|
Effects of Changing HOV Lane Occupancy Requirements:
El Monte Busway Case Study
![]() |
![]() |
Notice This document is disseminated under the
sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of
information exchange. The United
States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. |
1. Report No. FHWA-OP-03-002 |
2. Government Accession No. |
3. Recipient's Catalog No. |
||
4. Title and Subtitle Affects of Changing HOV Lane Occupancy
Requirements: El Monte Busway Case
Study |
5. Report Date June 2002 |
|||
6. Performing Organization Code |
||||
7. Author(s) Katherine F. Turnbull |
8. Performing Organization Report No. Report |
|||
9. Performing Organization Name and Address Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843-3135 |
10. Work Unit
No. (TRAIS) |
|||
11. Contract
or Grant No |
||||
12.
Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Operations Office of Travel Management Federal Highway Administration Room 3404, HOTM, 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.
20590 |
13. Type of
Report and Period Covered Research: |
|||
14.
Sponsoring Agency Code |
||||
15.
Supplementary Notes Jon Obenberger, FHWA Operations Office of Traffic
Management, Contracting Officers Technical Representative (COTR) |
||||
16. Abstract In 1999,
the California Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 63, which lowered the
vehicle-occupancy requirement on the El Monte Busway on the San Bernardino
(I-10) Freeway from three persons per vehicle (3+) to two persons per vehicle
(2+) full time. The California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) was directed to implement this change
on January 1, 2000 and to monitor and evaluate the effects of the 2+
requirement on the operation of the Busway and the freeway. Based on the operational effects that
resulted from this change, new legislation was approved increasing the
vehicle-occupancy requirement back to 3+ during the morning and afternoon peak-periods
effective July 24, 2000. This
report represents information on the effect the change in the
vehicle-occupancy requirement had on the operation of the Busway and freeway,
public transit services, violation rates, accidents, local and feeder
roadways, and public response. The
assessment is based on available information from Caltrans, Foothill Transit,
the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the California
Highway Patrol, and other local agencies. Lowering
the vehicle-occupancy requirement from 3+ to 2+ full time had a detrimental
effect on the Busway. At the same
time, significant improvements were not realized in the general-purpose
freeway lanes. Morning peak-period
travel speeds in the Busway were reduced from 65 mph to 20 mph, while travel
speeds in the general-purpose lanes decreased from 25 mph to 23 mph for most
of the demonstration. Hourly Busway
vehicle volumes during the morning peak-period 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. Peak-period travel times on
the Busway increased by 20- to 30-minutes.
Bus schedule adherence and on-time performance declined significantly
and passengers reported delays. |
||||
17. Key Words High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes, HOV Lanes, Concurrent
Flow Lanes |
18.
Distribution Statement No restrictions.
This document is available to the public through NTIS: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 |
|||
19. Security
Classif.(of this report) Unclassified |
20. Security
Classif.(of this page) Unclassified |
21. No. of
Pages 64 |
22. Price |
|
Effects of Changing HOV Lane Occupancy Requirements:
El Monte Busway Case Study
Katherine F. Turnbull
Texas Transportation Institute
The Texas A&M University System
College Station, Texas
June 2002
This study was conducted in cooperation with
staff from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the California Department
of Transportation (Caltrans), and other agencies.
Jon Obenberger, FHWA Office of Traffic Management and ITS Applications,
served as the project director. Robert
Cady, FHWA B California Division, and Antonette Clark and Dawn Helou,
Caltrans, provided guidance and information throughout the study. In addition, Bonnie Duke, TTI, was responsible
for word processing on the report and Gary Lobaugh provided editorial review.
The assistance of these individuals is both recognized and appreciated.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................
1
Case
Study Objectives............................................................................................................1
Background..............................................................................................................................1
Activities
Conducted...............................................................................................................
2
Organization
of Report...........................................................................................................
2
CHAPTER TWO
OVERVIEW OF EL MONTE BUSWAY............................................................
3
Physical
Description of the Busway........................................................................................3
Operation
of the Busway........................................................................................................
4
Utilization
of the Busway.......................................................................................................10
CHAPTER THREE
EFFECTS OF VEHICLE-OCCUPANCY CHANGE.....................................13
Operation
of Busway and Freeway........................................................................................14
Public
Transit Services...........................................................................................................21
Enforcement
and Vehicle-Occupancy Violations..................................................................24
Accidents.................................................................................................................................25
Local
and Feeder Roadways..................................................................................................31
Public
Response......................................................................................................................31
CHAPTER FOUR
ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH OPERATIONAL CHANGES........................33
Management
and Operation of HOV Facilities...................................................................
33
Examples
of Operational Changes.......................................................................................
38
Process
and Stakeholder Involvement.................................................................................
39
Issues
to be Considered........................................................................................................
43
Experience
in Other Areas...................................................................................................
44
Federal
Interest in Operational Changes............................................................................
49
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................
51
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................
55
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Morning Peak
Hour Utilization of the El Monte Busway................................................
10
2.
Vehicle-Occupancy Level Violation
Rates.......................................................................
24
4.
Accident Rate Summary B Six Months Before 2+ Requirement Implemented
(3+ Requirement in Effect)................................................................................................
28
5.
Accident Rate Summary B Six Months When 2+ Requirement was in Effect ............... 29
6.
Accident Rate Summary B Twelve Months When 3+ Peak/2+ Off-Peak
Requirement
was in Effect..................................................................................................
30
LIST OF FIGURES
1.
Location of
El Monte Busway in Los Angeles County..............................................................
5
2.
Major Elements of El Monte Busway........................................................................................
6
3.
El Monte Busway Buffer Separated
Section.............................................................................
7
4.
El Monte Busway Separated Section.........................................................................................
7
5.
Major Milestones in Operation
of the El Monte Busway.........................................................
8
6.
Congestion in El Monte Busway
with 2+ Requirement............................................................
16
7.
Changes in Morning Peak Hour
Travel Speeds.......................................................................
17
8.
Changes in Afternoon Peak Hour
Travel Speeds.....................................................................
17
9.
Changes in Hourly Vehicle Volumes
During the Morning Peak-Period..................................
18
10.
Changes in Hourly Vehicle Volumes During the Afternoon
Peak-Period................................
18
11.
Changes in Morning Peak Hour Persons Per Hour Per Lane..................................................
19
12.
Changes in Afternoon Peak Hour Persons Per Hour Per Lane................................................
19
13.
Changes in Hourly Total Vehicle and Person Volumes for
the Freeway
Lanes
and the Busway During the Morning Peak-Period.......................................
20
14.
Changes in Total Vehicle and Person Volumes for the Freeway
Lanes
and the Busway During the Afternoon Peak-Period.....................................
20
15.
Vehicle Illegally Exiting Busway.................................................................................................
23
16. Process
for Assessing, Implementing, and Monitoring Changes in HOV Operations...............42
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
CASE OF STUDY
OBJECTIVES
Opening in 1973, the El Monte Busway on the San Bernardino
(I-10) Freeway is the oldest high-occupancy
vehicle (HOV) facility in the Los Angeles area. In 1999, the California Legislature approved
Senate Bill 63 (SB 63), lowering the vehicle-occupancy requirement on the
El Monte Busway from three persons per vehicle (3+) to two persons per vehicle
(2+) full time. The legislation directed
the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to make this change
on January 1, 2000 as part of a temporary demonstration project, which was
to extend until June 30, 2001. The
legislation also required Caltrans to monitor and analyze the effect of this
change on the operation of the freeway and the Busway (1). Based on the operational effects of the change,
as documented in the Caltrans operational study (2), new legislation was passed
increasing the vehicle-occupancy requirement back to 3+ during the morning
and afternoon peak periods and maintaining the 2+ requirement at all other
times, effective July 24, 2000 (3).
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sponsored this study examining the effects of lowering the vehicle-occupancy requirement. The analysis conducted by Caltrans focused primarily on the operational impacts of changing the vehicle-occupancy requirement. This FHWA-sponsored study builds on and expands upon the Caltrans effort. The primary objective of this project was to examine and present additional information on the effects the change in vehicle-occupancy requirements had on public transportation services, violation rates, accidents, local roadways, and public responses. A second study objective was to explore the issues, factors, and impacts associated with making operating changes on HOV facilities that agencies should consider.
This report contains the technical analysis of the affects
changing the vehicle-occupancy requirement from 3+ to 2+ had on the operation
of the Busway and freeway, public transit services, violation rates, accidents,
local and feeder roadways, and public response. Issues associated with operational changes
are also examined. This report is
intended for agency staff and consultants who may be involved with or responsible
for studies, decisions, or actions that may influence the operation of HOV
facilities. A separate Executive Report
is targeted toward policy makers and administrators.
BACKGROUNG
High-occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities represent one
approach used in metropolitan areas throughout the country to help improve
the people-moving capacity rather than vehicle-moving capacity of congested
freeway corridors. The travel time
savings and improved trip time reliability offered by HOV facilities provide
incentives for individuals to change from driving alone to carpooling, vanpooling,
or riding the bus.
The development and operation of HOV facilities have
evolved over the past 30 years. The
opening of the bus-only lane on the Shirley Highway (I-395) in Northern Virginia/Washington,
D.C. in 1969 and the contraflow bus lane on the approach to New York-New Jersey=s Lincoln Tunnel in 1970 represent the first freeway
HOV applications in the country. Today
there are some 130 HOV freeway projects in 23 metropolitan areas in North
America (4).
The El Monte Busway on the San Bernardino (I-10) freeway
in Los Angeles County represents one of the longest operating HOV projects
in the country. The Busway was opened
in 1973 and 1974 from El Monte to the edge of downtown Los Angeles. A one-mile extension into the downtown area
was completed in 1989. The 11-mile
Busway includes two design treatments. Part
of the Busway is separated from the adjacent freeway lanes by a painted buffer
and the other segment is physically separated from the freeway.
Only buses were allowed to use the facility when it opened
in 1973. Carpools with three or more
persons (3+) were allowed to use the Busway for three months in 1974 due to
a strike by bus operators. The Busway
was opened to 3+ carpools in 1976 as part of the mixed-mode operation.
The 3+ vehicle-occupancy requirement was in effect from 1976 until
the legislative directed change in 2000.
More information is provided in Chapter Two on the design and operation
of the Busway.
ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED
A number of activities were completed as part of this
study. First, the operations assessment
conducted by Caltrans, and reports and documents provided by Caltrans and
other agency staff were examined. Second,
a review was conducted of available reports and other literature using traditional
information sources and on-line search engines. Third, additional information was obtained
through telephone calls, E-mails, and meetings with representatives from Caltrans,
Foothill Transit, the California Highway Patrol (CHP), the Los Angeles Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA), and other agencies. The information obtained through these activities
was reviewed and analyzed. The results
of this assessment are presented in this report.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
This report is divided into four chapters following
this introduction. Chapter Two provides
an overview of the history and recent operation of the El Monte Busway. Chapter Three summarizes the affect of the
change in vehicle-occupancy levels on the operation of the Busway and the
freeway, public transit services, enforcement and vehicle-occupancy violations,
accidents, local and feeder roadways, and public responses. Chapter Four examines issues associated with
making operational changes on HOV facilities.
The report concludes with a summary of the main points examined in
the study and possible areas of further research.
CHAPTER TWO
OVERVIEW OF EL MONTE BUSWAY
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BUSWAY
The El Monte Busway on the San Bernardino (I-10) Freeway
is located in eastern Los Angeles County, stretching from El Monte to downtown
Los Angeles. The Busway was opened
in 1973 and 1974, making it one of the earliest HOV facilities in the country.
A one-mile extension into the downtown area was opened in 1989, providing
a link to the Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal.
Figure 1 shows the location of the El Monte Busway and other freeways
and HOV lanes in Los Angeles County.
The two-way HOV facility includes two design treatments.
From El Monte to I-710, the Busway is located in the center of the
I-10 Freeway, separated from the general-purpose lanes by a 10.5-foot painted
striped buffer. From I-710 to downtown Los Angeles, the Busway
is located adjacent to, but separated from, the I-10 Freeway. Figure 2 highlights the major elements of the
Busway and the limited access points. Figure
3 shows the buffer separated section of the Busway and Figure 4 illustrates
the section separated from the freeway. Adding concurrent flow HOV lanes to the east of the current Busway
termination point at El Monte are in various stages of planning and design.
Three bus stations are located along the Transitway at
El Monte, the California State University at Los Angeles (University Station),
and the Los Angeles County University of Southern California Medial Center
(Hospital Station). A direct HOV connector
access ramp is located at Del Mar Avenue and a direct connector for buses
is provided at the El Monte Bus Station.
A total of 15 park-and-ride lots in the corridor are oriented toward
the Busway, providing some 5,100 parking spaces to travelers. The El Monte Station park-and-ride is the largest, containing 2,100
spaces. Additional lots serve the
Metrolink rail system, which also operates in the corridor.
The San Bernardino Freeway is located on the east side
of Los Angeles, stretching from the Nevada border to downtown Los Angeles. It was one of the earliest freeways constructed
in the area and served as the major east/west travel corridor until the completion
of I-210 to the north. State Route
60 to the south also serves east/west traffic. These three freeways serve as the major east/west
travel corridors in eastern Los Angeles County.
During the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s concurrent flow HOV
lanes have been added to numerous freeways in the area. These HOV lanes operate with a 2+ vehicle occupancy
requirement mostly full time. As of
2000, some 377 lane-miles of freeway HOV facilities were in operation in Los
Angeles County. Concurrent flow HOV
lanes are in operation on I-210 to the north of the San Bernardino Freeway
and I-605, a north/south freeway that crosses the San Bernardino Freeway to
the east of the current start of the El Monte Busway.
Like other freeways in the area, Caltrans has added a number of elements
over the years to help manage traffic on the facility.
These elements include metering the freeway entrance ramps, providing
HOV ramp meter bypasses at selected ramps, and operating a Freeway Service
Patrol.
The San Bernardino Freeway links communities in eastern
Los Angeles County and San Bernardino County with downtown Los Angeles and
other destinations. The peak direction
of travel is westbound in the morning, into downtown Los Angeles, and eastbound
in the afternoon. The freeway is congested
during the morning and afternoon peak-periods and at other times throughout
the day.
OPERATION OF THE BUSWAY
The construction, financing, and operation of
the Busway has been guided by a 1971 agreement and a series of amendments
between the Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD), now known
as the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), and
the State of California Department of Public Works, now Caltrans. The state was responsible for designing, constructing, operating
and maintaining the Busway, and the District was responsible for designing,
constructing, operating, and maintaining the bus stations and other bus elements
of the projects. A number of federal,
state, and local sources were used to fund the various elements of the project.
Caltrans continues to be responsible for operating and maintaining
the Busway and the freeway.
The operation of the Busway, the eligible vehicles, and
the vehicle-occupancy requirements have been modified slightly over the almost
30-year life of the facility. Figure
5 highlights the major milestones in the history of the project.
The 1971 agreement established a five-year experimental period.
During phase one of the experimental period, which was to last two
years, the Busway was to be reserved exclusively for buses, unless otherwise
agreed to by both parties. The second
phase, which encompassed the remaining three years, was to include at least
one year with mixed bus and carpool use.
The agreement also stated that if SCRTD was unable to conduct its operations
for any reason, such as substantial service curtailment due to labor disputes,
the state could elect to permit other vehicles to use the Busway (5).
The facility was opened to buses in January 1973. Operating hours were weekdays from 6:00 a.m.
to 10:00 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Three-person carpools and vanpools were allowed to use the Busway in
August 1974 in response to an SCRTD bus operators strike. Bus-only operations were resumed in October
1974 when the strike was settled.
Amendments to the agreement were signed in 1976 and
1981. The 1976 amendment formally
opened the Busway to mixed-mode operation, allowing 3+ carpools during the
morning and afternoon weekday peak periods.
The amendment also requires the metering of carpools at ingress points
if bus travel times are degraded due to high volumes of carpools (6). The peak-period operating hours were
extended to weekends in 1977.
The 1981 amendment extended the hours of operation for
buses and carpools to 24 hours a day, seven days a week (24/7). It also established a critical value for
determining if the Busway is becoming too congested and identified possible
actions that may be taken to alleviate these conditions. The critical value is based on an equivalent
vehicle volume, which is computed by adding the hourly volume of carpools and
the hourly volume of buses multiplied by a factor of 1.6. When the critical value of equivalent
vehicle volume approaches 1,300 vehicles per hour, Caltrans will initiate
studies to determine appropriate actions to ensure that the critical value is
not exceeded. The amendment identifies
possible steps to include, but not be limited to, metering carpools on the
Busway and redefining the carpool occupancy requirement from 3+ to 4+. The amendment allows the parties to modify
the critical value as mutually agreed upon (7).
The initial agreement outlined a data collection,
monitoring, and evaluation program to be conducted during the five year
demonstration. These activities were
completed and a series of reports were prepared documenting the various stages
of the project, with the final report covering the mixed-mode operations
(8). None of the agreements address the
potential need to lower the vehicle-occupancy requirement from 3+ if the
facility is not utilized. The initial
agreement provided that if at the conclusion of the test period it was
determined that the bus/carpool operation should cease, the facility would
revert to general highway use, with preferential treatment, to the extent
justified, always provided to buses (5).
An extensive data collection and evaluation program
was conducted during the five-year demonstration from 1973 to 1978. Data on vehicle counts, ridership counts,
and travel speeds were collected and analyzed over the course of the
demonstration. Surveys of bus riders,
carpoolers, and households in the corridor were also conducted as part of the
demonstration. This extensive data
collection and monitoring program was not continued after 1978, although
Caltrans did track vehicle volumes and other data as part of the regular
monitoring program. More recently,
Caltrans District 7 has completed an annual report on HOV facilities in Los
Angeles and Ventura Counties. Operating
characteristics, including vehicle and person volumes, violation rates, and
average daily traffic (ADT) are included in these reports. Due to funding limitations there are no
major public and policy maker outreach efforts highlighting the performance and
benefits of the El Monte Busway and other HOV lanes in the area.
In 2000, the MTA, in cooperation with Caltrans and
other local agencies initiated a comprehensive assessment of HOV facilities in
Los Angeles County. The HOV Performance
Program included a number of elements.
A performance monitoring and evaluation plan was developed, which
included objectives, measures of effectiveness, and data needs and data
collection methods. Data on vehicle
volumes, occupancy levels, travel speeds and travel times, violation rates, and
accidents were collected and analyzed.
Focus group meetings, executive interviews, and surveys of bus riders,
motorists, and the general public were conducted. The various elements of the project are documented in technical
memoranda and a final report (9).
A Project Management Team (PAT) comprised of
representatives from the MTA, Caltrans, California Highway Patrol (CHP),
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and other agencies
provided guidance and oversight to the MTA-sponsored HOV Performance
Program. The PAT met on a regular basis
throughout the study. There is
currently no multi-agency group that coordinates management and operation of
the El Monte Busway or other HOV lanes in the area, although personnel from the
various agencies meet as needed to address issues and opportunities.
As noted previously, the El Monte Busway was the first
mainline HOV facility in the Los Angeles area.
The 3+ vehicle-occupancy requirement used on the Busway reflects both
federal guidance and the state-of-the-practice during the 1970s and early
1980s. In the mid-to-late 1990s, HOV
lanes were added to a number of freeways in the area as part of Caltrans= efforts to address congestion and mobility in the
region. Reflecting new federal guidance
and current trends in carpooling, a 2+ vehicle-occupancy requirement was used
with these facilities. With two
exceptions, these lanes operate with a 2+ requirement on a 24/7 basis. The two exceptions are the El Monte Busway
and State Route (SR) 14, which uses a 2+ requirement, but operates only during
the morning and afternoon peak periods as a demonstration project.
UTILIZATION OF THE BUSWAY
Use of the El Monte Busway has grown over time. Tracking this growth is somewhat difficult
due to the different time periods used over the years to collect and present
vehicle and passenger volumes. Table 1
highlights morning peak hour use levels from points over the 30-year life of
the facility. Peak hour use of the lane
has increased over the life of the facility, as has total daily use.
Year |
Bus |
Passengers |
Carpools/Vanpools |
Passengers |
Total Vehicles |
Total Passengers |
1973 (May)1 |
21 |
766 |
B |
B |
21 |
766 |
1973 (Oct)1 |
67 |
1,526 |
B |
B |
67 |
1,526 |
1976 |
64 |
3,044 |
B |
B |
64 |
3,044 |
1988 |
70 |
3,190 |
765 |
2,610 |
835 |
5,800 |
1990 |
71 |
2,750 |
1,374 |
4,352 |
1,445 |
7,102 |
2000 |
84 |
2,980 |
944 |
2,887 |
1,028 |
5,867 |
1Estimates
based on 2 hour peak-period figures.
(8, 10, 11, 12)
The number of buses using the lane and rider levels
increased significantly during the first three years of the facility. The number of buses using the lane in the
morning peak-hour, peak-direction of travel increased from 21 to 64, with a
corresponding increase in passengers from 766 to 3,044 from the opening of the
lane in 1973 to 1976. Daily bus
ridership levels increased from 1,000 to 14,500 passengers during the
three-year bus-only operations phase from 1973 to 1976. Allowing 3+ carpools on the facility in
October 1976 did not cause a noticeable change in bus ridership levels. Overall daily utilization levels increased
from approximately 14,420 bus riders, carpoolers, and vanpoolers in October
1976 to 20,440 in April 1978 (8).
Overall, levels on the Busway continued to grow during
the 1980s and 1990s, with peak hour volumes averaging between 835 to 1,500
vehicles and 5,800 to 7,100 passengers.
Bus ridership and carpooling over the two decades was influenced by a
variety of factors including the status of the local economy, the oil crisis
and the Arab oil embargo, the cost of gasoline and parking, and changes in
employment locations and levels. The El
Monte Busway continues to be one of the most efficient HOV facilities in North America. With approximately 80 peak hour buses it
also has one of the highest levels of bus use.
Outside of the bus-only lanes, peak hour bus volumes on the El Monte
Busway are third behind the Shirley Highway approaching Washington, D.C. and
I-80 on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in the San Francisco area.
Like all freeways in the Los Angeles area, traffic
volumes on I-10 are very heavy, especially during the peak-periods. The I-10 general-purpose freeway lanes are
congested during the morning and afternoon peak periods. Volumes of 1,600 to 1,700 vehicles per lane
and travel speeds of 20 to 25 mph were typically experienced on the freeway in
the late 1990s and early 2000s. These
conditions reflect a facility operating in a saturated condition.
In addition to monitoring general conditions on the
HOV lanes on an annual basis, Caltrans has conducted periodic studies on
different issues related to the operation of the El Monte Busway, HOV lanes in
the Los Angeles area, and HOV facilities throughout the state. These studies have been undertaken for a
variety of reasons, including legislative interest. For example, in 1999 Caltrans District 7 examined the feasibility
and effectiveness of opening HOV lanes to general traffic on weekends and
holidays. The study recommended
maintaining the current 24/7 HOV designation for the following reasons:
*
the HOV lanes are currently being utilized effectively on weekends,
* opening
the HOV lanes to general traffic would provide only minor improvements to
overall traffic conditions,
*
opening the lanes on weekends
to general traffic is not consistent with the objectives of the HOV program
or current signing and striping of the facilities (13).
Caltrans and the MTA also examined the potential
effects of opening the El Monte Busway to 2+ carpools. The analysis conducted by Caltrans in 1996
(14) and by the MTA in 1999 (15) concluded that allowing 2+ carpools would
result in congestion on the Busway and disruption of bus travel time and trip
reliability.
CHAPTER THREE
EFFECTS OF VEHICLE OCCUPANCY CHANGE
Caltrans District 7 was responsible for implementing
the 2+ occupancy requirement change directed in SB 63 and for monitoring the
effects of the legislation. Caltrans
established the SB 63 Implementation Committee, comprised of representatives
from appropriate agencies, to help support and coordinate the change. The Implementation Committee was comprised
of representatives from the following agencies and Caltrans divisions:
·
Caltrans Headquarters;
·
Caltrans District 7 Maintenance,
Signs & Delineation, and HOV Operations;
·
Caltrans District 7 Traffic
Investigations;
·
Caltrans District 7 Traffic
Management;
·
Caltrans District 7 HOV Operations;
·
Caltrans District 7 Public Affairs;
·
Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation
Authority;
·
Southern California Association
of Governments;
·
Foothill Transit;
·
California Highway Patrol;
·
Toll Operators; and
·
Federal Highway Administration.
The SB 63 Implementation Committee met on a regular
basis starting in August 1999 shortly after SB 63 was signed by the
governor. The committee helped
coordinate implementation, operation, and monitoring of the vehicle occupancy
change. The responsibilities and
activities of the various agencies and departments were identified and
documented during the initial meetings.
The Implementation Committee continued to meet
throughout the demonstration.
Representatives from the various agencies assisted with monitoring
different aspects of the demonstration.
The committee also helped coordinate the change back to 3+ peak period
operation based on AB 769.
Caltrans monitored the affects of SB 63 on the
operation of the Busway and the freeway.
The results of the monitoring effort were summarized in regularly issued
fact sheets and presented in an Executive Summary. The Caltrans monitoring effort focused primarily on vehicle
volumes, person movement, travel speeds, and occupancy violation rates. A separate traffic safety analysis was also
conducted by Caltrans. This assessment
was completed in March 2002. Foothill
Transit monitored the affects of the 2+ demonstration on bus operating speeds,
bus travel-times, on-time performance, service overtime, safety incidents, and
customer complaints.
Prior to completion of the AB 769 demonstration
project, Caltrans representatives met with the Implementation Committee to
discuss ongoing operations of the El Monte Busway. Based on input from all stakeholders, an operational report and
request was submitted to FHWA for consideration since the 3+ peak/2+ off-peak
operation was identified as a significant change from the original operation of
the Busway. FHWA approval was granted
and the permanent dual 3+/2+ occupancy requirement continues to be in place.
OPERATION OF BUSWAY AND FREEWAY
The Caltrans monitoring program tracked travel speeds,
vehicle volumes, and person movement on both the Busway and the general-purpose
freeway lanes. Conditions prior to
implementation of SB 63, during the 2+ demonstration, and after the change to
the 3+ peak/2+ off- peak requirements were monitored by Caltrans. The results of this assessment are
summarized in this section. Additional
data available from the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)
HOV Performance Program was also examined to provide a more recent picture of
operating trends (9).
The Caltrans assessment focused on the morning and
afternoon peak periods, when demands on the freeway system are greatest and
traffic volumes are highest. The peak
periods are from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. In general, the morning peak hour is 6:45
a.m. to 7:45 a.m. and the afternoon peak hour is 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Further, the analysis focused on the peak
direction of travel during these time periods.
The peak direction of travel is westbound into downtown Los Angeles in
the morning and eastbound out of the downtown area in the afternoon. Data collection efforts focused on the peak
periods, although some information, such as bus volumes are examined for the
peak hour. Off-peak conditions were not
examined as traffic in the Busway and the general-purpose lanes usually
reflects freeflow or relatively free flowing conditions.
Traffic conditions in the morning and afternoon peak
periods are generally similar, with some variations. Slightly higher volumes are experienced in Busway in the morning
peak period than in the afternoon peak period.
The freeway general-purpose lanes experience the opposite trend, with
vehicle volumes slighter higher in the afternoon peak periods.
TRAVEL SPEEDS Figure 6 illustrates the congested conditions
experienced during the peak hours in the Busway with the 2+ requirement.
As highlighted in Figures 7 and 8, peak hour travel speeds in the Busway
were negatively effected during the 2+ demonstration.
Travel speeds in the Busway declined from freeflow conditions at 65
mph to approximately 20 mph in the morning westbound direction.
In the afternoon eastbound direction, travel speeds on the Busway decreased
from 65 mph to 27 mph during the first month of the demonstration and then
increased to 40 mph for the duration of the test.
A significant corresponding increase in travel speeds
did not occur in the general-purpose lanes.
Travel speeds on the freeway lanes averaged 25 mph in the morning
westbound peak hour and 32 mph in the afternoon eastbound peak hour before the
demonstration. Travel speeds in the
morning westbound direction increased to 37 mph on the freeway lanes during the
first month of the 2+ demonstration, but decreased to 23 mph for the remainder
of the operation. In the afternoon,
eastbound peak hour freeway travel speeds increased to 40 mph during the
demonstration.
Travel speeds on both the Busway and the freeway lanes
returned to close to pre-demonstration levels with the implementation of
emergency legislation, AB 769, and the return to the 3+ occupancy requirement
during weekday peak-periods. Travel
speeds on the Busway increased to 45 mph in the morning and 55 mph in the
afternoon peak hours. Although lower
than the pre-demonstration 65 mph, both of these speeds represent generally
freeflow conditions. Travel speeds in
the general-purpose lanes were slightly lower than the pre-demonstration speeds
at 20 mph and 28 mph for the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively
(2). Travel speed data from the MTA HOV
Performance Monitoring Program recorded approximately a month after the
implementation of AB 769 indicated slightly higher peak hour speeds in both the
HOV and the freeway lanes (9).
VEHICLE VOLUME AND PERSONS PER HOUR PER LANE. Figures 9 and
10 highlight the changes in hourly volumes during the peak-periods over the
three time periods, Figures 11 and 12 show the changes in person per hour
per lane (pphpl), and Figures 13 and 14 illustrate the total vehicle and person
volumes for the freeway lanes and the Busway.
Examining these two measures together is important, as vehicle volumes
may increase as the result of a change in the vehicle-occupancy requirement,
but the total number of people being carried may decline or may increase at
a much lower rate.
This trend did occur on the Busway in the morning
peak-period. The number of vehicles on
the Busway in the morning peak hour increased from 1,100 to 1,600 during the 2+
demonstration, but the number of persons carried declined from 5,900 to
5,200. Thus, more vehicles carrying
fewer people were on the Busway. Trends
in the afternoon peak-period were different with hourly vehicle volumes
increasing from 990 to 1,500 and person volumes increasing from 5,100 to 5,600
(2).
Vehicle volumes in the general-purpose lanes increased
slightly or remained relatively constant over the three time periods, as did
the number of persons per hour per lane.
Thus, lowering the vehicle-occupancy rate on the Busway, and the
subsequent increase in 2+ carpools on the Busway, did not have a corresponding
affect of lowering vehicle volumes in the freeway lanes. The increase in vehicles may have resulted
from latent demand in the corridor, with commuters diverting from other routes.
Figures 13 and 14 show the total vehicles and the
total persons carried in the peak period on the facility B the four freeway general-purpose lanes and the
one-lane Busway. These figures provide
an indication of the total vehicle and person throughput for the freeway
corridor. In the morning peak period,
total vehicle volumes increased by 15 percent with the change to the 2+
operating requirement, but total person volumes increased by less than one
percent. Similar trends were
experienced in the afternoon peak hours, with total vehicle volumes increasing
by nine percent and total person volumes increasing by less than one percent.
Figure 6. Congestion in El Monte Busway with 2+ Requirement
(Credits B Top photo - Caltrans, bottom photo - Foothill Transit)
Figure 11. Changes
in Morning Peak Hour Persons Per Hour Per Lane (2)
Figure 12. Changes
in Afternoon Peak Hour Persons Per Hour Per Lane (2)
Figure 13. Changes in Hourly Total Vehicle and Person Volumes for the Freeway Lanes and the Busway During the Morning Peak-Period (2)
Figure 14. Changes in Hourly Total Vehicle and Person
Volumes for the Freeway Lanes and the Busway During the Afternoon Peak-Period
TRAVEL RATE INDEX. The travel rate index (TRI)
is one of the measures used in TTI=s
annual mobility study (16). The TRI
shows the amount of additional time required to make a trip due to congested
conditions on a roadway. A TRI of
1.00 indicates freeflow travel conditions.
For example, a TRI of 1.30 indicates that it takes 30 percent more
time to make a trip due to congestion. The
TRI was calculated for the morning peak periods before, during, and after
the 2+ demonstration using the speed and person volume data presented previously.
The Busway had a TRI of 1.00 prior to the 2+
demonstration, reflecting the freeflow condition described above. The Busway TRI increased to 3.00 during the
2+ test, indicating that trips on the Busway took 300 percent longer. The TRI declined to 1.30 during the initial
phase of the 3+/2+ operating period and may have declined more since then if
speeds increased above 45 mph after the targeted enforcement efforts reduced the
number of illegal 2+ carpools in the lanes.
The TRI for the general-purpose lanes was 2.40 prior
to the 2+ demonstration, reflecting significant levels of congestion. Due to the increase in vehicle volumes and
the reduction in speeds, the general-purpose lanes TRI increased to 2.61 during
the 2+ demonstration, and increased to 3.00 immediately after the test. These figures indicate that conditions in
the general-purpose lanes did not improve during the test and, in fact may have
become worse both during and after the demonstration.
PUBLIC TRANSIC SERVICES
As discussed in Chapter Two, buses have always been a
key element of the El Monte Busway. The
number of routes and buses, as well as the service providers, have changed over
the years. Prior to the enactment of SB
63, approximately 80 buses operated on the Busway during the morning peak
hour. This figure is one of the highest
hourly bus volumes on exclusive or concurrent flow HOV facilities in the
country.
Foothill Transit operates the majority of buses on the
Busway, with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) providing some
service. Both express routes and
local/express routes operate on the Busway.
Overall, Foothill Transit buses make 500 trips per day on the Busway
carrying some 18,000 passengers.
Foothill Transit monitored the effect of the change in
the vehicle-occupancy requirement on its operations. Information regarding bus on-time performance, service overtime
and operating costs, safety, and customer complaints was collected over the
course of the demonstration. Periodic
fact sheets were published highlighting this information and a video was
produced documenting some of the effects.
Passenger complaints, including letters and other correspondence, were
recorded.
Lowering the vehicle-occupancy requirement to 2+ had a
significant effect on bus operations.
The increase in the number of two-person carpools, which caused
congestion on the Busway, resulted in lower bus operating speeds, longer bus
travel times and reduced on-time performance, increased service overtime and
operating costs, increases in safety incidents, and increases in customer
complaints.
*
BUS OPERATING SPEEDS, BUS
TRAVEL-TIME, AND ON-TIME PERFORMANCE. Bus operating speeds slowed
during the 2+ demonstration affecting overall bus travel times and on-time
performance. Historically, buses operating
on the Busway experienced freeflow speeds, averaging 65 mph prior to the 2+
demonstration. As noted previously,
during the 2+ period, travel speeds for all vehicles in the Busway declined
to 20 mph in the westbound direction during the morning peak period.
In the eastbound direction, afternoon peak-period travel speeds initially
decreased to 27 mph and then stabilized at around 40 mph (2).
The slower operating speeds resulted in longer bus travel
times and reduced on-time performance. Bus
travel times from the eastern end of the Busway into downtown Los Angeles
were 20 to 30 minutes longer during the morning peak-period. Schedule adherence and on-time performance
dropped from an average of 88 percent in the fall of 1999 to 48 percent in
May 2000. The consistent 20-minute
travel time savings provided to bus passengers over vehicles in the general-purpose
lanes was lost during the 2+ demonstration (17).
*SERVICE OVERTIME AND OPERATING
COST. The slower bus operating speeds, longer travel
times, and reduced on-time performance also caused declines in service productivity.
Bus operators finishing their runs late were frequently not able to
return for a second trip in the corridor.
To fill these voids and to maintain schedules, extra buses and operators
had to be dispatched when available.
At some points during the demonstration, as many as 10
extra buses and operators were staged in the downtown area to help ensure that
trips were not missed and schedules were maintained. Foothill Transit estimated that the personnel and fuel costs
associated with providing these extra buses were approximately $1,250 per
weekday. Over the course of the
demonstration, Foothill Transit estimated spending close to $150,000 for the
extra buses and operators. If the 2+
requirement had been continued, the annual cost of providing the additional
buses would have been approximately $325,000 (17, 18, 19).
*SAFETY INCIDENTS. Foothill Transit
operators record safety incidents as part of their daily reporting.
During 1999 an average of 13 safety incidents a day were reported by
operators on the El Monte Busway. During the 2+ demonstration the number of recorded
safety incidents increased substantially. For example, on January 27, 140 safety incidents were reported by
Foothill Transit operators.
The most frequently cited problems were rapid
deceleration of cars in front of buses, cars illegally crossing the
double-lines, and improper merging of cars into and out of the Busway. Figure 15 shows an example of a carpooler
illegally exiting the Busway to avoid congestion in the lane. Approximately 60 percent of the incidents
occurred in the buffer separated section of the Busway (17). Although these incidents are not crashes,
they represent the potential degradation of safety along the Busway. The incidents posed safety hazards to bus
operators, passengers, and motorists.
* CUSTOMER
COMPLAINS . Foothill Transit
received approximately 900 telephone calls, E-mails, letters, and faxes from
riders complaining about the degradation of bus service during the 2+ demonstration.
Caltrans and the MTA also received letters from bus riders and carpoolers. Passengers reported regular delays of 20- to 30- minutes on the
Busway, causing them to miss connections with other buses and trains, to be
late to work, to be late to pick up children at day care facilities, and to
miss appointments. A few examples
of the affects reported by passengers are noted below:
- I live in Covina. What
used to be a two-hour round trip is now a three-hour round trip.
Please, this is so inconvenient. I
have family I need to get home to.
- The 2+ defeats the purpose of the carpool lane. It takes an additional 15-25 minutes to get
to or from work.
- Since January 3rd, I have been late to work
every day. I am a single mother and
I need my job, but my kids need me too. Instead
of reaching work in 20 minutes, it is taking over 40 minutes.
The commute home is no better and I can no longer pick my daughter
up from school in the evenings, because I cannot afford $5.00 for every minute
late. I have to spend more money on
babysitting than before and had to find someone to take care of my children
now that I can't be there.
- I am a single, working parent whose livelihood relies heavily on keeping a specific schedule. I have been late to work on an average of 10-15 minutes since this new bill affected my route January 1st. Fortunately, I have been arriving at day care only moments before the 6:30 p.m. closing time. I do not own a vehicle, but I have regularly utilized public transportation as a means to get to work.
- Every day I travel by bus (Foothill Transit) on the bus
lane from El Monte Station to Union Station. Ever since the passage of Senate Bill 63, what used to take 8-10
minutes in the bus lane now takes 30-40 minutes.
- I commute 24 miles each way to downtown Los Angeles.
Normally the commute is about one hour.
Now it has increased each way by at least 20 minutes.
ENFORCEMENT AND VEHICLE-OCCUPANCY VIOLATIONS
The changes in vehicle-occupancy levels significantly
affected the violation rates on the Busway.
The peak-period occupancy violation rates for four time periods B before the 2+ demonstration, during the 2+
demonstration, early in the 3+/2+ operation, and 16 months after the start of
the 3+/2+ operation B are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Vehicle-Occupancy
Level Violation Rates
Time Period |
Busway |
|
AM Peak-Period |
PM Peak-Period |
|
Before January 2000 |
7% |
2% |
January 1 - July 24, 2000 |
1% |
1% |
Immediately after July 24, 2000 |
41% |
56% |
December 2001 |
4% |
9% |
The violation rates declined during the 2+
demonstration, as 2+ person carpools which would previously have been cited
became authorized users. The violation
rates increased significantly during the early phase of the 3+/2+
operations. Extra enforcement and more
visible enforcement was not provided during the initial 3+/2+ operation. As a result, it appears that many 2+
carpools continued to use the lane during the 3+ peak-period. In response to concerns over these high
violation rates, CHP undertook an aggressive enforcement program in January
2001. Elements of the program including
briefings for all CHP shifts, press releases and radio broadcasts highlighting
the correct occupancy requirements, announcing increased enforcement of the
rules, and four weeks of enforcement saturation with extra offices assigned to
the Busway. These efforts resulted in
the violation rates returning to levels similar to those before the 2+
demonstration.
Field observations, reports from Foothill Transit
operators, and interviews with CHP officers indicated that the number of buffer
violations increased significantly during the 2+ demonstration. In most cases,
these violations were due to carpools exiting the Busway illegally to avoid the
congestion and slow travel speeds in the lane.
ACCIDENTS
The Caltrans District 7 Office of Freeway Operations
in the Division of Operations conducted a safety study of the effects of SB 63
and AB 769 on the El Monte Busway (21).
The study examined accident records for the following three time
periods:
* six-months
before the 2+ vehicle-occupancy requirement became operational (July 1, 1999
to December 31, 1999),
*
six-months when the 2+ vehicle-occupancy
requirement was in effect (January 1, 2000 to July 24, 2000), and
* 12-months
when the 3+ peak-period and 2+ off-peak vehicle-occupancy requirement was
in effect (July 25, 2000 to June 30, 2001).
In addition, the Busway was divided into two sections
for the safety assessment to coincide with the different geometrics. The first segment included the section from
Alameda Street to Route 710, which is physically separated from the freeway
main lanes. The second section included
the segment from the Route 710 interchange to the eastern terminus at Baldwin
Avenue. The HOV lanes are separated
from the general-purpose lanes by a painted buffer in this segment.
Data from the Caltrans District 7 Traffic Accident
Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS) were examined for each segment for the
three time periods. TASAS is a
sophisticated electronic data processing record system that includes an
accident database linked to a highway database. Table 3 presents a summary of the recorded accidents from the
three different operating periods by segments.
Tables 4 through 6 present the accident rates (accidents per million
vehicle miles ) by segments for the three periods. Fatal accidents (FAT), fatal plus injury accidents (FAT +1), and
total accidents are presented, along with the average or expected rates. The major findings from the Caltrans
assessment are highlighted below (21):
-
The overall conclusion from
the assessment was that no definite conclusion could be drawn indicating there
were significant differences in accident rates or accident types during the
three study periods.
-
No accidents were recorded in
the HOV lane during the six-months prior to the enactment of SB 63.
Five accidents were recorded in the HOV lane during the six-months
at the 2+ vehicle-occupancy requirement and eight accidents were recorded
during the 12 months of 3+ peak/2+ off-peak operations.
The number of accidents increased from the 3+ operations, but the differences
are not statistically significant. There
were also no apparent significant differences in the number of accidents by
section during these time periods. The
accident rates for all three periods are lower than the average or expected
rate.
-
Although the total number of
accidents in the general-purpose lanes increased during the 2+ and the 3+/2+
operating periods, these differences were not found to be significant.
A significant difference was found in the number of accidents in the
two study sections across all three time periods, with more accidents occurring
in Section II. This section is longer than Section I and the
entire segment experiences higher levels of congestion, while recurrent congestion
is experienced in only limited parts of Section I. Rear-end and side-swipe accidents, which are
normally associated with congested conditions, accounted for some 80 percent
of the recorded accidents in Section II, compared to 70 percent in Section
I. The accident rates from fatal and fatal plus
injury crashes on the freeway lanes over all time periods are lower or close
to the average expected rates. The
total rates, however, are higher than average across all three time periods
for the study sections, with the exception of eastbound Section I, which are
lower. This trend was attributed to
the high levels of congestion, especially in Section II.
Table 3. Recorded
Accident Summary for Three Time
Periods
|
6 Months Before 2+ Requirement (3+ Requirement in Effect) July 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999 |
6+ Months 2+ Requirement was in Effect January 1, 2000 to July 24, 2000 |
12 Months 3+ Peak/2+ Off-Peak Requirement was in
Effect July 25, 2000 to June 20, 2001 |
|||||||||
Route 10 HOV Lane |
Route 10 Mainline (mixed flow) |
Route 10 HOV Lane |
Route 10 Mainline (mixed flow) |
Route 10 HOV Lane |
Route 10 Mainline (mixed flow) |
|||||||
Section I |
Section II |
Section I |
Section II |
Section I |
Section II |
Section 1 |
Section II |
Section 1 |
Section II |
Section I |
Section II |
|
East |
0 |
0 |
66 |
322 |
1 |
3 |
72 |
303 |
1 |
3 |
129 |
586 |
West |
0 |
0 |
75 |
245 |
1 |
0 |
94 |
262 |
2 |
2 |
152 |
423 |
Subtotal |
0 |
0 |
141 |
567 |
2 |
3 |
166 |
565 |
3 |
5 |
281 |
1009 |
Total |
0 |
708 |
5 |
731 |
8 |
1290 |
Note: Section
I from Alameda Street to Route 710
Section II from Route 710 to Baldwin Avenue
Table 4. Accident
Rate Summary
Six Months Before 2+ Requirement Implemented (3+
Requirement in Effect)
(July 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999)
|
ACCIDENT RATE (ACCS/MVM) |
|||||||
ACTUAL |
AVERAGE (EXPECTED) |
|||||||
Route 10 |
Section |
Direction |
FAT |
F+I |
TOTAL |
FAT |
FAT |
TOTAL |
HOV |
I |
EAST |
0.000 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.006 |
0.20 |
0.54 |
WEST |
0.000 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.006 |
0.20 |
0.54 |
||
HOV |
II |
EAST |
0.000 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.006 |
0.20 |
0.55 |
WEST |
0.000 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.006 |
0.20 |
0.55 |
||
Mainline (Mixed Flow) |
I |
EAST |
0.014 |
0.30 |
0.94 |
0.006 |
0.33 |
1.05 |
WEST |
0.014 |
0.31 |
1.06 |
0.006 |
0.33 |
1.05 |
||
Mainline (Mixed Flow |
II |
EAST |
0.000 |
0.45 |
2.15 |
0.005 |
0.33 |
1.07 |
WEST |
0.000 |
0.45 |
1.64 |
0.005 |
0.33 |
1.07 |
Note: Section
I from Alameda Street to Route 710
Section II from Route 710 to Baldwin Avenue
Six Months When 2+ Requirement was in Effect
(January 1, 2000 to July 24, 2000)
|
ACCIDENT RATE (ACCS/MVM) |
|||||||
ACTUAL |
AVERAGE (EXPECTED) |
|||||||
Route 10 |
Section |
Direction |
FAT |
F+I |
TOTAL |
FAT |
F+I |
TOTAL |
HOV |
I |
EAST |
0.000 |
0.00 |
0.39 |
0.006 |
0.20 |
0.55 |
WEST |
0.000 |
0.39 |
0.39 |
0.006 |
0.20 |
0.55 |
||
HOV |
II |
EAST |
0.000 |
0.05 |
0.15 |
0.006 |
0.21 |
0.56 |
WEST |
0.000 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.006 |
0.21 |
0.56 |
||
Mainline (Mixed Flow) |
I |
EAST |
0.000 |
0.22 |
0.90 |
0.006 |
0.34 |
1.06 |
WEST |
0.000 |
0.26 |
1.17 |
0.006 |
0.34 |
1.06 |
||
Mainline (Mixed Flow |
II |
EAST |
0.000 |
0.36 |
1.75 |
0.005 |
0.34 |
1.09 |
WEST |
0.000 |
0.35 |
1.51 |
0.005 |
0.34 |
1.09 |
Note: Section
I from Alameda Street to Route 710
Section II from Route 710 to Baldwin Avenue
Table 6. Accident
Rate Summary
Twelve Months When 3+ Peak/2+ Off-Peak Requirement was
in Effect
(July 25, 2000 to June 30, 2001)
|
ACCIDENT RATE (ACCS/MVM) |
|||||||
ACTUAL |
AVERAGE (EXPECTED) |
|||||||
Route 10 |
Section |
Direction |
FAT |
F+I |
TOTAL |
FAT |
F+I |
TOTAL |
HOV |
I |
EAST |
0.000 |
0.00 |
0.23 |
0.006 |
0.20 |
0.55 |
WEST |
0.000 |
0.47 |
0.47 |
0.006 |
0.20 |
0.55 |
||
HOV |
II |
EAST |
0.000 |
0.12 |
0.18 |
0.005 |
0.17 |
0.47 |
WEST |
0.000 |
0.00 |
0.12 |
0.005 |
0.17 |
0.47 |
||
Mainline (Mixed Flow) |
I |
EAST |
0.000 |
0.19 |
0.97 |
0.006 |
0.34 |
1.06 |
WEST |
0.000 |
0.32 |
1.15 |
0.006 |
0.34 |
1.06 |
||
Mainline (Mixed Flow |
II |
EAST |
0.007 |
0.34 |
2.05 |
0.005 |
0.34 |
1.09 |
WEST |
0.003 |
0.28 |
1.48 |
0.005 |
0.34 |
1.09 |
Note: Section
I from Alameda Street to Route 710
Section II from Route 710 to Baldwin Avenue
The effect the change in the vehicle-occupancy
requirement may have had on freeway access ramps, feeder routes, and local
roadways is not known. Caltrans did not
monitor vehicle volumes on access ramps.
Los Angeles County, the City of Los Angeles, and other local communities
did not undertake efforts to examine possible effects on local roadways. Given the length of the corridor and
numerous access points and feeder roads, it seems logical that the influence of
the vehicle-occupancy change was dispersed throughout the corridor. The downtown Los Angeles access point may
have experienced more congestion, however.
PUBLIC RESPONSE
Caltrans, Foothill Transit, the MTA, and other
agencies received letters, telephone calls, faxes, and E-mails related to the
change to the 2+ occupancy level required by SB 63. The overwhelming majority of the correspondence and calls were
critical of the change, with individuals complaining about the negative effects
it had on their travel. Caltrans and
Foothill Transit received the largest number of complaints. Although no total official log was
maintained, it appears that at least 1,000 comments were received by the
various agencies. Foothill Transit
alone received almost 900 complaints from passengers. A summary of the comments received is highlighted below.
-
Bus passengers were the most
vocal group responding to the effects of the 2+ demonstration. As noted previously, Foothill Transit received
almost 900 complaints from riders. The
MTA also received complaints from passengers. Bus Riders noted the 20- to 30-minute longer
travel times with the 2+ requirement. Passengers
reported missing connections to other buses and rail service, and being late
for work, school, and daycare pick-ups. Riders reported having to adjust their schedules
to leave earlier in the morning and to make arrangements in the afternoon
for children and other responsibilities.
-
Individuals in existing 3+ carpools
reported longer travel times and delays. These individuals indicated they had to adjust their schedules to
leave earlier in the morning to arrive at work on time.
-
Bus riders, individuals in 3+
carpools and vanpools, as well as others complained that the incentive for
using these modes and the Busway was gone.
Many of the individuals suggested the 2+ operations represented a step
backward and was detrimental to achieving environmental, air quality, and
energy goals.
-
It does not appear that motorists
in the general-purpose freeway lanes were vocal in support of the 2+ demonstration.
This lack of interest may be logical given the fact that the change
to the 2+ requirement did not noticeably improve travel conditions in the
freeway lanes.
The local print and broadcast media covered the
passage of SB 63, the change in the vehicle-occupancy requirements, the effects
of the change, the passage of AB 769, and the return to a 3+ peak-period
occupancy requirement. Caltrans issued
press releases informing the media of the various changes in occupancy
requirements, lane closures to install new signs, and other changes. Caltrans also provided regular updates on
conditions in the Busway and the freeway general-purpose lanes during the
demonstration.
Articles in the Los Angeles Times and the San
Gabriel Tribune described the effects of the 2+ occupancy-requirement on
the Busway and the change back to a 3+ requirement during weekday peak
periods. During the demonstration,
media coverage focused on the increased congestion levels in the Busway, the
decline in travel speeds, and the increase in trip times (22, 23, 24, 25). No surveys were conducted of HOV lane users,
motorists in the general-purpose lanes, or the public before, during, or after
the demonstration.
CHAPTER FOUR
ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH OPERATIONAL CHANGES
HOV facilities are intended to help manage congested
travel corridors and to provide mobility options for travelers. Modifications in the operation of HOV
facilities may be needed over time to help achieve the desired objectives of
projects. This chapter examines
management and operation of HOV facilities and examples of possible operational
changes. It presents a process
involving stakeholders for use in considering and implementing modifications,
discusses issues frequently associated with operational changes, summarizes the
experience with changes on a few HOV facilities, and describes federal interest
in operational changes in HOV facilities.
More detailed information and guidance on the topics addressed in this
chapter can be found in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) HOV Systems Manual (26).
MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF HOV FACILITIES
Once an HOV project has been opened, the focus of the
responsible agency or agencies changes from planning, designing, financing, and
constructing to managing and operating the facility. As highlighted in this section, key elements to be considered in
effectively managing and operating HOV facilities include performance
monitoring, incident management, enforcement, public and policy maker outreach
efforts, and ongoing consideration of enhancements. Real-time monitoring of freeways and HOV lanes, through
closed-circuit television cameras (CCTV) and other technologies, is an
important component of proactive management and operation of the transportation
system in many metropolitan areas.
Many areas use multi-agency teams to coordinate the
management and operation of freeway HOV facilities. These teams are usually comprised of representatives from the
state department of transportation, the regional transit agency, the state
highway patrol, the metropolitan planning organization, local communities, and
FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Depending on the institutional structure in an area, other
possible groups to involve include local police departments, the regional
rideshare agency, transit operators, emergency management services (EMS), and
air quality or environmental agencies.
The exact agencies and groups included on management and operation teams
should be matched to the roles, responsibilities, and institutional structures
of a specific area. Further, if an area
has an advanced transportation management system (ATMS), representatives from
the state department of transportation, transit agency, state patrol, and other
agencies may be located in the operations center or many interact and share
information on a regular basis.
Multi-agency management and operation teams provide
numerous benefits for helping ensure the efficient operation of HOV
facilities. Multi-agency teams provide
an ongoing mechanism for communication, cooperation, and coordination among
agencies. They provide a regular forum
for the discussion of issues and opportunities, and allow agencies to better
coordinate projects and activities.
-
PERFORMANCE MONITORING. Monitoring conditions on freeways and freeway HOV facilities is
a key element of successful proactive management and operational efforts. Many major metropolitan areas use a variety
of advanced technologies to monitor the freeway and HOV system. ATMS provides real-time monitoring, incident
detection, and rapid response capabilities.
In addition, many areas conduct ongoing monitoring and performance
evaluations of HOV facilities. These
efforts combine to enhance the day-to-day operation of HOV and freeway facilities
and to provide the information needed for ongoing operational changes.
Ongoing performance monitoring programs help identify
the benefits accrued from a project, determine if the goals and objectives are
being met, and identify operating problems or issues that may need to be
addressed. Evaluations provide an
opportunity to ascertain the degree to which the desired results are, in fact,
occurring. Performance monitoring
programs provide an official database for a project. This information can help ensure that all groups are utilizing
the same data, assisting to clarify any possible disagreements over the impact
of a project.
The information collected as part of an ongoing
performance monitoring program has value for operating decisions relating to
the HOV facility. Information on usage,
violation rates, and accidents are critical for ensuring the efficient and safe
operation of a facility. Monitoring
these and other aspects of the HOV lane as part of a performance process will
help identify problems that may need to be addressed. For example, changes in operating hours, vehicle-occupancy
requirements, bus service levels, and access points may be necessary. Longitudinal data on the use of a facility
serves a critical operations function.
This information can also be used to evaluate the marketing and public
information programs associated with a facility, as well as helping to identify
if additional marketing is needed.
The results of performance monitoring programs are
also beneficial in future planning efforts.
The information generated can be used to calibrate planning and
simulation models for future use.
Calibrating models with the results of local evaluations will ensure
that they accurately reflect actual experience, provide a valuable check on the
modeling process, and improve the future capabilities of the models. In addition, the results from a monitoring
program, along with the experience gained from a project, can enhance the
decision-making process on future projects.
Performance monitoring programs may also be needed to
meet federal or state requirements.
Different funding sources and programs may require ongoing evaluations
or other documents of project results.
Even when not a requirement, evaluations of HOV projects can be useful
to help justify future funding for similar facilities in an area.
It is important that performance monitoring programs
cover all elements of an HOV facility.
Depending on the specific project, these might include HOV lanes, direct
access connections, park-and-ride and park-and-pool lots, transit stations, new
or enhanced transit services, and the general-purpose freeway lanes. In some instances it may be difficult to
separate the impact of the various components.
The performance monitoring program should be designed to examine the
individual components and the full HOV system.
Major elements in a performance monitoring program
include articulating project goals and objectives, identifying measures of
effectiveness, identifying data needs and data collection methods, collecting
and analyzing the data, and presenting the results. Common data collection efforts focus on vehicle volumes, passenger
volumes, travel speeds, trip times, accident rates, and violation rates. The NCHRP HOV Systems Manual contains
a chapter that describes the elements of a comprehensive monitoring and
evaluation program.
-
INCIDENT MANAGEMENT. Managing accidents
and incidents on HOV lanes and freeways is a key part of management and operation.
Elements of an incident management program include detecting a problem,
responding appropriately, clearing the incident and returning the facility
to normal operations, and communicating necessary information to motorists
to help manage the situation. These
four elements B detecting, responding, clearing, and communicating B form the basis of an incident management program.
An accident or incident must be reported for a response
to be initiated. Detection refers
to the ability to identify that an incident has occurred, and to obtain accurate
information on the location, nature, and scope of the problem. The sooner an incident can be identified, and
the proper responses initiated, the faster the problem can be cleared and
the facility returned to normal. A
wide variety of methods and technologies can be used to help detect an incident on an HOV facility. Approaches include visual detection by enforcement
and operation personnel, calls from motorists using cellular telephones, roadside
telephone call boxes, commercial radio and television traffic reports, loop
detectors, closed-circuit television cameras (CCTV), advanced transportation
anagement systems and centers, and other intelligent transportation systems
(ITS) and advanced technologies.
Once an accident or incident has been identified, the
proper response can be initiated. A
variety of approaches can be used, depending on the nature, severity, and scope
of the problem. The general types of
response vehicles and personnel include Highway Helper or Courtesy Patrols,
dedicated agency tow trucks, commercial towing services, police, EMS, fire, and
specialized response teams.
The clearing process involves removing the disabled vehicle
or clearing the incident scene and returning the HOV facility to normal
operations. Tow trucks will be needed
to remove disabled vehicles, while a Highway Helper Patrol may be able to
assist with a vehicle that has run out of gas.
Traffic control and site management are also important elements of this
process. The roles and responsibilities
of personnel from the various agencies should be established to allow for the
safe, efficient, and coordinated management of an accident or an incident site.
The final element of incident management focuses on
communicating information on the status of the HOV and freeway facilities to
other agencies and the motoring public.
A variety of techniques and technologies can be used to provide current
or real-time information to HOV lane users, motorists in the general-purpose
lanes, and other agencies. Possible
approaches include commercial radio and televison stations, highway advisory
radio (HAR), variable message signs, and other technologies. This step is important to provide commuters
and travelers with information on major problems and significant delays on a
facility, as well as alternative routes that they may wish to take.
-
ENFORCEMENT. Enforcement
of vehicle-occupancy requirements and other policies are critical to the successful
operation of HOV facilities. HOV enforcement
programs help ensure that operating requirements, including vehicle-occupancy
levels, are maintained to protect HOV travel time savings, to discourage unauthorized
vehicles, and to maintain a safe operating environment.
Visible and effective enforcement promotes fairness and maintains the
integrity of the HOV facility to help gain acceptance of the project among
users and non-users.
Enforcement policies and programs perform a number of
important roles. First, the development
of enforcement policies and programs will help ensure that all of the
appropriate agencies are involved in the process and that all groups have a
common understanding of the project and the need for enforcement. Thus, the participation of representatives
from enforcement agencies, the courts and legal system, the state department of
transportation, the transit agency, and other groups throughout the development
and implementation of enforcement policies and programs is critical.
Second, this same information can be provided to the
public, especially travelers in the corridor to help introduce the HOV
facilities and to communicate the guidelines for use of the lanes. Third, the enforcement policies and programs
should be followed to maintain the integrity of the facility by deterring
possible violators and to promote the safe and efficient use of the lane.
Effective enforcement usually includes a number of
components. The six general elements
that should be considered in developing and conducting an enforcement program
include the legal authority to enforce a facility, the nature of citations for
violations and the level of fines, the general enforcement strategies, the
specific enforcement techniques, funding, and communicating the program
elements to users, non-users, and the public.
Enforcement strategies for HOV facilities can
generally be categorized into four basic approaches. These are routine enforcement, special enforcement, selective
enforcement and self-enforcement. All
of these strategies may be appropriate for consideration with the various types
of HOV projects. The most effective
approaches and techniques will vary somewhat for different facilities. For example, enforcement of
barrier-separated facilities is easier than for buffer-separated facilities.
A variety of enforcement techniques can be used to monitor
HOV facilities. These techniques focus
on providing surveillance of the lanes, detecting and apprehending violators,
and issuing citations or warnings to violators. Examples of approaches include stationary patrols,
roving patrols, team patrols, multipurpose patrols, electronic monitoring,
citations or warning by mail. Most
areas use a combination of enforcement techniques.
PUBLIC POLICY MAKER OUTREACH
ACTIVITIES. Ongoing outreach efforts should focus on communicating
the use of HOV facilities to the public and policy makers. The results from the performance monitoring
program should be communicated to the public and policy makers on a regular
basis. In addition, ongoing education
and marketing programs explaining the use of the HOV lanes and promoting carpooling,
vanpooling, and transit are needed.
A variety of methods and techniques can be used to
communicate information about HOV facilities to the public and policy
makers. Providing clear, accurate, and
timely information on a regular basis is important. Examples of possible communication methods are newsletters,
brochures, Internet sites, news releases, videos, and individual meetings with
key stakeholders.
Experience indicates that ongoing outreach efforts
with the public and policy makers are needed even with effective HOV
facilities. Given the turnover in
elected and appointed officials, the numerous demands on these individuals, and
the multitude of projects and programs vying for the attention of officials and
the public, regular updates on the use, effectiveness, and benefits of HOV
facilities are needed.
-
ONGOING CONSIDERATION OF
ENHANCEMENTS. A key part of the management and operations
philosophy is continually looking for opportunities to enhance the performance
of HOV and freeway facilities. Information
from performance monitoring programs can be used to help identify possible
areas for improvements or changes. Examples of possible enhancements include new or expanded bus services,
innovative rideshare programs and public outreach activities, motorists service
patrols, ramp metering and HOV bypass lanes, and special treatments for HOVs
at major destinations. The use of
new technologies, techniques, and strategies should also be considered on
an ongoing basis. These approaches
may include advanced transportation management systems, variable message signs,
advanced traveler information systems, and other techniques.
EXAMPLES OF OPERATIONAL CHANGE
A number of operational changes may be considered with
HOV facilities. These operational
issues are similar to those examined during the planning phase of a
project. Changes in eligible vehicle
groups, vehicle-occupancy requirements, hours of operation, and access controls
represent the most common types of changes that may be considered.
ELIGIBLE VEHICLE GROUPS. Changes may be considered in the types of vehicles allowed to use
an HOV facility. The following types
of vehicles may be considered for use of a new or an existing HOV lane.
*
Buses
*
Vanpools
*
Carpools
*
Motorcycles
*
Taxis
*
Airport shuttles and other special
services
*
Emergency vehicles
Other vehicle groups may be included if consideration
is being given to expanding the use of an HOV lane based on factors other than
vehicle-occupancy, such as value pricing programs, high-occupancy toll (HOT)
lanes, and other pricing-based approaches.
Possible vehicle groups in the cases might include tolled vehicles,
stickered vehicles, and low-emission vehicles.
-
VEHICLE OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS. Changes in vehicle-occupancy levels may be
considered in response to under use and over use of an HOV facility. For example, an underutilized HOV lane with
a 3+ occupancy requirement may be considered for a change to a 2+ level. On the other hand, a facility with a 2+ designation
that may be at or reaching capacity may be examined for increasing the occupancy
requirement to 3+. Varying occupancy
requirements by time-of-day is another possible alternative.
-
HOURS OF OPERATION. The hours of
operation may be adjusted over the life of a project. HOV facilities may be operated on a 24-hour basis during major portions
of a day, or only during the peak-periods. During non-HOV use times a lane may be open to general-purpose traffic,
closed to all traffic, used as a shoulder, or used for some other purpose.
-
ACCESS CONTROL. Consideration
may also be given to the ingress and egress provided along an existing HOV
lane. Approaches that may be examined
include adding access points, removing access points, and metering carpools
at access points.
PROCESS AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLMENT
The appropriate agencies, groups, and individuals
should be involved in the consideration of changes in the operation of an HOV
facility. Many areas use multi-agency
teams to help coordinate planning, designing, and operating HOV
facilities. These groups provide the
logical forum for the discussion of possible operating changes. If a multi-agency team does not exist, one
could be formed to consider specific operating issues. Another option would be to hold meetings
with representatives from the appropriate agencies. In addition, ongoing communication with elected officials, other
policy makers, and the media should occur.
The exact agencies and groups to involve in
discussions and decisions on changes in HOV operations may vary by area. Factors that may influence the groups to
involve include the institutional arrangements in an area, the type of HOV
facility, and the nature of the change being considered. Examples of the groups frequently
participating in HOV operational efforts and their roles are highlighted next.
STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. The state department
of transportation or the state highway department is usually the lead agency
with HOV facilities on freeways. As
such, state transportation agencies are responsible for operating freeway
HOV lanes and making decisions related to changes in operations. State departments of transportation frequently
organize and staff multi-agency operations teams. State transportation agencies also usually take a lead road in communicating
with members of the legislature, elected officials, policy makers, and the
media.
TRANSIT AGENCIES AND BUS OPERATORS. Representatives
from transit agencies and bus operators are usually key members of multi-agency
HOV operations teams. As highlighted
in the El Monte case study, changes in HOV operating requirements can have
significant effects on bus services and bus riders. Representatives from transit agencies should be involved in discussions
and decisions relating to HOV operational changes.
STATE POLICE. Experience indicates that involving the appropriate
state, local, and transit police throughout all aspects of planning, designing,
implementing, and operating HOV facilities is important to the success of
a project. These groups are responsible
for enforcing vehicle-occupancy requirements and other regulations. They should play a key role in the discussion
of possible changes in HOV operations. The affect on enforcement and the need for extra enforcement should
be examined when changes in operations are being considered. The El Monte
case study points out the importance of providing extra enforcement in conjunction
with changes in vehicle-occupancy requirements.
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO). MPOs do not
have responsibilities relating to the operation of the transportation system.
MPOs do have specific responsibilities associated with transportation
planning, policy development, project selection, and public participation.
Representatives from MPOs are usually involved in multi-agency HOV
planning efforts and frequently participate in HOV operations groups. Given their planning and policy making roles,
MPO representatives are often included in discussions related to possible
HOV operational changes.
RIDESHARE AGENCY. In many metropolitan areas,
the transit agency operates not only the bus service but also provides ridematching
services, vanpool programs, and other ridesharing services. In some areas, however, these activities are
the responsibility of a separate agency or organization. In these cases, the rideshare agency is usually
included in multi-agency teams and should be involved in discussions of HOV
operational changes, especially those associated with changes in vehicle-occupancy
requirements.
FEDERAL AGENCIES. Representatives from FHWA and
FTA are often involved in planning studies for HOV facilities and may be members
of multi-agency teams. As noted in
the next section, FHWA has issued
specific guidance on HOV operational changes.
As a result, consideration of changes in HOV operations should be coordinated
with the appropriate FHWA offices.
LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES. Representatives from local municipalities
may be involved in HOV multi-agency teams. The exact nature and extent of involvement
by local municipalities in HOV operational changes may depend on the potential
effect of these changes on the local transportation system. Representatives from municipalities should
be consulted on changes that may affect local roadways.
POLICY MAKERS. Elected and appointed officials should be kept
informed on the use of HOV facilities. Briefings,
newsletters, E-mails, and other techniques may be used to provide ongoing
updates on vehicle volumes and passenger levels, as well as any potential
issues associated with HOV lanes. Since
elected officials, especially members of the state legislature, are often
the driving force behind HOV operational changes, it is important to keep
these individuals informed on bus, carpool, and vanpool use of HOV facilities.
MEDIA. The broadcast and print media represent an
important constituency group for HOV facilities. The media has a significant influence on public perceptions and
opinions, and represents an important method of getting information out to
commuters, the public, and policy makers.
Providing representatives from the media with accurate and timely information
on HOV operational changes will help ensure that commuters and the public
are aware of the changes, understand the reasons why changes are made, and
comply with new requirements.
COMMUTERS AND GENERAL PUBLIC. Commuters,
especially HOV users, and the general public represent the constituents of
HOV projects. Obtaining input from
these groups through surveys, focus groups, and other market research techniques
may be appropriate in assessing different HOV operational changes. Communicating new requirements to these groups
is also critical.
The process for assessing possible HOV operating
strategies should be similar to the one used to plan a project and should be
coordinated with ongoing monitoring and evaluation efforts. Ideally,
the need for possible modifications in HOV operations should emerge from
an established monitoring program.
Information on vehicle and passenger volumes, travel speeds, travel-time
savings, violation rates, and accidents should form the basis of an on-going
monitoring and evaluation program. This
information can be used to identify possible problems and potential changes.
The key elements of the process for assessing,
implementing, and monitoring possible changes in HOV operations are shown in
Figure 16 and highlighted below. The
exact steps may vary depending on the local situation.
-
IDENTIFY POSSIBLE OPERATING PROBLEMS. Information from the on-going monitoring program
should be used to identify potential operating problems, such as facilities
reaching capacity or high violation rates. A good database on vehicle and passenger volumes, travel speeds,
travel time savings, violation rates, and accidents should alert agency personnel
to possible problems. Regular visual
monitoring of a facility, such as personnel driving the corridor or surveillance
through Advance Transportation Management Systems (ATMS) can also help identity
potential problems.
-
IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES. Possible approaches to addressing the issues
are identified and evaluated in this step.
As an example, possible alternatives that may be considered when an
HOV lane is reaching capacity include increasing the vehicle-occupancy requirement,
pricing strategies, sticker programs, restricting some user groups, eliminating
access points, and metering some user groups.
The identified options can be evaluated using available data and various
planning models and methods.
The analysis methods, data needs, and level of effort should be matched to the types of operational changes being considered. For example, consideration of extending or reducing operating hours on a part-time HOV lane should include examination of vehicle and person volumes, travel speeds, and trip time reliability on the HOV and general-purpose lanes during the specified time period. The possible effects of an operational change on other HOV lanes in the area should also be examined.
Figure 16. Process for Assessing,
Implementing, and Monitoring Changes in HOV Operations
-
REVIEW ALTERNATIVES WITH
STAKEHOLDERS. In this step the results of the evaluation
are discussed with key stakeholder groups.
As discussed previously, stakeholders usually include other agency
personnel, policy makers, and commuters in the corridor. The groups and individuals involved should
be matched to the nature of the problems being examined and the solutions
being considered.
-
SELECT AND IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE. In this step the preferred alternative is selected
and implemented. Input from technical
staff, policy makers, and commuters may be used in identifying the preferred
alternative. A plan for implementing
the operating change should be developed and followed. Key elements of a successful implementation
effort include public information and outreach activities, necessary changes
in signing, and other possible modifications.
Ensuring that HOV user groups and commuters are informed of the change
and that adequate enforcement is provided represent two key elements associated
with implementing HOV operational changes.
-
MONITOR HOV OPERATING
CHANGES. The monitoring program should continue to track the affects of the
changes made in the operation of an HOV facility. The information collected through the ongoing monitoring efforts
should be used to evaluate the change and to provide a feedback loop to continue
to identify possible operating problems.
ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED
A number of issues should be examined in considering
operational changes to an existing HOV facility. The exact issues will depend on the problems being experienced
with a project. Examples of some of the
issues that may need to be explored include the goals and objectives of the
facility, coordination with other facilities, the type of facility, design or
operational limitations, affects on current user groups, safety concerns,
public understanding, and affects on the general-purpose freeway lanes.
-
GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES
OF AN HOV FACILITY. The examination of possible operating changes
should consider the established goals, policies, and objectives for the facilities.
Any change should be consistent with, and supportive of state, regional,
and local transportation goals and specific policies and objectives related
to HOV facilities.
-
COORDINATION WITH OTHER HOV
FACILITIES. The effect making an operational change on
one HOV lane will have on other HOV facilities in an area should be considered.
For example, changing the operating hours or the vehicle-occupancy
requirement on one HOV lane may have a significant effect on a connecting
facility.
-
TYPE OF FACILITY. The type of
HOV facility may influence the range of operational changes that can be considered.
For example, adding access points to a barrier separated facility may
be both difficult and costly.
-
DESIGN AND OPERATIONAL LIMITATIONS. Related to the previous point, some HOV lanes
may have design or operational limitations that prohibit consideration of
some types of changes. For example,
the design of some barrier separated lanes with limited direct access treatments
may greatly reduce, if not eliminate, consideration of truck use.
-
AFFECTS ON OTHER USER GROUPS. The effect a possible change in operations may have on current user
groups should be considered. The El
Monte Busway case study highlights
the negative affect lowering the vehicle-occupancy requirement had on bus
operations and bus riders.
-
SAFETY CONCERNS. Consideration
should be given to the safety effects of possible changes in HOV operation.
Ensuring that an HOV facility and the freeway lanes operate in a safe
manner is critical.
-
PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING. Consideration
should be given to the ability to communicate the HOV operating requirements
to the traveling public. Requirements
that are too complex may be difficult to communicate through signs and other
methods, and may be hard for the public to understand. Enforcing complex operating rules may also
be more difficult.
-
EFFECTS ON THE GENERAL-PURPOSE
FREEWAY LANES. Operational changes on an HOV facility should
not adversely affect the operation of the general-purpose freeway lanes.
For example, adding ingress and egress points to a limited access concurrent
flow HOV lane may affect the operation of the adjacent freeway lanes.
EXPERIENCE IN OTHER AREAS
Changes in operating requirements have been made on
some HOV facilities over the years. A
few recent examples of changes in vehicle-occupancy levels and implementing
value pricing programs are highlighted in this section.
CHANGE IN VEHICLE OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS B I-5 NORTH,
SEATTLE. The I-5 North concurrent flow
HOV lanes are located north of downtown Seattle and the University of Washington.
The lanes are approximately 7 miles in length in the southbound direction
and 6 miles in the northbound direction.
The HOV lanes were opened in 1983 and operate on a 24-hour basis.
From 1983 to July 1991, a 3+ vehicle-occupancy requirement was used
on the facility. In response to legislative
interest, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) initiated
a six-month demonstration in 1991 lowering the vehicle-occupancy requirement
on I-5 to 2+. An evaluation was completed
after this period, and the 2+ level has been maintained on the facility.
The morning peak hour vehicle volumes on the I-5 HOV
lane increased from an average of 400 to 500 at the 3+ level to 1,200 to 1,400
at the 2+ level. The corresponding
morning peak-hour person volumes increased from the 3,700 to 4,000 range, to
between 5,000 and 5,600. The percentage
of 2+ carpools on the freeway and HOV lane in the morning peak period increased
initially from 10.5 percent to 16.5 percent, but later returned to
pre-demonstration levels, while the percentage of 3+ carpools dropped from
about four to one percent. No related
changes were noted in vehicle volumes on the general-purpose freeway lanes or
in transit ridership (27).
Since 1992, the vehicle volumes in the I-5 North HOV
lanes have remained relatively constant.
Approximately 1,300 to 1,500 vehicles use the lanes in the morning peak
hour. On average, afternoon peak-hour
volumes are slighter higher. Volumes in
the general-purpose lanes increased over the six-year time period from 1992 to
1998 (28).
CHANGE IN VEHICLE OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS B I-66, NORTHERN
VIRGINIA. I-66 was open
from I-495 (Capital Beltway) into the District of Columbia in December 1982.
The lengthy and often controversial planning process for the facility,
which started in 1959, resulted in the freeway being restricted to HOVs only
from 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. in the eastbound direction and from 3:30 to 6:30
p.m. in the westbound direction. A
4+ vehicle-occupancy requirement was used on the facility until a congressional
mandate changed it to 3+ in 1986. In
addition, the Metrorail Orange Line operates in the median of I-66 with four
stations located in the section.
In 1994, Congress authorized the Commonwealth of
Virginia to conduct a one-year demonstration using a 2+ occupancy requirement
for the section of I-66 inside the Beltway.
A 2+ requirement is in use on the concurrent flow HOV lanes on I-66
beyond the Beltway. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) in conjunction
with other agencies and an advisory committee, evaluated this test. Data collection took place in the fall of
1994, before the occupancy-requirement was lowered to 2+, and again in November
of 1995, approximately one year after the change.
Information on changes in vehicle volumes, passenger
volumes, average vehicle occupancy (AVO), and transit ridership was examined by
VDOT. Total vehicle volume increased by
62 percent in the morning peak-hour and by 51 percent in the morning peak
period. Total vehicle person movement
rose by 50 percent in the peak hour and 35 percent in the peak-period. Automobile volumes and person movement total
increased roughly the same percentages given the small number of other vehicles. Total HOV volumes increased by 178 percent
in the peak hour and 133 percent in the peak period. The large increase in HOV volumes was a result of the reduction
in 2+ violations (29).
The reclassification of 2+ carpools from violators to
HOVs was a major factor in the reduction in violation rates. A decline in single-occupancy vehicle
violations also occurred, however.
After the change to 2+, the number of single-occupant vehicles decreased
by 51 and 22 percent for the peak hour and the peak period, respectively. The all-vehicle AVO declined from 2.49 to
2.30 in the peak hour and 2.38 to 2.13 in the peak period, but was more than
counterbalanced in total facility carrying capacity by the increase in overall
vehicle flow.
The demonstration and monitoring activities continued
in 1996 and 1997. Data collected in the
spring and fall of 1996, and the spring of 1997 showed little change from the
trends noted previously. Vehicle
volumes, passenger volumes, and AVO fluctuated slightly, but no major changes
were reported (28, 30).
VEHICLE-OCCUPANCY CHANGES AND VALUE PRICING B KATY (I-10
WEST) HOV LANE, HOUSTON. The Katy HOV lane, located on the I-10 Freeway
on the west side of Houston, is 13 miles in length. It is a one-lane, barrier-separated, reversible
HOV lane located in the freeway median. The vehicle eligibility and the vehicle-occupancy requirements on
the Katy HOV lane have been changed a number of times since the facility opened
in 1984. Some of these changes were
based on the lack of previous experience with HOV lanes, while others were
due to the success of the lane.
The Katy HOV lanes were first opened to buses and
authorized vanpools only. The
authorization process included insurance requirements, driver training, and
vehicle inspection. Approximately 50
vehicles used the lane during the morning peak-hour with this requirement. Due to this low level of use, the lanes were
opened to authorized 4+ carpools after six months of operation. This change added only about 10 vehicles to
the morning peak- hour volume on the lane.
Six months later, the requirements were lowered to 3+
authorized carpools, which added some 100 vehicles to the morning peak hour
traffic stream. In April 1986 the
vehicle-occupancy level was lowered to 2+ carpools and the authorization
requirement was discontinued. The
morning peak hour volumes increased to approximately 1,200 vehicles very
quickly after this change (31).
Carpool volumes in the HOV lane, as well as vehicle
volumes in the general-purpose freeway lanes, increased over the next year,
primarily due to the economic recovery occurring in the Houston area. Within a year, morning peak hour vehicle
volumes on the HOV lane were regularly reaching or exceeding 1,500. The congestion resulting from these volumes
and the design of the facility reduced the travel time savings and travel time
reliability bus riders and carpoolers had come to expect. In response to lower travel speeds in the
HOV lane and complaints from bus passengers, the vehicle-occupancy requirement
was increased from 2+ to 3+ during the period from 6:45 to 8:15 a.m. in October
1983. At all other times, including the
afternoon peak hour, the 2+ occupancy requirement was maintained.
The morning peak hour total vehicle volume dropped
from approximately 1,400 to 510 immediately after the change was made,
representing a 64 percent reduction in vehicle volumes. A corresponding drop of 33 percent in person
volume also occurred. Utilization
levels during the morning peak hour increased over the next year, reaching 660
in March of 1989, but declining to 611 in December of 1989. Although the vehicle and passenger volumes
declined during the morning peak hour, the AVO increased. The AVO was 3.1 prior to the change, 4.7 in
March 1989, and 4.5 in December 1989 (31).
The trends in the morning peak period highlight other
impacts of the occupancy change. Total
vehicle volumes declined from some 8,780 before the change to 7,523 in December
of 1989, representing a 14 percent decline.
The major shift was in 2+ carpools, which declined by some 41 percent,
while 3+ carpools increased by 68 percent, bus ridership by 8 percent, and
vanpool passengers by 2 percent. The
results of surveys and enforcement data indicate that some 2+ carpools shifted
to earlier time periods. Some of these
vehicles enter the lane before the restricted period and thus are on the
facility when the 3+ requirement takes effect.
Further, survey results indicated that some 2+ carpools changed their
travel routes to use the newly opened Northwest HOV lane, which had a 2+
requirement (31).
The vehicle-occupancy requirements on the Katy HOV
lane have been modified further since the change to the morning 3+ peak hour
requirement. In May 1990, the 3+
restricted period was modified slightly to 6:45 - 8:00 a.m. The 3+ requirement was added to the
afternoon peak hour, from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m., in September 1991.
Further, in 1989 a demonstration project, called QuickRide,
was implemented allowing 2+ carpools to use the HOV lane for a fee during the
3+ period. The demonstration, which uses
an electronic toll collection system, charges for two-person carpools to use
the lane. An initial group of 300
individuals were provided with toll tags on a first-come, first-serve basis.
As of June 1998, there were 390 active accounts for
the QuickRide project and 521 active transponders. Daily use in 1998 averaged in the range of
125 to 150 two-person carpools. Use
during June has been lower, in the 90 to 120 range. This drop may be related to the summer school break (32).
Sticker Program B Southeast Expressway, Boston. The I-93
Southeast Expressway HOV lane was opened in November 1995. The six-mile contraflow HOV lane, which is
located on the southeast side of Boston, uses a moveable barrier system to
create and remove the contraflow lane during the morning and afternoon peak
periods. The Massachusetts Highway
Department (MassHighway) is responsible for the design and operation of the
facility.
The project was opened with a 3+ vehicle-occupancy
designation. Concerns by some commuters
that the facility was under-utilized at the 3+ level resulted in support by
state elected officials to reduce the vehicle-occupancy requirements. Working with the legislature, MassHighway
developed a compromise approach, which was signed into law by the governor in
1996. The resulting sticker program was
implemented in September 1996.
Analysis conducted by MassHighway estimated that an
additional 2,000 vehicles a day could use the HOV lane without degrading the
level of service. Rather than issuing
just 2,000 stickers, the agency developed a program to issue 4,000 stickers and
to control the use of the lane by the color of the sticker.
After an extensive education and outreach program, stickers were issued to residents free on a first-come, first-served basis. A total of 2,000 individuals with license plates ending in odd numbers received blue stickers and red stickers were distributed to 2,000 individuals with license plates ending in even numbers. Travelers with blue stickers and two people in a vehicle could use the HOV lane on odd numbered days, while travelers with red stickers were able to use the lane on even numbered days.
MassHighway conducted an extensive monitoring and evaluation effort of the sticker program. The volume of vehicles in the HOV lanes increased steadily when the program was implemented. For example, in December 1995, an average of 2,080 three-person vehicles used the lane on a daily basis. In December 1996, 2,392 3+ and 2+ carpools used the lane, a 15 percent increase in vehicle volumes. By March 1997, some 2,724 carpools were using the lane, representing a 35 percent increase over the 1995 levels, and by June 1997, 3,284 carpools were using the lane (33). The occupancy requirement was subsequently lowered to 2+, partially as a result of the experience with the sticker program.
I-15 HOV LANE ExpressPass AND FasTrack DEMOSTRATION,
SAN DIEGO. The two-lane exclusive HOV facility on I-15
is approximately 8 miles in length and is located on the northeast side of
San Diego. There is one entrance and
one exit. The facility was opened
in 1988 with a 2+ per-vehicle occupancy requirement.
The lanes are open in the southbound direction from 6:00 to 9:00 a.m.
and in the northbound direction from 3:00 to 6:30 p.m. and are closed at other
times.
The I-15 Freeway HOV Pricing project was one of the
congesting pricing demonstrations funded as a result of the ISTEA of 1991. The project included two phases to test
allowing single-occupant vehicles to use the I-15 HOV lanes for a fee. The objectives of the demonstration included
testing value pricing as a method of managing congestion on the freeways lanes,
managing demand on the HOV lanes, expanding transit and ridesharing services in
the corridor, and enhancing air quality in the region (34).
During the Interim Operations phase of the
demonstration, called ExpressPass, a limited number of monthly permits
were sold to motorists on a first-come, first-serve basis. Drivers with permits could use the HOV lanes
without meeting the vehicle-occupancy requirement, while carpools and vanpools
with 2 or more persons continued to use the lanes for free. The monthly fee was first set at $50 in
December 1996 and 500 permits were sold.
In 1997, the number of permits issued and the monthly fee were increased
to 700 and $70, respectively. By the
end of the Interim Operations Phase in March 1998, 1,000 passes were available.
The full Implementation phase, called FasTrak,
started on March 30, 1998. Electronic
toll collection and variable fees for single-occupant vehicle use of the HOV
lanes were tested in this phase.
Currently, the fees range from $0.50 to $4.00, depending on the
congestion level in the general-purpose lanes.
In April 1998, 3,500 transponders had been distributed to 2,500
customers (35).
The preliminary assessment of the ExpressPass
portion of the project indicated that the percentage of HOVs using the I-15 HOV
lanes increased from 85 percent to 89 percent of the total traffic. The percentage of the single-occupant
vehicles illegally using the facility declined from a high of 15 percent before
the start of the test to 3 percent during February and March 1997. Overall, total vehicle volumes in the HOV
lane increased by 12 percent (34). The
value pricing project is continuing on the I-15 HOV lanes, with use levels
increasing.
FHWA has periodically issued guidance on HOV
facilities. The most recent Program
Guidance on HOV Operations was issued on March 28, 2001 (36). The Program Guidance identifies the
circumstances under which federal action is required to initiate changes in the
operation of an HOV facility, and the federal review process and requirements
to be used in these situations. The
Program Guidance is available on the FHWA Internet site at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/
directives/policy/index.htm.
Federal action is required when significant changes
are proposed to existing HOV facilities constructed with federal funds. Significant changes include major
alterations in operating hours and converting an HOV lane to general purpose
use. Minor modifications in operating
hours and changing from different multi-person occupancy levels (from 3+ to 2+,
for example) do not require federal approval.
Coordination and consultation with FHWA is appropriate even when an
operational change is only being considered or discussed, however, as a basis
to determine what may be needed for actual changes to occur.
The Program Guidance identifies the information to be
included as part of a federal review.
Examples of needed information include original studies and plans for
the HOV facility, project agreements, commitments made in the environmental
process, operational assessments, analysis of future conditions, examination of
alternative operating scenarios, and possible impacts on air quality levels and
plans. The Program Guidance further
outlines the federal review requirements related to air quality conformity, the
state implementation plan, the congestion management system, the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, and other issues.
The Program Guidance and other available documents
support the need to examine HOV systems on a regional, not just individual
project, basis. Elements in this
approach include a multi-year regional HOV system strategic plan, which is
integrated into the metropolitan area long-range plan, and a multi-agency
program to manage implementation of the system plan and to support day-to-day
operation of HOV facilities and supporting services. This approach allows for the long-term regional commitment for
infrastructure improvements, the careful phasing of operating segments, and
coordinating the development and operation of supporting services, facilities,
and policies.
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS
This report documents the effects of lowering the
vehicle-occupancy requirement on the El Monte Busway from 3+ to 2+ full
time. Information from Caltrans,
Foothill Transit, and other agencies is presented on the effect the change had
on the operation of the Busway and freeway, public transit services, violation
rates, accidents, and public response.
The change back to a 3+ peak-period occupancy requirement is
described. The report also examines
issues frequently associated with managing and operating HOV facilities and presents
a process for considering operational changes.
Overall, lowering the vehicle-occupancy requirement
from 3+ to 2+ full time had a detrimental affect on the Busway. At the same time, significant improvements
were not realized in the general-purpose freeway lanes. The major negative effects on the Busway and
the neutral effects on the general-purpose lanes are highlighted below.
-
Morning peak-period travel speeds
in the Busway were reduced from 65 mph to 20 mph in the morning eastbound
direction, while travel speeds in the general-purpose lanes decreased from
25 mph to 23 mph for most of the demonstration.
-
Hourly Busway vehicle volumes
during the morning peak-period 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.
-
Peak-period travel times increased
on the Busway during the 2+ demonstration. Morning peak-period travel times from the eastern end of the corridor
increased by 20 to 30 minutes.
-
Bus schedule adherence and on-time
performance declined significantly. Bus speeds declined from 65 mph to 20 mph during the morning peak-period.
The consistent 20-minute travel time savings over vehicles in the general-purpose
lanes was lost during the demonstration.
-
Foothill Transit experienced
declines in service productivity. Extra
buses and operators had to be added to maintain service since many bus operators
were not able to return for a second trip due to the delays experienced in
the lane. As many as 10 extra buses
and operators were staged in downtown Los Angeles to help ensure that trips
were not missed. The cost of providing
these extra buses and operators was approximately $1,250 per day or $150,000
over the course of the demonstration.
-
There was no statistically significant
increase in accident rates during the 2+ demonstration.
An increase in safety incidents, including stop-and-go traffic, cars
illegally crossing the double-lines, and improper merging of vehicles into
and out of the Busway was reported.
-
Bus riders reported significant
delays and increased trip times. These
delays caused riders to miss connections to other buses and trains, and to
be late to work and daycare pick-ups.
-
Violation rates declined during
the 2+ demonstration. Violation rates
increased significantly immediately after the return to the 3+ occupancy requirement
during the peak periods. The violation
rates declined to a lower pre-demonstration level after a period of heightened
enforcement.
For the most part, conditions on the Busway returned
to those experienced prior to the 2+ demonstration with the implementation of
the 3+ peak and 2+ off-peak requirements.
As noted previously, enforcement problems were initially encountered
with the operation of the 3+ peak and 2+ off-peak occupancy requirements. The lack of additional enforcement
immediately after the change to the variable occupancy requirement appears to have
contributed to 2+ carpools continuing to use the Busway during the 3+
restricted period. The extra
enforcement conducted by CHP addressed this problem, with violation rates
returning to pre-demonstration levels.
Bus operations also returned to pre-demonstration conditions with the
variable occupancy requirements.
The review of management and operation practices and
the issues associated with considering operational changes on HOV facilities
provide guidance to agency personnel.
The following highlight the key elements identified in the review of
best practices to be considered in managing and operating HOV facilities and in
assessing possible operational changes.
-
Multi-agency teams should be
used to promote communication, cooperation, and coordination in the management
and operation of HOV facilities. These
groups should be involved in discussions of possible changes in operations.
-
The real-time monitoring of
HOV and freeway facilities is a key element of proactive management and operational
efforts. Advanced transportation management
systems and centers are important
components of many management and operational programs.
These systems use a wide range of advanced technologies to monitor
conditions on HOV and freeway facilities, detect incidents, and provide rapid
response capabilities.
-
Five of the basic elements of
managing and operating freeway HOV facilities are performance monitoring,
incident management, enforcement, public and policy maker outreach, and ongoing
consideration of enhancements.
-
Performance-monitoring programs
provide day-to-day management capabilities, identify operating issues that
may need to be addressed, determine if the goals and objectives of a project
are being met, and provide information on the use of HOV facilities to communicate
with the public and policy makers.
-
Ongoing communication with elected
and appointed officials and the public on the effectiveness and benefits of
HOV facilities is important, even for projects that have been operating effectively
for many years.
-
A process that involves the
key stakeholders should be followed in considering operational issues and
possible changes in the operation of an HOV facility.
-
FHWA must be contacted when
significant changes in the operation of an HOV facility are being considered.
Coordination and consultation with FHW is appropriate when any type
of operational change is being considered.
REFERENCES
1. California
State Legislature. Senate Bill Number
63, July 26, 1999.
3. California
State Legislature. Assembly Bill Number
769, July 3, 2000.
4. Fuhs,
Chuck and Jon Obenberger. HOV Facility
Development: A Review of National Trends..
Paper on the 2002 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting CD ROM,
January, 2002.
5. State
of California. Agreement Between
the State of California, Department of Public Works, and the Southern California
Rapid Transit District, September, 1971.
6. State
of California. Amendment to Agreement
Between State of California Department of Public Works and Southern California
Rapid Transit District, 1976.
7. State
of California. Amendment to Agreement
Between State of California Department of Public Works and Southern California
Rapid Transit District, 1981
8. Crain
& Associates. San Bernardino
Expressway Bus Evaluation of Mixed-Mode Operations. Southern California Association of Governments,
1978.
9.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, et
al. Draft Final HOV Performance
Program Evaluation Report. Prepared for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority. April 2002.
10. Institute
of Transportation Engineers. The
Effectiveness of High-Occupancy Vehicle Facilities. Washington, D.C., 1988.
11.
Turnbull, Katherine F.
A Description of High-Occupancy Vehicle Facilities in North America.
Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System,
College Station, TX, 1990.
12. California
Department of Transportation, District 7.
HOV Count Data B HOV Operations on Route 10. January, 2001.
13. California
Department of Transportation, District 7 Office of Traffic Management HOV
Operations. Operational Study Report B Feasibility of and Effectiveness of Opening High-Occupancy
Vehicle Lanes to General Traffic on Weekends and Holidays. June, 1999.
14. California
Department of Transportation, District 7 Office of Traffic Management HOV
Operations. Summary of Possible Impacts of Restriping El
Monte Busway to Add 2 Lanes and Allow 2+ Carpools from Route 710 to Baldwin
Avenue. January, 1996.
15. Los
Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority. Summary
of Allowing 2+ Occupant Vehicles on El Monte Busway.
March, 1999.
16. Texas
Transportation Institute. Mobility
Monitoring Program. http://mobility.tamu.edu/.
17. Foothill
Transit. Foothill Transit SB 63 Fact Sheet. May 11, 2000.
18. Colaiace,
Andre and Julie Austin, Foothill Transit.
Interview with Author, February 2, 2002.
19.
Colaiace, Andre. E-mail on Operating Costs. March 2, 2002.
20. California
Department of Transportation. Telephone
Interview with Author, March 13, 2002.
21. California
Department of Transportation, District 7.
El Monte Busway Traffic Safety Analysis.
March 25, 2002.
22. Los
Angeles Times. Easing of Carpool Rules Backfires as Lanes
Jam. January 22, 2000.
23.
Los Angeles Times. Minimum for El Monte Diamond Lane Increases.
July 6, 2000.
24. Los
Angeles Times. Lawmakers Void Change in El Monte Busway
Rule. July 27, 2000.
25. San
Gabriel Tribune. 3-Person Carpool Lane Restored to 10 Freeway. July 6, 2000.
26. Texas
Transportation Institute, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Pacific Rim Resources. HOV Systems Manual, NCHRP Report 414. Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C., 1998.
27. Ulberg,
Cy, et al. I-5 North High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane 2+
Occupancy Requirement Demonstration Evaluation. Washington State Transportation Center, Seattle, WA, 1992.
28. Richard
H. Pratt, et al. Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes Interim Guidebook.
Transit Cooperative Research Program, Washington, D.C., 2000.
29. Virginia
Department of Transportation. I-66
HOV-2 Demonstration Project Final Report.
Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, Virginia, 1996.
30. Virginia
Department of Transportation. I-66
HOV-2 Demonstration Project Annual Report.
Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, Virginia, 1997.
31. Christiansen,
Dennis and Danny Morris. An Evaluation
of the Houston High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane System. Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System,
College Station, TX, 1991.
32.
Bill Stockton and Loyd Smith.
Implementing a High-Occupancy Toll Lane B The Houston Experience. 68th
ITE Annual Meeting, Toronto, August 19-21, 1998.
33. Luisa
Paiewonsky. A New Approach to HOV Entry Requirements:
MassHighway=s 3+/Limited 2+ Sticker Program. TRB 77th
Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 1998.
34. San
Diego Association of Governments. I-15
Congestion Pricing Project. San
Diego Association of Governments, San Diego, CA, 1997.
35. Hultgren,
L., Kawanda, K. and Lawrence, S. San Diego=s Interstate 15 Value Pricing Project. 68th
ITE Annual Meeting, Toronto, August 19-21, 1998.
36. Federal
Highway Administration, Program Guidance on HOV Operations. Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
D.C., 2001.
To access an electronic version of this publication
and other Operations related publications visit the
ITS Electronic Document Library (EDL):
www.its.dot.gov/welcome.htm
EDL Document Number 13692
Visit Our Operations Web Site:
http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov
Publication No. FHWA-OP-03-002
HOTM/7-00(1M)QE