HOT Lanes: Congestion Relief and Better Transit

Similar documents
Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study Update

May 23, 2011 APTA Bus & Paratransit Conference. Metro ExpressLanes

The USDOT Congestion Pricing Program: A New Era for Congestion Management

What IS BRT, Really? Not BRT and RNY

REPORT CARD FOR CALIFORNIA S INFRASTRUCTURE WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT CALIFORNIA S TRANSIT FACILITIES

Independence Institute Denver West Parkway, Suite 185 Golden, Colorado i2i.org/cad.aspx BRT = BTR

Changing Behavior and Achieving Mode Shi2 Goals

APPENDIX I: [FIXED-GUIDEWAY TRANSIT FEASIBILITY]

I-26 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis

Policy Note. Vanpools in the Puget Sound Region The case for expanding vanpool programs to move the most people for the least cost.

Emerging Technologies & Autonomous Vehicle Readiness Planning. Georgia Planning Association Conference Jekyll Island, GA September 5, 2018

Metropolitan Council Budget Overview SFY

CLRP. Performance Analysis of The Draft 2014 CLRP. Long-Range Transportation Plan For the National Capital Region

Bus Rapid Transit. Jennifer Flynn and Cheryl Thole Senior Research Associates Commuter Choice Workshop January 2012 Tampa, FL

TRANSIT IDEA STRATEGIC INITIATIVE On BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT)

6/6/2018. June 7, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

What is the Connector?

The Case for. Business. investment. in Public Transportation

20 Minutes. Panos D. Prevedouros, PhD. October 2010

Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM)

Travel Time Savings Memorandum

CENTRAL FLORIDA EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY Master Plan Update Board Workshop #2

San Francisco Transportation Plan

The Future of TDM History can help us understand the present, and predict the future!

a GAO GAO MASS TRANSIT Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise Report to Congressional Requesters United States General Accounting Office

Redefining Mobility Ready or not: Autonomous and connected vehicle planning and policy, now and in the future

VAN NESS AVENUE BUS RAPID TRANSIT

Executive Summary. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report ES-1

The Implications of Automated Vehicles for the Public Transit Industry

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Develop ground transportation improvements to make the Airport a multi-modal regional

The City of Toronto s Transportation Strategy July 2007

Vanpooling and Transit Agencies. Module 3: Benefits to Incorporating Vanpools. into a Transit Agency s Services

Modal Choice for Mass Rapid Transit

Transportation 2040: Plan Performance. Transportation Policy Board September 14, 2017

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

Waco Rapid Transit Corridor (RTC) Feasibility Study

6/11/2018. June 7, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

Shared Mobility Action Plan Overview

Successful Passenger Rail in the State of California

Orange Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Improvements San Fernando Valley Service Council April 3, 2019

AMERICA. rides the BUS

Valley Metro Overview. ITE/IMSA Spring Conference March 6, 2014

2/1/2018. February 1, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor. Community Meetings April/May, 2012

PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN RAIL SUMMARY (COMMUTER RAIL, REGIONAL RAIL)

A Transit Plan for the Future. Draft Network Plan

2 VALUE PROPOSITION VALUE PROPOSITION DEVELOPMENT

Connected Vehicle and Autonomous Vehicle (CV/AV) Mobility and Technology

UTA Transportation Equity Study and Staff Analysis. Board Workshop January 6, 2018

Reducing Energy Consumption and Emissions Through Congestion Management

Paid Parking at Park & Ride Lots: Framing the Issues. Capital Programs Committee May 2014

Treasure Island Mobility Management Program

Southern California - CHSRA

METRONext. Vision & Moving Forward Plans. Board Workshop. December 11, DRAFT For Preliminary Discussion Only

Feasibility Study. Community Meeting March, North-South Commuter Rail Feasibility Study

The RoadMAP to ELectric Vehicle Adoption. Model policies and programs to accelerate EV adoption at the state and local level.

Rapid Transit and Land-Use Integration a Reality

East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor. TAC Briefing December 4, 2013

Sepulveda Pass Corridor Systems Planning Study

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Leadership NC. November 8, 2018

Shared Mobility Action Plan Overview July 2017

THE WILSHIRE CORRIDOR: RAIL AND ITS ALTERNATIVES. Prepared By: Jacki Murdock Transportation and Environmental Planner

Road Tolls and Road Pricing Innovative Methods to Charge for the Use of Road Systems

Draft Results and Recommendations

Pacific Electric Right-of-Way / West Santa Ana Branch Corridor Alternatives Analysis

KRM Corridor Transit Service Options: Frequently Asked Questions

Rideshare and TDM Part of the Transportation System

NET TOLL REVENUE REINVESTMENT GRANT PROGRAM. South Bay Service Council

Disruptive Technology and Mobility Change

Congestion Charging - An Idea Whose Time Has Come?

Caltrain Downtown Extension Study Ridership Forecast Summary

NEW YORK SUBURBAN RAIL SUMMARY (COMMUTER RAIL, REGIONAL RAIL)

Overview of Regional Commuter Rail Webinar: Phoenix, Arizona December 18, 2013

Smart Cities Around the Country

SEPULVEDA PASS CORRIDOR

USDOT CMAQ Program. Southeast Diesel Collaborative Annual Conference September, 2017

Downtown Transit Connector. Making Transit Work for Rhode Island

Executive Summary. Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Priority Corridor Phase 1 Alternatives Analysis October 13, 2009.

4.0 TIER 2 ALTERNATIVES

Table 1 Adopted MIA Loading Standards. Bus 120% Light Rail 190% Heavy Rail 230%

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Region Rapid Transit and Land-Use Integration

Needs and Community Characteristics

Service Quality: Higher Ridership: Very Affordable: Image:

Stakeholders Advisory Working Groups (SAWGs) Traffic and Transit SAWG Meeting #7

East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor. Information Session, October 10, 2017

ITEM 9 Information October 19, Briefing on the Performance Analysis of the Draft 2016 CLRP Amendment

West Broadway Reconstruction/LRT Design. March 19, 2015

Appendix G: Rapid Transit Technology Backgrounder July 2017

SERVICE DESIGN GUIDELINES

Redefining Mobility. Randy Iwasaki. Executive Director Contra Costa Transportation Authority January 18, 2018

Ideas + Action for a Better City learn more at SPUR.org. tweet about this #DisruptiveTransportation

The Future is Bright! So how do we get there? Council of State Governments West Annual Meeting August 18, 2017

Capital Metro Plans & Projects Update NASWC July 27, capmetro.org

Stakeholders Advisory Working Group Traffic and Transit Group Meeting #4, October 10, 2007

Recommended Vision for the Downtown Rapid Transit Network

UCLA Lake Arrowhead Conference. October 18, 2010

Draft Results and Open House

PAWG Meeting #3a Tier 1 Evaluation

Transcription:

HOT Lanes: Congestion Relief and Better Transit Robert W. Poole, Jr. Director of Transportation Studies Reason Foundation www.reason.org/transportation

Basic Thesis: Current Transportation Plans Need Rethinking Major focus has been on transit and carpool lanes but their market share keeps declining. Cars will still provide the vast majority of trips; trucks and buses need highways, too. HOT lanes can make highways work better for all forms of transportation.

Honolulu s commuter mode share 1990 2000 Drove alone 57.6% 61.4% Carpooled 20.9 19.4 Rode transit 9.3 8.3 Walked/telecom. 9.3 8.5 Other means 2.8 2.4

Current Long-Range Plans Don t Reduce Congestion Metro LRTP $ Transit TTI Area %Transit Mode Share 2003 2030 2005-2030 2003 2030 Atlanta 38% 6.7 8.4 1.46 1.85 Denver 27% 5.0 6.4 1.40 1.80 Los Angeles 58% 4.8 7.4 1.75 1.94 San Diego 49% 5.0 10.0 1.41 1.70 Honolulu 61% 8.3?? 1.19 1.31

Why doesn t transit make more of a difference? Decentralization of housing Decentralization of jobs Hence: suburb-to-suburb commuting Rail gets most riders from bus but at much higher cost.

Advantages of rubber-tire transit in 21 st -century metro areas: Can use all of existing highway infrastructure; Highway system is a network, with many network benefits: Links every origin to every destination; Much greater potential for single-vehicle trips, nearly door-to-door; Less vulnerable to breakdowns, damage like the Internet, can route around trouble; Can adapt and change as land uses change.

Busways Have Huge Capacity: Lincoln Tunnel Express Bus Lane: at peak, carries 32,600 pass/lane/hr. (with 44 passengers/bus) Port Authority says that with 4-sec headways, could do 39,600. With ITS permitting 3-sec headways, and with 58 passengers, could do 70,000.

HOV Lanes Began as Busways FHWA/UMTA policy favored busways (1970s). But only a few exclusive busways today: Lincoln Tunnel XBL (730 buses/hr.) Pittsburgh busways Miami busway Seattle bus tunnel Surface-street busways: Las Vegas, Orlando

Empty Lanes Led to Opening Up Busways to HOVs Shirley Highway Busway: Vanpools and HOV-4 (1973), HOV-3 (1989) Los Angeles El Monte Busway (I-10): HOV-3 (1976) Houston Transitways: HOV-4 (1985), HOV-3 then HOV-2 (1986)

But Carpooling Has Declined as HOV Lanes Have Expanded 300 25% Lane-miles 250 200 150 100 50 HOV lane-miles (in 10s) % of commuters who carpool 20% 15% 10% 5% Fractional carpooling (%) 0 1980 1990 2000 0%

Honolulu Data Consistent with National Experience Carpool Mode Share, US Census 1990 2000 SF Bay Area 13.0% 12.9% San Diego 13.8% 13.0% Sacramento 13.7% 13.5% Honolulu 20.9% 19.4% National 13.4% 11.2%

Vanpooling Has Been Hurt by Carpool Preference (Houston data) HOV lane time-saving reduced when filled with HOV-2s. Need large time-saving to offset time cost of assembling van-pool 80 60 40 20 0 Vanpooling's Decline on the Katy Freeway # Vans HOV4 (April 1985) Bus/Van Only (1984) HOV3 (Sept '85) HOV2 (Nov '86) Nov '87 HOV3 (Oct '88) March '89 Dec '89 1996

BRT in HOV Lanes: Not Sustainable HOV-2 fills up and loses time-saving HOV-3 in most cases empty-lane problem HOV-4 even more empty space No way to fine-tune occupancy (e.g., HOV-2.7)

HOT lanes: important step forward: Managed (HOT) lanes provide greater transportation benefits than traditional HOV lanes: Sustainable, long-term congestion relief Guideway for high-speed BRT service Significant revenue for capital and operations

Value Pricing Offers Precise Control I-15 quasi-real-time variable pricing 91-X fine-tuned rate schedule, periodically adjusted 49% of peak traffic with 33% of lane capacity Both offer reliable high speeds during rush hours.

91 Express Lanes, Orange County, California

Priced Lane Projects, 2006

Two Very Different HOT Lane Models 1. HOV system that sells excess capacity: I-15 express lanes, San Diego Implicit Atlanta model (several recent studies) 2. Express toll lanes that give deals to certain types of HOVs: 91 Express Lanes, Orange County, CA Maryland/Florida proposed Express Toll Lanes

Comparison of the Two Models Atlanta NW Corridor (I-75) study: PM peak, 2030, MLs with 28% of total lane capacity approach 25% of traffic; hence, are closed to SOVs. 91 Express Lanes: PM peak, 2006, MLs with 33% of total lane capacity handle 49% of total traffic, nearly all of whom pay the market price.

What Is the Purpose of Managed Lanes? VMT Reduction? Getting people out of their cars has not worked (declining car-pool mode share). Emission-reduction is becoming a nonproblem (fleet turnover). Congestion Relief? Value of congestion-reduction is huge. That translates into major new funding source.

Synergy of Managed Lanes and Bus Rapid Transit Value-priced lane is virtual equivalent of an exclusive fixed guideway. Pricing limits vehicle flow to what s compatible with LOS C conditions. Reliable high speed is sustainable longterm, thanks to pricing. Houston implementing first such project on Katy Freeway managed lanes.

Virtual Exclusive Busway: Houston s Katy MLs 3-way public-public partnership Transit agency (METRO) Toll agency (HCTRA) State DOT (TxDOT) 4 new MLs with value pricing HCTRA funds and manages the MLs METRO guaranteed 65 buses/hr and 25% of capacity for bus + HOV3+ LOS C to be maintained, via pricing and occupancy controls

Implications of Katy ML Deal Transit funding: no toll revenues to METRO, but still a great deal (free guideway). Busway capacity: 65/hr. is 62% increase; should be ample. FTA approval: granted, based on LOS C. Occupancy changes: going to HOV-3 now and HOV-4 as needed. Pricing sustainability: MOU commitment.

Network Benefits Network of priced lanes facilitates region-wide express bus/brt service But that means major construction of new lanes and flyovers Hence, toll revenues needed for major capital costs.

Proposed Miami Network

Network Comparisons 500-lane-mile VEB Network cost is $4 to $6 billion, based on Reason studies. 250 route-mile light rail system cost is $31 billion, based on New Starts data. 250 route-mile heavy rail system would be $38 billion, per New Starts data. Plus, the VEB guideway would not depend on [limited] FTA funding.

Conclusions Most 21 st -century metro areas are not New York, Chicago Loop, or DC decentralization of jobs requires rethinking role of transit. Large benefits in transit making use of expanding roadway network. Great synergy between priced lanes and fast, reliable, high-quality bus service. HOT/VEB projects with significant toll revenues will attract private-sector investment.

HOT Lanes: Congestion Relief and Better Transit Robert W. Poole, Jr. Director of Transportation Studies Reason Foundation www.reason.org/transportation