'w~ - ?J.. · '1'/- ooS' Preferential Facilities for Carpools and Buses Seven Reports ( I ' a Portland Los Angeles 4:b-~ HE '.'.'it.'.>)() .C3 F' 73 S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION deral Highway Administration (HHP-26) 1shington D.C., 20590 May 1976 PREFACE These seven reports on preferential facilities for carpools and buses have been assembled and reprinted by the Federal Highway Administration. The reports provide information on several recent projects to increase the person-moving capacity of the highway system by designating facilities for preferential use by high-occupancy vehicles. The reduced traveltime and more favorable travel conditions on priority facilities provide an effective incentive to entice commuters into these more efficient modes. The reports presented here cover many different types of priority treatment. Some of the reports analyze and evaluate the effectiveness of particular projects. Other reports emphasize the project design and operational features; others simply describe the current operation of unique or unusual projects. Further information on the planning, design, implementation, and evaluation of priority projects for carpools and buses is available from the Federal Highway Administration. More detailed information on the specific projects described here is available in many cases from the responsible operating agencies. In general, any transportation corridor with recurrent traffic congestion could be a candidate for a priority treatment project regardless of metropolitan area size. Priority vehicles can often utilize marginal increments of highway capacity made available by operational changes or minor construction. The projects described in these reports demonstrate considerable ingenuity in designating preferential facilities through operational changes or incremental construction within existing rights- of-way. Fringe parking facilities often complement preferential highway treatments. Fringe lots serve as carpool staging areas as well as terminal areas for express bus service . Lots can be provided along major commuter routes to facilitate carpool formation and bus use even where opportunities for preferential highway lanes are not readily available. The cooperation of all persons and organizations who supplied papers and information for this publication is greatly appreciated. TECHNICAL REPORT STANDAR D TITLE PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Gow• rnm•n• Ace•11,on ·,.:,~---~- ·- --3. Recipient'• Cotolo& No. - I FHWA-PL- 77- 005 ,_ ; ___ -- ··--·-- ·- - -- - -- ·- ·-. ·- ··-- ____ __ _ • - M -- - · - ---- ... Title ond Sub1otle S. Aepo•• Oete Preferential Facilities for Carpools and Buses "lav 1976 Seven Reports 6. P•rfor,nin9 Orgori, 1at,on Cod• 7. A~t~or1 a) 8. Perfof'ffling Orgon, zotion Report No. Transit and Traffic Engineering Branch (Editor) FHWA - ----- -·- t;, Perfo,m,ng OrgOf'l1JOt1on Nome Of'\d Ado, •• , 10. Work Unit N o. Federal Highway Administration (HHP-26) Washington, D. C. 20590 ll . Controci o, Gfon1 No. 13, Typ• of Report ond Period Covered ·- -------- - - · 12, ---- --- -- - Spon&or1ng Agenc)' Nom~ o nd Adc•~is. Technical Report I Fedweal High•,.·ay Administration I Washington, D.C . 20590 14. Spon1or1 n; Agency Code 15, Supp le rnet"lto·y No, ~ s - I 16. Abstract These seven reports on preferential facilities for carpools and buses have been assembled and reprinted by the Federal Highway Administration. The reports provide information on several recent proiects to increase the person- moving capacity of the highwav svstem bv designatin~ facilities for preferential use by high- occupancy vehicles. The reports cover many different types of priori tv treatment. Some of the r eports analyze and evaluate the effectiveness of particular proiects. Other reports emphasize the project design and operati onal features ; others simply descr ibe the current operation of unique or unus ual projects. 17. Key Wo,da Priority treatments; Exclusive Lanes; Available from: Preferential Treatment for High-Occupan~y NTI S Vehicles; Carpool Lane Springfield, Vi rginia 22161 19. Security Clauif. (of thi a report) 20. Securi ty Cloaaif, (of thia pog~) ;n. No. of Paa.. I 22. P rice UnclassHied Unclassified . Form DOT F 1700.7 11-u1 I TABLE OF CONTENTS Experience with Car Pool Bypass Lanes in the Los Angeles Area 1 Robert G. B. Goodell, California Department of Transportation Los Angeles and San Francisco High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes 11 Charles P . Sweet , California Department of Transportation Banfield Freeway High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes 25 Robert N. Bothman , Oregon Department of Transportation Interstate 95 Exclusive Bus/Carpool Lanes Demonstrati on Project 3 7 Bob Deuser, Florida Department of Transportation Connecticut's Carpool Programs 43 Nicholas A. Artimovich II , Federal Highway Administration Boston I-93 Carpool Lane 50 Peter Hatzi , Federal Highway Administration Bus and Carpool Lanes in Honolulu 52 St ephen Baluch, Federal Highway Administration For sale by the Superintendent of Documents. U .S. Government Printing Office Washington. D.C. 20402 - Price $I.I 0 Stock No. 050-00 1- 0011 2-8 BYPASS LANES FOR CARPOOLS AT METERED RAMPS SUMMARY REPORT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OCTOBER 1975 00524 HE ,C3 I.. ' / '~ EXPERIENCE WITH CAR POO L BYPASS LANES IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA Robert G. B. Goodel l Freeway Oper a tion Branch California Department of Transportation Abstract Two and one half years ago the firs t car pool bypass lane opened in the Los Angeles area . This special lane allowed cars with two or more occupants to bypass the queue at a ramp meter an~ enter the freeway without the normal wai t. Today there a r e 13 bypass r amps in operation. This paper deal s with the evaluation of the existing installations based on the ir effec tiveness in forming car pools, operatj onal problems, public react ion and enfor cement required. 1 . I NTRODUCTION being tried in the hope of luring the sin­ gl e -occupant-vehicle driver from hi s vehi­ In an effort t o increase the people cle and into a more economi cal and less c arryi ng capacity of our existing freeway system taxing , ener gy wasting a nd pollu­ systems ma ny me thods have been proposed t ion producing method of commuting . While through t he years. Some have received being the f irst of this type, because of limit ed experimentation during the past its low cost and case of implement ation, several years. it is certainl y not viewet as the onl y method or necessarily t he best me thod. This report deals with implementation and This method could be· used alone or in con­ results of providing special lanes at 13 junction with other me thots t o incr ease metered on-ramps which allow multi-occu­ the "person throughput" of our existing pant vehi c l es to bypass the single oc cu­ system . I t is felt that a combination of pant vehicles that are waiting in line at incentives and conveni ences s uch as park a metered signal and enter the freeway and ride facili t ies , computer matchin g , without delay. This is an extension of preferent ial parking and preferential the bus (and emergency vehicle) bypass lanes on the ma inline freeway may be need ­ concept that has been in operation since ed t o cause any significa~t increase of the l a t e 1960s . car pooling in this area . Th e purpose of the experiment was to eval­ Using the wo rd ''car pool" may seem rather uate the effectiveness of time savings as ridiculous to transportation planners in a positive incentive to form car pools . other a r eas of t he country or the world Also to evaluate the operational probl ems when app lied to a vehicl e with 2 occupants and public r eaction tha t coul d arise from but the creation of a peak period average such a departure from the tradition of occupancy appr oaching l. S or 1. 6 persons "equal rights for all veh icles regardless per vehicle would be a major accomplish­ of space (occup ied), speed , paint job or ment in the Los Angeles ar ea . Even during country of national origin." the gas shortage with J ong lines wai t ing for gas ( i f s t a tions were even open) and This method is only one o( many that a re prices almost double, th i s area still Figure 1. Lakewood Boulevard at San Diego Freeway (I-40S) in Long Beach. This is the first car pool bypass lane and is now in its 28th month of operation. Figure 2. Hawthorne Boulevard at San Diego Freeway (I-40S) in Lawndale. This is the only bypass lane now being metered. 2 maintained a 1.2 person per vehicle occu­ While this report is not primarily a study pancy rate and 80 to 85% of the vehicles of the social and psycho l ogical f ac t ors carried only t he driver during peak commu ­ involving modal choi ce , we must keep them ter periods . For this reason, i t i s quite in mind when we anal yze the car pool for ­ logical to consider a l arge number of 2- mation aspects of this report. person car pools formed from single occu­ pant vehicles as important as the forma­ 2 . PROJECT DESCRIPTION tion of a moderate number of 3 , 4 and Sor more person car pools . Th is does not, 2 . J LOCATIONS however, rule out future experiments with different qual ificatiors for preferential At the beginning, ramps were not picked lane usage. for their location primarily but f or the l ack of existing operational problems. There are some that say we are fight ing a This a l lowed us to evaluate the car poo l losing battle or struggling with an immov ­ formations and enforcement probl ems with­ able object . One popular concept among out being side-tracked by operational those studying human behavior is probab l y problems .