High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes

High Occupancy Vehicle
Lanes
Mass Rapid Transit
Divyaraj P. Jhala (UTP 0409)

3/12/2010
High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes
Table Of Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION OF HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES................................ 2
ADVANTAGES OF HOV FACILITIES :............................................................................................................................... 4
QUALIFIED VEHICLES .................................................................................................................................................. 6
TYPES OF HOV FACILITIES .......................................................................................................................................... 7
H OURS OF OPERATION ............................................................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 2: HIGH OCCUPANCY LANE CAPACITY................................ ................................ ..... 9

DEFINING HOV L ANE C APACITY .................................................................................................................................. 9
OPTIONS FOR USING AVAILABLE HOV L ANE C APACITY ................................................................................................. 11
CHAPTER 3: EVALUATION OF H.O.V. LANES ................................ ................................ ........... 16

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF HOV PROJECT EVALUATIONS ................................................................................................. 16
B ENEFITS OF CONDUCTING B EFORE -AND -AFTER EVALUATIONS ...................................................................................... 17
APPROACH FOR EVALUATING FREEWAY H.O.V. FACILITIES ............................................................................................. 18
SUGGESTED OBJECTIVES , M EASURES OF E FFECTIVENESS , THRESHOLDS , AND D ATA N EEDS ................................................. 19
CHAPTER 4: CASE STUDY: THE EVOLUTION OF THE HOUSTON HOV SYSTEM .............. 28
OVERVIEW OF H OUSTON AREA ................................................................................................................................. 29
M ETHODOLOGY ADOPTED FOR CASE STUDY ................................................................................................................ 30
EVOLUTION AND USE OF THE HOUSTON HOV LANE SYSTEM ............................................................................ 30
Development and Operation of the HOV Lane System......................................................................................... 30
USE OF THE HOV L ANE S YSTEM ................................................................................................................................ 36
ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DEVELOPING AND OPERATING M ANAGED LANES .............................................................. 40
ONGOING C ONSIDERATION OF ENHANCEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 40
REFERENCES:................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 42
Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 1

Chapter 1: Introduction of
In the face of growing urban congestion, the range of strategies to maintain and
improve highway service is also increasing. The traditional approach has been the addition of
general-purpose lanes. However, because of the high costs and impacts of creating new
capacity, increasing attention is also being given to strategies that make the maximum use of
existing highway capacity.
These strategies focus on both highway supply and demand. The most basic supply-side
measure is the provision of additional roadway capacity. Given the environmental concerns and
cost of adding new capacity, Departments of Transportation (DOTs) are also making increased
use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies to support improved operational
efficiency on existing facilities by focusing on operational control and the provision of real time
user information.
At the same time, transportation officials are using a range of demand management
strategies to influence user demand and provide preferential services to certain vehicle types.
One such strategy, High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV) lanes, reserves existing or new highway
lanes for the exclusive use of car pools and transit vehicles. In some areas, DOTs are expanding
HOV lanes into metropolitan area-wide networks. An additional management strategy uses
variable prices on tolled facilities to attract motorists to lower priced off-peak times, thereby
maintaining higher service level volumes during peak periods.
In transportation engineering and transportation planning, a high-occupancy vehicle
lane (also called an HOV lane or carpooling) is a lane reserved for vehicles with a driver and one
or more passengers. These lanes are also known as carpool lanes, commuter lanes, diamond
lanes, express lanes, and transit lanes.
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. The definition of an HOV can include
buses, Vanpools, and Carpools. By encouraging greater use of these modes, HOV projects
increase the number of people, rather than the number of vehicles, being carried on a freeway
or roadway.
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 success and acceptance of HOV projects can be influenced by these supporting facilities,
services, and programmes. Thus, H.O.V. Facilities often involves variety of elements aimed at
encouraging commuters to use buses, vanpools or carpools.
Figure 1
shows buses,
Vanpools, and
Carpools can
accommodate more
persons in fewer
vehicles than
automobiles with
only one person.
The intent of
H.O.V. facilities is
not to force
individuals into
making changes
against their will.
Rather the objective
is to provide cost effective travel alternative that a significant volume of commuter will find
attractive to change from driving alone to using a higher occupancy mode. The HOV lanes
and other supportive elements help provide the incentives to encourage this mode change.
H.O.V. Facilities may focus on meeting one or more of three common objectives.
Those Objectives are:
Increase Average Number of Persons per vehicle: The travel time savings and travel
time reliability offered to high- occupancy vehicles provide incentive for single occupant
automobile driver to change from driving alone to using a bus, carpool or vanpool. Thus, major
objective of H.O.V. project is to move people rather than vehicles. This, in turn increases
average number of people per vehicle on road way or travel corridor.
Preserve the Person-Movement Capacity of the Roadway: Opportunities to expand
the vehicular capacity of freeways are limited in many areas. HOV lanes, when implemented in
appropriate corridors and operated properly, can help ensure future capacity is available to
serve anticipated growth in person travel. An HOV lane, which can move two to five times as
many persons as a general-purpose lane, may effectively double the capacity of the roadway to
move people. In addition, the vehicle occupancy levels required to use an HOV lane can be
raised as needed in response to congestion on the facility. This helps ensure that the HOV lane

continues to offer the high speeds and reliable trip times that are essential to HOV facility
success.
Enhance Bus Transit Operations: HOV lanes offer a number of advantages to transit
operators. Travel times, schedule adherence, and vehicle and labor productivity all can
improve. HOV lanes may offer a safer operating environment for buses. All of these factors help
in attracting new bus riders and in enhancing the operations of the service.
High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes: Combines HOV and pricing strategies by
allowing single occupancy vehicles to gain access to HOV lanes by paying a toll. The lanes are
͞managed͟ through pricing to maintain free flow conditions even during the height of rush
hours. The appeal of this concept is tri-fold:
• It expands mobility options in congested urban areas by providing an opportunity for
reliable travel times to users prepared to pay a significant premium for this service;
• It generates a new source of revenue which can be used to pay for transportation
improvements, including enhanced transit service; and
• It improves the efficiency of HOV facilities.
The combined ability of HOT operations to introduce additional traffic to existing HOV
facilities, while using price and other management techniques to control the number of
additional motorists and maintain high service levels, renders the HOT lane concept a promising
means of reducing congestion and improving service on the existing highway system.
ADVANTAGES OF HOV FACILITIES :

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. When properly planned and implemented, HOV facilities can offer a number
of advantages. Some of the advantages of high-occupancy vehicle projects that should be
considered in the planning process include the following:
Trip Time Reliability: Traffic volumes on H.O.V. lanes are managed to ensure superior,
consistent, and reliable travel times, particularly during peak travel periods.
Travel Time Savings: H.O.V. lanes allow High occupancy vehicles and paying non-HOV motorists
to travel at higher speeds than vehicles on congested general-purpose lanes.

Transit Improvements: HOT lane revenues may be used to support transit improvements, and
new HOT lane facilities provide faster highway trips for transit vehicles.
Enhanced Corridor Mobility: Improved trip time reliability, higher speeds, travel time savings,
and possible transit improvements all lead to greater mobility at the corridor level.
Environmental Advantages: Compared to general-purpose lanes, H.O.V. lanes may provide

environmental advantages by eliminating greenhouse gases caused by stop-and-go traffic, and
by encouraging people to use carpools and mass transit, thereby reducing the number of cars
on the road.
Trip Options: In congested corridors with HOV facilities and transit service, HOT lanes provide
SOV motorists with an additional travel choice: the option of paying for a congestion-free,
dependable and faster trip.
Costs: - While actual implementation costs depend on the type of facility and the site, when
compared to other fixed-guide way 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 lime -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 three- to eight-year time period.
Staged implementation: HOV facilities allow for the staging of construction, and can often
be opened for use as the individual segments of the overall project are completed.
Lower Risk - Compared to other fixed transit improvements, HOV facilities may 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.
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 on HOV lanes are usually express or limited-express. As a
result, the line-haul speeds are usually high, with many operating at or above 50 miles per
hour.
Flexibility: Buses, Carpools, and Vanpools can use the existing street system for the collection
and distribution portions of the trip. This can provide a good deal of flexibility in service
orientation, especially in matching service needs to changing demands. Park-and-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.
QUALIFIED VEHICLES
Qualification for HOV status varies by locality, and may require more than two people.
Qualification for HOV status varies by locality, and may require more than two people. When an
automobile is used as an HOV, the group of people using it is often called a carpool, though the
term HOV includes buses and vans. However, bus lanes may not necessarily be intended for use
by carpools. An HOV or carpool may be allowed to travel on special road lanes, on which
vehicles not meeting minimum occupancy are prohibited, called restricted lanes, carpool lanes
or diamond lanes. In some cases, single occupant vehicles are allowed provided that they are
hybrid vehicles or use native fuels.
In some regions, buses are allowed to travel on the road shoulder when traffic becomes
heavy, but it is often still illegal for cars (even HOVs) to take the shoulder to get around traffic
jams. HOV facilities are open to 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. The carpool occupancy requirements for
existing HOV facilities vary between 2+ and 3 + persons per vehicle. No facilities currently use a
4+ requirement. Some HOV facilities may adapt various occupancy requirements, like in

morning and evening peak hour it is 3+ while in other cases it is 2+. The Katy Transit way in
Houston is the only HOV facility with variable occupancy requirements. A 2+ requirement is
utilized during all operating periods except during the morning and afternoon peak hours, when
a 3+ requirement is in effect.
TYPES OF HOV FACILITIES

High-occupancy vehicle facilities on freeways or separate rights-of-way are generally
classified into the following categories.
• Exclusive HOV Facility, Separate Right-of-Way- This type of HOV facility is a
roadway or lane(s) developed in a separate right-of-way and designated for the
exclusive use by high-occupancy vehicles. Most existing facilities of this type are
designed for, and utilized by, buses only. Most are two-lane, two-direction facilities.
Examples of this type of HOV treatment are the South and East Bus ways in Pittsburgh
and the transit way system in Ottawa, Ontario Canada.
• Exclusive HOV Facility, Freeway Right-of-Way- This type of HOV facility is 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 concrete barriers. However, a few exclusive facilities
are separated from the general purpose lanes by a wide painted buffer. Exclusive HOV
facilities in freeway rights-of-way are usually open to all types of HOVs-buses, Vanpools,
and Carpools. Examples of exclusive barrier-separated HOV facilities include the
Houston HOV lanes and the Shirley Highway HOV lanes in the Washington,
D.C./Northern Virginia area.
• Concurrent Flow Lane- Concurrent flow HOV lanes are defined as a freeway lane in
the same 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. Examples of concurrent
flow lanes are SR 520, l-5, and I-405 in Seattle, Route 55 in Orange County, California,
and Route 101 in San Jose, California.

• Contra flow Lane - This type of HOV facility is a freeway lane in the off-peak direction
of travel, typically the innermost lane, designated for exclusive use by HOVs traveling in
the peak direction. The lane is 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. Contra flow lanes are usually
operated during the peak periods only, and some operate only during the morning peak
period and then revert back to normal use in non-peak periods. Several examples of this
type of facility are located in the New York City area. In the Dallas area, the East R.L.
Thornton (l-30 East) contra flow lane represents the first application of the moveable
concrete barrier technology with an HOV facility.
• Reversible lanes- Some cities that use separated HOV lanes make them reversible; i.e.
usable only by inbound traffic during the morning rush and usable only by outbound
traffic during the evening rush. Houston is a city which employs reversible HOV lanes.
• Queue jumping- Some cities use HOV lanes to allow carpool traffic to bypass areas of
regular congestion. For example, in Metro Vancouver, British Columbia, HOV traffic is
separated from general traffic and given priority access to the entrance to George
Massey Tunnel.
HOURS OF OPERATION
The operating hours of HOV facilities can be characterized by three different scenarios:
24-hour operation; morning and afternoon/evening operation; and peak-period only operation.
No one specific operating scenario necessarily equates to a certain type of facility. Operating
hours for the exclusive and concurrent flow lanes vary. The exact time these facilities operate
with 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.

Chapter 2: High Occupancy

Lane Capacity
DEFINING HOV LANE CAPACITY

As discussed previously, the goal of an HOV facility is to provide travel time savings and
trip travel time reliability to buses, vanpools, and carpools, to encourage individuals to change
from driving alone. Vehicle eligibility requirements and vehicle-occupancy requirements are
typically established at levels that encourage use of the facility and the formation of new
carpools, but that will not create demand high enough to make the lane congested. The
challenge to operating agencies is to maintain traffic flow levels that provide the travel time
savings and the trip time reliability bus riders, vanpoolers, and carpoolers come to expect.
Different agencies responsible for operating HOV facilities use different measures and
techniques to help monitor the operation of HOV facilities and to determine when an HOV lane
is becoming too congested. There are two typical measures used; 1) vehicles per hour per lane
(vphpl) and 2) average speeds.
The National Cooperative Highway Research Program HOV Systems Manual identified
that volumes of 1,200 to 1,500 vphpl on most types of HOV facilities will begin to experience
degradations in travel time savings and travel time reliability. The manual notes that the
maximum flow or capacity will vary by facility. Some HOV lanes serving primarily carpools are
operating successfully with up to 1,700 or 1,800 vphpl during the peak hour. Others, like the
bus-only contraflow lane approaching the Lincoln Tunnel, reach capacity at 700 to 800 vphpl.
Caltrans uses 1,650 vphpl as the maximum threshold for freeway concurrent flow facilities.
General maximum operating thresholds for different types of HOV facilities (As per HOV
Systems Manual),
ͻSeparate right of way, bus-only ʹ 800ʹ1,000 vphpl

ͻ Separate right of way, HOV ʹ 1,500ʹ1,800 vphpl
ͻ Freeway, exclusive two-directional ʹ 1,200ʹ1,500 vphpl
ͻ Freeway, exclusive reversible ʹ1,500ʹ1,800
ͻ Freeway, concurrent flow ʹ 1,200ʹ1,500 vphpl
ͻ Freeway contraflow, bus-only ʹ 600ʹ800 vphpl
ͻ Freeway contraflow, HOV ʹ 1,200ʹ1,500 vphpl
ͻ HOV bypass lanes ʹ 300ʹ500 vphpl

The updated American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

(AASHTO) Guide for High-Occupancy Vehicle Facilities (7) reflects similar maximum ranges, with
two exceptions. The high end of the maximum ranges for freeway, exclusive reversible lanes
and freeway concurrent flow lanes are identified as 1,600 vphpl.
A second approach to identify capacity problems is to monitor travel speeds in an HOV
lane and travel-time reliability. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
uses a guide that HOV lane vehicles should maintain or exceed an average speed of 45 mph or
greater at least 90 percent of the time they use the lane during the peak hours, measured for a
consecutive six-month period.
FHWA uses congestion measures focusing on the average duration of congested travel,
the travel time index, and the buffer index. There are two measures addressing the average
duration of congested travel. The first is that for any five-minute interval a trip is congested if
its duration exceeds 130 percent of free-flow or un-congested duration. The second measure is
that if more than 20 percent of all trips in the network are congested in any five-minute time
interval, the entire network is congested for that time interval.
The travel time index is defined as the ratio of congested and un-congested travel times
averaged over all congested trips. The buffer index is defined as the ratio of total travel budget
required for 95 percent on-time reliability over the un-congested travel time averaged over all
congested trips. The buffer index provides a measure of not only how congested the system is,
but also how reliable the system is. It provides a performance measure from the customer͛s
perspective. The buffer index represents the amount of time commuters need to build into
their trip to arrive at their destination on time 95 percent of the time.
It is important to note that numerous factors may influence the capacity of an HOV lane.
Factors which may influence the capacity of an HOV lane include the type of HOV facility, the
design, the number and the design of access points, the terminus design, traffic volumes in the
general-purpose lanes, design and access elements of the general-purpose lanes, local
conditions and perceptions, and the goals and objectives of a project. Information on how
these factors may influence the capacity of an HOV lane is summarized next.
ͻType of HOV Facility ʹ As noted previously, the capacity varies by type of HOV lane. Bus-only
lanes and contraflow HOV lanes typically have lower capacities than concurrent flow and
exclusive HOV lanes due to their purpose and their design.
ͻ Design Considerations ʹ An HOV facility with geometric constraints or sections with less than
standard designs typically have lower capacity or maximum operating thresholds than those
with standard designs.
ͻ The Number and the Design of Access Treatments ʹ The number of access points and the
design treatments will influence the capacity of an HOV lane. HOV lanes with direct access

treatments, such as flyover ramps, typically have higher capacity than HOV lanes with access
directly into and out of the adjacent freeway lane. In addition, providing continuous access
tends to lower capacity as HOVs may merge into and out of the lane at any point.
ͻ Terminus Design ʹ The terminus of an HOV lane influences capacity of an HOV lane. Capacity
will be lower if the design requires HOVs to merge back into an adjacent freeway lane.
Providing direct access to frontage roads and park-and-ride lots typically increases capacity.
ͻ Traffic Volumes in the General-Purpose Lanes and Level of Congestion in the Corridor ʹ The
maximum operating threshold or capacity may be higher in a heavily-congested corridor than in
one with lower levels of congestion. However, high levels of congestion in the general-purpose
lanes may reduce the capacity of an HOV lane if it causes problems for HOVs entering and
exiting the lane.
ͻLocal Conditions and Perceptions ʹ The perception of HOV lane users about travel time
savings and trip time reliability, and the perception of commuters and the public about HOV
lane utilization may influence the desirable maximum operating thresholds of an HOV lane.
Unique local conditions may also influence the operating capacity of an HOV facility.
ͻ Goals and Objectives of Project ʹ The goals and objectives of a project may influence the
capacity and the maximum operating thresholds. For example, a project intended to give buses
priority around a congested freeway segment could be expected to have a lower threshold than
an exclusive HOV lane.
OPTIONS FOR USING AVAILABLE HOV LANE CAPACITY

A number of options may be appropriate for consideration by operating agencies if there is
available capacity in an HOV lane. These options include allowing other categories of HOVs and
lowering the vehicle-occupancy requirements. Other possible alternatives include using pricing
to permit lower-occupant or single-occupant vehicles to use the lanes. Still other alternatives
include allowing environmentally friendly vehicles and special user group vehicles to use the
HOV lanes. Law enforcement, emergency services, public service, and public transportation
vehicles not meeting the occupancy requirements are examples of possible special user groups.
Allowing trucks and commercial vehicles to use an HOV lane is another alternative, although
design and safety issues typically limit consideration of these types of vehicles.
These potential options are briefly described in this section.
Allowing Other Categories of HOVs: A first approach to consider if there is available

capacity in an HOV lane is allowing additional types of HOVs that may currently be excluded. If
carpools and/or vanpools are not currently allowed to use an HOV facility that has available

capacity, these two classes of HOVs would be logical to consider first. Potential issues with this
approach include design or operational issues that limit use by carpools and vanpools, and the
potential that demand will exceed the available capacity. Advantages of this approach include
maintaining the HOV goals and objectives of a project, encouraging mode change, and
supporting air quality improvement efforts.
Lowering Vehicle-Occupancy Requirements: A second approach for addressing

available capacity is to lower the vehicle-occupancy requirement. The application of this
approach is limited, as most HOV lanes currently use a 2+ designation. The few HOV facilities
that use a 3+ designation do so primarily because the facility would be too congested at the 2+
level.
The San Bernardino Freeway busway provides the best recent example of the possible
consequences of lowering the vehicle-occupancy requirement from 3+ to 2+, as required by state
legislation. The change, which was implemented in January 2000, resulted in the HOV lane
becoming too congested. Peak-hour travel speeds on the busway were reduced from 65 mph to 20
mph, while peak hour travel times increased by 20 to 30 minutes, and bus on-time performance
declined significantly. While peak-hour vehicle volumes in the HOV lane increased from 1,100 to
1,600, the number of persons carried declined from 5,900 to 5,200. At the same time, no significant
improvements were realized in the general-purpose freeway lanes.
As demonstrated by the El Monte Busway example, the main potential issue with
lowering the vehicle-occupancy requirement is that an HOV lane will become too congested. In
addition to degrading the travel time savings and trip time reliability HOV lane users have come
to expect, this approach may cause 3+ carpools to disband and/or influence bus riders to
change to 2+ carpools. The application of this option is also limited in that the majority of HOV
lanes already use a 2+ requirement.
Tolled or Priced Vehicles: Another possible approach is to allow lower or single-

occupancy vehicles to use an HOV facility for a fee. This technique is commonly referred to as
value pricing or HOT lanes. Value pricing is currently in use on the I-15 HOV lanes in San Diego
and the Katy and the Northwest HOV lanes in Houston. The I-15 project allows single-occupancy
vehicles to use the HOV lanes, while the two projects in Houston allow two-person carpools to
use the HOV lanes during the 3+ restricted periods for a fee. The toll lanes on SR 91 in Orange
County, California provide a reduced toll charge to 3+ carpools. Other toll facilities around the
county provide carpools with lower toll fees. Value pricing projects are being considered and
implemented on HOV lanes in Minneapolis, Denver, Seattle, and other areas.
Potential advantages of this technique include maximizing use of available capacity,
managing demand, expanding the eligible user groups, addressing real or perceived low use

levels, and generating new revenues. Possible issues include enforcement, initial costs of
installing and operating the toll collection facilities, adding too many vehicles to the lane, and
equity issues.
Environmentally Friendly Vehicles: Another option to address available HOV

capacity is allowing environmentally friendly vehicles to use the lane without meeting the
occupancy requirements. Some States have authorized ILEV use of HOV lanes without meeting
minimum occupancy requirements. ILEVs were defined through EPA rulemaking in 1993 as
vehicles meeting specific low-emission vehicle exhaust emission standards and also having low
levels of evaporative emissions. The definition was intended to limit ILEVs to vehicles that
operate on a single dedicated non-gasoline fuel, such as electricity, compressed natural gas
(CNG), and liquefied natural gas (LNG). Hybrid vehicles, which operate using a combination of
gasoline and electricity, do not qualify as ILEVs.
Possible issues associated with providing HOV exemptions for environmentally friendly
vehicles include demand exceeding the capacity of the lane, enforcement, public perceptions,
and potential equity issues. Potential advantages of this approach include adding new user
groups, encouraging the purchase and use of these types of vehicles, and improving air quality.
Law Enforcement and Emergency Vehicles: Most state and local policies allow
marked (rooftop emergency lights and sirens) law enforcement and emergency vehicles to use
HOV lanes without meeting the occupancy requirements. Police, fire, and other enforcement
and emergency vehicles are typically included in this category of exempt vehicles.
Issues may arise, however, when the definition of allowable vehicles is too vague or the
proper definition is not enforced and law enforcement and emergency personnel traveling
alone in their personal vehicles or in unmarked agency vehicles when not on duty use the HOV
lanes on a regular basis. This misuse may result in overloading the lane, public perception that
the vehicle-occupancy requirements are not being enforced, and the need for more
enforcement.
Designated Public Transportation Vehicles: Buses carrying passengers are an important part of
most HOV systems. Allowing designated public transportation vehicles to use HOV lanes when
they do not meet the occupancy requirement may be one approach to using available capacity.
Providing access to these vehicles is not an issue in most areas since the total number of
buses is relatively small and the potential to use HOV lanes in the off-peak direction of travel is
limited in many cases. Potential benefits of this approach include cost savings and enhanced
operating effectiveness for transit systems and improved service for riders. These benefits may

result in increased transit ridership. Issues may arise however, if private transportation vehicles,
such as taxicabs, airport shuttles, and similar vehicles are provided with occupancy exemptions.
Allowing Truck and Commercial Vehicle Access. The potential use of HOV lanes by trucks
during all operating hours or just the off-peak periods has been suggested in a few facilities.
Potential issues to examine in considering truck use of an HOV facility include the type of HOV
facility, access, design limitations, safety concerns, and the potential benefits to commercial
vehicle operators. HOV lanes and access facilities may not be designed to accommodate
commercial vehicles and there may be geometric limitations that prohibit trucks from using a
facility. Safety concerns may include trucks veering across general-purpose lanes to access an
HOV lane and conflicts between HOVs and trucks. Finally, truck use may increase the costs
associated with operating an HOV facility if additional personnel are needed to monitor a
facility or if operating hours are extended. Truck use of HOV lanes may also cause pavements to
deteriorate faster.
Table 1. Potential Issues and Advantages Associated with Options for Using Available
HOV Lane Capacity.
Option Potential Issues/ Potential Advantages
Limitations
Allow other HOVs, such as carpools in a
bus- and vanpool-only lane ͻ Design limitations. ͻMaintains HOV
ͻ Operational limitations. goals/objectives.
ͻ Demand may exceed ͻSupports air quality
capacity and overload the efforts.
lane. ͻEncourages mode change.
Lower Occupancy Requirement

ͻDemand may exceed ͻMaintains HOV
capacity and overload the goals/objectives.
lane. ͻSupports air quality
ͻ Operational limitations. efforts.
ͻ Few applications, as most
HOV projects use 2+
requirement.
Tolled/Priced Vehicles ͻDesign and cost ͻ May generate significant
associated with tolling revenues.
infrastructure and ͻ May build support for
operation. HOV lanes among
ͻDemand may exceed additional user groups.

capacity.
ͻMay not support HOV
goals/objectives.
ͻ Equity concerns.
ͻ Enforcement.
Environmentally Friendly Vehicles ͻDemand may exceed ͻMay encourage purchase
capacity and overload the of environmentally friendly
lane. vehicles.
ͻ Public perception. ͻMay help improve air
ͻ Enforcement. quality.
ͻMay not support HOV
goals/objectives.
ͻPossible equity concerns.
Law Enforcement Vehicles (Law ͻ Defining allowed vehicles. ͻ May enhance response to
enforcement, Fire, EMS) ͻDoes not support HOV emergencies.
goals/objectives.
ͻ Public perception.
ͻ Enforcement.
Designated Public Transportation Vehicles ͻ Defining allowed vehicles. ͻAdditional benefits and
ͻ Public perception. cost savings for transit
ͻ May be few opportunities operators.
due to transit ͻ Service enhancements for
orientation/operation. riders.
ͻ May increase ridership.
Trucks and Commercial Vehicles ͻDoes not support HOV ͻ May help separate trucks
goals/objectives. from other traffic, which
ͻ Design limitations. may provide safety
ͻAdditional cost to operate. benefits.
ͻ Crash/safety concerns.

Chapter 3: Evaluation Of
H.O.V. Lanes
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF HOV PROJECT EVALUATIONS

Evaluations of transportation projects provide an opportunity to compare alternatives,
measure the worth or value of a project, and determine if the goals of a project have been met.
Evaluations are usually conducted at different stages in the project development and
implementation process. Initially, competing alternatives are examined and evaluated to assist
with the selection of the preferred approach. Once the decision has been made on a specific
course of action, before-and-after evaluations are conducted to determine if the anticipated
benefits have in fact been realized and to assist in identifying ways to improve similar projects
in the future. Further, ongoing monitoring and periodic evaluations are often undertaken to
ensure that the project continues to meet the desired goals and to identify possible areas for
improvement.
Evaluations of HOV facilities are often conducted for similar purposes. First, an HOV
facility may be one of many alternatives considered in the planning stage of a project. Second,
once selected as the preferred alternative and implemented, evaluations may be conducted
after an initial demonstration or start-up phase. Evaluations at this point focus on identifying if
the benefits estimated for the facility are being realized. Finally, ongoing monitoring and
periodic evaluations may be conducted on the HOV facility to ensure that these benefits
continue to be realized and to improve the operation of the lane. To date, ongoing evaluations
of HOV projects have been limited. Thus, HOV facilities can be evaluated as one of many
alternatives during the planning stage, shortly after implementation, and on an ongoing basis.
This procedure is primarily concerned with a comparison of conditions before the HOV
project is constructed and those after implementation, and the ongoing monitoring of the
facility. However, it is important to note that much of the information generated during the
analysis of alternatives may also be used in the before-and-after evaluation. The results of this
analysis, which often include the use of simulation models or other forecasting techniques, may
form the basis for comparison with the actual operation of the facility. In addition, other
measures, such as the UMTA cost-effectiveness index, may be used in evaluating alternatives.
Thus, a link exists between the different stages of evaluations.

BENEFITS OF CONDUCTING BEFORE -AND -AFTER EVALUATIONS

Multiple benefits can be realized from conducting before-and-after studies of HOV
projects. Evaluations provide the ability to determine if the goals and objectives of the project
have been achieved. In addition, the information obtained from the evaluation process has
numerous secondary benefits. This section provides a brief summary of the reasons for
conducting HOV project evaluations and the benefits resulting from these efforts.
A main reason for conducting before-and-after evaluations of HOV projects is to identify
the benefits accrued from the project and to determine how well the goals and objectives
identified for the facility are being met. Evaluations provide an opportunity to ascertain the
degree to which the desired results are in fact occurring. Further, before-and-after studies
provide an official data base for the project. This can help ensure that all groups are utilizing the
same data and can help to clarify any possible disagreements over the impact of the project.
The results of before-and-after studies are also important in future planning efforts
within the metropolitan area. The information generated can be used to calibrate planning and
simulation models for future use and can be used to assist in the decision making process in
other corridors. Planning and simulation models are often used in the analysis of alternatives.
Utilizing the results from the before-and-after studies to modify these to more accurately
reflect actual experience provides a valuable check on the modeling process and improves the
future capabilities of the models. In addition, the results from the evaluation and the
experience gained from the project can enhance the decision making process on future
projects.
The information collected as part of the evaluation process has value for operating
decisions relating to the HOV facility. Information on usage, violation rates, and accidents are
all critical for ensuring the efficient and safe operation of the facility. Monitoring these and
other aspects of the HOV lane as part of the evaluation process can identify problems that may
need to be addressed. For example, changes in operating hours, vehicle occupancy
requirements, bus service levels, and access/egress points may be necessary. Thus, the data
provided from before- and-after studies, especially longitudinal data on the use of the facility,
serves a critical operations function. This information can also be used to evaluate the
marketing and public information programs associated with the facility and identify if additional
marketing is needed.
Evaluations may also be needed to meet federal or state requirements. A variety of
funding sources have been used to implement HOV projects. Different funding sources and
programs may require before-and-after evaluations. Even when not a requirement, evaluations
of HOV projects can serve a useful purpose to assist in justifying future funding for similar
facilities.

Lastly, by providing information on different projects throughout the country, the

results of evaluation studies can assist in establishing an ongoing national data base on HOV
facilities. Building a common body of knowledge on the use and effectiveness of HOV facilities
is needed to continue to keep pace with the issues facing transportation professionals and
decision makers in urban areas. A common national data base on HOV facilities can assist in
ensuring that all areas are kept informed of the latest developments in the field.
Following the suggested approach and procedures outlined in this chapter will provide
for a comprehensive before-and-after and ongoing evaluation program for freeway HOV
facilities. The listing of objectives, measures of effectiveness, threshold ranges, and data needs
should provide adequate direction for the development of an evaluation program that meets
the needs and resources of individual areas, while helping to provide comparability among
different projects. In order to provide further assistance in the development of a
comprehensive evaluation program, the next chapter presents an extensive discussion of data
collection methodologies and techniques.
APPROACH FOR EVALUATING FREEWAY H.O.V. FACILITIES

The suggested procedures, as outlined in this chapter, build on the strengths of these
studies. The approach and procedures are presented to provide guidance to agencies
developing before-and- after evaluation programs for HOV facilities. It is realized that individual
evaluation programs need to be tailored to the scope of the specific project, special issues of
concern, and staff and financial resources available in each area. The suggested approach
provides the flexibility to address local concerns and available resources while at the same time
providing a comprehensive and more standardized process. The utilization of a more uniform
approach should enhance both the quality and comparability of evaluations of HOV facilities
throughout the country.
While limitations on staff and financial resources are concerns in most areas,
undertaking before-and-after evaluations of HOV facilities should not be taken lightly. A lack of
commitment and allocation of adequate resources can negate the value of the resulting
study. An insufficient evaluation may be worse than no evaluation at all, as it may lead to
erroneous conclusions and inappropriate decisions. The general approach suggested in this
chapter provides a framework for conducting before-and-after evaluations. However, in
actual practice, the quality of these evaluations will be closely correlated to the time and
resources committed to the study.

SUGGESTED OBJECTIVES , MEASUR ES OF EFFECTIVENESS , THRESHOLDS , AND

DATA NEEDS
A variety of objectives, both quantitative and qualitative, have been used to evaluate
HOV facilities. The first step in developing an evaluation program is to clearly define the project
objectives. The following general objectives represent some of those most commonly
associated with HOV facilities.
ͻ The HOV facility should improve the capability of a congested freeway corridor to move more
people by increasing the number of persons per vehicle.
ͻ The HOV facility should increase the operating efficiency of bus service in the freeway
corridor.
ͻ The HOV facility should provide travel time savings and a more reliable trip time to high-
occupancy vehicles utilizing the facility.
ͻ The HOV facility should provide favorable impacts on air quality and energy consumption.
ͻ The HOV facility should not unduly impact the operation of the freeway general-purpose main
lanes.
ͻ The HOV facility should increase the per lane efficiency of the total freeway facility.
ͻ The HOV facility should be safe and should not unduly impact the safety of the freeway
general-purpose mainlanes.
ͻ The HOV facility should have public support.
ͻ The HOV facility should be a cost-effective transportation improvement.
These statements represent general objectives that reflect the reasons most commonly
cited for developing HOV facilities. These objectives should be defined in more detail and
expanded as necessary so that each represents a measurable statement appropriate to the
specific HOV project. Once the objectives have been clearly defined, the next step is to identify
the appropriate measures of effectiveness (MOEs) that correspond to each objective. These
measures should focus on the key elements of the objectives, so that the information needed
to determine if the objective has been achieved can be obtained.

Commonly used measures of effectiveness associated with each of the objectives were
examined to identify those that appear to represent key elements to be measured. The MOEs
that can assist in determining the impact of the HOV facility are included in the following listing.
Each of the general objectives is presented, along with possible corresponding measures of
effectiveness, threshold guidelines, and data needs. The threshold ranges presented are
intended to serve as very general guidelines. It is realized that the appropriate thresholds will
vary for individual projects depending on local conditions. These elements are summarized in
Tables 7 provided at the end.
Objective: The HOV facility should improve the capability of a congested freeway corridor to
move more people by increasing the number of persons per vehicle.
Measures of Effectiveness: In general, the increase in the peak-hour, peak-direction person

volume resulting from the HOV facility should at least be greater than the percentage increase
in directional lanes added to the roadway. In effect this will be accomplished by increasing the
average vehicle occupancy (persons per vehicle) on the roadway. A significant portion of the
increase in average vehicle occupancy should be the result of creating new carpoolers and new
bus riders, rather than just diverting buses, carpools, and vanpools from the adjacent freeway
lanes or parallel routes to the HOV facility. The attraction of a significant volume of new bus
and carpool users is critical to the effectiveness of HOV facilities. Simply moving existing
rideshare patrons from the general-purpose lanes or parallel routes will not impact the person-
movement capability of the total corridor.
Specific MOEs that may be appropriate for use with this objective include the following:
ͻ Actual and percent increase in the person-movement efficiency on the total freeway facility
(general-purpose lanes plus HOV facility).
ͻ Actual and percent increase in the average vehicle occupancy rate for the total freeway
facility (general-purpose lanes plus HOV facility).
ͻ Actual and percent increase in carpools and vanpools for the total freeway facility (general-
purpose lanes plus HOV facility).
ͻ Actual and percent increase in bus riders for the total freeway facility (general- purpose lanes
plus HOV facility).

For each of these MOEs, it may be appropriate to identify a specific criterion for the
anticipated change in the peak-hour, peak-period, and the daily total (e.g. the actual and
percent increase in bus riders during the peak-hour, peak-period, and daily total).
General Threshold Ranges: Based on experienced, possible threshold ranges for these
MOEs could include at least a 10% increase in the peak-hour, peak-direction average vehicle
occupancy, an increase in person volumes greater than the increase in directional lanes added
to the roadway due to HOV lane implementation, at least a 20% increase in carpoolers, and,
depending on the amount of new transit service provided, a 10% to 20% increase in bus riders.
Data Needs: Primary data needs include before-and-after vehicle and vehicle occupancy
counts on the HOV lane(s), adjacent freeway, and control freeway. Secondary data needs
include before-and-after vehicle and occupancy counts on parallel roadways, and surveys of
users of the HOV facility (bus riders, carpoolers, and vanpoolers) and non-users (individuals in
the general-purpose lanes).
Objective: The HOV facility should increase the operating efficiency of bus service in the
freeway corridor.
Measure of Effectiveness: By increasing bus operating speeds and improving service reliability,
HOV facilities can increase the vehicle operating efficiency of bus service in the freeway
corridor. The following measures of effectiveness can be used with this objective.
ͻ Improvement in vehicle productivity, measured by operating cost per vehicle-mile, operating

cost per passenger, operating cost per passenger mile
ͻ Improved bus schedule adherence, measured by on-time performance
ͻ Improved bus safety, measured by a reduction in vehicle accident rates
General Threshold Ranges: Little analysis has been done on the impact HOV facilities have had
on bus service productivity, schedule adherence, and safety. Very limited information is
available from the Shirley Highway HOV lanes, San Bernardino Busway, and Houston HOV lanes.
Experience from these areas indicate that improvements of 5% to 20% in vehicle productivity
can be realized with the implementation of HOV facilities, resulting in similar reductions in
operating cost per vehicle-mile, operating cost per passenger, and operating cost per passenger
mile. On-time schedule adherence can be expected to improve significantly. Experience from a
number of areas indicates that the average schedule adherence for buses operating on HOV
lanes improves to 95% or better. The state-of-the-art review did not identify any information on

bus accidents. However, depending on the design of the facility, a reduction in the bus accident
rate could be anticipated.
Data Needs: Data needed for these measures of effectiveness include before-and-after bus
service levels, vehicle productivity, on-time performance, number and severity of bus accidents,
vehicle operating costs, and changes in labor, fuel, and other costs. On-time performance is
usually measured by the number of vehicles arriving at their destination at the scheduled time.
On-time performance may be defined differently by different transit systems, but a range from
arriving on schedule to 5 minutes behind schedule is often used. It is suggested that the actual
arrival times of buses be monitored before-and-after implementation of the HOV facility, as this
provides the most accurate picture of changes in on-time performance. In addition, the
perception of bus users to changes in bus on-time performance can be measured through the
use of on-board ridership surveys.
Objective: The HOV facility should provide travel time savings and a more reliable trip time to
high-occupancy vehicles utilizing the HOV facility.
Measure of Effectiveness: During the peak-periods, the travel time on the HOV facility should
be less than the travel time on the adjacent freeway lanes in the peak-direction of travel. The
reliability of the travel time in the HOV lane should also improve from that experienced in the
general-purpose lanes in the pre-HOV lane period.
General Threshold Ranges: A general guide that has been used in some areas is that the travel
time savings for users of the HOV facility should be approximately one minute per mile for the
length of the HOV facility. This guideline further suggests that a minimum total travel time
savings of at least 5 to 7 minutes should be realized during the peak-hour. The travel time
reliability of vehicles using the HOV facility should improve from the pre-HOV conditions. Both
the Shirley Highway HOV lanes and the Houston HOV lanes have shown significant
improvements in travel time reliability.
Data Needs: Travel time runs of vehicles in the general-purpose lanes should be conducted
before the HOV project is implemented. Travel time runs of vehicles in both the HOV lane(s)
and the general-purpose freeway lanes should be conducted on an on-going basis after the
HOV facility is open. The travel time runs can also be used to measure the travel time reliability.
Objective: The HOV facility should have favorable impacts on air quality and energy
consumption.
Measures of Effectiveness: For the total demand being served by the facility, the HOV lane(s)
should have more favorable impacts on air quality and energy consumption than would either
no improvement at all or the addition of a general purpose lane. The measures most commonly

used with this objective are based on calculations or simulation models that use information
generated from other objectives. The following MOEs are commonly used with this objective.
ͻ Reductions in emissions
ͻ Reductions in total fuel consumption
ͻ Reduction in the growth of vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and vehicle hours of travel
General Threshold Ranges: The HOV lane(s) should have a more positive impact on air quality
and energy consumption than would either no improvement or the addition of a mixed traffic
lane. More specific levels can be set for individual projects based on the results of the demand
estimation process.
Data Needs: Estimations based on vehicle and occupancy counts, travel time runs, and
responses to surveys are used to measure changes in these MOEs. Most simulation models
require a good deal of data. Direct monitoring of air quality impacts along the corridor may be
appropriate in some cases.
Objective: The HOV facility should increase the per lane efficiency of the total freeway facility.
Measures of Effectiveness This objective can be measured by a comparison of the peak- hour
per lane efficiency of the freeway lanes prior to implementation of the HOV project and
combined peak-hour per lane efficiency of the freeway lanes and HOV facility after
implementation. The "before" measure can be calculated by taking the person volume on the
freeway multiplied by the average freeway operating speed. The "after" measure can be
calculated by taking person volume on the freeway multiplied by the average freeway
operating speed combined with the person volume on the HOV facility and multiplied by the
average HOV lane operating speed.
General Threshold Ranges: A 5 % - 20 % increase in the peak-hour per lane efficiency of the
total facility could be expected from an HOV project.
Data Needs: The information obtained from the freeway and HOV lane(s) vehicle and
occupancy counts and travel time runs taken before-and-after implementation of the HOV
facility are used to calculate the per lane efficiency.
Objective: The HOV facility should not unduly impact the operation of the freeway main lanes.
Measures of Effectiveness: The capacity and operating speeds of the adjacent freeway main
lanes should not be degraded due to the implementation of the HOV facility. This can be
measured by a comparison of the level-of-service on the freeway main lanes before-and-after

implementation of the HOV project. As presented next, it is suggested that safety be addressed
in a separate objective.
Threshold Ranges: The level-of-service in the main lanes should not decline due to the
implementation of the HOV project.
Data Needs: The information obtained from the freeway and HOV lane(s) vehicle and
occupancy counts and travel time runs taken before-and-after implementation of the HOV
facility are used to calculate the level-of-service.
Objective: The HOV facility should be safe and should not unduly impact the safety of the
freeway general-purpose main lanes.
Measures of Effectiveness: Appropriate MOEs include a before-and-after comparison of the
following items.
ͻ Number and severity of accidents for HOV and freeway lanes
ͻ Accident rate per million vehicle-miles or million passenger-miles of travel for HOV and
freeway lanes
General Threshold Ranges: It is suggested that the accidents rates should not increase with the
implementation of the HOV facility and that the accident rates should be lower on the HOV
facility than the freeway general-purpose lanes. However, if implementation of the HOV facility
has resulted in the narrowing of the general-purpose lanes or shoulder, or the removal of a
shoulder, this may not be a realistic threshold. Thus, it is suggested that this MOE and possible
threshold ranges be carefully examined for each project. Given the experience with some of the
evaluations of HOV facilities in California, it appears important to monitor not only the freeway
lanes and HOV facility, but also a control freeway to determine any overall changes in accident
rates in the area. Maintaining the same analysis procedure throughout the evaluation is
another lesson from the California experience.
Data Needs: Statistics on the accident rates on the freeway main lanes should be collected for a
representative period of time before the HOV facility is opened. Statistics on the accident rates
for both the HOV lane(s) and the freeway main lanes should then be collected for a
representative period of time after the HOV facility is open. Information collected should
include the number, type, and severity of the accidents. Continued, ongoing monitoring should
also be conducted.
Objective: The HOV facility should have public support.

Measures of Effectiveness: Opinion surveys or other techniques should show support for the
HOV facility among users, non-users, the general public, and policy makers; a general

perception should exist that the facility is adequately utilized. Since these are two different
elements, it is suggested that one MOE focus on the perception of utilization of the HOV facility
and another MOE focus on the perception of whether it is a good transportation improvement.
The violation rates, or the percentage of vehicles using the HOV facility that do not meet the
minimum occupancy requirement, can also be used as a MOE for this objective.
General Threshold Ranges: It may be difficult to establish a desired threshold level for this
objective. However, a desired level of public acceptance, user acceptance, and non-user
acceptance can be identified and measured through the use of surveys. As a general guideline it
is suggested that a majority of users and non-users should feel the HOV facility is a good
transportation improvement. The perception of the utilization of the facility may be slightly
lower, especially for non-users. In addition, performance measures and thresholds could be
established related to the number of calls and letters received concerning the facility.
Suggested threshold levels for violation rates are less than 10% for exclusive and contraflow
lanes and less than 20% for concurrent flow lanes. It is realized that the violation rates relate
somewhat to capacity and public support issues, enforcement design, and the level of
enforcement.
Data Needs: Data needed to evaluate this objective can be obtained from surveys of users,
non-users, focus groups, and the general public, monitoring of calls and letters, newspaper
articles, other public reactions relating to the facility, violation rates, and enforcement levels.
Much of this information can be gathered through ongoing marketing and public information
programs, which usually contain monitoring and evaluation components. Many of the case
studies support the importance of marketing and public information programs to educate both
the public and policy makers on the purpose and use of the HOV projects.
Objective: The HOV facility should be a cost-effective transportation improvement.

Measure of Effectiveness: The measure most commonly used with this objective is the benefit-
cost ratio.
General Threshold Ranges: A number of different elements such as travel time savings,
operating cost savings, and savings in the cost of congestion can be included as benefits to
calculate the benefit-cost ratio of an HOV facility. It is suggested that a basic guideline is that, if
an HOV facility has a benefit-cost ratio of greater than one based only on the value of travel
time savings by persons using the facility, then the project can be considered cost-effective. It is
realized that this is an extremely conservative approach, since the HOV facility should also
generate other benefits. However, it provides a relatively easy to understand measure and is
based on obtainable information. Some groups have suggested that only the time saved by new
HOV users should be used in calculating the benefit-cost ratio.

Data Needs: In order to develop a benefit-cost ratio, the total cost (capital and operating) of
the project is needed along with a costing of the benefits. As discussed above, it is suggested
that the travel time savings to persons using the facility be used as a primary benefit.
Table 7. Suggested Objectives and Measures of Effectiveness

Objective Measures of Effectiveness
ͻ The HOV facility should improve the capability of ͻ Actual and percent increase in the person
a congested freeway corridor to move more movement efficiency
people by increasing the number of persons per ͻ Actual and percent increase in average vehicle
vehicle. occupancy rate
ͻ Actual and percent increase in carpools and
vanpools
ͻ Actual and percent increase in bus riders
ͻ Improvement in vehicle productivity (operating

ͻ The HOV facility should increase The operating cost per vehicle-mile, operating cost per
efficiency of bus service in the freeway passenger,
corridor. operating cost per passenger mile)
ͻ Improved bus schedule adherence (on-time
performance)
ͻ Improved bus safety (accidents rates)
ͻ The peak-period, peak-direction travel time in

ͻ The HOV facility should provide travel time the HOV lane(s) should be less then the travel time
savings and a more reliable trip time to HOVs in adjacent freeway lanes
utilizing the HOV facility. ͻ Increase in travel time reliability for vehicles
using HOV lane(s)
ͻ Reduction in emissions
ͻ The HOV facility should have favorable impacts ͻ Reduction in total fuel consumption
on air quality and energy consumption. ͻ Reduction in the growth of vehicle miles of
travel (VMT) and vehicle hours of travel
ͻ Improvement in the peak-hour per lane

ͻ The HOV facility should increase the per lane efficiency of the total facility
efficiency of the total freeway facility.
ͻ The level of service in the freeway main lanes
ͻ The HOV facility should not unduly impact the should not decline
operation of the freeway main lanes.

ͻ Number and severity of accidents for HOV and

ͻThe HOV facility should be safe and should not freeway lanes
unduly impact the safety of the freeway general- ͻ Accident rate per million vehicle miles of travel
Purpose main lanes. ͻ Accident rate per million passenger miles of
travel
ͻ Support for the facility Among users, non-users,

general public, and policy makers
ͻ The HOV facility should have public support.
ͻ Violation rates (percent of vehicles not meeting
the occupancy requirement)
ͻ Benefit-cost ratio
ͻ The HOV facility should be cost-effective

transportation improvements.

Chapter 4: Case Study: The

Evolution of the Houston HOV
System
HOV facilities are an important element of the transportation system in Houston. HOV lanes
and supporting facilities are in operation in six freeway corridors. Building on the success of the
HOV facilities, managed lanes are being developed in one freeway corridor and are under
consideration in a second corridor.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sponsored this study examining the
development and operation of the HOV system in Houston and the evolution toward managed
lanes. This report summarizes the background and the current status of the Houston HOV
system and the development of the first managed lanes project. It also highlights some of the
issues that may need to be addressed in considering managed lanes.
This study accomplishes a number of objectives. The first objective of the study is to
describe the development, operation, and use of the HOV system in the Houston area and the
evolution toward managed lanes. This report provides an overview of the development and use
of the HOV system and the institutional arrangements that have helped foster the evolution of
the system. A final study objective is to describe some of the issues typically associated with
HOV facilities and managed lanes.
The development and operation of HOV facilities have evolved over the past 30 years.
The opening of the bus-only lane on the Shirley Highway (I-395) in Northern
Virginia/Washington, D.C. in 1969 and the contraflow bus lane on the approach to New York-
New Jersey=s Lincoln Tunnel in 1970 represent the first freeway HOV applications in the
country. Today there are some 130 HOV freeway projects in 23 metropolitan areas in North
America, including Houston.
Managed lanes are also used in some metropolitan areas and are being considered in
other regions. The Interstate system, which was developed to provide high-speed travel with
limited access, represents the most common example of managed lanes. More recently,
managed lanes have reemerged in new and different ways in urban areas throughout the
country.
There is no one common definition of managed lanes. The term managed lanes is being
used in many areas to describe facilities or lanes developed and operated in special ways.
Managed lanes may focus on serving special user groups, such as HOVs or trucks; value pricing
or tolling options; express lanes; and limited access facilities.

According to The Texas Department of Transportation, ͞A managed lane facility is one

that increases freeway efficiency by packaging various operational and design actions. Lane
management operations may be adjusted at any time to better match regional goals.͟
According to The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) ͞Managed lanes
facilities include any roadway lane that can be managed to prevent congestion from occurring.
In managed lanes, one or more of these techniques is used to control the number of vehicles
using the lane or roadway:
ͻ Limiting access ʹ providing infrequent on-ramps,
ͻ User eligibility requirements ʹ such as HOV-only, truck-only, permit-only; and
ͻ Pricing ʹ tolls can be varied by time of day to control traffic volumes.
By considering these as different forms of traffic management, it is possible to plan the
best combination of tools to keep a roadway from becoming congested over time, and to
optimize traffic to achieve the best person and vehicle throughput.͟
The following facility types and strategies are typically included in general definitions of
managed lanes focusing on preserving enhanced travel conditions:
ͻ HOV lanes;
ͻ High-occupancy/toll (HOT) lanes;
ͻ Value-priced lanes;
ͻ Express lanes;
ͻ Separated or bypass lanes;
ͻ Truck or commercial vehicle lanes;
ͻDual roadways, such as physically separated inner and outer roadways in one or both
directions where operation can be managed on at least one of the roadways; and
ͻ Separate toll lanes constructed within freeways.
OVERVIEW OF HOUSTON AREA

From the late 1940s through the mid 1970s, the Houston metropolitan area grew at a
rate well above the national average, increasing in population from less than half a million to
over two million. For most of this period, highway and street construction kept a reasonable
pace with growth. By the mid 1970s however, traffic congestion was a significant concern.
During the same period, the city was considering options to purchase the privately owned bus
company, which was reducing service and maintenance levels in the face of financial hardships.
The use of what was then a relatively new and untried concept ʹ high-occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes ʹ was considered to address these concerns, and an initial demonstration project on the I-
45 North Freeway was undertaken.
In 2003, some 4.3 million people were living in the 8,800-square mile Houston
metropolitan region, which is characterized by low-density development. In response to

ongoing concerns related to traffic congestion on the freeway system, limited available right-of-
way, and air quality, the initial nine-mile contraflow demonstration project has evolved over an
almost 25-year period into a system that encompasses some 100 miles of HOV lanes, numerous
direct access ramps, 28 park-and-ride lots, four park-and-pool lots, an extensive network of
express bus service, and a value pricing demonstration project. This system provides
preferential treatment to buses, vanpools, and carpools in the major freeway corridors. The
HOV system represents part of a multifaceted approach being taken in the Houston area to
manage traffic congestion and to improve mobility. Building on the success of the HOV system,
a value pricing demonstration was initiated in two corridors and managed lanes are being
developed in one corridor. Other improvements to the surface transportation system include
expanding freeways and roadways, building new toll roads, and developing an advanced
transportation management system (TranStar). Future plans include additional HOV facilities,
considering managed lanes in other corridors, expanding the LRT system, examining commuter
rail, additional toll roads, and expanding TranStar.
Planning, designing, operating, and enforcing the HOV system elements has been
accomplished through the coordinated efforts of the Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT) and the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO). Recently, Harris
County and the Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA) have joined this partnership to assist
with the development and operation of the planned managed lanes. These efforts have been
coordinated with the Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC), the metropolitan planning
organization (MPO) for the area.
METHODOLOGY ADOPTED FOR CASE STUDY

A number of activities were completed as part of this study. First, available reports, papers,
and other documents on the Houston HOV and managed lane facilities were reviewed. The
HOV system has been the focus of ongoing monitoring efforts supported by TxDOT and METRO.
As a result, a good deal of information is available on the use of the system. Second, additional
information was obtained through communication with representatives from agencies and
organizations in the Houston area. No further original data collection was conducted due to
the limited project scope. Third, information from the Houston case study was synthesized and
combined with information on managed lanes in other areas to highlight some of the issues
typically associated with HOV and managed lanes.
EVOLUTION AND USE OF THE HOUSTON HOV LANE SYSTEM

Development and Operation of the HOV Lane System
In 1970s, The Texas Highway Department (THD) was planning expansions to many freeways and
examining possible improvements to others. At the same time, the privately-owned bus

company was encountering serious financial difficulties. As a result, service levels were low and
buses were in poor conditions.
In the early 1970s, A long-range transit plan was prepared, which included an extensive
rail system and HOV lanes on some freeways, Which was defeated by voters. In 1974, the City
purchased the privately-owned bus company and established the Office of Public
Transportation (OPT).
OPT and THD shared a common interest in addressing increasing levels of traffic
congestion by encouraging greater use of buses, vanpools, and carpools. THD was concerned
about improving travel conditions on congested freeways and OPT was interested in methods
to move buses through traffic more efficiently and to improve services levels and the image of
the bus system. Using a federal Service and Methods Demonstration (SMD) grant, the OPT and
THD examined the potential of freeway HOV lanes, which were a relatively new concept at the
time. A contraflow lane demonstration project on the North (I-45 North) Freeway was
recommended to test the HOV concept.The I-45 N corridor had a high directional split and
travel in the peak direction was very congested. Thus, the corridor provided the right
conditions for the demonstration. The demonstration project included a nine-mile contraflow
HOV lane, park-and-ride lots, freeway ramp metering, and contracted bus service.
During the development of the contraflow lane the city continued to work toward
establishing a regional transit agency. In 1978, voters approved the creation of the
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO) and the dedication of one percent of
the local sales tax to fund the agency. The 1978 Regional Transit Plan, which identified the
projects METRO would pursue, included HOV facilities in most freeway corridors, as well as rail
transit. The HOV facilities included in this plan have been incorporated and refined in METRO,
TxDOT, and Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC) plans over the years. With the creation of
METRO, OPT was dissolved in 1979. The contraflow lane began operation in August 1979.
Figure 2 shows the location of the contraflow lane. The lane operated from 5:45 a.m. to 8:45
a.m. in the inbound direction toward downtown and from 3:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the
outbound direction. The contraflow lane was created by taking the inside freeway lane in the
off-peak direction of travel for use by buses and vanpools traveling in the peak-direction. The
lane was separated from opposing traffic by plastic pylons, which were set up and removed by
METRO crews each morning and afternoon.
Figure 2. Location of I-45 North Contraflow Lane.

Due to safety concerns, only buses and

authorized vanpools were allowed to use
the contraflow lane. Figure 3 highlights
the operation of the lane. To become
eligible to use the lane, vanpool drivers
had to register and complete training
provided by METRO. During the late
1970s and early 1980s, many large
downtown employers subsidized vanpools
for their employees in response to the
Arab Oil Embargo in 1979. Enforcement
of Figure 3. I-45 North
Contraflow Lane.
the lane was initially
contracted to the Houston
Police Department. METRO
established its own transit
police force in 1982 and
assumed enforcement duties
of the contraflow lane at that
time. METRO also provided
wreckers at strategic locations
along the lane to deal with any
accidents or incidents.
Some 8,000 bus riders and
vanpoolers used the lane on a daily basis during the first few years of the project. During the
morning peak hour. A 3.3-mile concurrent flow lane upstream from the entrance to the
contraflow lane was opened in 1981. Use levels increased to a high of 15,000 riders per day
with this improvement.
The success of the demonstration project resulted in a permanent HOV facility on the
North Freeway and the consideration of HOV lanes on other freeways. The demonstration
proved that commuters would change from driving alone to taking the bus or riding in a
vanpool. Survey results indicate that some 35 to 39 percent of bus riders and 30 to 42 percent
of vanpoolers previously drove alone.

In September of 1984, the first segment of the permanent HOV lane opened and
operation of the contraflow lane ceased.
The development of the second HOV lane in Houston took advantage of a planned
improvement project. Plans to repair and overlay a 10-mile segment of the Katy Freeway were
moving forward in the late 1970s, with a major reconstruction effort anticipated in the future.
An HOV lane on the Katy Freeway had been identified in the 1978 Regional Transit Plan. To
take advantage of the opportunity presented by the repair project, the design of the HOV lane
was expedited and the overlay project was delayed slightly. Working jointly, the SDHPT and
METRO completed the design and construction process, including obtaining the necessary
federal approvals, and the first 4.7-mile segment of the Katy HOV lane was opened in October
of 1984. Figure 4 shows the location of the Katy HOV lane and the HOV system in 1985.
The lane initially operated inbound from 5:45 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and outbound from 3:30
p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Operating hours were extended to 5:45 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to
7:00 p.m. in 1986. Following the vehicle eligibility requirements in use on I-45 North, only
buses and vanpools were initially allowed to use the Katy HOV lane. Only 66 vanpools and 20
buses, for a total of 86 vehicles, used the lane during the morning peak hour with these
requirements. To address this low use, the lane was open to authorized 4+ carpools in 1985.
The occupancy requirement was dropped to 3+ carpools later in 1985 and to 2+
carpools in 1986. Table 2 highlights the initial changes in vehicle eligibility and vehicle-
occupancy levels and corresponding use levels.
Figure 4. 1985 Houston HOV Lane System

Table 2. Changes in Vehicle Occupancy Requirements and Corresponding Vehicle

Volumes on the Katy HOV Lane
Figure 5. 1995 Houston HOV Lane System
The HOV system expanded significantly from 1985

to 2003. Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the growth in the
HOV system over this 18-year period. METRO and
the renamed Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT) continued to work cooperatively on the
development and operation of the HOV system.
Funding from METRO, TxDOT, FHWA, and FTA was
used for different parts of the system.
Figure 6. 2003 Houston HOV Lane Syste

By 2003, some 100 miles of HOV lanes are in operation in six freeway corridors. The main
elements of the HOV system ʹ the HOV lanes, park-and-ride lots, transit centers, direct access
ramps, and express bus service.
ͻ HOV Lanes. The HOV lanes are primarily one-lane, reversible, barrier-separated facilities,
located in the median of six freeways. A short two-lane, two-direction section exists on the
Northwest (US 290) Freeway. A two-way facility, with one lane in each direction of travel, is in
operation on the Eastex (US 59) Freeway. A concurrent flow HOV lane is in operation on the
Katy Freeway, leading to the reversible lane.
The lanes operate in the inbound direction from 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and in the outbound
direction from 2:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The lanes are closed from Noon to 2:00 p.m. to reverse
operations and are closed to all traffic at other times. A 2+ vehicle-occupancy requirement is
used on all the HOV facilities, except the Katy and the Northwest. These two HOV lanes have a
3+ occupancy requirement from 6:45 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., due to
congestion occurring at the 2+ level. The Quick Ride value-pricing project operates on these
two lanes, allowing participating 2+ carpools use of the lane for a $2.00 per trip fee.
ͻ Park-and-Ride Lots. A total of 28 park-and-ride lots and four park-and-pool lots are
located in the six corridors with HOV lanes. The larger park-and-ride lots have direct access to
the HOV lanes and transit stations with passenger amenities. There are spaces for between 900
and 2,500 automobiles at 19 of the lots. The number of parking spaces at lots in each corridor
range from slightly over 3,000 to almost 7,500.
ͻ Transit Centers. The park-and-ride lots have transit stations with covered passenger
waiting areas and other amenities. Transit centers without park-and-ride lots or with only small
lots are located at strategic transfer points.
ͻ Direct Access Ramps. As Figure 9 illustrates, direct access ramps connect the major park-
and-ride lots and transit stations to the HOV lanes. These ramps provide travel time savings for
buses using the HOV lanes and enhance the safe operation of both the HOV lanes and the
freeways. Use of the direct access ramps is restricted to buses, carpools, and vanpools during
operating hours. The ramps are closed during non-operating periods. Carpools and vanpools
can access the ramps and the HOV lanes through the lots. The direct access ramps provide
significant travel time savings for buses and other HOVs. The 1990 opening of the direct access
ramp linking the Northwest Station park-and-ride lot with the Northwest HOV lane provided
travel savings of 14 minutes for vehicles entering and exiting the HOV lane. Prior to the ramp
opening, HOVs had to travel local streets, enter the freeway, and merge across the general-
purpose lanes to enter the HOV lane. Use levels increased after the ramp opened.

ͻ Express Bus Service. METRO provides a high level of bus service in each corridor, with
frequent trips from the major park-and-ride lots. Over-the-road coaches are operated on many
routes, as are articulated buses. Although there is not direct evidence linking increased
ridership to use of the coaches, surveys of bus riders indicate support for their use and support
for frequent service. The HOV lanes and express bus services are oriented primarily in a radial
direction, with downtown Houston as the major destination. The express bus system has
evolved over the years, however, providing service to major activity centers such as the Texas
Medical Center (TMC), Greenway Plaza, and the Post Oak/Galleria area. More recently, reverse
commute services have been added in some corridors, taking advantage of buses in the
general-purpose lanes deadheading back to park-and-ride lots.
ͻ Rideshare Services and Other Supporting Activities. METRO provides rideshare
services in the Houston area. METRO͛s RideShare program includes a number of elements to
help individuals form carpools and vanpools. Rideshare matching services are available by
telephone and on-line through METRO͛s Internet site. The METROVan program helps
commuters form vanpools and provides vans for their use. METROVan is co-sponsored by
HGAC, allowing METRO to provide vanpools outside the METRO service area. METRO͛s
corporate RideSponsor program focuses on encouraging employees to commute to work by
bus, carpools, or vanpools. The program provides computerized ridematching services,
vanpools, and employer outreach. Corporate RideSponsors are eligible for discounted bus
passes for their employees.
USE OF THE HOV LANE SYSTEM
The monitoring program focuses primarily on HOV and freeway vehicle volumes, bus ridership
levels, vehicle occupancy levels, travel times in the HOV lanes and the freeway lanes, and
incident data. Periodic surveys of bus riders, carpoolers, and vanpoolers using the HOV lanes,
and motorists in the general-purpose lanes have been conducted.
ͻ Use Levels. Table 2 presents key information on use of the Houston HOV lanes. In 2003,
some 212,079 passengers used the HOV lanes on a daily basis. Buses carried 43,225
passengers, vanpools accounted for 2,500 riders, carpools had 74,867 occupants, and 407
motorcycles used the lanes daily. Morning peak-hour utilization levels range from
approximately 1,000 vehicles on the Katy HOV lane to 1,551 on the Northwest HOV lanes.

Table 3. 2003 Houston HOV Lane Parameters and Weekday Utilization Data
Corresponding person volumes in the morning peak hour average between 3,424 on the
Gulf HOV lane and 4,836 on the North HOV lane. The HOV lanes account for 40 percent of the
morning peak hour total person movement on three of the freeways. The AM peak hour is
defined as the hour with the highest vehicle volumes. As a result, the peak hour may vary by
HOV lane.
Vehicle-occupancy requirements were adjusted on two HOV lanes due to high levels of
use. By 1988, morning peak hour vehicle volumes on the Katy HOV lane were frequently
approaching or exceeding 1,500 vehicles, which resulted in degradation in facilities.
A policy-level decision was made by both agencies to increase the vehicle-occupancy
requirement from 2+ to 3+ during the period from 6:45 to 8:15 a.m. The 2+ requirement was
maintained at other times. This change was implemented on very short notice in October 1988.
Table 4 highlights the changes in vehicle volumes immediately after the change to the 3+
requirement in 1988 and the growth in 3+ carpools over the next eight years. The morning
peak hour carpool volume dropped from some 1,450 to 510 vehicles immediately after the
change, representing a 65 percent reduction. Total AM peak hour vehicle volumes ʹ carpools,
vanpools, and buses ʹ dropped from 1,511 to 570, a 62 percent reduction. Person volumes
declined by 33 percent during the AM peak hour. Although vehicle and person volumes
declined, AM peak hour average vehicle occupancy (AVO) increased from 3.1 prior to the
change to 4.5 five months after the change.

Table 4. Change to 3+ Occupancy Requirement on the Katy HOV Lane
Vehicle volumes during the 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. peak-period declined by some 14
percent. Two person carpools declined by some 41 percent and 3+ carpools increased by 68
percent. Bus ridership grew by eight percent. Based on survey results, it appears that some
two person carpools shifted their travel to earlier time periods and some changed their travel
routes to use the newly opened Northwest HOV lane, which had a 2+ requirement.
The time period for the 3+ restriction on the Kay HOV lane has been modified over time.
In May 1990, the 3+ period was shortened to 6:45 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. In September 1991, the 3+
restriction was implemented in the afternoon peak hour from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. A 3+
restriction was also implemented from 6:45 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. on the Northwest HOV lane in
July 1999 in response to congestion levels similar to those experienced on the Katy HOV lane.
ͻ Bus Operating Speeds and Schedule Times. The HOV lanes and direct access ramps have
significantly increased METRO bus operating speeds. The peak hour bus operating speeds have
almost doubled, from 26 mph to 54 mph, resulting in significant reductions in bus schedule
times. Examples of reductions in the morning peak hour schedule time for buses from park-
and-ride lots to downtown Houston include from 45 to 24 minutes from the Addicks park-and-
ride lot on the Katy HOV lane, from 40 to 25 minutes from the Edgebrook park-and-ride lot on
the Gulf HOV lane, and from 50 to 30 minutes from the Northwest Station park-and-ride lot on
the Northwest HOV lane.
ͻ Travel Time Savings. The HOV lanes provide travel time savings for buses, vanpools, and
carpools. Morning peak hour travel time savings range from approximately 2 to 22 minutes on
the different HOV lanes. The Northwest Freeway HOV lane generally provides the largest travel
time savings of about 22 minutes. The Katy HOV lane averages between 17 and 20 minutes, the
North 14 minutes, and the Gulf and Southwest between 4 and 2 minutes. In addition, the HOV
lanes provide more reliable trip times to carpoolers, vanpoolers, and bus riders.
ͻ Park-and-Ride Lots. Approximately 32,293 spaces are provided at 28 park-and-ride lots

associated with the HOV lanes. An additional 1,377 spaces are located at four park-and-pool

lots. METRO buses serve the park-and-ride lots, while the park-and-pool lots provide staging
areas for carpools and vanpools. In 2003, the overall occupancy levels at the individual facilities
ranged from about 10 percent at some park-and-pool lots to 100 percent at well-used park-
and-ride lots. Table 5 highlights the growth in the number of park-and-ride lots and use levels
from 1980 to 2003. From 1980 to 1990, the number of park-and-ride lots doubled from 10 to
20. The number of available spaces increased from 4,070 spaces to 12,626 spaces. Use of the
lots grew from 4,070 parked vehicles to 12,626 vehicles. As of 2003, there are 28 park-and-ride
lots, with 32,293 spaces. Approximately 54 percent of the available spaces are used on a daily
basis. Table 6 highlights the number of park-and-ride spaces, and the occupancy levels by
corridor.
ͻ Change in Travel Mode. The travel time savings and the improved trip time reliability have
influenced commuters to change from driving alone to taking the bus, carpooling, and
vanpooling. Periodic surveys of HOV lane users show that between 36 and 45 percent of
current carpoolers formerly drove alone, while 38 to 46 percent of bus riders previously drove
alone. Surveys conducted in 1988, 1989, and 1990, indicate that the opening of the HOV lanes
was very important in their decision to ride a bus for between 54 and 76 percent of the bus
riders using the Houston HOV lanes. Between 22 and 39 percent of the respondents also
indicated that they would not be riding the bus if the HOV lane had not been opened.
ͻ Average Vehicle Occupancy. The HOV system has resulted in an increase in AVO levels in the
corridors with HOV lanes. For example, the morning peak-hour AVO increased on the North
Freeway from 1.28 in 1978 before the contraflow HOV lane opened to 1.41 in 1996. The
morning peak-hour AVO increased on the Northwest Freeway from 1.14 in 1987 prior to the
opening of the HOV lane to 1.36 in 1996. The 1996 morning AVO for the HOV lanes ranged
from 2.6 to 3.65, compared to 1.02 to 1.12 for the general-purpose lanes.
Table 5. Houston HOV Lane Park-and-Ride Lot Capacity and Utilization

Table 6. Houston HOV Lane Park-and-Ride Lot Capacity and Utilization by Corridor
ͻ Positive Public Perception. Periodic surveys of HOV lane users and motorists in the general-
purpose lanes included questions designed to obtain feedback on the general perception
toward the HOV lanes and support for these facilities. Between 40 and 81 percent of motorists
in the general-purpose lanes on freeways with HOV facilities and one freeway without an HOV
lane have responded positively to these surveys that the HOV facilities are a good
transportation improvement. since funding from both had been used for the Katy HOV lane and
supporting elements.
ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DEVELOPING AND OPERATING MANAGED

LANES
A number of issues may need to be examined when HOV and managed lanes are being
considered in an area or when changes to an existing facility are being contemplated. While
many of these issues are similar to those associated with HOV facilities or other transportation
improvements, some are unique to the special characteristics of managed lanes.
Those issues are as follows:
Defining Project Goals and Objectives Identifying User Groups
Design Elements Pricing and Equity
Legislation Policy Maker Support
Public Involvement Transit Service
Institutional Relationships Enforcement
Performance Monitoring Incident Management
ONGOING CONSIDERATION OF ENHANCEMENTS

Current and Future Activities
FHWA and other groups have begun a variety of activities related to managed lanes.
Additional activities are planned to help share information related to managed lanes and to

help advance the state-of-the-practice. This section highlights a few examples of FHWA-
sponsored activities.
ͻ Managed Lanes: A Cross-Cutting Study. FHWA is sponsoring the development of a report
examining the types of managed lanes and potential issues associated with different
approaches in more detail. The report, which will be available in late 2003, provides a
definition of managed lanes, highlights examples of managed lane projects throughout the
country, and describes some of the elements associated with planning and operating managed
lanes.
ͻ Managed Lanes Primer. FHWA is sponsoring the development of a Managed Lanes Primer.
This document, which will be available in early 2004, highlights key aspects of managed lanes,
potential benefits, possible issues, and best practice case studies.
ͻ Managed Lanes Initiative. FHWA is developing a managed lanes initiative that will identify
policy, program, and research elements to help advance managed lanes. A November 2003
workshop involving selected transportation professionals from throughout the country will help
in the development of the initiative.

References:
• Houston Managed Lanes Case Study: The Evolution of the Houston HOV System (U.S.
Department Of Transportation)
• SUGGESTED PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FREEWAY HOV
FACILITIES (Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation)
• An Assessment of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Facilities in North America (U.S.
Department Of Transportation)
• Potential Impact of Exempt Vehicles on HOV Lanes (Federal Highway Administration By
the Texas Transportation Institute.
• Federal Highway Administration. Federal-Aid Highway Program Guidance on High-
Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane.
• High-Occupancy Vehicle Enforcement Task Force. Report of the High-Occupancy Vehicle
Enforcement Task Force, Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, Virginia,
August 15, 2003.
• A Guide For HOT Lane Development (U.S. Department Of Transportation

High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

High Occupancy Vehicle

Divyaraj P. Jhala (UTP 0409)

CHAPTER 2: HIGH OCCUPANCY LANE CAPACITY................................ ................................ ..... 9

CHAPTER 3: EVALUATION OF H.O.V. LANES ................................ ................................ ........... 16

REFERENCES:................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 42

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 1

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 2

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 3

ADVANTAGES OF HOV FACILITIES :

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 4

Environmental Advantages: Compared to general-purpose lanes, H.O.V. lanes may provide

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 5

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 6

TYPES OF HOV FACILITIES

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 7

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 8

Chapter 2: High Occupancy

DEFINING HOV LANE CAPACITY

ͻSeparate right of way, bus-only ʹ 800ʹ1,000 vphpl

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 9

The updated American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 10

OPTIONS FOR USING AVAILABLE HOV LANE CAPACITY

These potential options are briefly described in this section.

Allowing Other Categories of HOVs: A first approach to consider if there is available

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 11

Lowering Vehicle-Occupancy Requirements: A second approach for addressing

Tolled or Priced Vehicles: Another possible approach is to allow lower or single-

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 12

Environmentally Friendly Vehicles: Another option to address available HOV

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 13

Lower Occupancy Requirement

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 14

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 15

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF HOV PROJECT EVALUATIONS

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 16

BENEFITS OF CONDUCTING BEFORE -AND -AFTER EVALUATIONS

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 17

Lastly, by providing information on different projects throughout the country, the

APPROACH FOR EVALUATING FREEWAY H.O.V. FACILITIES

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 18

SUGGESTED OBJECTIVES , MEASUR ES OF EFFECTIVENESS , THRESHOLDS , AND

ͻ The HOV facility should have public support.

ͻ The HOV facility should be a cost-effective transportation improvement.

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 19

Measures of Effectiveness: In general, the increase in the peak-hour, peak-direction person

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 20

ͻ Improvement in vehicle productivity, measured by operating cost per vehicle-mile, operating

ͻ Improved bus schedule adherence, measured by on-time performance

ͻ Improved bus safety, measured by a reduction in vehicle accident rates

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 21

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 22

ͻ Reductions in total fuel consumption

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 23

Objective: The HOV facility should have public support.

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 24

Objective: The HOV facility should be a cost-effective transportation improvement.

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 25

Table 7. Suggested Objectives and Measures of Effectiveness

ͻ Improvement in vehicle productivity (operating

ͻ The peak-period, peak-direction travel time in

ͻ Improvement in the peak-hour per lane

Faculty Of Planning And Public Policy, CEPT UNIVERSITY 26

ͻ Number and severity of accidents for HOV and