sign in sign up
<<
Home , Avenue (landscape), Diamond lane, Parkway, Reversible lane, Storm drain

Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

HOV, Reversible and On/Off Peak Parking Strategies

“Doing more with less”

Technical Memorandum #1

July 31, 2012 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

HOV, Reversible Lanes and On/Off Peak Parking Strategies

Technical Memorandum #1

Prepared for:

Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization P.O. Box 1110 Tampa, FL 33601 Ph. (813) 272-5940, Fax (813) 272-6258

Prepared by:

Michael Baker Jr., Inc. 4503 Woodland Corporate Blvd, Suite 400 Tampa, FL 33614 Ph. (813) 889-3892, Fax (813) 889-3893

July 31, 2012 Table of Contents

July 2012

Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Page Section 1: Introduction……………………………………………………..….……1-1 Overview of the study

Section 2: On-Off Peak Parking Strategies...………………………… ………2-1 14th , Washington, DC , Richmond, VA Miami , Miami, FL General Conclusions Similar Local Examples Avenue Tampa, FL

Section 3: Reversible Strategies……….……………………………..….…3-1 Avenue, Washington, DC Tyvola , Charlotte, NC 7th Street/7th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ General Conclusions Similar Local Examples Bloomingdale Avenue, Hillsborough County, FL

Section 4: High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Strategies…………………………4-1 Patrick/Henry Street, Alexandria, VA Santa Fe Drive, , CO Downtown Dual Diamond, , TX General Conclusions Similar Local Examples Bruce B. Downs Hillsborough County, FL

Appendix: Case Study Interviews ………….……………………………..…….A-1

July 2012

Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Section 1: Introduction

Currently the Tampa Bay area is the 10th most congested area in the country with the average commuter cost and time rising dramatically thru the year 2035. The following maps demonstrate roadway expansion projects needed in Hillsborough County to ease congestion from expected growth by the year 2035 and the cost to mitigate by new or reconstructed roadway capacity projects. Most of the projects shown are unfunded and the possibility of future funds unlikely. If certain funding sources become available, the level of service will still be inadequate as demonstrated.

The Hillsborough MPO is faced with finding solutions to assist the local governments to meet these transportation challenges. The best way to do so is to work within existing right of way’s and use available lanes in more effective ways, “Doing More With Less”.

The primary objective of this study is to document long term uses of proactive measures on arterial corridors as researched from other agencies throughout the and illustrate the benefits of these congestion management measures to be considered within the Metropolitan Planning Area of Hillsborough County, Florida.

This report summarizes three strategies in particular that have been in place within major of the United States. The strategies consist of existing On/Off Street Parking Restrictions, options and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane usage. This is the first of two technical memoranda which document the successes taken for congestion problems and the opportunities to face the challenge and overcome issues. These findings to be shared with transportation stakeholders in Hillsborough County.

With “state of the art” congestion management measures being used throughout the United States, the metropolitan Hillsborough County area needs to consider “tried and true” measures to reduce delays.

July 2012 Page 1-1 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Cost estimate: $15 billion

Congested – Year 2035

July 2012 Page 1-2

Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Overview of the study

The Hillsborough County, Florida, Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is conducting this Congestion Management Study (CMS) with five (5) tasks to be accomplished. The first task is to contact nine (9) agencies throughout the United States that have accomplished congestion management practices with case studies. This Technical Memorandum #1 is the working document of the first task demonstrating results of the interviews. Second, provide in a workshop setting the results from the agency interviews with transportation stakeholders from the Hillsborough County Area. Third, with input from the workshop, the team will identify Hillsborough County arterial corridors, with similar conditions, to consider for implementation. With the stakeholders on track, the fourth task will be to provide a second workshop with the original stakeholders for potential implementations of congestion management practices. Last, the final Technical Memorandum #2 will provide an executive summary of the findings with recommendations.

Agencies Contacted

Richmond, Washington, D.C. Miami, Florida Phoenix, Houston, District Dept. of Transportation, Washington, D.C. Denver, Colorado Alexandria, Virginia Charlotte,

July 2012 Page 1-3 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Section 2:

North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida

On / Off Peak Parking Strategies:

On/off peak parking strategies allows for on-street parking designated times with restrictions during peak traffic times of the day. The concept is used when an arterial has an extreme peak hour traffic flow in any direction that requires as much capacity of the pavement section that can be handled safely. During the off peak traffic flow in any direction, the arterial can handle on street parking without disruption of capacity or safety. The added benefit of this treatment is to preserve or promote business opportunities along the urban arterial corridor. This strategy is highly cost-effective as the process involves public involvement, signs and markings and with no new or right of way needs.

The following project managers in cities from around the country were interviewed and provided questions concerning issues and obstacles, factors about the corridor and the implementation strategies for on/off peak parking. The arterial corridors were from mid- level to large population centers throughout the United States. These strategies are demonstrated on the following pages. The general conclusions and sample corridors in Hillsborough County with similar conditions are discussed as possible candidates as part of phase two of this study.

July 2012 Page 2-1 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study On/Off Peak Parking Restrictions, Arterial Corridors 14th Street, 2900 to 3300 block, Washington, D.C.

The District Department of Transportation (DDOT), Washington DC, was charged with the need to create more parking in the District, particularly around the museum areas and business core areas when capacity of the corridor was not critical. 14th Street was chosen as a pilot corridor in particular near a museum. The success of this application has been very positive with high turn-over parking, full utilization of spaces and high end technology of cell phone pay options.

I. Benefits, Issues and Obstacles a. New to the area commuters consider this option as a hindrance to traffic flows. Day to day usage has proved the understanding of this need and the simplicity of time of day restriction consistency has brought positive reactions from commuters. b. Enforcement is challenging in transient parking areas. With the intense amount of rental car usage, the difficulty of violation penalty return is un-timely. c. Takes time for commuters and local business and resident users to get used to restrictions. Shop owners typically adjust their hours of operations to the restricted hours of parking. d. Requires specific signage. Signage costs are minimal and the key is very clear understanding of the time of operation for restricted parking. e. Deliver vehicles require special parking areas. Typically at the ends of the parking restricted areas delivery vehicles need 15 minute loading and unloading parking.

f. Restricted parking has been successful. The 14th Street business, museum and general public have embraced the on-off peak parking and this strategy has been implemented in other areas of the .

July 2012 Page 2-2 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

II. Other facts about the system a. Utilization of capacity i. During non-peak travel times, when vehicle capacity is not an issue, on-street parking is an effective usage of expensive public owned right of way. ii. When peak vehicle capacity is required, full usage of the pavement right of way is available. b. Safety i. Crashes have not been a major issue. The only real issues of minor crashes have been prior to the allowed parking time and the movement out of the designated lane. ii. Very difficult for bicycle commuters and not recommended as a route for bicycle usage. With the dynamic operation of timed parking and no parking, very difficult for the cyclist to maneuver in and out of the lane area iii. Sidestreet and access may be a visual concern when exiting. Prior to providing on street parking, access management policies should be reviewed for side street visibility and concerns. c. Land use/economic development impacts i. Major incentive for businesses and residential needs. It has clearly been found that business support is overwhelming and that residents appreciate the opportunity to in front of their property during certain times of the day. Providing on street parking encourages development. ii. Potential for revenue source. With the latest technology in parking monitoring available, Cities can claim a positive return on their investments with innovative visitor monthly passes, cell phone user fees, etc.

July 2012 Page 2-3 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

III. DDOT’s recommendations for implementing on/off peak parking restrictions a. Success!!! The Business community has widely accepted this action as an opportunity to better serve the neighbors as a convenience and a safer plan than lot parking. b. Community input has been invaluable in adjusting parking times and violation proceedings. Allowing visitor passes on a monthly basis has been a time saving and cooperative measure for the City. c. Community input is critical. Let the neighborhood have their say. You would be amazed at the positive powerful impact that will come from this meeting. d. Provide an excellent monitoring and action plan. Use the data received from the meetings with the public to achieve an excellent rapore with the neighborhood.

July 2012 Page 2-4 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study On/Off Peak Parking Restrictions, Arterial Corridors Main Street, 15th Street East to 25th Street East, Richmond, Va.

The City of Richmond, Virginia, is in the midst of revitalizing the downtown near the Interstate with refurbished housing, business grants, corner markets, etc. with the intention of growth returning to the core of the City. The need for parking was a key issue as part of this growth and creative solutions were born. One such solution was to transform Main Street in the heart of downtown to an on – off peak parking strategy. The idea is to allow parking on Main Street during those times of day when traffic capacity is not a problem and casual parking can occur. Main Street has been a huge success for this new development and growth while still providing traffic capacity during the rush hours for motorists.

I. Benefits, Issues and Obstacles a. The City Transportation planners and engineers worked very closely with the community and found no real issues. b. Generally a successful restriction. In the beginning the commuters were not engaged in the lane changes as part of the allowed parking. Over time and with signage revisions, the system was a success. c. Provides needed alternative parking for the downtown area and businesses. The residential areas were being bombarded with business overflow parking and permits now had to be provided with restricted parking in the neighborhoods. Allowing on street parking during off peak periods solved the issue. Main Street d. Older section of downtown with grid . The grid street network allowed parkers to revolve around the block to find spaces instead of making U-turns etc. This was a positive geometry condition. e. City code authorizes these parking strategies. The public works director provided a parking campaign with strategies to the City Council. One of these strategies was the on-off peak parking and was widely accepted. f. With the backing of the City Council, this program is very successful and well accepted by the businesses and public.

July 2012 Page 2-5 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

II. Other facts about the system a. Utilization of infrastructure capacity i. Even though Main Street carries approximately 20,000 vehicles per day, the parking restrictions worked very well. ii. During non-peak travel times, a very strong usage of all available parking is capitalized. This has been a catalyst for new development in this area, and when peak vehicle capacity is required, full usage of the pavement right of way is available. b. Safety i. Crashes have not been a problem due to reductions in this area. ii. Bicycle usage has been re-routed to the side streets within the grid pattern for safety. iii. The Public Works and Police staff worked with the community on driveway access and delivery vehicle options. c. Land use/economic development impacts i. Allowing parking during off-peak traffic periods has changed the whole appearance of the main Street area. More pedestrians, shoppers, business patrons. ii. As business became more successful and parking became a premium, special parking monitoring or meters were considered for economic boost to the area. iii. With sustainability comes a new idea. The City and neighborhood created incentives for “GREEN” vehicle usage.

III. Richond’s recommendations for implementing on/off peak parking restrictions a. The success of leased buildings has proven the effect of on-street parking during the off-peak travel times. This has been a success for our downtown. b. Stay in touch with the business community and residents of the area. New ideas can come from friendly chatter.

July 2012 Page 2-6 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study On/Off Peak Parking Restrictions, Arterial Corridors North Miami Avenue, 20th street to 56th Street, Miami, Florida

I. Benefits, Issues and Obstacles a. The challenge was more of an understanding of time of day and direction. This street has no parking northbound in the evening and no parking southbound in the morning. b. After several weeks of the installation, the businesses and general public that uses these businesses understood the restriction. c. The businesses needed the off-peak parking as the overflow would spread into the surrounding neighborhood which was a problem. d. There is an extremely heavy traffic pattern southbound in the a.m. of which we restrict parking. Then in the evening, 4-6 pm, we restrict parking northbound. The northbound is more difficult because of the afternoon shoppers to control. e. The implementation was very simple and inexpensive. Public involvement was critical for this success.

II. Other facts about the system a. Utilization of infrastructure capacity i. North Miami Avenue carries approximately 30,000 vehicles per day with a very high percentage of directional split. Approximately 25 % of the daily volume is entering southbound in the morning and 25% of the volume traveling northbound in the evening’s ii. It has amazed the staff how the business patrons and visitors have recognized these parking restrictions and have not been a big problem. iii. Vandalism of signs has been a problem but is no different than any other signs we install. b. Safety iv. We do not have any records of major crashes as accounted for by the restrictions.

July 2012 Page 2-7 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

v. Our bicycle plan does not utilize this corridor because of the extensive commuter traffic and parking restrictions. Alternative bike routes are available. vi. As part of the driveway access to the businesses, The City worked with the owners of the property to share how the parking allowance and restrictions would function. Some driveways became obsolete in the process. c. Land use/economic development impacts vii. Most of the business we spoke with preferred the parking allowance during both times of the day. However the peak traffic flow is so demanding in the morning southbound and demanding the evening northbound we cannot allow both sides during both peaks. viii. There was discussion of parking meters as an option but not in this area. Restricting metering has helped the businesses grow.

III. Miami’s recommendations for implementing on/off peak parking restrictions

a. The desire to have on street parking is vital to businesses in the downtown Miami area. As this part of downtown has a rich history of small parcels of land, providing parking on these parcels is next to impossible. Street parking has become a way of life. Due to this limit of land, the City worked with the community and the traffic needs during the peak times and developed parking strategies along North Miami Avenue for on-off peak parking. This has been extremely successful for all parties.

July 2012 Page 2-8 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study On/Off Peak Parking Restrictions, Arterial Corridors

Table 1: Case Study Areas Quick Facts

Total Population Population Density Washington, DC 601,723 9,856.5/sq. mi Richmond, VA 204,214 3,414.7/sq. mi Miami, FL 399,457 11,135.9/sq. mi Source: U.S. Census 2010 Quick Facts

General Conclusions • There must be a dedicated enforcement program • Performance/variable based parking rates should be considered if a financial policy is in place • Community oriented feedback is extremely important • Latest technology in hardware/software is critical for convenience • Sensitive enforcement programs should be considered • It is important to understand the needs when implementing On/Off Peak Parking Restrictions

o Limited parking restrictions requires visible/detailed signage o Limited parking restrictions requires time to adjust by users o Limited parking restrictions can be detrimental to bicycle routing o Limited parking restrictions requires enforcement and monitoring

Specific research was conducted on several corridors as shown on the following pages.

July 2012 Page 2-9 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Florida Avenue

Site ID: FD_105067 Number of Lanes (Directional): 2 County: Hillsborough Description: SR 685/BUS US 41/N FLORIDA AVE, NORTH OF US 92/HILLSBOROUGH AVE

500

400 300 (15 min)

200 NB 100 Volume SB 0

July 2012 Page 2-10 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Section 3:

Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D.C.

Reversible Lane Strategies:

Reversible Lane strategies are used when the peak direction traffic flow is dominant during a specific time of day, when underutilized roadway lanes can be converted to assist in the peak directional flow and when safety can be managed with driver expectations understood. This technique is a highly cost-effective method of creating additional roadway capacity without significant construction cost, environmental or property impacts. For a highly directional facility, such a strategy would be a small fraction of the cost of a full symmetric widening.

The Hillsborough County Area has experienced the use of reversible lane technology dating back to the early 1970’s. At that time the directional split in traffic volumes on the Howard Franklin , Interstate 275, was severe enough that overhead illuminated lane usage signs were used for control. More recently, the Selmon Expressway was converted to an elevated reversible lane facility between Tampa and Brandon, Florida.

The reversible lane arterial corridors that were selected for this case study were also from mid-level to large population centers throughout the United States.

July 2012 Page 3-1 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

The interviews with the selected cities yielded positive results, issues and obstacles as well as factors about the corridor and the implementation strategies. These findings are detailed on the following pages. The general conclusions are presented and a Hillsborough arterial corridor is identified as a possible candidate for reversible lane treatment.

July 2012 Page 3-2 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study Reversible Lanes, Arterial Corridors , Washington, DC

The District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DCDOT) elected to convert Connecticut Avenue to a reversible lane facility many years ago to serve the directional traffic flows that exist each morning and afternoon in this corridor. Due to the mature nature of the land use and lack of building set-backs in many of the blocks, the idea of a traditional widening was completely out of the question. With the urban grid street system found in Washington DC, it is easy to understand that no community would want their street to be the ‘sacrificial’ corridor to be selected to carry the heavy demand via a reversible lane concept. This required DCDOT to make the hard decision, looking at the larger responsibility of moving all people, to select certain streets for this treatment. Alternatives to implementing a reversible lane facility could certainly include increased investment in transit modes, HOV strategies, peak/off-peak parking strategies, widening of parallel streets or construction of freeway capacity nearby. Although any transportation strategy has pros and cons, reversible lanes were ultimately selected for Connecticut Avenue. Below is a listing of key benefits, issues and obstacles associated with reversible lanes on Connecticut Avenue.

I. Benefits, Issues and obstacles a. Highly effective at moving daily peak direction flows of traffic b. Accomplished with very little cost and implementation time c. Did not require construction of additional lanes within the immediate corridor or the construction of parallel capacity nearby to serve same demand. These alternatives would have been impossible in this environment d. Not perceived as conducive to local economic development because of emphasis on through-traffic, deemphasizing the needs and wants of pedestrians, residents and communities e. The legal left turns are permissive rather than protected – causes safety concerns f. Some left turns are prohibited from corridor – this creates some undesired cut-through traffic in surrounding neighborhoods

July 2012 Page 3-3 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

g. DDOT has noticed that the center-most lanes are often underutilized due to lack of positive barrier between directions of travel h. Corridor has high percentage of tourist (National Zoo, etc.) – this population group may not be familiar with reversible lane concept and operation

II. Other facts about the system (Source: Dey, Connecticut Ave, Washington DC. Aden, Ma; ITE Journal, 2011) a. Utilization of infrastructure capacity i. Reversible segment shows high peak hour (K) factor, ranging from .09 to .10 ii. Peak direction accounts for 70 percent of bidirectional traffic iii. Three times as many crashes as Mass. Avenue comparable, but only 40 percent more traffic b. Safety i. 18-30% of crashes occur during Reversible Lane hours, but same hours account for 30-35% of traffic ii. Connecticut Avenue had greater number of head-on, sideswipe crashes than comparable non reversible lane facilities c. Land use/economic development impacts i. Eliminates potential for planted medians ii. Some perceive this format as pro commuter/anti resident (through traffic vs. community)

III. DDOT’s recommendations for implementing a new reversible lane system a. Evaluate existing and future land uses b. Consider and study reversible lanes as well as a range of other alternatives before making final decision

July 2012 Page 3-4 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

IV. Other noteworthy reversible lane systems in Washington DC a. Road i. Current state: operational and generally considered a successful model due to the longer distances between intersections and the fact that through traffic makes up a larger percentage of the traffic stream when compared to Connecticut Avenue ii. Background/Function: links residential areas of and Virginia to Georgetown and downtown Washington, DC iii. Facility type: minor arterial with very few intermediate access points iv. Segment length: 3 mile reversible lane segment v. Total number of lanes: 2 lanes; Reversible configuration: 2:0 (full one- way) vi. Control strategy – roadside signs and VMS vii. Hours of operation – 2.5 hours in a.m. and 2.5 hours in p.m. viii. Managing/operating agency – DDOT with help from DC Metro Police

July 2012 Page 3-5 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study Reversible Lanes, Arterial Corridors Tyvola Road, Charlotte, NC

The Tyvola Road reversible lane system was specifically implemented to accommodate the heavy directional traffic demand associated with a sports . Due to the infrequent nature of this need, the system was designed to be staffed with up to 20 police officers that would place cones and direct traffic to ensure smooth operations. The corridor still relied on overhead changeable electric signs as well as the staffing described above. Below is a listing of key benefits, issues and obstacles associated with reversible lanes on Tyvola Road.

I. Benefits, Issues and Obstacles a. Highly effective at moving peak direction flows of traffic during special events b. Avoided the tremendous right-of-way that would have been necessary to offer a symmetric facility with the same peak direction capacity. c. Fiber-optic signals are costly to maintain (e.g. problems with transformers) – note: this technology may have become stronger since it was used at Tyvola Road d. Significant manpower required to implement the use of the Tyvola reversible system since it was only implemented during major events at a sports arena Tyvola Road, Charlotte. Overhead signs along reversible lane segment. II. Other facts about the system a. While the function of the roadway was considered a success, its use has been discontinued since the major sports arena was moved to another location.

July 2012 Page 3-6 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

III. Other noteworthy reversible lane systems in Charlotte a. Parkwood Avenue i. Current state: reversible lanes were retired in 2000 after residents cited high vehicle speeds and accidents. Divided median replaced reversible center lane following a traffic study ii. Background/Function: “spoke” roadway that was converted to reversible lane system to address peak period congestion iii. Total number of lanes: 5 lanes; Reversible configuration: 3:2 b. Seventh Street i. Current state: operational ii. Background/Function: NCDOT hoped to widen Seventh Street to 4- lanes to reduce congestion, but encountered heavy community opposition. The public engagement eventually to reversible lanes iii. Total number of lanes: 3-4 lanes depending on the segment iv. Reversible configuration: 2:1, 3:1

Seventh Street, Charlotte. Overhead signs Seventh Street, Charlotte. Schematic along reversible lane segment. shows cross-section of the reversible lane section of the corridor.

July 2012 Page 3-7

Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study Reversible Lanes, Arterial Corridors 7th Street and 7th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ

The City of Phoenix elected to convert 7th Street and 7th Avenue to reversible lane facilities many years ago to serve the directional traffic flows that exist each morning and afternoon in this corridor. The circumstances and constraints of these two Phoenix corridors are quite similar to that described for the Washington DC case study. Due to the mature nature of the land use and lack of building set-backs in many of the blocks, the idea of a traditional widening would have been extremely unpopular. With the urban grid street system found in this portion of Phoenix, the City needed to make some hard decisions, looking at the larger responsibility of moving all people, to select certain streets for this treatment. Where DCDOT made a unilateral decision about Connecticut Avenue, the City of Phoenix involved a stakeholder committee approach to agree on the idea of reversible lanes and identifying corridors for treatment. Alternatives to implementing a reversible lane facility could certainly include increased investment in transit modes, HOV strategies, peak/off-peak parking strategies, widening of parallel streets or construction of freeway capacity nearby. Although any transportation strategy has pros and cons, reversible lanes were ultimately selected for 7th Street and 7th Avenue. Below is a listing of key benefits, issues and obstacles associated with reversible lanes on these corridors.

I. Benefits, Issues and Obstacles a. Highly effective at moving daily peak direction flows of traffic b. Accomplished with very little cost and implementation time c. Did not require construction of additional lanes within the immediate corridor. Parallel freeway capacity was indeed constructed since the reversible lanes were originally put into service but the regional growth in travel demand was so great their use was continued and remains today. d. Business opposition – stating that reversible lanes reduce access and profitability due to a perception that people customers find it more difficult to locate their businesses.

July 2012

Page 3-8 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

e. Density for new development is perceived as limited because of lack of left- turn capacity from corridors. This was an unexpected effect that showed up in Traffic Impact Studies for new development. f. Mid-block left turns are somewhat uncomfortable from inner lanes because the turning vehicles lack protection from opposing traffic or rear-approaching traffic g. Neighborhood cut-through traffic due to prohibited left turns at some intersections. 7th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ. Drivers sometimes turn left one block before upcoming prohibited turn and traverse through side streets. h. Conflicts between Council Districts over traffic generation and routing. Some Council members would talk about ‘your traffic coming through our district’

II. Other facts about the system a. City has an ad-hoc citizen task force that watches over anything associated with reversible lanes – the group is currently proposing more enforcement b. Speeding is not significantly different on these lanes when compared to a non-reversible peer facility c. Reversible lanes carry substantial amount of peak traffic i. Utilization AM peak: 30.0% (7th Street) and 26.0% (7th Avenue) ii. Utilization PM peak: 17.0% (7th Street) and 14.0% (7th Avenue) d. Reversible Lane Study (2008) showed that both and segment crash rates on the reverse lane streets did not vary significantly from those on non-reverse streets e. Reversible Lane Study (2008) predicted that commute times would increase by as much as 75 percent along 7th Street f. In survey of 100 residents, 75 percent agreed that the operating rules were clear; roughly 50 percent felt that the system was safe

July 2012 Page 3-9 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

g. They used CMAQ funding. Some currently use air quality arguments to support the use of these reversible lanes, saying they improve congestion and thus reduce mobile source emissions. h. City has a new set of Public Service Announcements to remind people about the rules and operations of the lanes i. Installing new electronic overhead signals would cost approximately $20 million Travel times on 7th Street, Phoenix, AZ.

III. Phoenix recommendations for implementing a new reversible lane system a. Explore use of lighted overhead traffic control signals – yet this could lead to problems of synchronization and liability issues. For example, when the driver has to rely on a static sign, the burden is on them to decide if it is indeed 2:58pm or 3:00pm, for example. If the signs are electronic and have to change at a specific time, what if the controlling clock is off my a few minutes or is not functioning correctly and there is a crash in the corridor. The City is now potentially involved in the problem.

July 2012 Page 3-10 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study Reversible Lanes, Arterial Corridors

Table 1: Case Study Areas Quick Facts

Total Population Population Density Washington, DC 601,723 9,856.5/sq. mi Charlotte, NC 731,424 2,457.0/sq. mi Phoenix, AZ 1,445,632 2,797.8/sq. mi Source: U.S. Census 2010 Quick Facts

General Conclusions • There is no “one size fits all” approach to reversible lanes • Reversible lane strategies can be a highly effective and low cost way to achieve increased capacity on roadways with very directional traffic Reversible lanes can be implemented quickly with little or no construction or right-of-way requirements. • Innovative signage can help reduce accidents and confusion. Yet, overhead electronic signals are extremely expensive to implement and maintain • It is important to understand the neighborhood context when implementing reversible lanes

o Reversible lanes can cause cut-through traffic in surrounding areas o Reversible lanes can potentially hamper economic development efforts by placing emphasis on through traffic, rather than local traffic

o Reversible lanes can be detrimental to pedestrian mobility • When considering reversible lanes, it is best to conduct a comprehensive study of all potential strategies (e.g. conventional widening, HOV, peak period parking policies, transit initiatives, etc.) to fully understand the costs, benefits, and impact on land use and the community.

The following corridor has congested traffic with a directional nature and is a potential candidate for reversible lanes or other congestion management treatments. A proper corridor analysis would yield the best treatment for Bloomingdale Avenue.

July 2012 Page 3-11 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Bloomingdale Avenue

July 2012 Page 3-12 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Section 4:

Houston, Texas

High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes Strategies:

High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes are typically reserved for carpools, vanpools, buses and motorcycles to provide priority to people traveling by these modes. HOV restrictions are generally applied during designated time periods of travel, such as during morning and afternoon commuting periods, though some HOV facilities restrict travel throughout the day. HOV lanes play an integral part in helping metropolitan areas address their mobility, safety, productivity, environmental stewardship and quality of life needs. Presently, there are approximately 100 instances where HOV lanes are in use nationwide. Many of these HOV lanes are located on interstate facilities within urban areas. Others are located along arterial streets carrying high volumes of commuting automobile and transit vehicle traffic. It is this use of arterial HOV lanes that is being examined for applicability to corridors in Hillsborough County.

The arterial corridors that were selected as subjects for interviews with the operators of the HOV Lane facilities are located in large population centers throughout the United States: Alexandria, Virginia, Denver, Englewood and Littleton, Colorado, and Houston, Texas.

July 2012 Page 4-1

Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Representatives from agencies responsible for the HOV facilities were interviewed to obtain insight into the issues and obstacles encountered during the planning and implementation of the HOV facilities, the factors leading to their successful operation, and the lessons learned and changes in approach they recommend to others evaluating this congestion management technique. Information about the specific corridors and their implementation strategies are demonstrated on the following pages.

The general conclusions about the utility of Arterial HOV lanes and a potential Corridor where this treatment may prove beneficial are discussed for further consideration in the second phase of this study.

July 2012 Page 4-2 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study HOV Lanes, Arterial Corridors Washington Street, Patrick Street/Henry Street (NB/SB one-way pair), Alexandria, VA

The City of Alexandria implemented two arterial HOV corridors within its municipal limits to facilitate commuting traffic traveling between Fairfax County and Washington D.C. Major regional roadways, including the George Washington Memorial , Richmond (U.S. Route 1) and the Capital Beltway (I-95/I-495) bring commuting traffic into Alexandria from the south. North of the city, U.S. 1 (as Jefferson Davis Highway) and the George Washington Memorial Parkway are the only two routes connecting Alexandria to Washington. Alexandria’s gridded multilane urban network, which includes multi-lane urban neighborhood streets, a number of one-way pairs and streets with on-street parking, is much different in character from these major commuting routes. Within Alexandria, U.S. 1 operates as a multi-lane one- way pair (Patrick Street in the northbound direction and Henry Street in the southbound direction); the George Washington Memorial Parkway becomes Washington Street, a two-way multilane urban street. As direct connections between the commuter routes north and south of the city, these streets were converted to restricted hour Arterial HOV treatment to provide continuity of traffic flow during major commuting hours while providing on-street parking to local residences and businesses during the remainder of the day.

I. Benefits, Issues and Obstacles a. Multi-jurisdictional agencies (City, VDOT, ) involved in, planning, design, operation, and maintenance of the HOV facility. For example, Washington Street is a VDOT road maintained by Alexandria within the city limits, but is operated and maintained as the George Washington Memorial Parkway by the National Park Service south of Alexandria. b. Bottlenecks are present at either end of the arterials where lane drops occur, creating congestion for HOV and regular traffic. c. There are issues with turning traffic and orientation of HOV lanes to desired turns. All right turns must be made from the HOV lane and left turns opposing the HOV lane are prohibited in some locations for safety considerations.

July 2012 Page 4-3 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

d. Regional continuity doesn’t exist: there are no HOV lanes on these routes outside of Alexandria, limiting their overall effectiveness. e. Changes in the city’s elected officials can result in changes in the HOV operation and enforcement policy. f. On-street parking (non-metered and metered) is provided in the HOV lanes during the hours when the HOV restrictions are not in effect. The towing of parked vehicles is sometimes necessary to clear the lane for HOV use.

II. Other facts about the system a. Washington Street HOV system (Green Street to 1st Street) is about 1.4 miles in length i. Continues parallel to George Washington Memorial Parkway on East/West Abingdon Drive to Slaters Lane for another 0.5 miles. b. Patrick Street/Henry Street system (Duke Street to Montgomery Street) is about one mile long. c. Routes were chosen because they i. were major commuting routes through Alexandria and ii. had sufficient available capacity for converting to part time HOV use. d. Enforcement is a concern – i. It is difficult for police to safely stop and ticket violators within the HOV without blocking the HOV lane, rendering it useless. ii. Enforcement has been challenged in court on the basis that the HOV restrictions are selectively enforced.

iii. Dillon Rule issues also create Northbound Washington Street, Arlington VA

legal/enforcement problems. There have been instances where violations were dismissed by judicial interpretations that the city had no authority to enforce the HOV restrictions. iv. Enforcement efforts decrease and law enforcement frustration increases if citations are successfully challenged in court.

July 2012 Page 4-4 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

e. Different treatments and signing have to be applied in locations where metered on-street parking is provided compared to locations with unmetered on-street parking; f. Maintenance of signing and pavement marking is a concern. i. Maintenance is difficult due to on-street parking and other uses during non –HOV times; ii. Enforcement is more difficult when signing and striping deteriorate.

III. Alexandria’s recommendations for implementing a new arterial HOV lane system a. Provide adequate signing and pavement markings b. Establish a mechanism to clear lanes and keep them clear prior to and during HOV hours c. Plan to avoid bottlenecks and conflicting crossing movements d. Ensure agency buy-in among municipal and other agencies e. Avoid implementing HOV on streets with metered parking. f. Consider commercial effects of Arterial HOV lanes replacing on-street parking, even on a limited basis during the day, on businesses and residences

Page 4-5 July 2012

Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study HOV Lanes, Arterial Corridors Santa Fe Drive (U.S. 85), Denver, Englewood and Littleton, CO

Santa Fe Drive is a multilane commuter route located south of Denver. In the 1980s, the Colorado DOT implemented Arterial HOV treatments to facilitate the flow of commuting traffic to and from communities south of Denver. This pioneering arterial HOV treatment was planned, designed and implemented at a time when the policies and standards for HOV lanes on arterials and freeways were evolving or non-existent. In the decades this facility has operated with HOV restrictions during peak commuting periods, HOV standards and guidelines have matured at the federal level and within many states. Ironically, many of the HOV features along Santa Fe Drive no longer comply with current HOV standards. Despite the age of this arterial HOV facility, Colorado has yet to enact regulations to establish standards, guidelines and policies for their use, leading to inconsistencies in signing and pavement markings and local enforcement efforts.

I. Benefits, Issues and Obstacles a. Arterial HOV facility planned, designed and implemented at a time when FHWA had no implementation and performance guidelines; the HOV facility currently does not comply with FHWA guidelines. b. Lack of design standards or regulatory guidance (signing and pavement markings)

at the Colorado DOT made implementation Santa Fe Drive at West Hampden Avenue a challenge. c. Maintenance of the HOV facility is difficult due to the location of the restricted lanes on the left side of the arterial and their unrestricted use by traffic outside of the restricted hours. d. Enforcement is uneven along the HOV facility since it crosses through three communities with different levels of commitment to the HOV operation as well as the lack of standards supported by state regulation.

July 2012 Page 4-6 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

II. Other facts about the system a. The Santa Fe Drive Arterial HOV facility is about 7.5 miles long northbound and 5.7 miles long southbound and travels through three municipalities. b. The Arterial HOV lanes have no embedded data collection systems like the freeway HOV/HOT lanes. Operation of Interstate facilities is the primary focus of Colorado DOT. c. The sources of funding for the planning, design and construction of the HOV facility are now unclear due to age of system. It is – likely that these activities involved FHWA funding (possibly CMAQ funding) d. Traffic turning left at signalized intersections has to cross HOV lanes to enter the left turn lane. Lack of state standards for the facility has led to the absence of clearly marked crossing areas, increasing enforcement difficulties and leading to apathetic enforcement. e. No benefit-cost assessment or methods to measure the success of the HOV facility are in place.

III. Denver’s recommendations for implementing a new arterial HOV lane system a. Give consideration to which side of the road should be used for HOV lane to facilitate operational and maintenance needs. b. If not already established, determine appropriate pavement marking and signing standards and obtain appropriate regulatory approval/adoption. c. If facilities cross jurisdictions, ensure compatibility in enforcement policies and procedures.

Santa Fe Drive approaching West Chenango Avenue – entry into left turn lane across solid white line marking the edge of the arterial HOV lane.

Page 4-7 July 2012

Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study HOV Lanes, Arterial Corridors Downtown Dual “” Network, Houston, TX

The central business district of Houston has a gridded network of multilane one-way roadway pairs. In addition to heavy vehicular traffic, there is substantial use of transit buses run by METRO, the Houston mass transit agency. In the 1980s, the City of Houston, Texas DOT and METRO embarked on a major long-term multi-phase project to reduce vehicular congestion, enhance pedestrian travel, improve , and upgrade water and lines. METRO’s goal in this project was to improve bus transit operations and facilitate the flow of commuters arriving and departing from the CBD each day. This was accomplished through the implementation of bus-only lanes in the lane on major one-way street pairs and HOV lanes for cars and buses in the next adjacent lane during restricted time periods. Though it was occasionally difficult to navigate the conflicting agendas and goals of the various agencies and reach consensus, METRO’s extensive planning and analysis to prioritize project phases so that the most critical needs were met first and their determination to maintain quality transit service for their customers during the long construction period was crucial to the success of the project.

I. Benefits, Issues and Obstacles a. Constructed as part of a larger project to address congestion in downtown Houston b. Pavement was deteriorating from heavy bus use (90 – 125 buses come into downtown during the peak hour). c. Multi-agency project with multiple funding sources, including FTA (40-50%), FHWA and local funds. d. Overall project was complex, involving multiple facilities: HOV lanes, sewers,

sidewalk widening, water lines, sanitary Figure 1: Downtown Diamond Network, Houston, TXZ. Source: MRC Worldwide Arterial HOV Lane Database sewers, traffic signal optimization

e. Delays arose from agency coordination, agendas

July 2012 Page 4-8 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

f. Total project took seven years to complete in prioritized stages.

II. Other facts about the system a. Total length of the system is over 20 miles, covering over 320 city blocks on three north-south one-way pairs and three east-west one-way pairs b. METRO, the Houston Transit Agency, operates and maintains the arterial and freeway HOV facilities. METRO distinguishes between HOV lanes (barrier separated lanes) and “Diamond Lanes” (non-barrier separated lanes). Since they are not barrier separate lanes, the Arterial HOV lanes are classified as “Diamond Lanes”. c. METRO has two classifications of Diamond Lanes: i. The curb lane marked with a solid diamond is designated for use by transit vehicles only; ii. The adjacent second lane is a time restricted HOV lane marked with a Dashed Diamond. d. The curb lane was designed for constant bus traffic - has 9-inch reinforced section. Repair work requires full replacement of the pavement section rather than partial replacement or patching overlays. e. Storm drains were relocated to the center of curb lane to eliminate splashing of pedestrians on sidewalk. However, this created a maintenance issue with the drainage grates, which run longitudinally along the lane. f. Enforcement is an concern i. METRO enforces their HOV and Diamond Lanes with agency police. The enforcement of the Interstate HOV lanes is METRO’s top priority, leaving few resources for the enforcement of the Diamond Lanes ii. Traffic exiting parking garages, and pick-up/drop-off traffic can block the Diamond Lanes g. As part of the overall downtown improvement program, extensive modeling of the improvements was performed to establish improvement program funding priorities and schedules. h. Diamond lanes used extensively for hurricane evacuation

July 2012 Page 4-9

Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

III. Houston’s recommendations for implementing a new arterial HOV system a. Involve other agencies (in this case, the City of Houston and Texas DOT) early to get consensus; recognize individual agency agendas may conflict with implementation of planning, design, and construction; execute appropriate agreements between agencies b. Estimate/monitor travel time and transit operations savings; model improvements and estimate costs to accurately prioritize improvements Typical signing and pavement markings. c. Take opportunity to address other transportation / infrastructure needs and construct at one time. d. Adjust transit schedules, vehicle headways to meet customer demand and adjust for travel delays during construction. IV.

July 2012 Page 4-10

Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study HOV Lanes, Arterial Corridors

Table 1: Case Study Areas Quick Facts

Total Population Population Density Washington, DC 601,723 9,856.5/sq. mi Denver, CO 600,158 3,922.6/sq. mi Houston, TX 2,099,451 3,501.5/sq. mi Source: U.S. Census 2010 Quick Facts

General Conclusions • Arterial HOV lanes are adaptable under a number of circumstances • Arterial HOV lanes tend to focus on moving commuters • Enforcement of compliance with Arterial HOV lane restrictions is generally difficult for manpower and logistical reasons • Implementing Arterial HOV lanes

o Adequately plan to achieve specific goals o Avoid choke points at the termini o Establish continuity on longer facilities crossing jurisdictions for users to see benefits.

o Consider if adequate resources are available to address general logistical and operational concerns (keeping the lanes clear of parked vehicles, scheduling construction and maintenance, enforcement) before and during restricted use periods

o Consider the impact on local businesses where the HOV lane shares space with on-street parking during non-restricted periods

o Consider enforcement and maintenance issues o Provide sufficient infrastructure for anticipated traffic o Establish proper signing and pavement markings standards with appropriate regulatory support

Specific research was conducted on several corridors as shown on the following pages.

July 2012 Page 4-11

Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Bruce B. Downs

July 2012 Page 4-12 Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process

Appendix “A”

July 2012 Page A -1 Appendix: Case Study Questions – Reversible lanes

I. Connecticut Avenue, Washington DC Case study interview participants Soumya S. Dey, District DOT, Deputy Associate Director

Facility type Urban Arterial Why candidate for Rev Lane Peak period congestion Largest issue/obstacle in providing Negative impact on land use and economic development – focus on through RL traffic What would you do differently Consider alternatives such as bus designated lanes or other transit priority concepts How was the success measured Utilization, safety, land use/development impacts, compliance How were problems measured Utilization, safety, land use/development impacts, compliance Was special funding used No Feds involved No Legal challenges No Public acceptance Opposition to mast arms for overhead signals (particularly from Fine Arts Commission) Enforcement / control strategy Roadside signs/pavement markings/VMS Maintenance Minimal Entrance/exit fees used No Transit allowed Yes Hours of operation M-F (7:00am-9:30am, 4:00pm-6:30pm) Segment length 2.7 miles (24th Street to Legation Street) Built on new or existing corridors Existing Elevated No Electronic fees No Limited access corridor No Special lighting No Total number of lanes 6 Reversible lane configuration/ratio 4:2 Managing/operating agency District DOT Currently under operation? Yes Notes Parking lanes (2) are opened to traffic during peak RLs viewed as pro commuter/anti residents/anti local business

Appendix: Case Study Questions – Reversible lanes

II. Tyvola Road, Charlotte, North Carolina Case study interview participant Charles Abel, Transportation Systems Section Manager, Charlotte Date of Rev. lane treatment 1987 (rebuilt in 1998) - originally intended for intermittent use, but since initiation retired Facility type Major collector Why candidate for Rev Lane Special events (i.e.: basketball games) Largest issue/obstacle in providing Fiber-optic signal maintenance was extremely challenging RL How was the success measured Considered popular and successful during time of operation Was special funding used No special funding used Feds involved No Legal challenges No Public acceptance Generally, yes Enforcement / control strategy Overhead signals/traffic enforcement /pavement markings Maintenance Intensive: cameras, lighted fiber-optic signals, 22 officers req. for supervision Entrance/exit fees used No Transit allowed Yes Hours of operation Seasonal/as needed for 1-2 hour periods Segment length 3.5 miles Built on new or existing corridors New - completed in 1998 Elevated No Electronic fees No Limited access corridor No Special lighting Yes, 196 fiber-optic control signals Total number of lanes 6 Reversible lane configuration/ratio Customizable Managing/operating agency City of Charlotte: Dept. of Public Works, Police Dept. Currently under operation? No - system retired following construction of new at different location Notes Tyvola Road and overhead control system constructed in 1998 for $22 million

Appendix: Case Study Questions – Reversible lanes

III. 7th Street / 7th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona Case study interview participants, Kerry Wilcoxon, P.E.., Traffic Engineer, City of Phoenix 3/21/12 Date of Rev. lane treatment initiation 1982 (7th Street), 1979 (7th Avenue) Facility type Arterial roads Why candidate for Rev Lane Traffic concerns assoc. with growing city, began as citizen-initiative Largest issue/obstacle in providing RL Impacts on businesses and traffic in residential neighborhoods What would you do differently Consider use of overhead lighted signs How was the success measured Crash rate comparison, reverse lane utilization How were problems measured Public input, traffic studies Was special funding used Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and federal stimulus program for signage Feds involved Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and federal stimulus program for signage Legal challenges No Public acceptance Process reviewed in 2010 and operations will continue> Some are strongly against RLS Enforcement / control strategy Overhead / roadside signs, pavement markings, recently used VMS for left hand turns Maintenance Additional signage and safety measures in 2010-2012 Entrance/exit fees used No Transit allowed Yes Hours of operation M-F (6:00am-9:00am, 4:00pm-6:00pm) Segment length 7 miles (7th Street), 6 miles (7th Ave) Built on new or existing corridors Existing Elevated No Electronic fees No Limited access corridor No Special lighting No Total number of lanes 6 (3 northbound, 2 southbound, center land designated for left turns) Reversible lane configuration/ratio 3:3 (am), 4:2 (pm) Managing/operating agency City of Phoenix Currently under operation? Yes Notes Considerable public opposition

Appendix: Case Study Questions – Limited On Street Parking (LOSP)

I. 14th Street, 2900 – 3000 block, Washington DC Local contact Damon Harvey, District DOT, Parking Manager, 202-671-0493

Facility type Urban Arterial Why candidate for LOSP Peak period congestion with limited street use during off peak Largest issue / obstacle in providing Drivers getting use to the parking on the street during the off hours LOSP What would you do differently Place larger information signage at the beginning of the restriction area How was the success measured Utilization, land use / development increase, compliance How were problems measured Enforcement, safety, development impacts, compliance Was special funding used No, but as time went on, success was providing metering for income Feds involved No Legal challenges None Public acceptance Very positive acceptance form residents and merchants Enforcement / control strategy Roadside signs / pavement markings / towing Maintenance Minimal Special lighting No Transit allowed No, maybe in the future Hours of operation M-F (9:00am-4:00pm) parking allowed Segment length 1.5 miles Built on new or existing corridors Existing Benefit to Cost No Electronic fees Yes, cell phone parking meters Limited access corridor No Merchants/residents involved Yes Total number of lanes 6 Towing Yes Managing / operating agency The District with private towing Currently under operation? Yes Notes Parking lanes are open to traffic during peak

Appendix: Case Study Questions – Limited On Street Parking (LOSP)

I. North Miami Avenue, 20th Street to 56th Street, North Miami, Florida Local contact Humberto Escandon, City of Miami, Fl., Parking Manager

Facility type Urban Arterial Why candidate for LOSP Local business demand more parking, near their shops Largest issue / obstacle in providing LOSP Drivers getting use to the parking on the street during the off hours What would you do differently Provided this opportunity sooner How was the success measured Utilization of business enhanced with capacity of the road unchanged How were problems measured Enforcement, safety, compliance Was special funding used No Feds involved No Legal challenges None Public acceptance Very positive acceptance form residents and merchants Enforcement / control strategy Towing Maintenance Minimal Special lighting No Transit allowed No Hours of operation M-F (9:00am-4:00pm) parking allowed Segment length 2.0 miles Built on new or existing corridors Existing Benefit to Cost No Electronic fees No Limited access corridor No Merchants/residents involved Yes, public meetings regularly Total number of lanes 4 Towing Yes Managing / operating agency City Parking Division Currently under operation? Yes Notes Parking lanes are open to traffic during peak

Appendix: Case Study Questions – Limited On Street Parking (LOSP)

I. Main Street, Downtown, Richmond, Virginia Local contact Thomas Flynn, traffic Engineer, City of Richmond, Virginia

Facility type Urban Arterial Why candidate for LOSP Downtown parking a premium, spaces needed everywhere Largest issue / obstacle in providing LOSP Merchants wanted more time, no real obstacles What would you do differently Provide truck bays on either end of the restrictions How was the success measured Public acceptance How were problems measured Enforcement Was special funding used No, but metering became popular for the City Feds involved No Legal challenges None Public acceptance Very positive Enforcement / control strategy Tickets, towing Maintenance Minimal Special lighting No Transit allowed No Hours of operation M-F (9:00am-4:00pm) parking allowed Segment length 2.0 miles Built on new or existing corridors Existing Benefit to Cost No Electronic fees Yes, meters Limited access corridor No Merchants/residents involved Yes Total number of lanes 4 Towing Yes Managing / operating agency The City with private towing Currently under operation? Yes Notes Successful

Appendix: Case Study Questions – HOV Lanes

I. Washington Street (Two-way) and Patrick Street / Henry Street (N-S One-way pair) Alexandria, VA Contact Bob Garbacz 703-746-4143 Jim Neurohr 703-746-4404 Date of Initiation Mid 1980’s Facility Type Urban Arterial Reason for HOV Major commuting routes Implementation Largest Issue/Obstacle Enforcement What would be done differently? How was success measured? Unknown How were problems Unknown measured? Was special FHWA/FTA Unknown funding used Legal Issues Dillon Rule, Jurisdiction Level of Public Generally accepted; issues with enforcement Acceptance/Opposition Enforcement issues Jurisdiction questions, traffic disruption, LEO frustration Maintenance Issues Signing/pavement marking deterioration Turns from HOV lanes? Right turns at first opportunity or risk citation Passing from HOV lanes? No; turning traffic will often wait until last minute to enter Motorcycle Use Permitted? Not sure; motorcycles likely ignored Exemptions to occupancy None requirements Hours of Operation 7-9 AM Northbound, 4-6 PM Southbound Project Limits Green St to First St (Washington St) Duke St to Montgomery St (Patrick St/Henry St) Length Washington Street: about 1.4 miles Patrick Street/Henry Street: about one mile

Special signing / pavement Yes; side and overhead signing, diamond markings marking Maintaining Agency City of Alexandria, Virginia Notes HOV sections operate in isolation; no continuity outside the City limits; bottlenecks and difficult movements at termini; keeping lanes clear prior to HOV period

Appendix: Case Study Questions – HOV Lanes

II. Santa Fe Drive (US 85), Denver, Littleton and Englewood, CO Contact Alazar Tesfaye 303-757-9511 Jeff Lancaster 303-757-9511 Date of Initiation Mid 1980’s Facility Type Urban Arterial Reason for HOV Major commuting route Implementation Largest Issue/Obstacle Cooperation between multiple jurisdiction What would be done Evaluation of maintenance and enforcement prior to implementation differently? How was success measured? Unknown How were problems Unknown measured? Was special FHWA/FTA Yes, FHWA CMAW funding used Legal Issues None Level of Public Generally accepted; issues with enforcement Acceptance/Opposition Enforcement issues Jurisdictional differences and inconsistency Maintenance Issues Left side lanes create difficulty; regular use outside of restricted hours

Turns from HOV lanes? No; have to cross HOV lanes to enter intersection left turn lanes

Passing from HOV lanes? No Motorcycle Use Permitted? Yes Exemptions to occupancy Hybrid/Electric by state legislation requirements Hours of Operation 6-9 AM Northbound, 4-6:30 PM Southbound Project Limits Bowles Avenue/Platt River Drive to Alameda Avenue Length 7.5 miles northbound; 5.7 miles southbound Special signing / pavement Yes; side and overhead signing, overhead green signals, diamond markings marking Maintaining Agency Colorado Department of Transportation Notes Prior to FHWA guidelines were issued; now out of compliance. No regulatory guidance for CDOT to implement consistent signing and pavement markings.

Appendix: Case Study Questions – HOV Lanes

III. Multiple One-Way Pairs, Houston, TX Contact Nader Mirjamali, P.E. 713-652-4375 (temporary) Date of Initiation 1990’s; opened in stages through the 2000’s Facility Type Urban Arterials Reason for HOV Major commuting routes with heavy transit vehicle traffic Implementation Largest Issue/Obstacle Time for construction; unforeseen utility conflicts What would be done Improve agency coordination; reconsider shift of storm inlets differently? How was success Detailed system modeling, measurement of time savings measured? How were problems Not applicable measured? Was special FHWA/FTA FTA funding for bus lanes; FHWA, City funding for other elements funding used Legal Issues None Level of Public Generally accepted; public happy when construction over Acceptance/Opposition Enforcement issues METRO responsibility; lack of resources Maintenance Issues None with robust pavement section, storm water inlets are maintenance issue

Turns from HOV lanes? Right turns permitted Passing from HOV lanes? Not permitted, but happens due to low enforcement Motorcycle Use Permitted? Unknown – not an issue downtown Exemptions to occupancy No – METRO directed they are not allowed requirements Hours of Operation 6-9 AM Northbound, 4-6:30 PM Southbound Project Limits Not applicable Length Total length over 20 miles; over 300 blocks Special signing / pavement Yes; side and overhead signing, diamond marking in curb lane, dashed diamond in marking second lane Maintaining Agency METRO Notes Part of multi facility improvement; Seven year construction period; included relocation of inlets from curb to middle of curb lane, Unique “dual diamond” lanes; METRO distinguishes between “diamond lanes “ (non-barrier separated lanes) and HOV lanes (barrier separated lanes)