MTI Report 01-11
Non-Pricing Methods to Optimize High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Usage
George E. Gray, Principal Investigator
Stuart Harvey, Research Associate
Norman Kelley, Research Associate
September 2001
a publication of the
Mineta Transportation Institute
College of Business
San Jose State University
San Jose, CA 95192-0219
Created by Congress in 1991
Library of Congress No. 2001094830
To order this publication, please contact the following:
Mineta Transportation Institute
The study team wishes to thank the many people who contributed to the study for their substantial assistance. This phase one report was limited in time and funds, but engendered a high level of interest among those involved.
The participation of the following organizations was particularly significant.
· California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Headquarters and Districts 4, 7, 8, 11, and 12
· San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
· Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB)
· California Highway Patrol (CHP)
· California Air Resources Board (CARB)
· California Energy Commission (CEC)
· Taxi and Paratransit Association of California
· Valley Transportation Authority (Santa Clara County)
· Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
· San Mateo County Transit District
· Diversified Paratransit, Inc.
We would also like to thank the Mineta Transportation Institute staff including Research Director Trixie Johnson, Research Publications Assistant Sonya Cardenas, Graphic Designer Ben Corrales, Student Editorial Associate Catherine Frazier, Editorial Associates Joan Pearson, Susan Sylvia and Jeanne Dittmat for editing and publishing assistance.
3. IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL NON-PRICING METHODS 13
Gaining Input 13 Evaluating Input 13
Selecting Final Candidate User Groups 17
1. Electric Vehicles and Other Low Emission Vehicles 21
3. Radio Dispatched Passenger Vehicles 22
4. EPA Certified High Mileage Vehicles and
Vehicles Using Alternative Fuel 23
5. Deadheading Transit, School, and Charter Buses 25
6. Light Service Trucks (Utility, Maintenance, Etc.) 26
7. Enforcement and Emergency Vehicles 26
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 27
APPENDIX A: ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 29
APPENDIX B: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 35
APPENDIX C: RANKING SHEET AND RESULTS 49
APPENDIX D: CALTRANS POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR
BUS AND CARPOOL (HOV) LANES 51
APPENDIX E: CALIFORNIA 1998 LEGISLATION ON
HOV LANES AND LOW EMISSION VEHICLES 61
APPENDIX G: CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
APPENDIX H: CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
PRE-PUBLICATION PEER REVIEW 72
This study was undertaken as a potential two-phase effort to examine the feasibility of broadening the pool of HOV users on a no-cost basis for high occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities where such inclusion would not create a capacity problem.
HOV preferential facilities have been steadily increasing in the United States since their introduction in the late 1960s. There is often unused capacity in various HOV installations. In many instances this occurs at the same time that there is congestion in the adjacent mixed-flow freeway lanes. This situation often leads to pressure to abandon the HOV facility. Such pressure is usually based on lack of information or understanding of the intents and purposes of the HOV program. One recent strategy to use this available early excess capacity is to develop congestion pricing projects by allowing single-occupant vehicles (SOV) access for a variable fee. This may not be the best use of such excess capacity. This phase one study is to identify various potential non-pricing methods to optimize use of HOV facilities. The intent, on completion of this phase, is to refine the study findings and develop implementation strategies in phase two.
Some of the present HOV lanes are heavily used and have little or no excess capacity during peak traffic hours. However, in many cases there is, at present, excess capacity even during peak traffic hours. Nonetheless, over time, it is expected that use will increase, especially as the economies of car-and vanpooling are recognized by the commuting public.
The first study task was to produce a bibliography of current literature. The subsequent tasks focus on the two major justifications for HOV lane--to improve air quality and reduce fuel consumption-although, other factors are identified and given consideration. A large variety of potential non-pricing user groups are identified, evaluated, and consolidated using the following attributes: air quality, fuel savings, enforcement, safety, system efficiency, cost effectiveness, and capacity, with capacity treated as a potential fatal flaw.
The original potential identified user groups were reduced to seven candidates, which were further appraised considering input from a variety of external sources. Based on the outreach finding and the previously cited criteria, the following conclusions and recommendations are presented.
This candidate group is a strong candidate for inclusion in the HOV program as an SOV. The resulting improved service of these vehicles should result in improved public transportation services and the magnitude of added HOV users would be minor.
This candidate group should be included in the phase two study. Proposed legislation, if any, should consider sunset provisions that could encourage future fleet conversion to vehicles using alternative fuels in order to retain their ability to continue to qualify to use HOV facilities.
Inclusion of this group of potential users could encourage use of these vehicles, which would have beneficial impacts on air quality and fuel consumption. However, inclusion must be closely monitored to ensure that HOV facilities remain free flowing. Identification of users and adequate police monitoring and enforcement may be significant problems.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) requested that the Mineta Transportation Institute examine the feasibility of non-pricing strategies to utilize unused capacity of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Subsequently, this effort was funded by Caltrans and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration (U.S. DOT-RSPA). The funded study is a proposed phase one effort that was developed to identify various single-occupant traffic elements that may reasonably be considered for inclusion on HOV facilities that have excess capacity. If such elements are identified, it is proposed that a phase two study to fully develop a program for such inclusion would be undertaken.
HOV preferential facilities have been steadily increasing since their introduction in the late 1960s. There is, however, often unused capacity in various HOV installations. In many instances this occurs at the same time that there is congestion in the adjacent mixed-flow freeway lanes. This situation often leads to pressure to abandon the HOV facility. Such pressure is usually based on lack of information or understanding of the intents and purposes of the HOV program. One recent strategy to use this available excess capacity is to develop congestion pricing projects by allowing single-occupant vehicles (SOV) access for a variable fee. This may not be the best use of such excess capacity. This phase one study is to identify various potential non-pricing methods to optimize use of HOV facilities. The intent, on completion of this phase, is to refine the study findings and develop implementation strategies in phase two.
The rationale for establishing HOV facilities in California, as identified by Caltrans Policy and Procedure for Bus and Carpool (HOV) Lanes is
1. increase the people-moving capacity of the freeway system,
2. reduce overall vehicular congestion and motorist delay by encouraging greater HOV use,
3. provide time and commute cost savings to the users of HOV lanes,
4. increase overall efficiency of the system by allowing HOVs to bypass congestion on lanes designed for their use, and
5. improve air quality by decreasing vehicular emissions.1
This directive is included in this report as appendix D. It covers not only the policy and procedures for HOV facilities, but also the authority for their establishment in California, as well as attachments from the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) policies on the same subject. These latter two documents are also included in appendix D.
There are, presently, a wide variety of HOV facilities on the California state highway system. They range from ramp meter bypass lanes to the I-15 reversible-lane HOV facility in the City of San Diego, which is currently being operated as a value pricing demonstration project that allows SOVs to use the existing HOV facility for a fee. Although most of the HOV mileage in the state is part of the state highway system, there are some installations on city streets and county roads. Some of the HOV facilities on the state highway system are operated by the private sector under franchise. A few HOV facilities involve direct connections at major freeway-to-freeway interchanges. Several are totally or partially separated by barriers from the mixed-flow lanes, but most are separated by striping only. Because of this diversity, it is recognized that any efforts to increase HOV lane utilization must receive specific study for the facility involved.
Some of the present HOV lanes are heavily used and have little or no excess capacity during peak traffic hours. However, in many cases there is, at present, excess capacity even during peak traffic hours. Nonetheless, over time, it is expected that use will increase, especially as the economies of car- and vanpooling are recognized by the commuting public.
This phase one study is to identify various single-occupant traffic vehicles that may reasonably be considered for inclusion on HOV facilities at no monetary cost and that have excess capacity. After a broad look at potential users, the study identifies several user groups that should be given consideration in phase two of this study for inclusion on underutilized HOV facilities.
The scope of the study was established by several factors, including recognition that HOV lane capacity is the major control in allowing any non-HOV use.
It is recognized that mixed-flow lanes of urban freeways can usually carry a maximum of 2,000 vehicles per hour. Assuming a generous 1.2 average occupancy per vehicle for mixed-flow lanes gives a carrying capacity of 2,400 persons per lane. Using a conservative two persons per lane for HOV facilities that are at the minimum of two persons per vehicle equates to 1,200 vehicles per hour to match the mixed-flow lane productivity. HOV facilities with a moderate number of buses are usually designed on the basis of a minimum of 800 vehicles per hour (or about 2,000 persons per hour). It is suggested that HOV operating limits be set at 1,600 vehicles per hour given normal freeway geometrics for a 70 mph design speed. Volumes for HOV operations on lesser facilities should be lower, depending on such variables as geometrics, signal spacing, and roadside interference. This lower figure is to ensure their free flow.
For this phase one study, HOV ramp meter bypass and bus-only facilities are not given separate consideration. In general, it is recognized that HOV facilities can work to the detriment of bus exclusive services. Dr. Vukan Vuchic summarizes the potential HOV impacts as compared to exclusive bus facilities as presenting both positive and negative factors. Positive HOV facility impacts are both the reduced travel time for travelers in high occupancy autos and the decreased congestion on parallel regular lanes or roadways with some reduction of travel time for auto users in those lanes or roadways, together resulting in increased productive capacity of the entire facility.
Negative impacts from HOV facilities as compared to bus-only facilities are
• Decreased performance (reduced speed, reliability, safety) of buses due to increased traffic volume and nonuniform vehicle flow composition on the HOV facilities;
• A loss of the distinct advantage of public transport (buses) in performance and level of service, which full separation gives it over private transport (autos);
• Some diversion of passengers back to autos, particularly to vanpools and carpools, as a consequence of the preceding two factors;
• Additional loss of passengers due to their "stealing" by auto drivers from bus stops to form ad hoc carpools (direct loss of bus revenue); and
• A requirement for a wider roadway (minimum of two lanes per direction).2
When considering potential user groups for entry onto HOV facilities, a number of other factors were explored, which affect the scope. These will be discussed further in this report.
As pointed out, the scope of the study does not include consideration of user groups that would lead to a change in the basic principles that currently justify HOV facilities. The study team also recognized that inclusion of some groups, even though they met the general criteria, might engender a negative reaction by the general public or constitute such a volume of users as to cause the HOV facility to be of no value. The team also recognized that operating characteristics and enforcement difficulties should be given high priority in identification of potential user groups.
The project prospectus called for the following tasks: First, literature review, second, identify non-pricing methods, and third, phase one final report. These tasks were carried out by the study team augmented by a working group, which met three times during this phase one study. Considerable e-mail, fax, telephone, and U.S. mail communication was involved, especially in obtaining input from potential user groups.
The study team was composed of the Mineta Transportation Institute Research Associates George Gray (team leader), Stuart Harvey, and Norman Kelley with valuable input from a panel of experts: Joel Haven, Deputy District 11 Director-Traffic; Andrew Schlaefli, Vice President of Urban Systems Associates, Inc.; and Dr. Edward Sullivan of California Polytechnic University at San Luis Obispo.
The following contributed substantially to the study, although they are not responsible for the contents of this report.
California Department of Transportation, District 11
• Rick Hopkins, Deputy District Director-Design
• Chris Thomas, Deputy District Director-Advance Planning
• Carl West, Deputy District Director-Planning (now retired)
• Ross Cather, Traffic-Special Studies
• Lawrence Emerson, Traffic-Advance Systems Planning
• Larry Carr, Program Management
• Benita Gray, Volunteer Librarian
San Diego Association of Governments
• Eric C. Pahlke, Director of Transportation
Numerous user group representatives and experts on existing HOV system, research, and utilization.
• Carlos Daganzo, University of California, Berkeley (UCB)
• Patrick DeCorla-Souza, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
• Jean Hart, Alameda County Congestion Management Agency
• Pete Hathaway, California Transportation Commission (staff)
• R. Ian Kingham, GMK Transportation Planning and Engineering, LTD
• Ken Orski, Urban Mobility Corporation
• Richard Pratt, Richard H. Pratt Consultant, Inc.
A review of existing California legislation and policies identified the following universe of vehicles allowed on HOV facilities:
• Vehicles with a designated minimum (usually two) occupants
(Note: legislation does not differentiate between automobiles and trucks);
• Chartered and scheduled buses
(Note: this does not consider any operating limitations);
• Beginning 1 July 2000, vehicles that meet California's ultra low-emission vehicle (ULEV) standards (see appendix E); and
• To begin in 2002, hybrid high-efficiency vehicles (see appendix E) (Note: this authorizing legislation contains sunset provisions).
Legislators and special interest groups are actively considering other special categories. A great deal of attention is also being given to simply selling unused capacity with the generated income often dedicated to improve transit service. Therefore, as the inclusion of non-pricing strategies is considered, it must be remembered that the utilization of HOV lanes is not a static condition, and to a substantial degree the initiative is currently with the legislature.
Additionally, it is necessary to be sensitive to the need for operationally practical strategies that allow for appropriate enforcement and clear understanding by the public. Finally, a critical concern is the perceived equity in the way these special lanes are operated. If the ultimate population allowed on HOV lanes is not accepted by the public or capable of being analytically justified, then public criticism will result in negating the changes and, more importantly, will assist those forces seeking the elimination of HOV lanes.
Currently HOV facilities in California, with a few notable exceptions, tend to be stand alone. They are planned to be greatly expanded, however, resulting in significant urban area systems by 2020. This program of developing HOV systems is a major component of Governor Davis' program to reduce congestion on California's highways.
In performing task one, a literature search, a substantial amount of material was obtained via a search of the Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS) and personal contacts. On review, however, this resource material, did not relate to the study purposes in most cases and was disappointing overall. Evidently this topic has not yet reached the stage of large-scale interest or awareness. It was found that no past or current studies focus directly on non-pricing techniques except those few advocating the elimination of HOV lanes or challenging their creation. A few sources document current studies to evaluate broadening the allowed users by "buy in." See Appendix B for the annotated bibliography of appropriate source material resulting from this search and subsequent findings.
In addressing most public policy issues, the appropriate technique for gaining input is through public hearings/meetings. The lead time required for such meetings, which, in the case of this study, would have to be held on a statewide basis, could not be accommodated within the time and resources allocated. In considering an equitable and efficient alternative, it was found that almost every group (individuals and/or vehicle groups) that might be considered for inclusion in an expanded non-pricing (or pricing) strategy was professionally represented by clubs, associations, public agencies, and other organizations. Therefore, the approach for gaining input in a prompt, efficient manner was to communicate with these groups, making the assumption that the group generally reflects the views of its constituent members. Further, it was determined that it would be appropriate to cast the net rather broadly so as to gain significant input, profiting from a wide variety of vantage points, positions, and philosophies, even though, in many cases, the chance of finding an appropriate additive to the HOV population was low within the current principles underlying the justification of HOV lanes.
Caltrans has expanded the air quality and fuel efficiency goals for HOV lanes in recent studies to the following:
• Increase the people moving capacity of the freeway system;
• Reduce overall vehicle congestion and motorist delay by encouraging greater HOV use;
• Provide time and commute cost savings to the users of HOV lanes;
• Increase overall efficiency of the system by allowing HOVs to bypass congestion on lanes designed for their use; and
• Improve air quality by decreasing vehicular emissions.
An additional factor, overriding public interest issues, was added for this study. This factor was provided to allow evaluation of suggestions that could be so compelling as to indicate a possible change in the current Caltrans goals. As an example, currently a variety of SOV emergency vehicles are not legally permitted on HOV lanes except as directed by policing authorities. Most such vehicles are not SOVs, though, and while SOV emergency vehicles are generally aligned with public health issues, they would probably not rank high based on present Caltrans goals. Some of these vehicles, however, may introduce such common-sense benefits that a change in the Caltrans goals, while not envisaged as being central to the study, may be logical.
Twenty-four specific potential candidate groups were identified for inclusion in those groups allowed to use HOV facilities. The candidates were placed on a rating form that identified six attributes and a fatal flaw pass/fail factor based on adequate capacity to accommodate the candidate group. For this study, a ranking system of one to ten was adopted based on Caltrans' expanded, specific goals for HOV lanes, with a ten ranking being most aligned with the goals and a one ranking being the least aligned. Appendix C includes the ranking sheet. A short explanation of the candidate groups and the attributes follows.
The candidate groups as included on the ranking sheet were:
a. Electric: certain low emission vehicles complying with California requirements as established by state legislation as a demonstration program (Vehicle Code, Chap. 330);
b. ULEV & SULEV (ultra low emission vehicle and super ultra low emission vehicle): vehicles complying with federal requirements as established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
c. handicapped-licensed: vehicles with a state license designating handicapped;
d. handicapped-placard: vehicles displaying a state-issued handicapped placard;
e. Veterans: including all honorably discharged veterans of U.S. armed forces (may be redesignated to be restricted to a smaller market such as Pearl Harbor or Purple Heart veterans with appropriate license plates);
f. light delivery truck: two-axle trucks involved in multidelivery services, such as UPS, Avery, and Federal Express;
g. U.S. mail-light delivery truck: two-axle U.S. Postal Service vehicles used in delivery of U.S. mail;
h. radio dispatched: vehicles involved in paratransit type service responding to prearranged passenger pickup;
i. police: including city, county, state, and federal police units on duty status;
j. tow trucks-CHP: trucks responding to call of CHP;
k. tow trucks: trucks responding to service call such as AAA member and Caltrans contracted roving units;
l. emergency: fire, ambulance, and paramedic units (would usually have two or more occupants anyway);
m. U.S. military-licensed: U.S. military vehicles with U.S. license plates or in convoy;
n. U.S. military-on active duty: civilian vehicles carrying active duty U.S. military personnel;
o. certified high mileage per gallon: vehicles certified by the EPA as obtaining high mileage (actual mileage figure not set at this stage);
p. multidriver: vehicles involved in programs that provide for several unrelated drivers to use the same vehicle during a single day, for example, the San Francisco Bay area program involving BART, Caltrans, and MTC;
q. rental: vehicles rented as an SOV for short-term use (does not include leased vehicles);
r. SOV even/odd license numbers: permitting SOVs with even license numbers on even numbered dates and those with odd license numbers on odd numbered dates;
s. medical personnel: responding to call to duty;
t. Teachers: going to/from assigned teaching location;
u. non-home-owners: self explanatory;
v. antique-licensed: vehicles licensed as antique;
w. deadheading transit, school, etc.: SOVs deadheading between assignments or en route to or from storage area; and
x. two-axle service (utilities, etc.): such as SOVs of city utility units, PG&E, cable services, etc.
Attributes used on this ranking form were:
• Air Quality: a normal vehicle meeting California fleet standards would be ranked as five;
• Fuel Savings: a normal vehicle meeting fleet standards would be ranked as five;
• Enforcement: a subjective ranking covering ease of enforcement with five being the average vehicle;
• Safety: a subjective ranking based on driving expertise and vehicle characteristics, with a five being average;
• System Efficiency: a subjective ranking based on reducing overall vehicle miles of travel;
• Cost Effective: a subjective ranking based on costs to serve the particular user group, the lower the cost the higher the ranking; and
• Capacity: a measure of the ability to accommodate the candidate user group being ranked. This is the fatal flaw factor. As an example, for the large majority of existing HOV facilities in California, allowing SOVs to use the facilities on an odd/even license plate number basis would overfill existing capacity. Therefore, this user element is ranked accordingly with an F (for fail).
The candidate groups were ranked on a 10 point system by the study team and the panel of experts. These rankings were performed individually. See Appendix C for the results.
The study team then met and further refined the groups based on the rankings, dropping some candidates that clearly fell out of a candidacy for inclusion on HOV lanes and combining others.
As shown on the ranking results chart (appendix C), the following potential user groups were dropped from consideration on the basis that each of them constitutes a large enough proportion of the users of the mixed-flow lanes that their inclusion as users of the HOV lanes would, in most cases, bog down the desired free-flowing HOV facility and they have no significant attributes in reducing fuel use and improving air quality: (e) Veterans, (n) U.S. military-on active duty, (q) Rental; (r) SOV even/odd license numbers; (t) Teachers; and (u) non-home-owners.
Next, the study team considered elimination of the lower ranking user groups. This resulted in the following eliminations:
• (c) handicapped-licensed and (d) handicapped-placard were eliminated on the basis of their low safety ranking;
• (m) U.S. military-licensed was eliminated from further consideration on the basis that its inclusion does not further the goals of the HOV program, although, when responding to emergency situations, this group would be included with the other emergency users;
• (p) multidriver may have potential to improve air quality and provide fuel savings, but at present this is unproven and further consideration at this time is not warranted; and
• (v) antique-licensed was eliminated largely because of low air quality and safety ratings due to the operating characteristics of these vehicles.
The groups (f) light delivery truck and (g) U.S. mail-light delivery truck were combined. Providing HOV lane access to light delivery vehicles, including U.S. mail units, appeared to have positive results and no reason to consider the two groups separately was in evidence.
Groups (i) police, (j) tow trucks-CHP, (k) tow trucks, (l) emergency, and (s) medical personnel were combined for further consideration under the general topic Enforcement and emergency services.
The selection process resulted, then, in the following groups for inclusion in task three deliberations:
1. Electric vehicles and other ULEV and SULEV;
3. Radio dispatched passenger vehicles;
4. Certified high mileage per gallon vehicles;
5. Deadheading transit, school, and charter buses;
At this stage the study team contacted a variety of potential users and their organization as well as the CHP and the CARB. Input from these contacts was reviewed and grouped at the last meeting of the study team and working group. The synthesized results of this input and the conclusions they engendered are reported in the next two chapters.
Responding to team inquiries, three agencies submitted information summarized as follows.
• SANDAG, by letter of 2 August 2000, agreed with the study purpose, but urged concentration on strategies to "get people out of their single occupant vehicles." It strongly supported value pricing approaches and incentives for carpooling, vanpooling, and transit use. SANDAG's letter is in Appendix F.
• California Air Resources Board, by letter of 19 September 2000 (see appendix G), supported better utilization of "HOV lane capacity in a way that will reduce emissions from motor vehicle operation and promotes fuel efficiency." Further, the board cautions "that vehicles with high fuel efficiency are not necessarily low emitting vehicles, and vice versa."
• California Highway Patrol, by letter of 28 September 2000, comments on two specific issues: First, legislation recognizing emergency vehicle HOV use currently authorizes CHP officers to direct traffic in emergencies so "additional statutory provisions are not required," and second, use of transponders or similar on-board electronic devices to identify legitimate HOV users "is currently not feasible for a number of reasons." Further, the CHP finds that the present practice of using distinctive decals to identify specific low-emission vehicles allowed to utilize HOV facilities is "more than adequate for enforcement purposes of the CHP." This letter is found in Appendix H.
General comments regarding the suitability of further consideration of each of the seven groups of potential users of HOV facilities resulting from the last meeting of the study team and working group follow.
1. ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND OTHER LOW EMISSION VEHICLES
These vehicles are currently allowed access as the result of recent legislation (See Appendix E). However, this legislation contains sunset requirements and phase two of this non-pricing study should include investigation into changing these sunset stipulations.
The case for allowing light delivery vehicles on HOV lanes is founded on the premise that statistically, each delivery vehicle may eliminate 50 to 100 individual trips to and from home or business to delivery centers were such services not available. At first glance, this becomes a good candidate for conservation of fuel and an improvement in air quality through the reduction of individual trips.
The problem with this alternative is in equity and implementation concerns.
• Attention is generally directed to such main-line companies as the U.S. Postal Service, United Parcel Service, Federal Express, DHL, etc. But in fact, there are a plethora of delivery services that would be difficult to constrain or, indeed, even identify. These include Meals on Wheels, private and public courier services, intercity semitrailers carrying parcels, etc. In fact, the amount of commerce included in this general grouping cannot be quantified, and once approved, may be unmanageable.
• The bulk of business-to-home delivery services is neighborhood oriented, and the use of HOV lanes would be a marginal benefit. Indeed, specific queries were formally solicited from UPS, DHL, and Federal Express and no responses were forthcoming. This would seem to indicate that the use of HOV lanes is not a high priority or an economic benefit to these firms.
• It would be difficult to classify the various kinds of vehicles used by these delivery companies-agencies. Some are intercity, some provide neighborhood services, and others are regional in nature. This would create a constant struggle as to which vehicles are allowed and which are not.
• Inclusion of this group may work against efforts to convert such delivery vehicles from diesel or gasoline power to alternative fuels that could allow their use of HOV lanes.
• Perhaps most problematical is attempting to identify the public policy purpose of allowing these vehicles on HOV lanes. For instance, would inclusion of these vehicles increase the use of these services? Would the services offered by these companies-agencies even be influenced by inclusion on HOV lanes? These would be highly speculative projections or estimates, bringing into question the clear justification of including these kinds of delivery vehicles on publicly financed HOV lanes.
Considering these concerns, it is suggested that further study of light delivery trucks as a potential user group be pursued only if solid reasons for inclusion surface in phase two of the study.
3. RADIO DISPATCHED PASSENGER VEHICLES
The concept behind inclusion of this group of potential HOV users is to improve their efficiency and, therefore, the attractiveness of their use compared to the single-occupant vehicle (SOV). Once a radio dispatched vehicle obtains a passenger, its qualification for access to the usual two-occupant-limit HOV facilities is fulfilled. However, when a radio dispatched taxi, airport limousine, or similar passenger vehicle is responding to a request for service as an SOV, it is unable to utilize HOV facilities. The reliability of obtaining timely service is a major requirement of quality response for transit and paratransit services. Since use of HOV facilities should, especially during peak commute hours, improve response time, it should enhance the competitiveness of such vehicles compared to SOVs.
The response that the team obtained from the service providers of this potential user group was, without exception, positive. The Taxicab Paratransit Association of California (TPAC) points out that "providing such access we believe would maximize the utility of the units in service at any given point in time, and it is generally accepted that a vehicle operating at optimum speeds is more fuel efficient and produces less air pollutants than a vehicle idling or accelerating/decelerating in a heavy traffic situation."3
This user group is a strong candidate for SOV HOV facility inclusion in the phase two study. Legislation for its inclusion should consider possible sunset provisions.
One possible negative to including radio-dispatched vehicles in the users of HOV facilities is that it may constitute a disincentive to converting such vehicles to alternative fuels. If, however, any legislation to allow these gasoline powered vehicles to use HOV facilities has a sunset provision, it could provide an incentive for conversion of such vehicles to alternative fuels so they can continue their SOV operation after the sunset goes into effect.
4. epa CERTIFIED HIGH MILEAGE VEHICLES AND VEHICLES using ALTERNATIVE FUEL
This group, formerly entitled simply, "Certified High Mileage Per Gallon Vehicles," has been retitled for greater specificity.
A compelling case can be made for allowing high mileage (high miles per gallon) vehicles to utilize unused capacity on HOV lanes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) annually establishes mileage data for all vehicles that are manufactured in or imported into the United States, and this data is tabulated into a readable brochure that is available over the Internet and at most automobile dealerships. The State Energy Commission and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) (See appendix D) accept these data.
By definition, currently manufactured vehicles meet air quality standards in order that they may be sold in California. Those vehicles with the highest miles per gallon (mpg) rating enhance statewide fuel efficiency objectives. Together, this meets study criteria for improving air quality and for conserving energy.
In the context of this study, vehicles could be allowed onto HOV lanes by simply descending down the EPA list until the designated available capacity on a given facility is exhausted. Obviously, there are different capacity constraints between facilities and between regions. Granting permission to use these various facilities is simply a matter of matching vehicles and capacity for each facility. (HOV lanes must continue to be free flowing to be effective and meet intent. A designated available capacity should be established with free flow in mind.)
The Energy Commission and the ARB support this concept, provided that an unusually high unused capacity on a particular facility does not permit unusually low mileage vehicles to use the HOV lanes. For discussion purposes, a limit of 27.5 mpg would form the floor for this proposal, which approximates the industry-wide required mpg (combined average fleet economy or CAFE).
In their support of this proposal, the CARB reminds us that high mileage vehicles are not necessarily the cleanest burning vehicles. In practical terms, this brings into question certain diesel powered Volkswagens, which are among the highest in the mpg category, but generate more particulates than high mileage, gasoline-burning vehicles. However, upon further discussion with the CARB and the Energy Commission, we understand that by the year 2006, diesels are expected to be as clean as gasoline-fueled vehicles. For purposes of this phase one study, accepting diesel powered vehicles until 2006 is not recommended due to their energy efficiency advantages and commitments to produce clean vehicles in the immediate future.
Certain other vehicles fit into the general parameters of this alternative, but not strictly on the basis of miles per gallon. Examples are vehicles powered by propane, liquefied natural gas (LNG), and ethanol. State policy encourages the use of these alternative powered vehicles, and they can easily fit into the array of permitted vehicles. Similarly, electric powered vehicles (already allowed on HOV lanes) and hybrid vehicles (electric/gas) may be placed into this general category. In practice, the overall alternative could be implemented in California as follows:
• Category 1: electric powered vehicles (already allowed by legislation).
• Category 2: electric/gas (hybrid) powered vehicles, and vehicles. powered by liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane, and ethanol.
• Category 3: vehicles with the highest EPA mileage certification, starting with the highest achieved mileage and descending to as low as 27.5 mpg or the limit of designated available capacity, whichever is first satisfied.
The California Highway Patrol (CHP) believes that simple visual identification through the use of a bumper decal is adequate for enforcement purposes. The question has been raised over the existence of several HOV facilities within a single regional area, each having different capacity limitations. The concern here is that a regional permit may oversubscribe a particular HOV facility. Therefore, this proposal would be facility specific, and identifying bumper decals could be color-coded or otherwise identified with a specific HOV facility. In practice, this concern is unlikely to be a realistic problem since commute patterns are well defined and travel habits are unlikely to be altered significantly simply to take advantage of a distant HOV facility.
EPA mileage data correlates to current year of manufacture. A question remains as to how far (historically) the EPA data should be utilized for purpose of HOV access. That is, should 1995 through 2001 lists be merged? The primary question here is the issue of incentive vs. reward. If HOV access were intended to act as an incentive, then current or near current data would be used. On the other hand, if access to HOV lanes were a reward for owning a fuel-efficient vehicle, then some limited historical merging of the lists would be in order. Generally speaking, the latter policy (historical merging of lists) appears at this phase to be the most reasonable approach and is the most consistent with the principles used for carpools on HOV lanes. Carpools were in existence before the advent of HOV lanes and were "grandfathered" onto HOV lanes, while at the same time, HOV lanes were used as an incentive to form additional carpools. The primary issue here is the time period for merging these lists. All motor vehicles become less efficient as they age, and a high mileage vehicle in 1995 may not be nearly as efficient in 2001. It is proposed to study this issue further with the CARB in phase two of the study.
5. DEADHEADING TRANSIT, SCHOOL, AND CHARTER BUSES
The concept for this potential user group is to allow SOV buses access to HOV lanes. Industry response to this possibility was mixed and will be considered according to each of the following three groups.
Several transit organizations strongly supported their inclusion in phase two of the study. The Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority suggested that transit support vehicles also be included. San Mateo County Transit District pointed out that as congestion has increased in their operating area, work assignments near peak commute hours have required more deadhead time in order to reach their start location. This is an added operating cost that is eventually charged to the public.
AC Transit, which operates considerable service across the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, stated that they already deadhead on HOV facilities.
The consensus is that inclusion of transit buses in those allowed access to HOV facilities is warranted. With the few exceptions of steep HOV grades, there appear to be no operating problems with their inclusion.
The largest school bus operator in the state, Laidlaw, has stated that since school bus services are often on the shoulder or edges of peak period traffic, especially when deadheading, they have limited opportunities to utilize HOV lanes effectively when deadheading. Also, they have many units that are unable to operate at HOV facility speeds. Therefore, they are not pressing for such inclusion. However, if allowed, they may find favorable instances where savings of time may occur, especially when there is an HOV ramp meter bypass or a similar facility. With these considerations, possible school bus inclusion needs further study.
Most charter bus service operates with passengers and deadheading is comparatively minimal. However, there are notable exceptions. Golden State Transportation points out "the fact that occasionally a bus may travel the HOV lane with only the driver on board does not preclude the intended purpose of that HOV lane."4 This user segment should be included in the phase two study.
6. LIGHT SERVICE TRUCKS (UTILITY, MAINTENANCE, ETC.)
A number of agencies that operate such light service trucks were contacted. Their reaction was that access to HOV facilities is not significantly important to their usual day-to-day operations because their service areas primarily utilize surface streets and HOV facilities are not a measurable factor in their efficient operations. Therefore, this group will not be recommended for phase two consideration.
7. ENFORCEMENT AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES
The California Highway Patrol (CHP) has gone on record that they see no need for changes in this sector. In addition, representatives of the tow truck industry have indicated that they see no value in any changes to existing practices. Further, formalizing existing practices through legislation may result in unforeseen complications. Hence, it is recommended that this possible user group not be considered further on the basis of if it isn't broken don't try to fix it.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Of the wide variety of possible groups that might rationally be included in those authorized to use HOV facilities, the seven most promising were given cursory review. This review resulted in the following conclusions and recommendations for the seven candidate groups.
These vehicles have recently been included in those authorized to use HOV facilities as the result of 1998 legislation, which includes sunset provisions.
The phase two study should review this recent legislation and possibly recommend that the present sunset provisions be extended.
After preliminary review, the identified negatives for including this group of users appears to outweigh any identified positives.
Unless new evidence surfaces during the phase two study, this group should not be considered further.
This candidate group is a strong candidate for inclusion in the HOV program as an SOV. The resulting improved service of these vehicles should result in improved public transportation services and the magnitude of added HOV users would be minor.
This candidate group should be included in the phase two study. Proposed legislation, if any, should consider sunset provisions that could encourage future fleet conversion to vehicles using alternative fuels in order to retain their ability to continue to qualify to use HOV facilities.
4. EPA CERTIFIED HIGH MILEAGE VEHICLES AND VEHICLES USING ALTERNATIVE FUELS
Inclusion of this group of potential users could encourage use of these vehicles, which would have beneficial impacts on air quality and fuel consumption. However, inclusion must be closely monitored to ensure that HOV facilities remain free flowing. Identification of users and adequate police monitoring and enforcement may be significant problems.
Conclusions for these three groups varied. Transit and charter buses appear to be worthy candidates, but there are problems with including school buses that appear to warrant their rejection.
Include transit and charter buses in the subsequent study, but only give further consideration to school buses if added significant warrants are evidenced.
There is no compelling reason to change existing conditions regarding the group's use of HOV facilities in the SOV mode.
Do not include this group in the phase two study.
appendix a: ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
(Terms Related to HOV Facilities and Operations)
|
Commercial Vehicle and International Border Operations System |
|
|
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay Area) |
|
|
University of California Institute of Transportation Studies (also ITS) |
|
APPENDIX B: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency. "I-880 Value Pricing Study: Scope of Work." Oakland, Calif.: ACCMA, 9 September 1999.
Abstract: The scope of work covers a study to determine potential demand for commercial subscription service on existing I-880 HOV lanes by light-duty commercial vehicles. HOV lane capacity by time horizon, special operational and enforcement issues, and revenue generation/use are components of the study.
Alexiadis, V., and others. Predicting the Demand for High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes: Final Report. Report No: FHWA-SA-96-073. Oakland, Calif.: Dowling Associates, 1 June 1996.
Abstract: This report presents the results of the FHWA Project #42-10-4172, "Predicting the Demand for High Occupancy Lanes." The report provides the following: A review of the available literature and experiences of public agencies with current methods for predicting the demand for HOV lanes; the recommended new methodology for predicting the demand for HOV lanes; and the data on existing HOV lane projects in the United States that was used to calibrate and validate the new HOV lane demand estimation technology.
Baxter, J. "Overview of Statewide HOV Programs and Issues." Transportation Research Circular: 7th National Conference on High-Occupancy Vehicle Systems. Part 1: Plenary Sessions, 442 (July 1995): 13-14.
Abstract: The history of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities development in California is summarized. The use of HOV facilities in California started in 1970 with HOV bypass lanes at the toll plazas on the Oakland Bay Bridge in the San Francisco area. Milestones include the opening of the El Monte Busway in 1973, the infamous diamond lane on the Santa Monica Freeway in 1976, a resurgence of HOV development between 1985 and 1990, and the adoption of the Urban Freeway concept in 1993. Current projections are that the ultimate California HOV lane system may reach 500 miles. A major effort now is to ensure that the necessary support facilities and services are in place. These include park-and-ride lots, transit services, ridesharing programs, direct connectors, access ramps, enforcement, and other elements.
Best, M. E. Implementation Elements for Conversion of a General Purpose Freeway Lane into a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane. Report No: SWUTC/96/72840-00003-1. College Station, Tex.: Texas A&M University, August 1996.
Abstract: Conversion of a general-purpose freeway lane into a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane can be an alternative to infrastructure addition for HOV system implementation. Research indicates that lane conversion is technically feasible if sufficient HOV usage and minimal main lane congestion occur from the first day of operation forward. The purpose of this research is to determine what elements are required for inclusion in an implementation plan for a lane conversion to HOV once technical feasibility has been determined. It is concluded that the following elements should be included in an implementation plan for lane conversion to HOV: technical feasibility; early public outreach; strong institution arrangements; inclusion of law enforcement agencies; open relationships with the media; and project opening timing.
Best, M. E. "Implementation Elements for Conversion of General-Purpose Freeway Lane into High-Occupancy-Vehicle Lane." Transportation Research Record, 1603 (1997): 57-63.
Abstract: Conversion of a general-purpose freeway into a high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lane is an alternative to infrastructure addition for HOV system implementation. Research indicates that lane conversion is feasible technically if sufficient HOV usage and minimal main lane congestion occur from the first day of operation. The elements required for inclusion in an implementation plan for lane conversion to HOV after technical feasibility has been determined are presented. HOV-lane marketing is meant to heighten public awareness of the purpose and operation of HOV facilities while encouraging their use. The general public, local decision makers, and the local media are important elements to include in a marketing campaign for successful HOV implementation. These elements also apply to the successful implementation of lane conversion to HOV. Four HOV lane-conversion projects are investigated: (a) Santa Monica Freeway, Los Angeles, California; (b) Dulles Toll Road, Northern Virginia; (c) Interstate 90, Seattle, Washington; and (d) Interstate 80, northern New Jersey. The Santa Monica and Dulles projects are considered failures, whereas the Interstate 80 and 90 projects are considered successful. From these case studies and the literature review, implementation elements were identified: (a) technical feasibility, (b) early public outreach, (c) strong institutional arrangements, (d) inclusion of law enforcement agencies, (e) open relationships with the media, and (f) project opening timing.
Blume, K. L. Implementation of a Dynamic HOV Lane. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University, August 1998.
Abstract: The research reported in this paper is an investigation of the implementation of a dynamic HOV lane. A dynamic HOV lane is an HOV lane that is converted to other uses at different times of the day or under special circumstances using ITS technologies and real-time data in order to make more efficient use of HOV facilities and improve the safety of motorists, incident responders, and HOV lane operations personnel. The development of the concept included a literature review of HOV system planning and operations, incident management, and ITS research, as well as detailed interviews with agencies that oversee HOV lane operations in cities across the United States. Information from the literature and agency interviews was synthesized and analyzed to identify barriers to implementation and critical issues. Then a hypothetical dynamic HOV lane was designed to illustrate how the HOV lane and ITS components fit together and how the barriers might be overcome to preserve the benefits associated with a dynamic HOV lane. The barriers identified were justifying the need for a dynamic HOV lane, ensuring motorists' safety, technical reliability, adequacy of data, implementation costs, public perceptions, legality, and the wide variety of contributing factors. These barriers might be overcome by investigating potential applications carefully to ensure that there is a practical problem to solve, building a reliance on HOV system technologies, proper design and placement of system components, extensive public education, maximizing technical reliability with backup systems and good maintenance, archiving data for analysis and system improvements, using dynamic HOV lane technologies for other ATMS applications, and developing policies and laws to support dynamic HOV lanes. Research findings showed a reluctance to depend on advanced technology for the accurate and safe operation of a dynamic HOV lane as described in this report. Because the fundamental difference between a dynamic HOV lane and a "normal" HOV lane is reliance upon a coordinated system of ITS technologies, it was therefore concluded that a dynamic HOV lane cannot be implemented until the dependability of its component technologies is successfully demonstrated.
Brown, W. W, and E. L. Jacobson. HOV Evaluation and Monitoring - Phase III. Annual Data Report,WA-RD 414.1. Washington, D.C.: FHWA, August 1996.
Abstract: This report presents and summarizes the data collected in fulfillment of the requirements for the Washington State Department of Transportation grant "HOV Lane Evaluation and Monitoring." This report provides the information necessary to analyze HOV lane performance and development. Data collection results and analysis are presented, followed by conclusions and recommendations. The data collection methodology is described in the final report, "HOV Monitoring and Evaluation Tool." Included in this report are the following primary and secondary measures of HOV lane performance: (1) average vehicle occupancy data, (2) travel time data, (3) public opinion survey results, and (4) enforcement, compliance, and adjudication data.
California Department of Transportation, District 11. 1999 HOV Annual Report, Executive Summary. San Diego, Calif.: Caltrans, [2000].
Abstract: This report contains information concerning the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on the San Diego Area freeway system. Traffic volumes, vehicle occupancies, and violation rates are included. Volumes and occupancy data for HOV preferential lanes at metered freeway on-ramps are not included in this annual report.
Carson, J., and others. The Potential for Freight Productivity Improvements Along Urban Corridors. Report No: Final Research Report,WA-RD 415.1. Washington, D.C.: FHWA, December 1996.
Abstract: The impacts that would result from providing "reserved capacity" for trucks rather than restricting trucks are considered in this study. In the extreme case, trucks would be allowed to travel in a dedicated or exclusive lane. A more moderate approach would be to provide a "cooperative" dedicated lane in which vehicles such as trucks and buses could share a common lane and yet be separated from general traffic. The study determined the following. Reserved-capacity strategies for trucks would offer (1) nearly $10 million in annual travel time savings for the trucking industry, (2) a savings of about 2.5 minutes per average truck trip (less than 8 percent savings in trip travel time), and (3) almost $30 million in annual travel time savings for single-occupancy vehicles in the Seattle region. The difference in travel times between the reserved-capacity strategy that would add trucks to the existing high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and the one that would add an exclusive truck lane would be insignificant, providing little justification for the construction of an exclusive truck lane. In all likelihood, the impact of reserved-capacity strategies on safety would be small, depending on the particular reserved capacity strategy. Reserved capacity strategies for trucks would accelerate pavement deterioration in the reserved lanes, but the reduction in the pavement deterioration rates of the general-purpose lanes might help to balance future reconstruction costs. It is the recommendation of this study that the idea of reserved-capacity strategies for trucks continue to be presented to the trucking industry, to the public, and to other impacted agencies for discussion and consideration. The study showed that the adverse impacts of such strategies are easily manageable and there is at least potential for freight-productivity improvements.
Daniels, G. "Are HOV Lanes Cost-Effective Improvements?" ITE Journal, 68, no. 9 (September 1998): 1-17.
Abstract: As part of an ongoing research effort to evaluate high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes in Texas, an assessment of HOV-lane cost effectiveness was conducted using MicroBENCOST, a planning-level, economic-analysis tool developed under National Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 7-12. Extensive traffic and construction cost data collected from barrier-separated HOV lanes in Texas were used in the analysis to obtain the most reliable results. In all cases, the barrier-separated HOV lanes operating in Texas produced benefits outweighing the costs over a 20-year life. Resulting benefit-to-cost ratio (B/C) values ranged from 8 to 78. The HOV lane improvement also resulted in an equal or higher B/C than the general-purpose-lane alternative for all facilities.
Federal Highway Administration. "Federal-Aid Highway Program Guidance on High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes." FAX of Memorandum and guidelines from FHWA Web pages, on internal FHWA Web site, wysiwyg://5/http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/operations/hovguide.htm, 18 April 2000.
Abstract: This memorandum and attached guidelines identify the review process and actions that may be required to significantly change the operation of HOV lanes. Three general sections are presented:
1. background federal position re HOV and identification of when federal review to change the operation of HOV lanes is needed;
2. federal review and applicable requirements and regulations; and
Federal Highway Administration. "Value Pricing Pilot Program: Program Information." FHWA Discretionary Programs Web pages, FHWA Web site, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/discretionary/pi_value.htm, 14 July 2000.
Abstract: This Web site provides information on the Value Pricing Pilot Program as authorized by TEA-21 (section 1216(a)(4&5)). Subheadings include the following: Background, Statutory References, Funding, Federal Share, Obligation Limitation, Eligibility, Selection Criteria, Solicitation Procedure, and Submission Requirements.
"High-Occupancy/Toll (HOT) Lanes and Value Pricing: A Preliminary Assessment." ITE Journal, 68, no. 6 (June 1998): 1-5.
Abstract: The term HOT lanes, which stands for High-Occupancy/Toll lanes, refers to high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities that are open to lower-occupancy (including single-occupancy) vehicles upon payment of a fee or toll. Value pricing describes a system of optional fees paid by drivers of lower-occupancy vehicles to gain access to dedicated road facilities providing a superior level of service and offering time savings compared with the parallel free facilities. Four current projects illustrate concepts and possibilities of HOT lanes and value pricing: SR 91 in Orange County, California; I-15 in San Diego, California; I-10 West in Harston, Texas; and I-93 in Boston, Massachusetts. Based on the examination of these experiences, the following issues appear important in the consideration of HOT lane and value pricing projects: current and future utilization of the HOV facility, toll structure, use of revenues, and public reaction.
Hultgren, L., and Kawada, K. "San Diego's Interstate 15 High-Occupancy/Toll Lane Facility Using Value Pricing." ITE Journal, 69, no. 6 (June 1999): 22-27.
Abstract: The Interstate 15 (I-15) Value Pricing Project is a federally funded, $9.95 million, 3-year demonstration program that allows single-occupant vehicles (SOVs) to use the existing high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on I-15 for a fee. I-15 is a major north-south freeway in the inland San Diego, California region. The project began in December 1996 and is generating revenue for transit-service improvements in the I-15 corridor. This feature provides an overview of the project, including background, phasing, and a summary of observations to date. Throughout Phase I (Interim Operations), HOV lane traffic remained free flowing. Usage of the HOV lanes increased by 27 percent, from a daily average of 9,215 vehicles in October 1996 (preproject) to 11,700 vehicles in March 1998. However, the additional vehicles on the HOV lanes were primarily carpools and not SOVs. Actual ExpressPass customer use was less than expected. As of March 1998, ExpressPass customers represented 10 percent of total traffic on the HOV lanes. The violation rate was relatively low throughout Phase I. During the first eight months of full implementation (Phase II), the price varied between $0.50 and $4.00, and level of service (LOS) C was rarely exceeded. By the end of February 1999, more than 7,000 transponders had been distributed to more than 5,200 account holders. Most FasTrak customers are occasional users. Monthly transponder usage data for April-September 1998 indicated that 53 percent of transponders were used 1-5 times, 18 percent were used 6-10 times, 11% were used 11-15 times, and the remaining 19 percent were used 16-40 times per month. There has been good customer acceptance of dynamic pricing.
Jernigan, J. D. and C. W. Lynn. The Effect of Motorcycle Travel on the Safety and Operations of HOV Facilities in Virginia: Final Report. Report no. FHWA/VA-95-R26, HS-042 512, VTRC 95-R26. Washington, D.C.: FHWA, June 1995.
Abstract: The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 mandated that motorcycles be permitted to travel on federally funded high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities unless they created a safety hazard or adversely affected HOV operations. Although motorcycles had previously been banned from traveling on Virginia's HOV lanes, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) authorized motorcycle travel on HOV facilities in Virginia as of September 21, 1992, for a two-year trial period. However, out of concern over whether this policy should continue, the CTB resolved that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) conduct a study to determine whether motorcycles presented a safety risk on HOV lanes. This study found that motorcycles account for as much as 3% of the annual traffic on some HOV lanes. However, in the two years after the CTB authorized their travel, there were only five motorcycle crashes on HOV lanes. The study recommends that the CTB allow motorcycles to continue to travel on HOV lanes and that VDOT continue to monitor their travel and crashes.
Kail, A. "The New Debate on HOV Lanes: How Should We Use Them?" TDM Review, 7, no. 2 (May 1999): 1-3.
Abstract: HOV lanes and their usefulness to alleviate traffic congestion and improve air quality have been debated for years. This article looks at the reasons for successful utilization of HOV lanes and identifies some of the factors necessary for their success: meticulous planning, integration with transit, adequate access, adequate park and ride facilities. Today's question under debate, how to best utilize lanes for maximum benefit and commuter satisfaction, is then discussed. Suggestions such as allowing trucks to use HOV lanes for certain periods of the day, establishing a fee program for two-person vehicles, or setting up a sticker program for alternate day use are considered.
Kim, S-G, and others. "Statistical Assessment of Public Opinion Toward Conversion of General-Purpose Lanes to High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes." Transportation Research Record, 1485 (1995): 168-176.
Abstract: Converting general-purpose lanes to high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes is a policy that has been meticulously avoided since the public outcry