THE EL MONTE HOV / BUSWAY: A Policy Driven Experiment in Congestion Management Frank Quon Division of Operations Deputy District Director HOV LANES IN.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
General Update March Background As the region grows, increased travel demand on our aging Metro Highway System will continue to create additional.
Advertisements

Beltline Highway ITS – Ramp Metering Project ODOT Planners Meeting April 25, 2012.
D2 Roadway Discussion Sound Transit Board September 22, 2011.
Getting Started with Congestion Pricing A Workshop for Local Partners Federal Highway Administration Office of Operations.
Northwest Rail Update Nadine Lee, Northwest Rail Project Manager Regional Transportation District March 21, 2012.
Adding Priced Capacity for Congestion Relief Robert W. Poole, Jr. Director of Transportation Studies Reason Foundation
I-80 Corridor System Management Plan Alameda County Transportation Commission ACTAC Meeting September 7, 2010.
Background Why Plan For Transportation? Facts You Should Know Expectations Projects and Costs Conclusions/ Next Steps.
Route 17 Corridor Study Public Workshop II – November 29, 2012 Orange / Sullivan County 1.
NEW YORK CITY TRAFFIC CONGESTION MITIGATION COMMISSION NYSDOT Comments on New York City Traffic Congestion Mitigation Plan Bob Zerrillo, Director, Office.
I-15 Managed Lanes: Building on Success And Lessons Learned I-15 Managed Lanes: Building on Success And Lessons Learned.
Dr Lina Shbeeb Minister of Transport. Jordan
TRB Lianyu Chu *, K S Nesamani +, Hamed Benouar* Priority Based High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Operation * California Center for Innovative Transportation.
Oceanside-Escondido Rail Line Final Project Presentation John R. VelascoMay 12 th, 2003.
Jeffrey F. Paniati Associate Administrator for Operations Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation Enabling Congestion Pricing in the.
Externalities on highways Today: We apply externalities to a real-life example.
1 AASHTO: SCOPT/MTAP Winter Meeting METRO Update: Light Rail Operations and the Status of Future Corridors Wulf Grote, P.E. Director, Project Development.
Developing a Regional Express Lane Network Hercules City Council Meeting April 28, 2009 Doug Kimsey MTC Planning Director.
1 1 Providing New Transportation Choices through Transit Prioritization Strategies BRT ON MANAGED LANES or PARK & RIDE on HOV LANES.
Presented by: David Jackson & Michael Snavely, Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Robert Calix, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority May 9,
1 Presentation to TAC June 17, 2009 Overview of Rapid Bus Measures and Effectiveness And Case Studies.
Less Stop More Go EXPRESS LANES Travel Choices and Strategies to Relieve Congestion Presentation to FDOT’s Annual ITS Working Group Meeting March 2008.
Presentation to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Peggy Catlin, Deputy Executive Director.
May 7, 2013 Yagnesh Jarmarwala Phani Jammalamadaka Michael Copeland Maneesh Mahlawat 14 th TRB National Transportation Planning Applications Conference.
National Road Pricing Conference June 4, 2010 Jennifer Tsien, PBS&J Angela Jacobs, Federal Highway Administration.
National Road Pricing Conference June 4, 2010 Mark Burris, Texas Transportation Institute Jessie Yung, Federal Highway Administration.
Orange County Business Council Infrastructure Committee December 14, 2010 Draft Long-Range Transportation Plan Destination 2035.
Performance Analysis Presentation to the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (NCR-TPB) November 28, 2012 Adopted: July 18, 2012 Item.
TSM&O FLORIDA’S STATEWIDE IMPLEMENTATION Elizabeth Birriel, PEElizabeth Birriel, PE Florida Department of TransportationFlorida Department of TransportationTranspo2012.
Multimodal Corridor System Management – Incorporating Analysis of Transit, Demand Management Programs and Operational Strategies Presented by Bill Loudon,
Pat Bursaw, Minnesota DOT International Partnership Meeting Washington D.C. January 26, 2012.
Alachua County Future Traffic Circulation Corridors Map Project July 10 th, 2007.
What are Managed Lanes What are Express Lanes What are HOT Lanes Regional Express Lanes Network I-95 Express I-595 Express I-75 Express.
Green Transport Dr Lina Shbeeb Minister of Transport. Jordan.
WSDOT SW Region, Vancouver, WA December 7, 2009 WSDOT SW Region, Vancouver, WA December 7, 2009 Tolling Study Committee.
Presentation to ***(group) on ***(date) 1.  Cities - 11  Highway districts – 3  Ada and Canyon Counties  School districts – 2  Valley Regional Transit.
Energy Law, Fall 2010 Natashia Holmes
I-394 MnPASS Technical Evaluation Preliminary Findings March 23, 2006 Doug Sallman – Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
I-394 MnPASS Technical Evaluation Doug Sallman – Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
North Central Texas Council of Governments Transportation Department Summary Presentation January 2004 MOBILITY 2025: THE METROPOLITAN.
Soup to Nuts: Changing Operating Parameters for HOV Facilities Sponsored by the HOV Pooled-Fund Study and the Federal Highway Administration.
OPEN HOUSE #4 JUNE AGENDA OPEN HOUSE 6:00 PM  Review materials  Ask questions  Provide feedback  Sign up for list  Fill out comment.
California Department of Transportation Transportation Management Systems (TMS) and their role in addressing congestion Discussion Materials Lake Arrowhead.
Managed Lanes CE 550: Advanced Highway Design Damion Pregitzer.
Modeling HOT Lanes TPB’s Approach AMPO Travel Modeling Group March 21, 2006 I:\ateam\meetings_conf\ampo_tms\ \Hot_Lane_Pres_to_AMPO_Final.ppt.
Interpreting Demand and Capacity for Street and Highway Design Lecture 6 CE 5720 Norman Garrick Norman W. Garrick.
Regional Priority Bus Transit Conference June 24, 2009.
Freeway Congestion In The Washington Region Presentation to National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board February 15, 2006 Item # 9.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Overview of Metro’s Transportation Program Pam O’Connor Metro Chair July 25, 2007.
Weighing the Scenarios: The Costs and Benefits of Future Transit Service Produced for MTDB by The Mission Group © 2000 by The Mission Group. 1 Dave Schumacher.
Transportation Conformity Overview H-GAC Conformity Workshop May 30, 2007.
91 Express Lanes Kirk Avila Treasurer/General Manager.
Review of the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) 2007 Urban Mobility Report By Ronald F. Kirby Daivamani Sivasailam TPB Technical Committee October 5,
Externalities on highways Today: We apply externalities to a real-life example.
County of Fairfax, Virginia Department of Transportation Fairfax County Parkway Corridor Study Board of Supervisors Transportation Committee December 1,
Managed Lanes and Bus Rapid Transit: Emerging New Financing Opportunities ENGINEERS PLANNERS ECONOMISTS Wilbur Smith Associates Ed Regan Senior Vice President.
I-15 Express Lanes Project January 2012 I-15 Express Lanes Project January 2012.
Minnesota’s Urban Partnership Agreement UPA Timeline The UPA agreement with the US DOT requires that the project be operational by September 30, 2009,
I-680 Value Pricing: A HOT Lane Demonstration Project of “Smart Carpool Lanes” Sponsor: Alameda County Congestion Management Agency 2003 Sponsor: Alameda.
Review of the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) 2007 Urban Mobility Report By Ronald F. Kirby Presentation to Transportation Planning Board October.
Shaping our Future Transportation Transportation trends Influencing trends through land use decisions Alternative futures: Base Case and Scenario Complementary.
IH-10 Managed Lanes Project: A “Public-Public” Partnership ENGINEERS PLANNERS ECONOMISTS Wilbur Smith Associates Presented at the Value Pricing Conference.
I-35W/Highway 62 Crosstown Commons Reconstruction Nathan Aul, Bob Krussow, and Michael Martin.
GRTC Bus Rapid Transit Project July 17, Agenda 1.BRT Concept 2.Project Goals 3.Project Benefits 4.Project Corridor 5.Proposed Multimodal Access.
Virginia House Bill 2 – Funding the Right Projects Intelligent Transportation System Activities May 19, 2016.
Regional Transportation Plan Draft Hybrid Scenario Transportation Policy Committee 7/22/03.
DESTINATION 2030 Regional Local Personal Adopted May 24, 2001.
Integrating Transit and Highway Solutions In High Volume Corridors
Charlotte Region Fast Lanes Study
TVTC Impact Fee Update Nexus Study January 30, 2008
Presentation transcript:

THE EL MONTE HOV / BUSWAY: A Policy Driven Experiment in Congestion Management Frank Quon Division of Operations Deputy District Director HOV LANES IN GENERAL: Are They Working? &

OVERVIEW Background EL MONTE BUSWAY Purpose Operational Impacts of Changing the Minimum Vehicle Occupancy Requirement EL MONTE BUSWAY EXPERIMENT: HOV SYSTEM: Effectiveness Goals

EL MONTE BUSWAY First HOV Facility Built in Los Angeles Co. EL MONTE BUSWAY 11 Mile Buffer/Barrier Separated Facility From City of El Monte to Downtown L.A. One of the Most Complete Systems With On-Line Stations, Park-and-Ride Lots, 2-Unidirectional Bus Lanes, Direct Access Ramps, & Feeder Bus Lines

EL MONTE BUSWAY LOCATION MAP

EL MONTE BUSWAY

BACKGROUND 1973 – Opened as a Bus-Only Facility From City of El Monte to Downtown L.A. EL MONTE BUSWAY 1976 – Carpools with 3+ Persons Allowed to Use Busway Funded With FTA Funds 2 nd Bus Rapid Transit System in the Nation

BACKGROUND EL MONTE BUSWAY

BACKGROUND 1996 – Senator Solis Expressed Her Concern About the Underutilization of the Busway. EL MONTE BUSWAY 1996 & 1999 – Operational Studies Conclude that Lowering the Occupancy Requirement to 2+ Will Potentially Overburden the Busway

SENATE BILL 63 EL MONTE BUSWAY 18-Month Demonstration Project From January 01, 2000 to June 30, 2001 Reduced the Minimum Occupancy Requirement on the Busway from 3 to 2 Persons on a Full-Time Basis Required Caltrans to Provide an Operational Study on the Effects of the Change to Legislature on or by January 01, 2001

IMPLEMENTATION OF SB 63 Caltrans Established the SB 63 Implementation Committee Comprised of Representatives From All the Stakeholders EL MONTE BUSWAY Caltrans Responsible for Executing the Change In Occupancy Requirement and Monitoring Effects on the Busway

FREEWAY OPERATIONS EL MONTE BUSWAY BUSWAY AVERAGE SPEEDS

EL MONTE BUSWAY MAINLINE AVERAGE SPEEDS FREEWAY OPERATIONS

EL MONTE BUSWAY BUSWAY WESTBOUND VOLUMES FREEWAY OPERATIONS

EL MONTE BUSWAY BUSWAY EASTBOUND VOLUMES FREEWAY OPERATIONS

EL MONTE BUSWAY MAINLNE WESTBOUND VOLUMES FREEWAY OPERATIONS

EL MONTE BUSWAY MAINLNE EASTBOUND VOLUMES FREEWAY OPERATIONS

PUBLIC RESPONSE TO CHANGE Numerous Complaints Via s, Letters, and Phone Calls were Received Regarding the Lowering of the Occupancy Requirement EL MONTE BUSWAY Carpoolers & Bus Patrons Had to Adjust their Schedules Bus Patrons Reported Delays of 20 to 30 Minutes Causing Them to Miss Bus/Train Connections, Appointments, Etc.

WB DIRECTION - AM PEAK EL MONTE BUSWAY

ASSEMBLY BILL 769 Enacted on July 2000 EL MONTE BUSWAY Superceded SB 63 and Increased the Minimum Occupancy Requirement on the Busway to 3 or More Persons During the Weekday Peak Periods of 5 – 9 AM & 4 – 7 PM; and Remained 2 or More Persons at All Other Times. Caltrans Implemented the Changes Within 30 Days

EL MONTE BUSWAY BUSWAY AVERAGE SPEEDS FREEWAY OPERATIONS

EL MONTE BUSWAY MAINLINE AVERAGE SPEEDS FREEWAY OPERATIONS

EL MONTE BUSWAY BUSWAY WESTBOUND VOLUMES FREEWAY OPERATIONS

EL MONTE BUSWAY BUSWAY EASTBOUND VOLUMES FREEWAY OPERATIONS

EL MONTE BUSWAY MAINLINE WESTBOUND VOLUMES FREEWAY OPERATIONS

EL MONTE BUSWAY MAINLINE EASTBOUND VOLUMES FREEWAY OPERATIONS

CONCLUSIONS Lowering the Occupancy Requirement from 3+ to 2+ had an Operational Impact on the Busway EL MONTE BUSWAY Conditions on the Busway Returned to Those Experienced Prior to the 2+ Demonstration With the Implementation of the 3+ Peak & 2+ Off-Peak Requirements Significant Improvements Were Not Realized in the Mixed-Flow Lanes

SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS EFFECTIVENESS OF HOV LANES Expected 40% Increase in Population By 2025 Vehicle Hours of Delay Has More Than Doubled From 186,800 to 418,000 Between 1987 & 1998 Congestion Has Increased 10% Annually Since 1995 From 1967–1997: Population Increased by 70% While Vehicle Miles Traveled Increased by 184% LAO Report January 2000

CONGESTION RELIEF STRATEGIES EFFECTIVENESS OF HOV LANES Increase Capacity Manage The Demand Integrated Urban Development Improve Operational Efficiency

CHALLENGES EFFECTIVENESS OF HOV LANES Prohibitive Land Costs Increased Construction Costs Worsening Traffic Congestion & Air Pollution Right-of-Way & Environmental Constraints

HOV LANE SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS OF HOV LANES CENTRAL CONCEPT: Optimize Freeway System By Moving More People Rather Than Moving More Cars CONGESTION RELIEF STRATEGY: Effective Multi-Modal Approach

HOV PLANNING EFFECTIVENESS OF HOV LANES GOALS: –Provide congestion relief –Increase the people-moving capacity of the roadway –Decrease the average travel time –Provide an incentive for people to share rides –Provide trip reliability

STATUS OF HOV SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS OF HOV LANES

EL MONTE BUSWAY

HOV PERFORMANCE PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS OF HOV LANES The Effectiveness of HOV Lanes Has Been Widely Debated MTA Committed the Funding to Conduct a Comprehensive Evaluation of the Los Angeles County HOV System Initiated July 2000

PUBLIC SURVEY RESULTS EFFECTIVENESS OF HOV LANES Support 88 % Opposed 8 % Neutral 4 % MTA HOV Performance Program DO YOU SUPPORT HAVING HOV LANES ON L.A. COUNTY FREEWAYS?

EFFECTIVENESS OF HOV LANES Support 82 % Opposed 13 % Neutral 5 % MTA HOV Performance Program SHOULD THE POLICY THAT APPROVED A PORTION OF THE SALES TAX REVENUES FOR TRANSIT-RELATED HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS BE CONTINUED? PUBLIC SURVEY RESULTS

AVERAGE TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS EFFECTIVENESS OF HOV LANES LA – 405 LA – 110 LA – 91 El Monte Busway LA – 10 LA – 210 MTA HOV Performance Program LA – Century

PERSONS MOVED: EFFECTIVENESS OF HOV LANES Los Angeles 110 Los Angeles 10 Marin 101 Contra Costa 80 Los Angeles 105 HOV vs. MIXED-FLOW LANES Persons per hour per lane HOV Lane Mixed-Flow Lane

EFFECTIVENESS OF HOV LANES TOTAL CARPOOL VOLUME COMPARISON (PM 2-HR PEAK) Freeways w/ HOV Lanes Freeways w/o HOV Lanes LOS ANGELES COUNTY

SOUTHBOUND 405 HOV LANE EFFECTIVENESS OF HOV LANES TRAVEL TIME A.M. PEAK HOUR Before HOV After HOV US 101 to Waterford St.

SOUTHBOUND 405 HOV LANE EFFECTIVENESS OF HOV LANES TOTAL FREEWAY VOLUME A.M. PEAK HOUR Before HOV After HOV US 101 to Waterford St.

SOUTHBOUND 405 HOV LANE EFFECTIVENESS OF HOV LANES TOTAL HOV LANE VOLUME A.M. PEAK HOUR Before HOV After HOV US 101 to Waterford St.

SOUTHBOUND 405 HOV LANE EFFECTIVENESS OF HOV LANES TOTAL MAINLINE VOLUME A.M. PEAK HOUR Before HOV After HOV US 101 to Waterford St.

POLICY ISSUES EFFECTIVENESS OF HOV LANES Air Quality Conformity Operational Characteristics Performance

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? EFFECTIVENESS OF HOV LANES Need to Complete System Performance Evaluation Studies Integration of Transit into the HOV System Development of Micro-Simulation Model Direct HOV Access From High Activity Centers