|
Final Report: A Description of High-Occupancy Vehicle Facilities in North America July 1990
Click HERE for graphic. A Description of High-Occupancy Vehicle Facilities in North America Final Report July 1990 Prepared by Katherine F. Turnbull and James W. Hanks Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843 Prepared for Office of Planning Urban Mass Transportation Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 and Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation Austin, Texas 78701 Distributed in Cooperation with Technology Sharing Program U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590 DOT-T-91-05 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction ................................................... 1 Background and Purpose of the 1989 Survey ................ 1 Report Organization ...................................... 4 II. High-Occupancy Vehicle Facilities ........................ 5 The HOV Facility Concept ................................. 5 Types of HOV Facilities .................................. 8 III. Survey Process and HOV Projects ......................... 11 Exclusive HOV Facilities, Separate Right-of-Way ......... 11 Exclusive HOV Facilities, Freeway Right-of-Way .......... 12 Concurrent Flow Lanes ................................... 15 Contraflow Lanes ........................................ 20 IV. High-Occupancy Vehicle Project Characteristics .......... 39 Project Description and Operating Characteristics ....... 39 Design ........................................... 39 Representative Cross Sections .................... 40 Hours of Operation ............................... 41 Vehicles Allowed to Use HOV Facilities and Occupancy Requirements ........................... 47 Bus Operating Characteristics .................... 48 Use During Non-Restricted Periods ................ 49 Agency Responsibilities .......................... 50 Primary Reason for Project Implementation ........ 50 Capital Costs and Funding Sources ................ 51 Signing .......................................... 52 HOV Facility Utilization and Public Reaction ............ 52 HOV Facilities and Freeway Utilization ........... 52 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page Desirable HOV Lane Volumes ....................... 52 Public Reaction to HOV Facilities ................ 53 Marketing and Public Information ................. 53 Enforcement Levels and Violation Rates .................. 54 Enforcement Levels and Responsibilities .......... 54 Fines ............................................ 55 Violation Rates .................................. 55 Safety ........................................... 56 V. Proposed HOV Projects and Project Extensions ............ 87 VI. Conclusion .............................................. 91 Support Facilities ...................................... 91 Support Services ........................................ 92 Operations and Enforcement .............................. 92 Evaluating HOV Facilities ............................... 93 Design .................................................. 94 Conclusion .............................................. 94 iv LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. HOV Facilities in North America ........................ 3 Figure 2. Miles of Operating HOV Lanes by Year ................... 4 Figure 3. Examples of High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Facilities ... 10 Figure 4. Ottawa Transitway System .............................. 21 Figure 5. Pittsburgh South and East Busways and I-279 HOV Lanes . 22 Figure 6. Hartford I-84 HOV Lanes ............................... 23 Figure 7. Houston Transitways ................................... 24 Figure 8. Los Angeles/Orange County HOV Lanes ................... 25 Figure 9. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area, I-394 HOV Lanes ........................................... 26 Figure 10. San Diego I-15 HOV Lanes .............................. 27 Figure 11. Washington D.C./Northern Virginia HOV Lanes ........... 28 Figure 12. Denver US 36 (Boulder Turnpike) Bus Lane .............. 29 Figure 13. New York City/New Jersey HOV Facilities ............... 30 Figure 14. Honolulu HOV Facilities ............................... 31 Figure 15. Miami I-95 HOV Lanes .................................. 32 Figure 16. Orlando I-4 HOV Lanes ................................. 33 Figure 17. Phoenix I-10 HOV Lanes ................................ 34 Figure 18. San Francisco/Oakland HOV Lanes ....................... 35 Figure 19. San Jose/Santa Clara County HOV Lanes ................. 36 Figure 20. Seattle HOV Lanes ..................................... 37 Figure 21. Vancouver, British Columbia H-99 HOV Lanes ............ 38 Figure 22. Typical Cross Section for Two-Way Busway .............. 42 Figure 23. Typical Cross Section for Two-Lane, Reversible HOV Facilities ...................................... 42 v LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Page Figure 24. Typical Cross Section for One-Lane, Reversible HOV Facilities ...................................... 43 Figure 25. Typical Cross Section for Two-Lane, Two-Way HOV Facilities ...................................... 43 Figure 26. Typical Cross Section for Two-Lane, Two-Way HOV Facilities With Buffer Separating HOV Flow ............................................ 44 Figure 27. Typical Cross Section for Concurrent Flow HOV Facilities With a Buffer Separating HOV and General Purpose Traffic Lanes ....................... 44 Figure 28. Typical Cross Section for Concurrent Flow HOV Facilities Without a Buffer Separating HOV and General Purpose Lanes ............................... 45 Figure 29. Typical Cross Section for Concurrent Flow HOV Facilities Located on the Right Side (outside) of Freeway Mainlanes ...................... 45 Figure 30. Typical Cross Section for Contraflow HOV Facilities ... 46 vi LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. General Characteristics of Operating High-Occupancy Vehicle Projects .................................... 57 Table 2. Vehicles Allowed to Use High-Occupancy Vehicle Facilities .......................................... 61 Table 3. Agencies with Primary Responsibility for Developing and Operating HOV Facilities ........................ 64 Table 4. Primary Reason for High-Occupancy Vehicle Project Implementation ...................................... 67 Table 5. Estimated Capital Costs for High-Occupancy Vehicle Projects ............................................ 69 Table 6. High-Occupancy Vehicle Facility Signing ................. 71 Table 7. Morning Peak Direction Bus, Vanpool, and Carpool Ridership and Vehicle Volume ........................ 73 Table 8. Peak Direction, Peak-Hour Freeway and High-Occupancy Vehicle Facility Volume Per Lane .................... 76 Table 9. Peak Direction, Peak-Period Freeway and High-Occupancy Vehicle Facility Volume Per Lane .................... 79 Table 10. Enforcement of High-Occupancy Vehicle Facilities ....... 82 Table 11. Violation Levels, Penalties, and Enforcement Methods ... 84 Table 12. Listing of Proposed HOV Facilities ..................... 88 vii 1. INTRODUCTION The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), a part of The Texas A&M University System, is conducting an assessment of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane projects located either on freeways or in separate rights-of-way in North America. The three year research study is being funded by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration through the Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation (SDHPT). One of the major elements of this assessment is a survey intended to describe the operating characteristics of exclusive HOV facilities. A survey of all HOV facilities in operation either on freeways or in separate rights-of-way has been completed; this updates the 1985 survey conducted by a technical committee of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The results of this effort, which are contained in this report, provide up-to-date information on the design, operations, enforcement characteristics, and current utilization rates of HOV facilities in the United States and Canada. Background and Purpose of the 1989 Survey Since the opening of the Shirley Highway exclusive bus lanes in Washington, D.C. in 1969, numerous metropolitan areas have developed priority facilities for high-occupancy vehicles. A variety of treatments have been designed and implemented as one approach to dealing with increasing urban congestion problems. These facilities are referred to by a variety of names, including busways, transitways, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, diamond lanes, commuter lanes, and authorized vehicle lanes. These names often refer to different types of facilities, both in terms of design and operating characteristics. However, the terms are often used interchangeably. In some metropolitan areas, one term is used for all types of facilities, while in others different terms are used for different types of facilities. In 1985, a technical committee of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) conducted a survey of operating HOV lanes located either on freeways or in separate rights- 1 of-way in North America. The survey results, which were published in 19881, provided detailed documentation of the design and operating characteristics of HOV lanes. A total of 20 facilities were surveyed in 12 metropolitan areas. Since 1985, a number of new HOV facilities have opened. As a result, in order to update and expand on the 1985 work, a survey was conducted of operating HOV projects in 1989. The results of the 1989 surveys are presented in this report. Like the 1985 ITE survey, the 1989 survey focused on HOV facilities operating either within freeways or on separate rights-of-way. In 1989, a total of 40 HOV facilities were surveyed in 20 metropolitan areas. Figure 1 shows the metropolitan areas in North America with operating HOV facilities. The increase in the number of miles of HOV lanes either on freeways or within separate rights-of-way is shown in Figure 2. The number of miles of operating HOV lanes has increased from some 180 miles in 1985 to approximately 300 miles in 1989. By April 1990, 332 miles of HOV lanes were in operation. Report Organization A description of the different types of HOV facilities and their advantages is presented in the next section. This is followed in Chapter 3 by a discussion of the survey process, including a brief description of the HOV facilities included in the survey. Chapter 4 presents the summary of the survey results, including tables containing a variety of information on each project. Chapter 5 provides an outline of proposed HOV projects and extensions to existing facilities. Chapter 6 concludes the report by identifying issues which appear to warrant further research and other areas of concern. 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers, "The Effectiveness of High-Occupancy Vehicle Facilities," 1988. 2 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. II. HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHICLE FACILITIES The HOV Facility Concept The priority measures for high-occupancy vehicles implemented throughout North America, while often differing in design and operation, all have similar purposes. In general, HOV facilities are intended to help maximize the person-carrying capacity of the roadway. This is done by altering the design and/or the operation of the facility in order to provide priority treatment for high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs). HOVs are defined as buses, vanpools, and carpools. A primary concept behind these priority facilities is to provide HOVs with both travel time savings and more predictable travel times. These two benefits serve as incentives for individuals to choose a higher occupancy mode. This, in turn, can increase the person-movement capacity of the roadway by carrying more people in fewer vehicles. In some areas, additional incentives, such as reduced parking charges or preferential parking for carpools and vanpools, have been used to further encourage individuals to change their commuting habits. The intent is not to force individuals into making changes against their will. Rather, the intent is to provide a cost-effective travel alternative that a significant volume of commuters will find attractive. High-occupancy vehicle facilities have most commonly been used in roadway corridors that are either at, or near, capacity, and where the physical and/or financial feasibility of expanding the roadway is limited. The continued interest in HOV facilities, and the increasing number of operating facilities, can be traced to a number of factors. First, many metropolitan areas continue to experience significant increases in traffic congestion. In most of these areas, the projected travel demands are beyond what can reasonably be served at current vehicle occupancy rates. Attempting to address these mobility problems in a time of limited financial resources and right-of-way availability has led many areas to consider pursuing a wide spectrum of potential solutions. Some of these approaches focus on increasing the person-movement capacity of roadway facilities through 5 the use of priority treatments for HOVs. Thus, HOV facilities are becoming more accepted as both a viable transit and a viable highway alternative. When properly planned and implemented, HOV facilities can offer a number of advantages. However, HOV facilities are not appropriate in all situations, nor does their implementation eliminate the need to also pursue other complementary strategies. The potential use of HOV facilities should be examined thoroughly before any such improvements are made. Some of the advantages of high-occupancy vehicle projects that should be considered in the planning process include the following. Costs. While actual implementation costs depend on the type of facility and the site, when compared to other fixed-guideway transit alternatives or the addition of multiple general purpose lanes, HOV priority treatments often represent the low end of the cost scale. This is especially true when the HOV treatment is developed within existing freeway rights-of-way. Implementation Time. HOV facilities can be planned and implemented within reasonably short time periods. While the exact timing depends on the type of facility and site, major HOV lanes have been planned, designed, and constructed within a 3- to 8-year time period. Staged Implementation. HOV facilities allow for the staging of construction, and can be opened for use as the individual segments of the overall project are completed. Lower Risk. Compared to other fixed transit improvements, HOV facilities often represent a lower risk option. Should the HOV lane not be sufficiently utilized, it may be converted to other uses, such as mixed-flow operation or emergency shoulders. Multi-Agency Funding. HOV facilities are often eligible for funding from a variety of sources. Federal highway and transit funds can be used for HOV projects, and state and local transportation funds have often been used. 6 Multiple User Groups. Most HOV facilities are used by not only transit vehicles but also by carpools and vanpools. Thus, multiple user groups have access to the facility, providing a wider base of support. Also, carpools are served at low marginal costs and can offer an effective means of serving suburban travel patterns that are sometimes difficult to serve with conventional transit. Operating Speeds. Bus services operating on HOV lanes are usually express or limited-express. As a result, the line-haul travel speeds are usually fairly high, with many operating at or above 50 mph. Flexibility. Buses, carpools, and vanpools can use the existing street system for the collection and distribution portion of the trip. This can provide a good deal of flexibility in service orientation, especially in matching service needs to changing demands. Parkand-ride lots and other support facilities need not always be located directly adjacent to the HOV lane, allowing for the ability to utilize less expensive land remote from the facility. Time Adjustable Operation. Some priority facilities operate only in the peak periods and are used for other purposes at other times. In addition, the occupancy requirements on the facility may be different during different times of the day. This provides for the ability to increase the person carrying capacity of the facility in the future without needing to expand the vehicular capacity. Even with these numerous potential advantages, it should be recognized that HOV facilities are not appropriate in all situations, and they represent only one of a number of potential transit and highway improvements. High-occupancy vehicle facilities, like other transit and highway alternatives, should be examined thoroughly during the planning stage to ensure that the planned improvements represent an effective and efficient alternative. 7 Types of HOV Facilities This report focuses on HOV facilities operated in either freeways or in separate rights-of-way. It does not include HOV lanes on arterial streets or the use of HOV bypass lanes at metered freeway entrance ramps. HOV facilities on freeways or in separate rights-of-way can be generally classified into 4 categories. These are described below and illustrated in Figure 3. Exclusive HOV Facility, Separate Right-of-Way. A roadway or lane(s) developed in a separate right-of-way and designated for the exclusive use by high-occupancy vehicles. Most facilities of this type are designed and utilized by buses only. Most are two-lane, two-direction facilities. Examples of this type of HOV treatment are the South and East Busways in Pittsburgh and the Ottawa transitway system in Canada. Exclusive HOV Facility, Freeway Right-of-Way. A lane(s) constructed within the freeway right-of-way that is physically separated from the general purpose freeway lanes and used exclusively by HOVs for all, or a portion of, the day. Most exclusive HOV facilities are physically separated from the general purpose freeway lanes through the use of a concrete barrier. However, a few exclusive facilities are separated from the general purpose lanes by a wide painted buffer. An example of this type of treatment is the I-84 HOV lanes in Hartford that utilize a 15-foot painted buffer to separate the HOV and mixed traffic lanes. Facilities of this type are usually open to all types of HOVs -- buses, vanpools, and carpools. Examples of this type of HOV treatment include the Houston transitways and the Shirley Highway HOV lanes in the northern Virginia/Washington, D.C. area. Concurrent Flow Lane. A freeway lane in the peak direction of travel, not physically separated from the general-purpose traffic lanes, designated for the exclusive use by HOVs for all or a portion of the day. Concurrent flow lanes are usually, although not always, located on the inside lane or shoulder. Paint striping is a common means used to delineate these lanes. HOV facilities of this type are usually open to buses, vanpools, and carpools. 8 Examples of concurrent flow lanes are SR 520,I-5 and I-405 in Seattle, Route 55 in Orange County, and Route 101 in San Jose, California. Contraflow Lane. A freeway lane in the off-peak direction of travel, commonly the inside lane, designated for exclusive use by HOVs traveling in the peak direction. The lane is typically separated from the off-peak direction general-purpose travel lanes by some type of changeable treatment, such as plastic posts or pylons that can be inserted into holes drilled in the pavement. Contraflow lanes are usually operated during the peak-periods only; many operate only during the a.m. peak- period and then revert back to normal use in non-peak periods. Examples of this type of facility include the approach to the Lincoln Tunnel on Route 495, the Long Island Expressway, and the Gowanus Expressway; all of these are located in the New York/New Jersey area. 9 Click HERE for graphic. 10 III. SURVEY PROCESS AND HOV PROJECTS The 1985 survey instrument utilized by the Institute of Transportation Engineers technical committee served as the basis for the 1989 survey. However, the number of questions was expanded to cover a wider variety of topics. In an attempt to match the types of questions and the information desired with the appropriate agencies, three separate questionnaires were used. One survey focused on HOV lane design and operating characteristics. This survey was usually completed by personnel from the state department of transportation or state highway department. The second survey -- which included specific questions relating to bus service, ridesharing programs and marketing efforts, in addition to general HOV lane operating characteristics -- was usually completed by representatives from the local transit agency. The third survey focused on enforcement and safety issues and was usually completed by the state patrol or other enforcement agency. Surveys were sent to the appropriate agencies, and follow-up calls for clarification of data and missing information were made as needed to provide as complete a listing of data as possible. Information on the following HOV projects was obtained through the surveys. For each project, a brief description of the characteristics of the facility is provided along with a listing of the agencies responding to the surveys. More detailed information on each project is provided in summary tables in the next chapter. Exclusive HOV Facilities, Separate Right-of-Way Ottawa, Canada. Currently, approximately 15 miles of a 2-lane, 2-direction transitway system is in operation in Ottawa (Figure 4). This is part of a 19-mile, 26-station, Phase 1 system. A second phase, including an additional 19 miles, is planned for the future. The transitway system, which is restricted to bus use only, represents the fixed-guideway component of the transit system in Ottawa. The operating concept for the transitway system includes buses that operate exclusively on the transitway, and buses that provide local service and then access the transitway for a major portion of the trip. The 15-mile system 11 includes approximately 1.5 miles of reserved bus lanes in the downtown area and 2.4 miles where buses operate in mixed-traffic lanes on the Ottawa River Parkway. Responding Agency: Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Two, 2-lane, bus-only facilities are in operation in Pittsburgh (Figure 5). The East Busway is approximately 7 miles long, and the South Busway is 4 miles in length. Service on the South Busway, which shares right-of-way with light rail transit vehicles for a portion of its length, is oriented primarily to buses operating in express fashion, after collection in the local neighborhoods. Service is focused mainly on downtown Pittsburgh. Service on the East Busway functions similar to traditional rapid transit lines, with buses operating exclusively on the facility, although there are also local and express routes which access the facility. Responding Agency. Port Authority of Allegheny County. Exclusive HOV Facilities, Freeway Right-of-Way Hartford, Connecticut. A 10-mile, 2-way HOV lane opened on I-84 in Hartford in the fall of 1989 (Figure 6). The facility, which includes one lane operating in each direction, is separated from the mixed-traffic lanes by a painted 15-foot buffer. A 3 + vehicle occupancy requirement exists on the facility. The facility is reserved for HOV use on a 24-hour basis. Responding Agency: Connecticut Department of Transportation. Houston, Texas. Four transitways are in operation on freeways in Houston: I-45 North (North Transitway); I-45 South (Gulf Transitway); I-10 (Katy Transitway); and U.S. 290 (Northwest Transitway) (Figure 7). These facilities are primarily one-lane, reversible facilities located in the median of the freeway. A short 2-lane, two-directional segment is in operation on the southern portion of the Northwest Transitway. The lanes are separated 12 from the general traffic lanes by concrete median barriers. As of April 1990, 46.5 miles out of a total 96 miles of planned transitway are in operation. Transitways are also under construction and in design on the Southwest and Eastex Freeways, respectively. The North Transitway is currently restricted to buses and vanpools only, although it is scheduled to be opened to 2 + carpools in June 1990. The other transitways are open to buses, vanpools, and carpools. A 2 + carpool occupancy requirement is used on these facilities, except on the Katy Transitway, which has a 3 + carpool requirement from 6:45 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. Responding Agencies: Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, and the Texas Transportation Institute. Los Angeles, California. The San Bernardino Freeway (I-10) Busway operates from downtown Los Angeles to El Monte (Figure 8). A one-mile extension into the downtown area was completed in 1989. The two-way facility includes both a 5-mile barrier- separated segment and a 7-mile segment with a 13-foot paint striped buffer. Buses, vanpools, and carpools with 3 or more occupants are allowed to use the facility. Responding Agencies: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the California Highway Patrol. Minneapolis, Minnesota. Currently, an interim HOV lane is in operation in the Highway 12/I-394 corridor (Figure 9). The interim facility includes 3 miles of a reversible, barrier- separated HOV lane located in the median of the highway. Additional concurrent flow diamond lanes are also in operation in different segments of the corridor to help manage traffic during construction. The final design of I-394, which is scheduled to open in 1993, includes 3 miles of two-lane, reversible, barrier-separated HOV lanes and eight miles of diamond lanes. The 3-mile, reversible, interim HOV lane is the facility included in this report. The facility is open to buses, vanpools, and carpools with two or more occupants. 13 Responding Agencies: Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN/DOT) and Minnesota State Patrol. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A 4-mile, two-lane, reversible, barrier-separated HOV facility was opened on the I-279 Freeway in August of 1989 (Figure 5). The facility includes two short, one-lane segments on the southern end, providing access to Three Rivers Stadium via I-579 and the downtown area via I-279. The facility is open to buses, vanpools, and carpools with 3 or more persons during the morning and afternoon. From 8:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. the lanes are open to general traffic. Responding Agency: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. San Diego, California. An eight-mile, two-lane, reversible HOV facility has been open on the I-15 Freeway since October 1988 (Figure 10). The HOV lanes are located in the median of the freeway and are separated from the mixed-traffic lanes by concrete barriers. The facility is open to buses, vanpools and carpools with 2 or more persons during the morning and afternoon peak periods. Responding Agencies: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and California Highway Patrol (CHP). Washington, D.C/Northern Virginia Two exclusive HOV facilities are in operation in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area (Figure 11). These are located on the Shirley Highway (I-395) and on I-66. The HOV lanes on the Shirley Highway are located in the median of the freeway and are separated from the general-traffic lanes by concrete barriers. The facility includes two reversible lanes that operate inbound in the morning and outbound in the afternoon. HOV usage is restricted to the peak periods. General traffic is allowed to use the lanes outside of the peak period. In addition, concurrent flow diamond lanes, utilizing the inside traffic lane, are located on I-95 leading up to the Shirley Highway. I-66 is a four-lane freeway. During the peak periods, the two lanes in the peak direction are 14 reserved for HOVs only. A 3 + occupancy requirement is currently used on all three facilities. Responding Agencies: Virginia Department of Transportation and Virginia State Police. Concurrent Flow Lanes Denver, Colorado. A four-mile, bus-only concurrent flow lane is in operation in the peak direction during the a.m. peak period on a portion of U.S. 36 (Boulder Turnpike) in the Denver area (Figure 12). The lane is separated from the general- purpose lanes by a solid white paint stripe. Responding Agency: Denver Regional Transit District (RTD). Fort Lee, New Jersey/New York City. A 1-mile HOV lane is operated in the morning peak period on the approach to the George Washington Bridge in Fort Lee, New Jersey, in the New York metropolitan area (Figure 13). The lane allows high- occupancy vehicles to by-pass the traffic queue and access the toll facility. The width of the lane varies from 12 feet to 20 feet and the exact configuration varies over the one-mile segment. The lane is separated from the general-purpose lanes by paint striping. The lane is open to buses, vanpools, and carpools with 3 or more occupants. Responding Agencies: New Jersey Department of Transportation and Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Honolulu, Hawaii. Two HOV facilities are in operation in Honolulu (Figure 14). The inside lane on a 2.5 mile segment of the Moanalua Freeway is reserved for HOVs in the eastbound direction during the morning peak period. During other times of the day, the lane reverts to use by mixed-flow traffic. Seven miles of concurrent flow HOV lanes are in operation on H-1. The lanes are reserved for HOVs during the morning and 15 afternoon peak periods, and are used by general traffic at other times. A 2+ carpool occupancy requirement is used on both facilities. Responding Agencies: Honolulu Police Department and Federal Highway Administration. Los Angeles, and Orange County, California. Concurrent flow HOV lanes have been in operation on Route 55 and Route 91 for a number of years, and on I-405 since 1988 (Figure 8). Called Commuter Lanes, these facilities are located on the inside lane and/or shoulder. The facilities are open to buses, vanpools, and carpools with 2+ occupants, and are separated from the general traffic lanes by a 4-foot or less painted buffer. Responding Agencies: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and California Highway Patrol (CHP). Miami, Florida. The inside freeway lanes on a 14-mile segment of I-95 in Miami operate as concurrent flow HOV lanes during the morning and evening peak periods (Figure 15). The lanes are separated from the general purpose lanes by white paint striping. A 2+ carpool occupancy requirement is used. At other times the lanes are used as mixed-traffic lanes. Responding Agencies: Florida Department of Transportation and Metro-Dade Transit Agency. Orlando, Florida. The inside lane in each direction on a 30-mile segment of I-4 in the Orlando area is reserved for HOVs during the morning and evening peak periods (Figure 16). At other times, the lanes are used as mixed-traffic lanes. The lanes are marked with the diamond symbol, and are separated from the mixed-traffic lanes by paint striping. A 2 + carpool occupancy requirement is used. Responding Agency: East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. 16 Phoenix, Arizona. Concurrent flow HOV lanes are in operation on a 7-mile segment of I-10 in Phoenix, Arizona (Figure 17). The lanes are separated from the general-purpose lanes by a 4-foot painted median. The lanes are operated 24 hours a day and are open to buses, vanpools, and carpools with 2 or more persons and motorcycles. An additional 10 miles of HOV lanes opened on I-10 in January, 1990, and further extensions are under construction. Responding Agency: Arizona Department of Transportation. San Francisco, California. Three concurrent flow HOV facilities are in operation in the San Francisco area (Figure 18). These facilities are the Oakland Bay Bridge approach, US 101 in Marin County, and I-280. Four westbound lanes on the approach to the toll plaza on the Oakland Bay Bridge are reserved for HOVs during the morning and afternoon peak periods. The facility is open to buses, vanpools, and carpools with 3 or more occupants. On US 101, the inside freeway lane on two segments, totaling 7 miles, is designated as a concurrent flow HOV lane in the morning and afternoon peak periods. The lane is separated from the mixed-traffic lanes by paint striping. The facility is open to buses, vanpools, and carpools. A 3 + occupancy requirement was used on the facility until September 1989, when an 18 monthly demonstration was initiated lowering the occupancy requirement to 2+. One and six-tenths miles of concurrent flow lanes are operated on I-280. The lanes are separated from the mixed-traffic lanes by an 8-foot painted buffer and are operated as HOV lanes on a 24-hour basis. The I-280 facility has been closed since the earthquake in the fall of 1989. It is anticipated that it will reopen in September of 1990. Responding Agencies: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the California Highway Patrol (CHP). San Jose, California. HOV lanes are in operation on 3 expressways and 1 freeway in the San Jose area (Figure 19). The outside shoulders are used on a 4-mile section of Route 237, a signalized expressway, to provide a peak-direction only HOV lane. The 17 outside lane on a 5-mile segment of the Montague Expressway, a signalized expressway, is operated as an HOV lane during peak periods. On both of these facilities, in the morning the inbound lane is reserved for HOVs, and in the afternoon the outbound lane is used. At other times the lane is open to general traffic. The lanes are separated from the mixed traffic lanes by a four-inch paint stripe. On Route 101, approximately 11 miles of the inside freeway lane in each direction are reserved for HOVs during the peak periods. These lanes, which are separated by normal paint striping, revert back to general purpose lanes during the off-peak periods. The San Tomas Expressway, a signalized expressway, includes 11 miles of concurrent flow HOV lanes utilizing the outside lane and shoulder. The lanes are operated in the peak direction only during the peak periods. Normal paint striping is used to delineate the lanes. During non-peak periods, the lanes revert to general-purpose lanes and shoulders. The occupancy requirement on all these facilities is 2+. Responding Agencies: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Highway Patrol (CHP) and Santa Clara County Transportation Agency. Seattle, Washington. Four concurrent flow HOV lanes are in operation in the Seattle area on I-5, I-90, I-405 and SR 520 (Figure 20). o I-5. To the north of the downtown area, a 2.8-mile HOV lane operates in the express lanes in the southbound direction. This facility is in operation only when the express lanes are open in the southbound direction. A 2+ occupancy requirement is used in this facility. Farther to the north, HOV lanes are located in both the express lanes and the mainlanes on a 6-mile segment of I-5. On the mainlanes, the inside lane in each direction operates as an HOV lane with a 3 + occupancy requirement on a 24-hour basis. o I-90. A five-mile, concurrent flow, interim HOV lane operates westbound on I-90. A 3 + occupancy requirement is used on this facility, which is open on a 24-hour basis. The final design for I-90, which is scheduled to open in 1991, includes 18 approximately 10 miles of a 2-lane, reversible HOV facility located in the freeway median. o SR-520. A 3-mile HOV lane operates only in the westbound direction on SR-520 on a 24-hour basis. The facility is separated by paint striping. A vehicle occupancy requirement of 3 + is used on SR-520 o I-405. Six miles of HOV lanes are operated on a 24-hour basis on I-405. These are located on the outside lanes and operate in both directions. The occupancy requirement on I-405 is 2 or more persons. Responding Agencies: Washington State Department of Transportation and Seattle Metro. Vancouver, Canada. Bus only, concurrent flow lanes are in operation on H-99 in Vancouver, Canada (Figure 21). A 4-mile, bus-only lane is provided on H-99 in the southbound direction before the Massey Tunnel, and a 1-mile bus-only lane is provided in the northbound direction before the tunnel. Both lanes are located on the outside shoulder and are separated from the general-purpose lanes by paint striping. The lanes operate on a 24-hour basis, allowing buses to by-pass the queue that often forms in the general purpose lanes on the approach to the tunnel. Responding Agencies. British-Columbia Transit and British Columbia Provincial Ministry of Highways. Washington, D.C./Northern Virginia. Concurrent flow HOV lanes are located on a 7-mile segment of I-95 leading to the Shirley Highway (Figure 11). The HOV lanes utilize the inside general-purpose lane during the peak period and are separated from the mixed traffic lanes by paint striping. The lanes revert to general-purpose lanes outside the restricted periods. When the HOV lane is in operation the outside shoulder lane is used as a general purpose lane, providing 3 mixed-traffic lanes and the HOV lane for use during 19 the peak period in the peak direction. Outside of this period the outside shoulder reverts back to use as an emergency shoulder. A 3+ occupancy requirement is used. Responding Agencies.- Virginia Department of Transportation and Virginia State Patrol. Contraflow Lanes New York City. Three contraflow lanes are in operation in the New Jersey/New York City area (Figure 13). During the morning peak period, a 2.5-mile contraflow lane operates on New Jersey Route 495 (formerly I-495) on the approach to the Lincoln Tunnel. The bus-only lane is separated from the mixed-traffic lanes by drop-in cones. A 2.2-mile contraflow lane operates westbound on the Long Island Expressway, from the Brooklyn- Queens Expressway into the Queens-Midtown Tunnel. The lane operates only in the morning peak period and is open to buses, vanpools and taxis. The lane is separated from the general- purpose lanes by drop-in cones. A 0.9-mile contraflow lane operates on the Gowanus Expressway, northbound from the Prospect Expressway into the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel. The facility is also operated only in the morning peak period and is open to buses, vanpools and taxis. The lane is separated from the general-purpose lanes by drop-in cones. Responding Agencies: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New Jersey Transit, New York City Department of Transportation, and New Jersey Turnpike Authority. 20 Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. Click HERE for graphic. IV. HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHICLE PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS This section presents a summary of the design and operating characteristics of the HOV facilities covered in the survey. Information is presented in 3 general categories: 1) project descriptions and operating characteristics; 2) utilization levels and public reactions; and 3) enforcement data and violation rates. A series of tables provide information on each project. HOV facilities are listed in the tables by type of project and by city. Project Descriptions and Operating Characteristics Design The four general types of HOV facilities operated on freeways and in separate rights-of-way were described previously. As shown in Table 1, the majority of HOV projects are either exclusive facilities or concurrent flow lanes located within freeway rights-of-way. Exclusive facilities on separate rights-of-way are in operation in only two cities. These are the two busways in Pittsburgh and the transitway system in Ottawa. Similarly, only three contraflow lanes are in operation; all of these are in the New Jersey/New York City area. Although the exclusive and concurrent flow lanes represent the largest number of HOV facilities, differences exist between projects, especially the concurrent flow lane projects. Most of the exclusive facilities are reversible lanes, operating inbound toward the central business district (CBD) in the morning and outbound in the evening. Only the San Bernardino Freeway Busway in Los Angeles and I-84 in Hartford are two-direction facilities. Most exclusive HOV facilities are separated from the general-traffic lanes by concrete barriers. Some type of daily set up is usually required with the reversible facilities. This involves opening and closing the lanes, as well as reversing the direction of operation. These tasks usually require at least some manual operation, except on I-5 in San Diego, where the gates are opened and closed electronically. With the exception of two early projects, the Shirley Highway in 1969 and the San Bernardino Freeway in 1973, all of the exclusive HOV facilities were implemented during the 1980's. 39 The concurrent flow HOV facilities include a variety of designs and treatments. Concurrent flow lanes are operated on both the inside and outside lanes and/or shoulders. Some of these operate only during the peak periods, and some only in the peak direction. Concurrent flow lanes are separated from the mixed-traffic lanes by paint striping or, in a few cases, by special striping or an extra buffer zone. No daily set-up is needed with these types of facilities. A few concurrent flow lanes were implemented in the 1970's, with most opening during the 1980's. Representative Cross Sections A wide range of design treatments have been used in the development of HOV facilities. Figures 22 through 30 identify some of the general design standards and cross sections that have been used with different types of HOV facilities. Given the fact that many HOV lanes have been added to existing freeways where available right-of-way is often limited, reduction or modifications in the widths of existing lanes or shoulders sometimes occurs. Figure 22 shows the typical cross section used for the two- direction, bus-only facilities in Ottawa and Pittsburgh. The lanes are separated by normal paint striping. A variety of on- line and off-line station treatments are used in the two cities. Figure 23 illustrates a common design for two-lane reversible HOV lanes. The typical cross section includes two, 12-foot traffic lanes, shoulders on both sides, and concrete barriers separating the lanes from the general-traffic lanes. The width of the shoulders varies between projects, and some, like I-279 in Pittsburgh, use one wide shoulder and one narrow shoulder. A typical design for one-lane reversible HOV facilities, such as those used with the Houston transitways, is shown in Figure 24. The cross section typically includes one 12-foot lane and 4-foot shoulders on each side of the lane. The facility is separated from the 40 Figure 25 identifies a design commonly used with two-lane, two-direction HOV lanes, such as I-84 in Hartford and the San Bernardino Freeway Busway in Los Angeles. The HOV lanes are separated from the mixed-flow lanes by 10- to 16-foot painted buffers. Figure 26 shows the design used on the two-lane, two- direction section of the Northwest transitway (US 290) in Houston. This elevated 2-mile section includes 3 feet of lateral clearance on both sides, and two 12-foot HOV lanes separated by an 8-foot buffer. Figures 27 and 28 show typical cross sections for two different types of concurrent flow HOV lanes; these are HOV facilities separated from the mixed-traffic lanes by a buffer and HOV facilities with no separation. In both cases, an inside shoulder is usually provided, although in some instances it may be narrow. The HOV lane is either separated from the general- purpose traffic lane by a narrow buffer, usually 1- to 4-feet in width, or by normal paint striping. A common design used with concurrent HOV lanes located on the outside freeway lane is shown in Figure 29. This is the design used with some of the HOV facilities in Santa Clara County and Seattle. A paint stripe is the normal method of separation from the mixed-traffic lanes, and, since many use the outside shoulder, there may be either no shoulder or a very narrow one. The last cross section, shown in Figure 30, is used with the contraflow facilities in the New Jersey/New York City area. In these cases, one of the off-peak direction lanes, separated from the off-peak direction traffic by drop-in traffic cones, is used as an HOV lane for vehicles traveling in the peak direction. Hours of Operation The operating hours of HOV facilities can be characterized by three different scenarios: 1) 24-hour operation; 2) morning and afternoon/evening operation; and 3) peak-period only operation. No one specific operating scenario necessarily equates to a certain type of facility. However, the exclusive facilities on separate rights-of-way in 41 Click HERE for graphic. 42 Click HERE for graphic. 43 Click HERE for graphic. 44 Click HERE for graphic. 45 Click HERE for graphic. Pittsburgh and Ottawa operate on a 24-hour basis, and all three contraflow lanes operate only in the inbound direction in the morning peak period. Operating hours for the exclusive and concurrent flow lanes vary. In two urban areas, Seattle and Los Angeles/Orange County, the HOV lanes are operated on a 24-hour basis. In other areas, the HOV lanes open in the morning and operate inbound until midday. After a period for reversing the operation, during which the lanes are usually closed for an hour, the facility is open in the outbound direction until the evening. Operation during only the peak periods is characteristic of most of the concurrent flow lanes, except those in Seattle and Los Angeles/Orange County. The exact time these facilities operate with the HOV restriction varies. Most operate from approximately 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. in the morning and 3 p.m. to 6 or 7 p.m. in the evening. 46 Vehicles Allowed to Use HOV Facilities and Occupancy Requirements As shown in Table 2, the types of vehicles allowed to use the different HOV facilities are fairly similar. The Ottawa Transitway system, the two Pittsburgh Busways, the U.S. 36 bus lane in Denver, the HOV lanes on H-99 in Vancouver, British Columbia, and the contraflow lane on Route 495 on the approach to the Lincoln Tunnel in New Jersey/New York City are open only to buses. The remainder of the facilities, except the North Transitway in Houston, allow use by buses, vanpools and carpools. Most facilities also allow use by taxis meeting the occupancy requirements, and allow police and emergency vehicles to use the lanes without meeting the occupancy requirements. Motorcycle use of HOV lanes is less common. Only 3 of the exclusive facilities allow motorcycles, while ten of the concurrent flow lanes allow use by motorcycles. The carpool vehicle occupancy requirements for existing HOV facilities vary between 2 + and 3 + persons per vehicle. No facilities currently use a 4 + requirement, although for many years the Shirley Highway HOV lanes operated with a 4+ carpool occupancy requirement. Sixteen HOV lanes utilize a 3+ occupancy requirement, while sixteen also utilize a 2+ requirement. Some areas with multiple HOV facilities, such as San Jose, utilize the same occupancy requirements on all HOV lanes. Other areas, such as Seattle and Los Angeles, have different requirements on different HOV facilities. The Katy Transitway in Houston is the only HOV facility that changes occupancy requirements over the course of the day. A 2+ occupancy requirement is utilized during all operating periods except between 6:45 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. , when a 3 + requirement is in effect. This change was implemented in October 1999 in response to declining travel speeds on the transitway resulting from increased use of the facility. At the time, vehicle volumes on the transitway were exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour (vph) during the a.m. peak-hour. This caused considerable delay, diminishing the travel time savings users of the facility were accustomed to. The change represented the first time vehicle occupancy requirements had been increased on an HOV facility and the first use of variable occupancy requirements. The change was implemented with very little public controversy and has worked acceptably in the field. 47 Analysis conducted by TTI indicates that initially peak-hour vehicle volumes dropped by approximately 64%, immediately eliminating the travel time delays. While the initial vehicle volumes declined, the use of 3+ carpools and bus ridership increased. Thus, it is apparent that some individuals changed to a higher occupancy mode of travel to continue to use the transitway. The vehicle volumes have been steadily increasing, and are currently averaging between 1,000 to 1,200 vehicles in the morning peak-hour. Thus, the increase in occupancy requirements utilized on the Katy Transitway appears to be one viable approach to managing demand in an HOV facility. Bus Operating Characteristics The orientation of bus service and the number of buses utilizing the different HOV facilities varies. The number of peak-hour and peak-period buses utilizing each HOV facility is provided in Table 7. Obviously, the exclusive bus-only facilities in Pittsburgh and Ottawa are oriented specifically toward bus operations and provide high levels of bus service. In both areas, service is provided by buses operating exclusively on the facility, similar to traditional rapid transit lines, and buses that access the facility after collection in the local neighborhoods. in this regard, the exclusive HOV facilities on separate rights-of-way allow for great flexibility in the orientation and level of bus service provided. Bus service on most of the exclusive HOV facilities within freeway rights-of-way is oriented primarily to express service. In most cases, the express service originates at park-and-ride lots, although some may provide limited local collection in neighborhood areas. In some cases, direct access is provided from the park-and-ride lot to the HOV facility. In other cases, buses access the HOV lane from the local streets and freeway. The actual level of service differs greatly between facilities. The highest levels of bus service are found on the Shirley Highway HOV lanes in Washington, D.C./northern Virginia, the San Bernardino Freeway Busway in Los Angeles, and the North Transitway in Houston. Bus service on the concurrent flow HOV facilities is also oriented primarily to express service, although local service is provided in some areas. In most instances, buses access the 48 facility from park-and-ride lots or limited local collection. In a few cases, such as some of the Seattle facilities, bus stops may be provided along the HOV lane. Some of the concurrent flow HOV lanes, such as those on US 36-Boulder Turnpike in Denver and H-99 in Vancouver, British Columbia, are open to buses only, allowing buses to by-pass traffic queues that form due to congestion. Other concurrent flow HOV lanes, such as those in Los Angeles, Orange County, San Jose, Orlando, Miami, and Phoenix are oriented primarily to carpools, with little bus service provided. The three contraflow HOV facilities located in the New York City area are oriented primarily to buses. Only buses are allowed on the Route 495 facility, while buses and vanpools are allowed on the Long Island and Gowanus Expressway facilities. In all three cases, the HOV lanes allow buses to by-pass the traffic queues formed at major congestion points. Use During Non-Restricted Periods As noted previously, HOV facilities are usually characterized by one of 3 operating scenarios: 1) 24-hour operation; 2) morning and afternoon/evening operation; and 3) peak-period only operation. Obviously, HOV facilities in the first category are open for use by eligible vehicles on a 24- hour basis. HOV lanes in the last two categories are utilized for different functions during the non-restricted periods. Some are closed, while others revert to general purpose lanes or shoulders. Of the 11 exclusive facilities, two, I-84 in Hartford, Connecticut and the San Bernardino Freeway Busway in Los Angeles, operate as HOV lanes on a 24-hour basis. Three of the four Houston transitways are open as HOV lanes over an extended portion of the day (4 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and closed at other times. The I-394 and I-15 HOV lanes are open during the peak periods and closed during the remainder of the day. I-279 in Pittsburgh and I-395, I-95 and I-66 in the Washington, D.C./northern Virginia area are open to general traffic during the nonrestricted periods. 49 Of the 23 concurrent flow lanes, 10 are used as HOV facilities on a 24-hour basis. These include the Seattle and Los Angeles/Orange County facilities, I-280 in San Francisco, H-99 in Vancouver, British Columbia, and I-10 in Phoenix. The concurrent flow HOV lanes in other areas revert to either general-purpose lanes or shoulders during the non-restricted periods. The 3 contraflow HOV lanes also revert back to general-purpose lanes during non-restricted times. Agency Responsibilities Table 3 identifies the agencies responsible for the different activities associated with planning, implementing, and operating HOV lanes. In almost all cases, the state department of transportation has been the lead agency in planning, designing, and constructing the facilities. Exceptions to this include the bus-only facilities in Ottawa and Pittsburgh, the HOV lanes on county facilities in Santa Clara County, and the Long Island Expressway and Gowanus Expressway in New York City. The agencies with the lead responsibilities for these projects are the Ottawa-Carlton Regional Transit Authority and the Municipality of Ottawa-Carlton, the Port Authority of Allegany County, Santa Clara County, and the New York City Department of Transportation. Operation and maintenance are usually the responsibility of either the transit agency or the state department of transportation. The state police or state patrol are most often responsible for enforcement activities, although enforcement on the Houston transitways, the Pittsburgh busways, and the Ottawa transitway system is the responsibility of the transit agency. Primary Reason for Project Implementation As identified in Table 4, increasing the capacity of the roadway was the primary reason cited for implementing most HOV facilities. Reducing vehicle-miles of travel (VMT), energy and air quality concerns, and increasing the efficiency of bus operations were also noted as important considerations. In a few cases, funding or legislative requirements were mentioned as significant reasons. 50 Capital Costs and Funding Sources Table 5 provides a listing of the estimated capital costs and the funding sources for the HOV facilities. In many cases, it is difficult to identify the costs associated with only the HOV lane, as construction of the HOV lane(s) is often part of a major freeway project. The following capital costs serve as general "rules-of-thumb" for the different types of HOV lanes. Exclusive HOV facility in separate right-of-way; greater than $8 million per mile. Exclusive HOV facility in freeway right-of-way; greater than $4 million per mile. Concurrent flow freeway HOV lane; between $30,000 and $2 million per mile. Contraflow freeway HOV lane; between $30,000 and $500,000 per mile. A few examples of the capital costs associated with operating HOV facilities indicate that these estimates provide realistic ranges. Examples of the average capital costs per mile of the different types of HOV facilities include the following: Ottawa Transitway System, $17 million per mile; Pittsburgh South Busway, $7 million per mile; Pittsburgh East Busway, $16 million per mile; initial Katy Transitway in Houston, $3 million per mile; initial Route 9.1 concurrent flow lane in Orange County, $340,000 per mile; SR 520 concurrent flow lane in Seattle, $670,000 per mile; and the Gowanus Expressway contraflow lane in New York City, $400,000 per mile. Most HOV facilities have been constructed using a mixture of funding sources. Federal funding, through either the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA), usually comprises the largest share. Local funding, from either a state highway department, transit authority, or other local agency, is commonly used to match the federal funds. 51 Signing The types of signing used varies between the different HOV facilities. As shown in Table 6, most projects utilize ground- mounted or overhead static signing. The use of overhead lane assignment arrows and overhead variable message signs is more common with reversible facilities than with concurrent flow lanes. Concurrent flow lanes are more likely to use a combination of overhead static signs and diamond pavement markings. Four areas responded that signing has been a problem from either a user or enforcement perspective. Concerns raised included standardizing signing among HOV facilities within the same metropolitan area, the reliability of changeable message signs, and initial confusion by users over signing. HOV Facility Utilization and Public Reaction HOV Facilities and Freeway Utilization Tables 7 through 9 provide information on the peak-direction utilization rates associated with the different HOV projects. Table 7 identifies the morning peak-hour and peak-period volumes for the HOV lane(s) and the mixed-traffic freeway lanes. Tables 8 and 9 provide total vehicle and passenger volumes for the HOV facility, and the volumes per lane for the HOV and freeway facilities. The exact times for the peak hour and peak period were defined by each locality. The length of time associated with the peak period is shown in Table 7. Desirable HOV Lane Volumes Respondents were asked to identify the preferred maximum volume of traffic to provide the desirable speed and level-of- service on the HOV facility. Individuals indicated a range between 200 to 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane as the maximum volume. The lower volumes were generally identified with the interim facilities, concurrent flow lanes utilizing shoulders, and the contraflow lanes. A range of 1,200 to 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane were identified 52 as a desirable maximum volume for exclusive facilities and concurrent flow lanes utilizing regular traffic lanes. Public Reaction to HOV Facilities Representatives from agencies surveyed were asked two questions relating to the general perception among the public toward the HOV facility. First, respondents were asked if the public reaction to the HOV lane had been positive, negative, or neutral. A majority of respondents indicated that the general reaction had been positive. Three areas identified that there had been some negative public reaction, while four indicated it had been neutral. Objections from drivers in the general- traffic lanes who are unable to use the HOV lane were the most commonly reported negative reaction. Even in those areas where the public perception was positive, many respondents indicated that non-users had raised objections about not being able to use the facility. Second, respondents were asked if the current volumes resulted in the facility appearing to be underutilized or if it was so well utilized that the level-of-service on the lane had deteriorated. Most individuals responded that the current volumes were not causing a problem in either of these extremes. Only four facilities were noted as being underutilized. Three facilities, I-95 in the Washington, D.C./northern Virginia area, Route 495 in New York, and I-4 in Orlando, Florida, were identified as being at or near capacity. Marketing and Public Information The survey respondents were asked to identify the types of marketing and public information activities conducted to promote the use of the HOV facility. AR areas reported that some type of marketing or public information program had been used to introduce the HOV lane, and most indicated that some type of ongoing marketing programs were in use. The nature of these programs, and the associated costs, varies greatly. The types of activities used included press releases, opening ceremonies, initial marketing activities, special advertisements and incentives, and ongoing promotional campaigns. Not enough information was provided to 53 identify the most effective marketing strategies or to determine any relationships between utilization rates and marketing expenditures. Enforcement Levels and Violation Rates Enforcement Levels and Responsibilities Table 10 presents the level of enforcement associated with the different HOV projects. The number of personnel and vehicles assigned to each facility during the HOV operating period is identified, as is the responsible agency. The level and nature of enforcement activities varies between projects. Almost all HOV facilities utilize some enforcement. However, this varies from full-time, dedicated personnel to monitoring by patrols that simply cover the geographical area in which the lane is located. Approximately half of the projects utilize enforcement personnel whose primary responsibility is to monitor the lane. In other areas, monitoring the HOV facility is only one of many responsibilities of the patrol, and is usually not the top priority. Respondents from most areas indicated that they felt the current levels of enforcement were adequate. The state patrol or state police is the most common agency responsible for enforcement of HOV facilities. Exceptions to this are the bus-only facilities in Ottawa and Pittsburgh, the transitways in Houston, and the HOV lanes in New York and New Jersey. In these cases, the transit police or other local agency has the lead responsibility for enforcement activities. Table 11 identifies the enforcement methods used with the different HOV projects. Specially designed vehicle pullover areas and diverting violators from the HOV lane are the most commonly used enforcement mechanisms. Both the Seattle area and the Washington, D.C./Northern Virginia area utilize "HERO" programs. These programs encourage individuals to report violators. Follow-up letters are then sent to the violators indicating that the vehicle was observed violating the lane requirements. No fine is levied, but information on the proper use of the facility and on rideshare programs and bus service is usually provided. Only the 54 Washington, D.C./Northern Virginia area reported using a ticket by mail program based on the state police recording the license plates of violators in the lane. This program, which was authorized by the Virginia Legislature in 1989, has been in operation for almost a year. Currently, the Virginia State Patrol is stopping vehicles that violate the HOV lane occupancy requirements to record information on the driver. The citation is then sent through the mail. A number of areas reported that the use of cameras and other innovative approaches to HOV lane enforcement are under consideration. Fines The fines for violation of the HOV occupancy requirements or other misuse of the facilities are also shown in Table 11. The fines for first time violators are usually in the $50-$80 range. However, some are as high as $100 to $250. Fines for repeat offenses often increase significantly. In addition to the fine, some areas also assess points leading toward revocation of the violator's drivers license. Violation Rates The violation rate for an HOV facility refers to the percentage of vehicles using the HOV lane that do not meet the minimum occupancy requirement and therefore are in violation of the usage regulations. Most areas estimate violation rates based on periodic surveys and by ongoing enforcement activities. As identified in Table 11, the estimated peak-hour violation rates range from a low of 1 % to a high of 75 %. The violation rates appear to correspond to the type of facility and enforcement level. Those with the higher violation rates tend to be the concurrent flow facilities with low enforcement levels. The Katy Transitway also experiences higher violation rates during the morning peak period when the 3 + occupancy requirement is in effect. Barrier-separated facilities, and those with full time dedicated enforcement personnel, usually have lower violation rates. 55 Safety Little safety or accident data are available relating to the different HOV facilities. The limited information made available seems to indicate that accident rates for the HOV lanes are generally either lower, or the same, as those reported on the general-traffic lanes. For example, the evaluations done on the four Houston transitways and one freeway without a transitway, indicate that compared to pre-transitway conditions, freeway mainlane accident rates have generally changed very little; the transitway accident rates are lower than the freeway mainlane accident rates. A variety of incident management techniques are used on the different HOV facilities. Tow trucks are used on seven facilities to help deal with accidents or breakdowns. Other areas reported using other methods for monitoring the facilities. These included the use of bus radios, roving transit monitors or police, and, in a few cases, camera surveillance and monitoring equipment. In most cases, the agency responsible for enforcement was also identified as the agency responsible for handling emergencies. 56 Click HERE for graphic. 57 Click HERE for graphic. 58 Click HERE for graphic. 59 Table 1. General Characteristics of operating High-occupancy Vehicle Projects (continued) 5. A portion of the South busway includes a shared right-of-way with a light rail transit Line. 6. The Hartford I-84 NOV lane is Listed as an exclusive HOV facility. It is separated from the mixed traffic Lanes by a 15-17 foot painted buffer. 7. An additional 5 miles of the North Transitway are scheduled to open in mid-1990. The final 5.6 mite segment is scheduled to open in two phases; 2.9 miles in 1994 and 2.7 miles in 1997. 8. An additional 4.4 mite segment of the North Transitway opened in two stages in Late 1989 and April, 1990. This brings the total Length of the facility to 13.5 miles. 9. Between 1979 and 1984 a contraflow lane was operated on I-45N. The current exclusive facility was opened in 1985. 10. An additional 9 miles of the Gulf Transitway are scheduled to open in three phases by 1993. 11. The 1.5 mite eastern extension of the Katy Transitway was opened in January, 1990. This brings the total Length of the facility to 13 miles. 12. The final 4 miles of the Northwest Transitway were opened in February, 1990. This brings the total length of the facility to 13.5 miles. 13. Approximately 2-miles of 2-lane, 2-direction HOV Lanes are in operation on the Northwest Transitway at the connection to the Northwest Transit Center. 14. The San Bernardino Freeway Busway includes 5 miles of barrier separated lanes and 7 miles with a 13 foot painted buffer. 15. The 1-394 HOV Lane is currently an interim facility operating on a signalized arterial street. The final facility includes a combination of reversible barrier separated HOV Lanes and concurrent flow diamond Lanes. 16. The two Lane reversible I-279 HOV facility splits into two short, one Lane segments at the southern end. One segment connects to Three Rivers Stadium and one provides access into the downtown. 17. The I-95 concurrent flow Lanes in Northern Virginia connect to the exclusive HOV Lanes on I-395 (Shirley Highway). 18. I-66 is a 4-Lane freeway, with 2 Lanes in each direction. The 2 Lanes operating in the peak direction are restricted to HOVs during the morning and afternoon peak periods. 19. An additional 10 miles of the I-405 HOV Lanes are scheduled to open in April, 1990, bringing the total Length of the HOV Lanes to 24 miles. 20. An additional 10 mile segment of the I-10 HOV lanes in Phoenix opened in January, 1990. This segment is to the west of the HOV Lane reported in this survey. The two facilities are separated by a short segment currently under construction. 21. The HOV Lanes on US 101 in Marin County include two segments, 3 miles and 4 miles in length, separated by approximately 1 mile of mixed traffic Lanes. 22. The HOV Lanes on the Montague Expressway operate only in the peak direction. The outside Lane is used as the NOV Lane during the restricted period and is open to general traffic at other times. The Montague Expressway is a signalized expressway. 23. The San Tomas Expressway HOV lanes operate only in the peak direction. The outside lane and shoulder are used for the HOV Lane during the restricted period and revert to general purpose lanes and shoulders during other times. The San Tomas Expressway is a signalized expressway. 24. The Rt. 237 HOV lanes operate only in the peak direction. The outside shoulder is used for the HOV Lane. The section of Rt. 237 where the NOV lanes are Located is a signalized expressway. 25. The I-90 HOV Lane included in this survey is an interim facility. It is a contiguous concurrent flow facility on the outside lane. Currently only 5.8 miles are open in the westbound direction. The completed I-90 facility will include a 10 mile 2-Lane reversible HOV facility Located in the freeway median. 26. The SR 520 HOV lane is Located on the outside shoulder and operates only in the westbound direction. 27. Different segments of HOV lanes are operated along I-5. The segment included in this survey is the 6-mile segment north of downtown with HOV Lanes operating in both directions on the inside Lane. 28. The I-95 concurrent flow lanes connect to the exclusive HOV Lanes on I-395 (Shirley Highway). The Lanes are Located on the inside Lane and revert back to general-purpose Lanes when not in use as HOV Lanes. 29. The exact closing time for the Route 495 contraflow Lane depends on the volume of traffic. White 10:00 a.m. is usually the time the lane is closed, it may be kept open Later or closed earlier depending upon the daily demand. 60 Click HERE for graphic. 61 Click HERE for graphic. 62 Click HERE for graphic. 63 Click HERE for graphic. 64 Click HERE for graphic. 65 Click HERE for graphic. 66 Click HERE for graphic. 67 Click HERE for graphic. 68 Click HERE for graphic. 69 Click HERE for graphic. 70 Click HERE for graphic. 71 Click HERE for graphic. 72 Click HERE for graphic. 73 Click HERE for graphic. 74 Click HERE for graphic. 75 Click HERE for graphic. 76 Click HERE for graphic. 77 Click HERE for graphic. 78 Click HERE for graphic. 79 Click HERE for graphic. 80 Click HERE for graphic. 81 Click HERE for graphic. 82 Click HERE for graphic. 83 Click HERE for graphic. 84 Click HERE for graphic. 85 Click HERE for graphic. 86 V. PROPOSED HOV PROJECTS AND PROJECT EXTENSIONS New HOV projects and extensions to existing facilities are being planned, designed, and implemented in many metropolitan areas. A summary of some of these projects, including a general description and the anticipated completion date, is provided in Table 12. This listing is not intended to be all inclusive; it represents some of the projects which have been identified as reasonably committed with the potential to be operational by the year 2000. Obviously, the projects are subject to change. Implementation of all the projects listed in Table 12 will result in approximately 528 additional miles of HOV lanes by the year 2000. This represents a significant increase from the 332 miles of HOV lanes in operation as of April, 1990. If all the projects listed are completed, some 860 miles of HOV facilities will be in operation in North America by the year 2000. 87 Click HERE for graphic. 88 Click HERE for graphic. 89 VI. CONCLUSION This report provides a summary of available information on the design, operating, and enforcement characteristics, and current utilization rates of HOV facilities in the United States and Canada. The continued increase in the number of operating high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes throughout North America indicates that these types of facilities have become a more accepted method of addressing congestion issues in many metropolitan areas. A consensus appears to exist that, in the proper environment, HOV lanes can be an effective means of increasing the person-movement capacity within a corridor. However, HOV facilities are not appropriate for all situations, nor does their implementation eliminate the need to also pursue other strategies. As the number of HOV facilities continues to increase, the understanding of issues associated with the planning, design, implementation, and operation of HOV projects has also increased dramatically. However, even with this increased understanding, there are still a number of issues where experience is lacking or where there is not agreement over the most appropriate approach. Some of the areas where additional experience or research are needed are discussed in this section. Support Facilities Data from the different HOV projects seem to indicate that the presence of park-and-ride lots, transit transfer centers, direct access ramps, and other support facilities enhance the performance of the HOV facility. Park-and-ride lots provide convenient collection areas for both bus riders and carpool and vanpool users. The number and size of park-and-ride facilities varies among the different HOV projects. Parking lots of less than 300 spaces appear to be most common, although a number of exclusive HOV lanes are served by park-and-ride lots with over 1,000 spaces. Although a number of techniques exist, estimating the demand for park-and-ride facilities remains an inexact science. 91 Support Services Recent experience with HOV projects seems to indicate that the types and levels of support services provided can influence utilization of the facility. Thus, it appears that simply providing the HOV lane is not enough to insure maximum use. Supporting programs focusing on improved bus service, ridesharing programs, and travel demand management (TDM) programs have all been used in different areas to promote and encourage use of the HOV facility. A number of areas are continuing to experiment with a variety of TDM programs, primarily those focusing on providing additional incentives to individuals who use a high-occupancy mode. These include the guaranteed-ride home program, preferential parking and/or reduced parking charges for carpools and vanpools, monetary incentives or additional vacation time for using alternative commute modes, providing access to midday shuttle services, and providing on-site services at the work place. The ongoing monitoring and evaluation of these programs should provide additional experience on the most appropriate types of support services to use with HOV facilities. Operations and Enforcement The understanding of the major operational and enforcement issues associated with HOV projects has improved significantly in the past few years. The importance of addressing operational and enforcement concerns in the planning and design stage has been identified as an important consideration. Early consideration of these issues is critical to ensuring that the facility operates in the intended manner and can be easily enforced. Many areas are continuing to examine the use of different enforcement techniques. The "HERO" program has been implemented in both the Seattle and the Washington, D.C./Northern Virginia areas as one approach to encouraging compliance with the occupancy requirements of the HOV facilities. The program appears to be effective in lowering violation rates and providing an educational tool to promote the use of higher occupancy modes. The ticket by mail program implemented in Virginia in 1989 also appears to be an effective approach to enforcing occupancy requirements. This type of 92 program, which may require legislative changes, is being examined by other areas for possible implementation. The use of surveillance, communication, and control facilities to assist with the supervision of HOV lane operation and enforcement activities has been implemented in a few areas, and is under consideration in a number of other areas. The use of these techniques is viewed as having a positive impact on operations and enforcement activities of HOV facilities. The potential use of HOV lanes for the testing of Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Systems (IVHS) has also been raised in many areas. It is felt that the controlled environment provided by exclusive HOV lanes provides an ideal situation for the testing of many of the IVHS concepts. In addition, many of the IVHS technologies may be appropriate for utilization in providing improved communications and information systems that may greatly enhance the use of HOV facilities. This is an area that will continue to be explored over the coming years. Evaluating HOV Facilities Evaluating the impact of HOV facilities continues to be a topic of considerable interest and discussion. To date, most evaluation efforts have utilized very general evaluation criteria and, given the nature of the facilities and limited funding, before-and-after studies have often been limited. One of the most comprehensive evaluations of HOV facilities has occurred in Houston, Texas. The ongoing evaluation has been sponsored by the Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation (SDHPT) and conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI). While there is agreement that HOV projects need to be evaluated, a consensus does not appear to exist among transportation professionals regarding the most appropriate measures to be used to evaluate HOV project effectiveness, nor is there agreement on the threshold performance levels that should be used with these measures. A number of different activities, including one element of this UMTA sponsored study being conducted by Texas Transportation Institute, are currently 93 addressing these concerns. The outcome of these efforts is anticipated to be the development of a recommended set of evaluation measures, criteria, thresholds, and data collection methodologies. Design It appears that many HOV projects continue to be designed as "special case" facilities. Even within the same urban area, HOV facilities have been designed and operated differently. However, it appears that, both within and among metropolitan areas, design standards for HOV projects are becoming more standardized. This is important to help insure that safe and efficient facilities are designed and operated. Currently, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) is revising its guidelines on the design of HOV facilities and park-and-ride lots. A technical committee of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) is also preparing a report on the design features of HOV facilities. In addition, the Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation (SDHPT) has completed a set of HOV planning and design guidelines and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is currently completing HOV guidelines for use within the state. All of these documents will provide improved guidelines on the design of HOV lanes and supporting facilities. Conclusion This report provides a review of available information on the design, operation, enforcement characteristics, and current utilization rates of HOV facilities in freeways or within separate rights-of-way in North America. In the proper environment, HOV facilities can be an effective means of increasing the person-movement capacity within a corridor. High-occupancy vehicle lanes, implemented in conjunction with other support facilities and services, can play a role in helping to address urban congestion problems. 94 NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse manufacturers or products. Trade names appear in the document only because they are essential to the content of the report. This report is being distributed through the U.S. Department of Transportation's Technology Sharing Program. DOT-T-91-05 DOT-T-91-05 Click HERE for graphic.
