept may influence future trends in design. Factors that may be considered include greater design consistency on a regional and national basis, greater system continuity, planned conversion to multi-lane managed facilities, and maintaining flexibility. New design standards may emerge with the wider application of managed HOV lanes. For example, efforts are underway in individual states, including Washington and Texas. The AASHTO Guide for the Design of Managed HOV Facilities and the Guide for the Design of Park-and-Ride Facilities address managed lanes, as does NCHRP Interim Design Guide for Transit Facilities, Highways, and Streets. The FHWA-sponsored A Guide for HOT Lane Development also addresses design issues.

· Future trends in operations may also influence the design of managed lanes. Technology and interoperability, signing and traveler information, and the use of new tools in managing and operating managed lane facilities represent just a few of these factors. It also appears that there will be continued reliance on on-site enforcement presence. Incident management will need to be considered in the design of managed lanes. The expanded interest in monitoring and evaluating the performance of managed lanes may also influence design.

· Weaving distances and direct access ramps need to be considered in the design process. Research indicates that weaving distances should be between 500 and 1,000 feet per lane. Direct ramps may be considered when vehicle volumes reach 400 vehicles an hour at an entry point.

· A number of issues may also need to be considered in the planning phase. Like all planning processes, there is a need to involve all relevant stakeholders. Issues to be considered include allowable vehicle user groups, possible pricing strategies, demand estimation, and financing. The need for changes in legislation or new legislation will have to be considered. Public education and outreach are important components of the planning process. Allowable vehicle user groups may include single-occupant vehicles, HOVs, buses, trucks, ILEV, taxi/shuttles, emergency vehicles, and motorcycles. The selection of user groups will depend upon the characteristics of the corridor and project and community goals.

· A hierarchy of vehicle user groups has been identified in the Colorado Value Express Lane study. The highest priority in this study is given to buses and other transit vehicles. Vanpools and 3+ carpools are given second priority. Third priority is provided to 2+ carpools and ILEV are a fourth priority. Toll paying single-occupancy vehicles are the lowest priority group.

· Managed lane systems continue to emerge. Investments in completing managed lane projects and systems will continue to grow, and there are wider applications of new design and operational tools. New design standards that link operations and design are important. Access designs should be examined for managed lanes with different users and vehicles, including freeway within a freeway and management by time-of-day, special events, and incidents. There is also a need to document the state-of-the-practice with HOV interchange areas and left-left ingress/egress.

Transit-Related Design Requirements for Streets and Highways

Steve Schijns

McCormick Rankin

Mr. Stephen Schijns discussed the NCHRP Project 20-7, Transit-Related Design Requirements for Streets and Highways – Phase I, Interim Guide. The project was conducted by Parsons Brinckerhoff and McCormick Rankin, International. The interim guide has been completed. Mr. Schijns covered the following points in his presentation.

· The report covers transit-related design requirements for streets and highways. Chapter One is the introduction to the report. Chapter Two provides general guidelines related to functional planning, bus transit capacity, and design controls and criteria.

· Chapter Three focuses on transit facilities on highways. It includes sections on general considerations, transit vehicle facilities, and transit passenger facilities. The section on general considerations covers the various types of transit services on highways, types of transit operation facilities, and the types of passenger facilities. The section on transit vehicle facilities addresses priority lanes, access treatments, enforcement provisions, and signing and pavement markings. The section on transit passenger facilities discusses general site considerations, on-line bus stops, and off-line bus stops.

· Chapter Four examines transit facilities on streets. It includes sections on general planning and design considerations, bus operations in mixed traffic, and bus lane designs. The first section describes the different types of design treatments, the planning and design process, the need and justification process, demand estimation, and bus stop design basics. The section on bus operations in mixed traffic highlights different provisions and intersection treatments. The design section covers bus use of shoulders, curb lanes, second right lanes, left lanes, contraflow lanes on one-way streets, contraflow lanes on two-way streets, and spot treatments. The bus operation on streets section examines enforcement of priority lanes, signing and pavement marking, and ITS provisions.

· Chapter Five covers off-line transit facilities. Topics addressed include planning and design considerations, bus passenger interface, parking and access, and community integration.

· There is a follow up TCRP project to prepare a final handbook. The selected team includes Parsons Brinckerhoff, McCormick Rankin, International, and others. This project will produce a comprehensive guide based on additional research and consultation with practitioners. It is anticipated that the final handbook will be completed in 2004

CONFERENCE REGISTRATION LIST

Steve Abernathy

Senior Planner

Pierce Transit

PO Box 99070

Lakewood, WA

sabernathy@piercetransit.org

Jeanne Acutanza

Project Manager

CH2M Hill

777 108th Avenue, NE, Suite 800

PO Box 91500

Bellevue, WA

jacutanz@CH2M.com

Dick Albin

Assistant State Design Engineer

Washington State Department of Transportation

PO Box 47330

Olympia, WA

albind@wsdot.wa.gov

Angela Alexander

Assistant State Urban Design Eng.

Georgia Department of Transportation

# 2 Capitol Square

Office of Urban Design-Rm 356

Atlanta, GA

angela.alexander@dot.state.ga.us

Jim Allen

ITS & Safety Engineer

Federal Highway Administration

705 North Plaza Street, Suite 220

Carson City, NV

jim.allen@fhwa.dot.gov

Ron Anderson

Senior Vice President

David Evans and Associates, Inc.

415 - 118th Ave SE

Bellevue, WA

rqa@deainc.com

Ryan Avery

Student

University of Washington

More Hall, Box 352700

Seattle, WA

rpavery@u.washington.edu

Jerry Ayres

State HOV Policy Manager

Washington State Department of Transportation

Traffic Operations Office

Capital View II Building, PO Box 47344

Olympia, WA

ayresj@wsdot.wa.gov

Brent Baker

Consultant

PBConsult

999 Third Avenue, Suite 2200

Seattle, WA

baker@pbworld.com

Tim Baker

Mobility Unit Manager

Colorado Deptartment of Transportation

4201 E. Arkansas

Denver, CA

Tim.Baker@dot.state.co.us

Morgan Balogh

Traffic Eng. Reg Opns

Washington State Department of Transportation

15700 Dayton Ave N

PO Box 330310, MS 120

Seattle, WA

BaloghM@wsdot.wa.gov

Michael Baltes

Senior Research Associate

CUTR-USF

4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT100

Tampa, FL

Everhart@cutr.eng.usf.edu

Mark Bandy

Area Traffic Engineer

Washington State Department of Transportation

15700 Dayton Avenue N

PO Box 330310, MS 120

Seattle, WA

BandyM@wsdot.wa.gov

Janice Baumgardt

Fiscal Analyst

Washington State Senate

PO Box 40466

Olympia, WA

baumgard_ja@leg.wa.gov

Jeff Bender

Senior Transportation Planner

City of Seattle Deptartment of Transportation

600 4th Ave, Room 410

Seattle, WA

jeff.bender@seattle.gov

Mike Bergman

Project Manager

Sound Transit

401South Jackson Street

Seattle, WA

bergmanm@soundtransit.org

Tim Bevan

Senior Project Manager

CH2M Hill

777 108th Avenue NE

Bellevue, WA

tbevan@ch2m.com

Ellen Bevington

Supervisor, Speed & Reliability

King County Metro

201 S Jackson St, KSC-TR0411

Seattle, WA

ellen.bevington@metrokc.gov

Kiran Bhatt

President

K.T. Analytics, Inc.

6304 haviland Drive

Bethesda, MD

kbhatt@mindspring.com

John Billheimer

Vice President

SYSTAN, Inc.

343 Second St, PO Box U

Los Altos, CA

john@systan.com

Nancy Boyd

Project Engineer

Washington State Department of Transportation

PO BOX 47445

Olympia, WA

boydn@wsdot.wa.gov

Walter Boyd

Transportation Engineer

Federal Highway Administration

61 Forsyth St. S.W., Suite 17T100

Atlanta, GA

walter.boyd@fhwa.dot.gov

Jeff Brauns

Associate Project Manager

CH2M Hill

PO Box 91500

Bellevue, WA

jbrauns@ch2m.com

Barbara Briggs

Area Traffic Engr North

Washington State Department of Transportation

15700 Dayton Ave N

PO Box 330310, MS 120

Seattle, WA

BriggBa@wsdot.wa.gov

Doug Brodin

Associate Research Director

Washington State Department of Transportation

PO Box 47370

Olympia, WA

brodind@wsdot.wa.gov

Mike Brower

Transportation Mobility Engineer

Federal Highway Administration

711 South Capitol Way, Suite 501

Olympia, WA

michael.brower@fhwa.dot.gov

William Brown

ITS Engineer

Washington State Department of Transportation

1107 NE45th St, Suite 535

Seattle, WA

WWBrown@u.washington.edu

Vera Bumpers

Lieutenant

METRO Police & Traffic Management

6922 Old Katy Road

Houston, TX

vb02@ridemetro.org

Julie Burrell

Transit Planner III

King County Metro Rideshare Operations

400 Yesler Way, MS YES-TR0700

Seattle, WA

julie.burrell@metrokc.gov

Robert Cady

Senior Transportation Engineer

Federal Highway Administration, California Division

980 9th Street, Suite 400

Sacramento, CA

robert.cady@fhwa.dot.gov

Sharon Capers

Research Coordinator, HOV Lane Study

TRAC-UW

1107 NE 45th St., Suite 535

Seattle, WA

scapers@u.washington.edu

Joseph Carrizales

Director Advance Planning

Texas Department of Transportation

PO Drawer 15426

Austin, TX

jcarriz@dot.state.tx.us

Carol Carter

Project Manager

Parsons

225 Peachtree St, NE, Suite 1710

Atlanta, GA

carol.carter@parsons.com

Therese Casper

Transportation Planner

City of Seattle Deptartment of Transportation

600 4th Ave, Room 300

Seattle, WA

therese.casper@seattle.gov

Katherine Casseday

Associate, Traffic & Planning Manager

David Evans and Associates, Inc.

415 118th Ave SE

Bellevue, WA

Kxc@deainc.com

Michael Christensen

Div Rsource Engineer

Minnesota Department of Transportation

Waters Edge Building

1500 West County Rd B-2

Roseville, MN

mike.christensen@dot.state.mn.us

Chris Christopher

State Maintenance Engineer

Washington State Department of Transportation

PO Box 47358

Olympia, WA

chrisc@wsdot.wa.gov

Antonette Clark

Caltrans - Traffic Operations MS36

1120 “N” Street, MS 36

Sacramento, CA

Antonette_Clark@dot.ca.gov

Tina Collier

Assistant Transportation Researcher

Texas Transportation Institute

1106 Clayton Lane, Suite 112W

Austin, TX

t-collier@tamu.edu

John Conrad

Asst Sec'y for Engineering & Regional Operations

Washington State Department of Transportation

Transportation Building

310 Maple Park Ave. SE, PO Box 43716

Olympia, WA

conradj@wsdot.wa.gov

Melanie Coon

Assistant Regional Communications Manager

Washington State Department of Transportation

PO Box 330310, MS 103

Seattle, WA

coonm@wsdot.wa.gov

Gary Costa

Transportation Manager

City of Issaquah

1775 12th Ave NW

Issaquah, WA

garyc@ci.issaquah.wa.us

Thomas Crochet

President

McGee Partners, Inc.

2799 Lawrenceville Highway, Suite 106

Decatur, GA

tcrochet@mcgeepartners.com

John Cullerton

Planning Supervisor

Metro - Planning

600 NE Grand Ave

Portland, OR

cullertonj@metro.dst.or.us

Richard Cunard

Senior Project Officer

Transportation Research Board

500 5th Street, NW

Washington, DC

rcunard@nas.edu

Paul Czech

Principal Transportation Planner

Minnesota Department of Transportation

1500 West County Road B-2

Roseville, MN

paul.czech@dot.state.mn.us

Vinh Dang

Freeway Ops Engineer

Washington State Department of Transportation

15700 Dayton Ave N

PO Box 330310, MS 120

Seattle, WA

DangV@wsdot.wa.gov

Robert Daniel

Senior Transportation Planner

URS Corporation

One Gateway Center, Suite 1000

Newark, NJ

robert_daniel@urscorp.com

Aubrey Davis

Commissioner

Washington State Transportation Commission

PO Box 47308

Olympia, WA

transc@wsdot.wa.gov

Patrick DeCorla-Souza

Team Leader

Federal Highway Administration

400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 3324

Washington, DC

patrick.decorla-souza@fhwa.dot.gov

Chris Detmer

Engineer I

Virginia Department of Transportation

1401 East Broad St.

Richmond, VA

Chris.Detmer@VirginiaDOT.org

John Dewhirst

Transportation specialist

Snohomish County Public Works Department

2930 Wetmore Avenue, Suite 101

Everett, WA

John.Dewhirst@co.snohomish.wa.us

Roderick Diaz

Associate

Booz Allen Hamilton

523 W Sixth Street, Suite 650

Los Angeles, CA

diaz_roderick@bah.com

Shawn Dikes

Senior Transportation Planner

Parsons Brinckerhoff

1951 Bishop Lane, Suite 203

Louisville, KY

dikes@pbworld.com

Allison Dobbins

Senior Planner

Puget Sound Regional Council

1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500

Seattle, WA

adobbins@psrc.org

James Douglas

Sr. Project Manager

Parsons Brinckerhoff

505 S. Main Street, Suite 900

Orange, CA

douglasj@pbworld.com

Jennifer Duncan

Public Information Officer

WSDOT NWWD Planning & Policy Office

401 2nd Ave S, Suite 300

Seattle, WA

duncanj@wsdot.wa.gov

Dan Eder

Project Manager

Sound Transit

401 So. Jackson St.

Seattle, WA

ederd@soundtransit.org

Jim Edwards

Capital Program Administrator

Sound Transit

401 So. Jackson Street

Seattle, WA

Edwardsj@soundtransit.org

William Eisele

Associate Research Engineer

Texas Transportation Institute

Texas A&M University System

3135 TAMU

College Station, TX

Bill-Eisele@TAMU.EDU

Joe El Harake

Chief

Caltrans District 12

3347 Michelson Dr., Suite 380

Irvine, CA

joe_el_harake@dot.ca.gov

David Elliott

Transportation Commissioner

City of Bellevue

City of Bellevue Transportation Dept.

PO Box 90012

Bellevue, WA

ehildonen@ci.bellevue.wa.us

Lorena Eng

Regional Administrator

Washington State Department of Transportation

15700 Dayton Ave N

PO Box 330310

Seattle, WA

engl@wsdot.wa.go

Klara Fabry

Assistant Regional Administrator, Snohomish Area

Washington State Department of Transportation

PO Box 330310, MS 221

Seattle, WA

fabryka@wsdot.wa.gov

Kevin Fehon

Principal

DKS Associates

1956 Webster St., Suite 300

Oakland, CA

kjf@dksassociates.com

Manuel Feliberti

Senior Design Engineer

David Evans and Associates, Inc

415 118th Avenue SE

Bellevue, WA

mlf@deainc.com

Rob Fellows

Supervising Transportation Planner

Parsons Brinckerhoff

999 Third Ave., Suite 2200

Seattle, WA

fellows@pbworld.com

David Fenno

Assistant Research Engineer

TTI

701 North Post Oak, Suite 430

Houston, TX

d-fenno@tamu.edu

William Finger

Assistant Director

City of Charlotte Deptartment of Transportation

Charlotte DOT

600 East Fourth Street

Charlotte, NC

wfinger@ci.charlotte.nc.us

John Firouzi

HOV Technician

Washington State Department of Transportation

15700 Dayton Ave N, MS 120

Shoreline, WA

firouzj@wsdot.wa.gov

Mary Fleckenstein

Senior Fiscal Coordinator

House Democratic Caucus

PO Box 40600

Olympia, WA

fleckens_ma@leg.wa.gov

Ted Focke

Engineer

Washington State Department of Transportation

PO Box 47329

Olympia, WA

focket@wsdot.wa.gov

Leslie Forbis

HOV Ops Engr Suprvsr

Washington State Department of Transportation

15700 Dayton Ave N

PO Box 330310, MS 120

Seattle, WA

ForbisL@wsdot.wa.gov

Phil Fordyce

King Area Manager

Washington State Department of Transportation

15700 Dayton Ave. N

P O Box 330310

Seattle, WA

fordyce@wsdot.wa.gov

Elmira Forner

Commissioner

Washington State Transportation Commission

PO Box 47308

Olympia, WA

mcguirs@wsdot.wa.gov

Charles Fuhs

Principal Professional Associate

Parsons Brinckerhoff

11757 Katy Freeway, Suite 1100

Houston, TX

fuhs@pbworld.com

Thomas Gaul

Vice President

Kaku Associates, Inc.

1453 Third Street, Suite 400

Santa Monica, CA

tgaul@kakuinc.com

Marvin Gersten

Principal Project Manager

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.

One Penn Plaza

New York, NY

gerstenm@pbworld.com

Marie-Claude Gilbert

Head, Policy, analysis and modelling group

Environment Canada

351 St-Joseph Blvd., 10th floor

Hull, QC Canada

MarieClaude.Gilbert@ec.gc.ca

Judy Giniger

Sound Transit Program Manager

Washington State Department of Transportation

401-2nd Ave So., Suite 560

Seattle, WA

ginigerj@wsdot.wa.gov

Eric Gleason

Manager, Service Development

King County Metro Transit

201 South Jackson

MS-KSC-TR-0426

Seattle, WA

eric.gleason@metrokc.gov

David Godfrey

Transporation Engineering Manager

City of Kirkland

123 5th Avenue

Kirkland, WA

dgodfrey@ci.kirkland.wa.us

Agnes Govern

Director Regional Express

Sound Transit

401 South Jackson Street

Seattle, WA

governa@soundtransit.org

Charles Green

Supervising Transportation Planning

Parsons Brinckerhoff

400 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 802

Portland, OR

greenc@pbworld.com

Jim Greenwald

Transit Planner III

King County Metro Rideshare Operations

400 Yesler Way, MS YES-TR0700

Seattle, WA

jim.greenwald@metrokc.gov

Tim Groves

The Genesis Center

Hyder Consulting Ltd.

Firecrest Court, Centre Park

Warrington, United Kingdom

tim.groves@hyder-con.co.uk

Bill Guenzler

Project Manager

Sound Transit

401 So. Jackson St.

Seattle, WA

guenzlerb@soundtransit.org

Virginia Gunby

2540 N.E. 90th St.

Seattle, WA

vgunby@aol.com

Kevin Haboian

Senior Project Manager

Parsons

4701 Von Karman Ave., Suite 300

Newport Beach, CA

Kevin.Haboian@parsons.com

Paula Hammond

Chief of Staff

Washington State Department of Transportation

PO Box 47316

Olympia, WA

hammonp@wsdot.wa.gov

Daniel Haufschild

Lead Transportation Planner

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.

999 Third Avenue, Suite 2200

Seattle, WA

haufschild@pbworld.com

Jerry Hautamaki

Sr. Engineer

HNTB Corporation

600-108th Ave NE, Suite 400

Bellevue, WA

jhautamaki@hntb.com

Richard Hayes

Executive Director

Kitsap Transit

200 Charleston Blvd.

Bremerton, WA

ktexecutive@kitsaptransit.com

Dawn Helou

Chief, HOV Operations

Caltrans District 7

120 South Spring Street

Division of Operations

Los Angeles, CA

Dawn_Helou@dot.ca.gov

Darren Henderson

Supervising Transportation Planner

PBQD

505 S. Main St., Suite 900

Orange, CA

hendersond@pbworld.com

Dennis Hinebaugh

Director-Transit

CUTR-USF

4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT100

Tampa, FL

Hinebaugh@cutr.usf.edu

Jemae Hoffman

Mobility Manager

City of Seattle Deptartment of Transportation

600 4th Ave., Room 300

Seattle, WA

jemae.hoffman@seattle.gov

Michelle Hoffman

Multimodal Studies

Maryland Dept of Transportation

PO Box 8755

10 Elm Road

BWI Airport, MD

mhoffman1@mdot.state.md.us

Jeff Holm

Design-Taffic Operations Engineer

Federal Highway Administration

980 9th Street, Suite 400

Sacramento, CA

Jeff.Holm@fhwa.dot.gov

Michael Horntvedt

Traffic Engineer

Parametrix, Inc.

5508 Lake Washington Blvd., Suite 200

Kirkland, WA

mhorntvedt@parametrix.com

Kevin Hosey

Roadway Design Manager

URS Corporation

235 Peachtree Street, NE

North Tower, Suite 2000

Atlanta, GA

kevin_hosey@urscorp.com

Charlie Howard

Director, Planning & Policy Office

WSDOT NW Washington Division

401 2nd Ave S, Suite 300

Seattle, WA

thompsl@wsdot.wa.gov

David Hull

Transit Planner III

King County Metro

201 S Jackson, MS KSC TR-0422

Seattle, WA

David.Hull@METROKC.GOV

Brett Jackson

Central Texas Turnpike Project Manager

Federal Highway Administration

Texas Turnpike Authority

1421 Wells Branch Parkway

Pflugerville, TX

brett.jackson@fhwa.dot.gov

Eldon Jacobson

Advanced Technology Engr.

Washington State Department of Transportation

1107 NE 45th St., Suite 535

Seattle, WA

eldon@u.washington.edu

Bill James

Transp. Design Dept. Mgr.

HNTB Corporation

600 - 108th Ave NE, Suite 400

Bellevue, WA

wjames@hntb.com

Natarajan Janarthanan

Principal

Mirai Associates

19110, Bothell Way NE, Suite 202

Bothell, WA

jana@miraiassociates.com

Tamara Jenkins

Project Manager

Sound Transit

401 So. Jackson Street

Seattle, WA

JenkinsT@soundtransit.org

Paul Jewel

Partner

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

833 Market Street #900

San Francisco, CA

pjewel@nelsonnygaard.com

Okamoto John

Assistant Secretary

Washington State Department of Transportation

401 Second Ave. South, Suite 560

Seattle, WA

okamoto@wsdot.wa.gov

Bob Jones

Transportation Planning Manager

WSDOT OR Transportation Planning

PO Box 47440

5720 Capitol Blvd.

Olympia, WA

jonesr@wsdot.wa.gov

Benkin Jong

Trans Project Manager

L.A.C.M.T.A.

One Gateway Plaza

Los Angeles, CA

JONGB@MTA.NET

Hal Kassoff

Vice President-Highway Programs

Parsons Brinckerhoff

1401 K St NW, Suite 701

Washington, DC

kassoff@pbworld.com

Tim Kelly

Captain

Houston METRO

PO Box 61429

Houston, TX

tkelly@hou-metro.harris.tx.us

Steve Kennedy

Senior Environmental Planner

Sound Transit

Union Station

401 S Jackson Street

Seattle, WA

kennedys@soundtransit.org

Wasim Khan

Transportation Engineer

Washington State Department of Transportation

15700 Dayton Ave N.

Shoreline, WA

khanw@wsdot.wa.gov

Rob Klein

Manager, Passenger Facilities Dev. & Op.

Montgomery County, Maryland Government

Div. of Transit Services

101 Monroe St. 5TH floor

Rockville, MD

rob.klein@co.mo.md.us

Arthur Korfin

Dir. of Sales Development

Barrier Systems Inc

44 Cooper Run Dr

Cherry Hill, NJ

barierboy1@aol.com

Beverly Kuhn

Division Head

Texas Transportation Institute

3135 TAMU

Texas A&M University System

College Station, TX

b-kuhn@tamu.edu

Randy Lamm

Transportation Planning Manager

Los Angeles County MTA

One Gateway Plaza, Mail Stop 99-22-3

Los Angeles, CA

lammr@mta.net

Karen Langrock

Transportation Planner

MCRP

3032 254th AVE SE

Sammamish, WA

karen@langrock.net

Mark Leth

NW Rgn Traffic Engr

Washington State Department of Transportation

15700 Dayton Ave N

PO Box 330310, MS 120

Seattle, WA

LethM@wsdot.wa.gov

Jeff Lewis

Senior Transportation Engineer

Federal Highway Administration, California Division

980, Ninth Street, Suite 400

Sacramento, CA

jeff.lewis@fhwa.dot.gov

Kris Liljeblad

Asst. Dir. for Transp Planning

City of Bellevue

PO Box 90012

Bellevue, WA

kliljeblad@ci.bellevue.wa.us

Jeffery Lindley

Director

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Travel Management

400 7th Street SW, HOTM-1

Washington, DC

jeffery.lindley@fhwa.dot.gov

Kathy Lindquist

Research Implementation Manager

Washington State Department of Transportation

Research Office

PO Box 47370

Olympia, WA

lindquk@wsdot.wa.gov

Carlos Lopez

Director, Traffic Operations Division

Texas Department of Transportation

125 E. 11th Street TRF

Austin, TX

clopez@dot.state.tx.us

William Loudon

Principal

DKS Associates

1956 Webser Street, Suite 300

Oakland, CA

wrl@dksassociates.com

Leonard Madsen

Supervisor

King County Metro Transit

201 S. Jackson St.

M.S. KSC-TR-0413

Seattle, WA

len.madsen@metrokc.gov

Andrea Maillet

Transit Planner III

King County Metro Rideshare Operations

400 Yesler Way, MS YES-TR0700

Seattle, WA

andrea.maillet@metrokc.gov

Joel Marcuson

department manager, transportation

HNTB Corporation

7900 international Drive, Suite 600

Minneapolis, MN

jmarcuson@hntb.com

Edward Mark

Sr. Transportation Analyst

New York State Department of Transportation

4 Burnett Blvd.

Pougkeepsie, NY

emark@gw.dot.state.ny.us

Mike Martello

Assistant Transportation Engineer

Texas Transportation Institute

1106 Clayton Lane, Suite 300E

Austin, TX

m-martello@tamu.edu

Joan McBride

Deputy Mayor

City of Kirkland

123 Fifth Avenue

Kirkland, WA

jjonson@ci.kirkland.wa.us

Mark McCourt

President

Strategic Consulting & Research

18008 Skypark Circle, Suite 145

Irvine, CA

mmccourt@redhillgroup.com

Thomas McDonald

Design Manager

David Evans and Associates, Inc.

415 118th Ave SE

Bellevue, WA

tfm@deainc.com

Jim McDonnell

Associate Program Director for Engineering

AASHTO

444 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 249

Washington, DC

jimm@aashto.org

Dawn McIntosh

Project Engineer

Washington State Department of Transportation

1715- 228th St. SE, Suite 106

Bothell, WA

mcintod@wsdot.wa.gov

Rob McKenna

Councilmember, District 6

Metropolitan King County Council

516 - 3rd Avenue, Room 1200

Seattle, WA

rob.mckenna@metrokc.gov

John Milton

Assistant State Design Engineer

Washington State Department of Transportation

PO Box 47330

Olympia, WA

MiltonJ@wsdot.wa.gov

Dennis Mitchell

Region Traffic Engineer

Oregon Deptartment of Transportation

123 NW Flanders

Portland, OR

dennis.j.mitchell@state.or.us

Mehrdad Moini

Project Manager

Washington State Department of Transportation

1417 4th Ave., Suite 600

Seattle, WA

moinim@wsdot.wa.gov

Renee Montgelas

UCO Communicator

Washington State Department of Transportation

Goldsmith Bldg.

401 Second Ave. So, Suite 560

Seattle, WA

MontgeR@wsdot.wa.gov

Lone Moody

Transportation Engineer

Washington State Department of Transportation

1417 4th Ave., Suite 600

Seattle, WA

moodylo@wsdot.wa.gov

Dean Moon

Design Supervisor

Washington State Department of Transportation

PO BOX 47445

Olympia, WA

Kia Mortazavi

Manager pf Planning and Programming

Orange County Transportation Authority

550 South Main Street

Orange, CA

kmortazavi@octa.net

Chuck Mosher

Councilmember

City of Bellevue

P.O. Box 90012, 11511 Main Street

Bellevue, WA

pbader@ci.bellevue.wa.us

Thomas Mulligan

Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning

City of Mississauga, Transportation and Works Department

3484 Semenyk Court

Mississauga, ON Canada

thomas.mulligan@city.mississauga.on.ca

Jeffrey Neal

Senior Transportation Planner

North Central Texas Council of Governments

616 Six Flags Drive, Ste 200

Arlington, TX

jneal@dfwinfo.com

Tami Neilson

Policy and Fiscal Analyst

Washington State Senate Transportation Committee

P.O. Box 40468

Olympia, WA

tami_neilson@hotmail.com

Connie Niva

Commissioner

Washington State Transportation Commission

PO Box 47308

Olympia, WA

sawtele@wsdot.wa.gov

Jon Obenberger

Transportation Specialist

Federal Highway Administration

400 7th Street, SW, Room 3404

Washington, DC

jon.obenberger@fhwa.dot.go

Ron Paananen

Deputy Regional Administrator

Washington State Department of Transportation

15700 Dayton Ave N

PO Box 330310

Seattle, WA

PaananR@wsdot.wa.gov

Luisa Paiewonsky

Director of Transportation Planning

Massachusetts Highway Department

10 Park Plaza

Boston, MA

luisa.paiewonsky@state.ma.us

Joe Palladi

State Urban Design Engineer

Georgia Department of Transportation

No. 2 Capitol Square, Room 356

Atlanta, GA

joe.palladi@dot.state.ga.us

Matt Palmer

Transportation Engineer

Washington State Department of Transportation

15700 Dayton Ave N

PO Box 330310, MS 120

Seattle, WA

PalmMat@wsdot.wa.gov

Jinny Park

Transportation Planner

Los Angeles County MTA

One Gateway Plaza, MS 99-22-4

Los Angeles, CA

parkj@mta.net

Nicole Patrick

Operations Planning Project Manager

Washington State Ferries

2911 2nd Ave

Seattle, WA

Patricn@wsdot.wa.gov

Syd Pawlowski

Supervisor, Rideshare Operations

King County Metro Rideshare Operations

400 Yesler Way, MS YES-TR0700

Seattle, WA

syd.pawlowski@metrokc.gov

Jeff Peacock

Vice President

Parametrix

5700 Kitsap Way, Suite 202

Bremerton, WA

jpeacock@Parametrix.com

Benjamin Perez

Senior Professional Associate

PB Consult

Five Penn Plaza, 17th Floor

New York, NY

perez@pbworld.com

John Perlic

Senior Transporation Engineer

Parametrix Inc.

5808 Lake Washington Blvd. NE, Suite 200

Kirkland, WA

perlic@parametrix.com

Joseph Perrin

PhD

University of Utah

122 South Central Campus Drive, Room 104

Salt Lake City, UT

perrin@civil.utah.edu

Mike Perrotta

Transportation Planner

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas

100 South Charles St, Tower 1, 10th Floor

Baltimore, MD

perrotta@pbworld.com

Don Petersen

Design Engineer

Federal Highway Administration

711 S Capitol Way, Suite 501

Olympia, WA

don.petersen@fhwa.dot.gov

George Pierlott

Senior Associate

Mundle & Associates, Inc.

1520 Locust Street, Suite 801

Philadelphia, PA

gwpier@erols.com

Timothy Preece

Senior Transportation Planner

URS

235 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2000

Atlanta, GA

timothy_preece@urscorp.com

Charles Prestrud

HOV Planner

Washington State Department of Transportation

401 2nd Ave S, Suite 300

Seattle, WA

prestrc@wsdot.wa.gov

Sue Rajan

Project Manager

Maryland State Highway Administration

707 N. Calvert Street

Baltimore, MD

SRajan@sha.state.md.us

Sean Rathwell

Project Manager

McCormick Rankin International

1145 Hunt Club Road, Suite 300

Ottawa, ON Canada

srathwell@mrc.ca

Jonathan Reid

Traffic Engineer

Parsons Brinckerhoff

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 2550

Charlotte, NC

reid@pbworld.com

Toby Rickman

Washington State Department of Transportation

P. O. Box 47350

Olympia, WA

rickman@wsdot.wa.gov

Rudy Rivera

Asst. Vice President

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc

901 Mopac Expressway South, Suitre 595

Austin, TX

riverar@PBworld.com

Bill Roach

TDM Program Manager

King County Metro Transit

201 South Jackson St, MS-KSC-TR-0426

Seattle, WA

bill.roach@metrokc.gov

Janine Robinson

Senior Planner

Pierce Transit

PO Box 99070

Lakewood, WA

jarobinson@piercetransit.org

Marta Rosen

State Transportation Planning Administrator

Department of Transportation

2 Capitol Square, Room 372

Atlanta, GA

marta.rosen@dot.state.ga.us

Les Rubstello

Engineering Manager

Washington State Department of Transportation

401 - 2nd Ave. S, Suite 560

Seattle, WA

rubstel@wsdot.wa.gov

Patty Rubstello

I-405 Project Engineer

Washington State Department of Transportation

6431 Corson Ave. S

Seattle, WA

rubstep@wsdot.wa.gov

Scott Rutherford

Professor and Chair

U of W Civil & Env. Eng.

Box 352700

University of Washington

Seattle, WA

scottrut@u.washington.edu

Donald Samdahl

Principal

Mirai Associates

19110 Bothell Way, NE, Suite 202

Bothell, WA

don@miraiassociates.com

Eric Schartz

Consultant

STRATEC S.A

Avenue A. Lacomblé 69-71-8

Brussels, Belgium

e.schartz@stratec.be

Stephen Schijns

Project Manager

McCormick Rankin Corp

2655 North Sheridan Way

Mississauga, ON Canada

sschijns@mrc.ca

JoAnn Schueler

Project Engineer

Transportation Improvement Board

PO Box 40901

Olympia, WA

JoAnnS@tib.wa.gov

David Schumacher

Senior Planner

San Diego Metro Transit Dev Bd

1255 Imperial Ave, Suite 1000

San Diego, CA

dschumacher@mtdb.sdmts.com

Sally Semler

Marketing Director

Parsons Brinckerhoff

999 Third Ave., Suite 2200

Seattle, WA

semler@pbworld.com

Susan Serres

Long-range Planning Manager

City of Bellevue Transportation Department

PO Box 90012

Bellevue, WA

sserres@ci.bellevue.wa.us

Eric Shimizu

Transportation Engineer

CH2M Hill

777 108th Avenue, NE, Suite 800

Bellevue, WA

eshimizu@ch2m.com

Don Sims

Area Traffic Engineer

Washington State Department of Transportation

15700 Dayton Ave N

PO Box 330310, MS 120

Seattle, WA

SimsD@wsdot.wa.gov

Helena Smith

Finance & Program Management

WSDOT- Urban Corridors

401 2nd Ave South, Suite 560

Seattle, WA

smithh@wsdot.wa.gov

Jared Smith

Vice President-Area Manager

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas

999 Third Avenue, Suite 2200

Seattle, WA

Smithjar@pbworld.com

Robert Spillar

Senior Professional Associate

Parsons Brinckerhoff

999 Third Avenue, Ste. 2200

Seattle, WA

spillar@pbworld.com

Heidi Stamm

Sole Proprietor

HS Public Affairs

5869 Crystal Springs Drive, NE

Bainbridge Island, WA

hspaffairs@aol.com

Vicki Steigner

Systems Analysis Engineer

Washington State Department of Transportation

Planning Office

PO Box 47440

Olympia, WA

steignv@wsdot.wa.gov

William Stockton

Associate Director

Texas Transportation Institute

3135 TAMU

College Station, TX

bill.stockton@tamu.edu

Craig Stone

Urban Projects Director

Washington State Department of Transportation

6431 Corson Ave. S, MS: 250

Seattle, WA

stonec@wsdot.wa.gov

Ted Stone

Vice President

The Corradino Group

200 South Fifth Street, Suite 300N

Louisville, KY

tstone@corradino.com

Joe Story

Principal, Transit Planner

DKS Associates

1956 Webster St.., #300

Oakland, CA

jas@dksassociates.com

Cathy Strombom

Planning Manager

Parsons Brinckerhoff

999 Third Avenue, Suite 2200

Seattle, WA

strombom@pbworld.com

Robert Stuard

Director Transportation Planning & Development

Texas Department of Transportation

P.O. Drawer 15426

Austin, TX

rstuard@dot.state.tx.us

Rumina Suafoa

Design Supervisor

Washington State Department of Transportation

P O BOX 47445

Olympia, WA

Maureen Sullivan

Urban Project Director

Washington State Department of Transportation

401 - 2nd Ave. S, Suite 560

Seattle, WA

sullivm@wsdot.wa.gov

Forest Sutmiller

System Analysis Team Leader

WSDOT Transportation Planning

PO Box 47440

5720 Capitol Blvd.

Olympia, WA

sutmilf@wsdot.wa.gov

Myron Swisher

Resident Engineer

Colorado Deptartment of Transportation

401 21st Street

Denver, CO

myron.swisher@dot.state.co.us

Ted Trepanier

Maintenance and Traffic Engineer

Washington State Department of Transportation

2714 N. Mayfair

Spokane, WA

TrepanT@wsdot.wa.gov

Andrea Tull

Project Manager

Sound Transit

401 So. Jackson Street

Seattle, WA

Tulla@soundtransit.org

Katherine Turnbull

Associate Director

Texas A&M University

Texas Transportation Institute

Texas A&M University, MA 3135

College Station, TX

K-Turnbull@TAMU.EDU

David Ungemah

Manager of Technical Services

UrbanTrans Consultants

1 Broadway Plaza, Suite A-200

Denver, CO

Ungemahd@UrbanTrans.com

Lisa Utter

Board Member

Community Transit

7100 Hardeson Road

Everett, WA

erin.alwazan@commtrans.org

Bernard van de Kamp

Regional Projects Manager

City of Bellevue Transportation Department

PO Box 90012

Bellevue, WA

bvandekamp@ci.bellevue.wa.us

Brian Walsh

Director, M&O

Washington State Department of Transportation

P O Box 47350

Olympia, WA

ziegleb@wsdot.wa.gov

George Walton

Senior Project Manager

Parsons Brinckerhoff

100 South Charles Street, Tower 1, 10th Floor

Baltimore, MD

walton@pbworld.com

Chris Wellander

Senior Supervising Transportation Engineer

Parsons Brinckerhoff

999 Third Avenue, Suite 2200

Seattle, WA

wellander@pbworld.com

Heather Werdick

Associate Transportation Planner

San Diego Association of Governments

401 B Street, Suite 800

San Diego, CA

hwe@sandag.org

Sandy Wesch-Schulze

Senior Transportation Planner

Carter & Burgess

7950 Elmbrook Drive

Dallas, TX

Wesch-SchulzeSJ@c-b.com

Jack Whisner

transit planner

King County Metro Transit

201 S. Jackson Street, ksc.tr.0422

Seattle, WA

jack.whisner@metrokc.gov

Bridget Wieghart

Program Supervisor

Metro

600 NE Grand Ave

Portland, OR

wieghartb@metro.dst.or.us

Greg Wornell

Asst. Project Manager

Washington State Department of Transportation

401 - 2nd Ave. S, Suite 560

Seattle, WA

wornelg@wsdot.wa.gov

Danny Wu

Sr. Transportation Analyst

City of Irvine

One Civic Center Plaza

Irvine, CA

dwu@ci.irvine.ca.us

John Wynands

Project Development Engineer

Washington State Department of Transportation

PO Box 47440

Olympia, WA

wynandj@wsdot.wa.gov

Martin Youchah

Civil Engineer II

New York State Department of Transportation

State Office Campus

1220 Washington Avenue, B4, Rm 209

Albany, NY

myouchah@gw.dot.state.ny.us


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

Direct Access – The Puget Sound Experience

Jim Edwards, Sound Transit, Moderator

Evaluation of TSM and TDM Alternatives of Sound Transit HOV Direct Access Program

Chris Wellander

Direct Access Design Issues

Denise Cieri

Direct Access Design Case Study - Kirkland

Manuel Feliberti

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