DOCSLIB.ORG

Section 2 Alternatives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Section 2 Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Statement US 290 Corridor Section 2 Alternatives 2.1 Introduction As part of the planning process, and in accordance with NEPA and FHWA guidelines, various alternatives were considered for meeting transportation needs within the US 290 study area. The build alternatives, which incorporate a multimodal approach, would increase capacity in the US 290 Corridor and meet the need to reduce existing congestion and the further degradation of the LOS. Throughout the development of the alternatives, efforts were made to minimize potential impacts to residential, commercial/retail, cultural, historic, and environmental features. This section explains the alternatives development and evaluation process, including the analysis and coordination performed as part of the US 290 Corridor MIS as a requirement under the ISTEA. 2.1.1 History of the Study Area The US 290 Corridor study area extends from the IH 10/IH 610/US 290 Interchange area northwest to FM 2920 near the community of Waller, Texas. Before construction of US 290, Hempstead Road (also known as Hempstead Highway) was the main roadway between Houston and communities northwest of Houston, including Cypress, Waller, and Hempstead. Hempstead Road was generally parallel to the Union Pacific (UP) Railroad, which was constructed as the Houston and Texas Central Railway in 1856. In 1953, the Houston comprehensive freeway plan showed a proposed Northwest Freeway aligned along Hempstead Road in Harris County, and extending east to IH 10 near the northeast corner of Memorial Park. The Texas Transportation Commission approved the initial plan in December 1953. The TxDOT Houston District conducted additional studies and shifted the planned alignment of the Northwest Freeway to the north of Hempstead Road between IH 610 and approximately the location of present-day BW 8. The revised alignment also terminated the freeway at IH 610, instead of extending the freeway to the east. The first public hearing for the proposed Northwest Freeway (US 290) was held in 1959, and construction began in the 1960s. Following construction of IH 610 in the early 1960s and the IH 610/US 290 Interchange in 1964, the first sections of US 290 frontage roads were constructed from IH 610 to Pinemont Drive and opened in 1970. In 1975, the frontage roads were extended to near the present-day BW 8 and the first section of main lanes opened just west of IH 610. CSJ 0050-06-061, etc. 2-1 May 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement US 290 Corridor The remainder of US 290 in the study area was also built in segments, moving northwest from IH 610. Construction of most of the roadway was completed from the 1970s to the 1990s. Improvements at the interchange of US 290 and the new BW 8 were completed in 1990. The transitway (currently called the HOV or high-occupancy vehicle lane) was built on the interior shoulders by METRO and was opened in phases in 1988 and 1990 (Slotboom 2003). Sections of US 290 main lanes and frontage roads northwest of SH 6 have been constructed since the 1990s and some projects in the area are still under construction. Hempstead Road is now a City of Houston facility. US 290 has replaced Hempstead Road in some locations, but Hempstead Road still exists in the study area from approximately BW 8 to IH 610. 2.1.2 Description of Existing Facilities Starting at its western terminus with FM 2920 in the City of Waller, US 290 is a limited-access freeway with parallel frontage roads along most of its length. The roadway facilities include main lanes (varies from two lanes in each direction at FM 2920 to five lanes in each direction at the eastern end), frontage roads (varies from three to two lanes in each direction from IH 610 to west of FM 1960, and in locations farther west, has no frontage roads), and one managed lane (HOV in the center of the freeway from the Northwest Station park and ride lot to the Northwest Transit Center on IH 10 near IH 610). There are currently two major interchanges: the US 290/ BW 8 Interchange and the US 290/IH 610/IH 10 Interchange. There are numerous highway-to-frontage road interchanges of various configurations throughout the corridor. Many of these are accessed through a series of ramps located along the length of US 290. Between BW 8 and IH 610, the majority of the interchanges provide access to two major intersecting arterials. Several major and minor arterials intersect with US 290 and provide connections to collectors and local streets serving residences and businesses. Due to the northwestern alignment of US 290, many of the arterials bisect the freeway at a skew, i.e. not perpendicular (not a ninety-degree angle), which creates geometric and traffic circulation challenges. The H-GAC, the City of Houston, and Harris County are planning improvements to the network of arterials and collectors throughout the study area. Some of the planned projects in the corridor are: • Widen FM 529 from US 290 to Huffmeister Road • Widen Cypress-Rosehill Road from Cypress Mill Park to Manor Bend • Widen Becker Road from US 290 to FM 2920 • Widen Bauer Road from US 290 to FM 2920 • Widen Long Point from Hempstead Road to Gessner Road • Widen Telge Road from Little Cypress Creek to Jarvis Road and from FM 2920 to US 290 • Widen Tidwell Road from Hempstead Road to Bingle Road • Widen Gessner Road from SH 249 to US 290 and from Hempstead Road to US 290 CSJ 0050-06-061, etc. 2-2 May 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement US 290 Corridor • Widen Bingle Road from Blankenship Drive to Westview Drive • Widen Clay Road from BW 8 to US 290 • Widen FM 2920 from Hempstead Road to Bauer Road • Widen Eldridge Parkway North from Fallbrook Drive to US 290 and from US 290 to IH 10 • Widen Warren Ranch Road from Hempstead Road to Jack Road • Widen Roberts Road from US 290 to Katy Hockley Road • Widen Hempstead Road from Field Store Road to US 290 • Widen 43rd Street West from Hempstead Road to Mangum Road • Widen Antoine from Veterans Memorial Drive to Hempstead Road • Widen Huffmeister Road from Hempstead Road to SH 6 • Construct partial new location of Louetta Road from US 290 to Cypress-Rosehill Road • Construct six-lane, divided urban street at Hempstead Road/Washington Avenue from west of 12th Street to IH 10 • Reconstruct Hempstead Road from Old Katy Road to IH 610 Several ITS components are operating in the US 290 Corridor, including: • Computerized transportation management system (CTMS) • Automated vehicle identification (AVI) • Elements of the HOV system • Elements of the park and ride facilities • Houston TranStar (a central, intermodal transportation control facility) Hempstead Road is classified as a major arterial and approximately parallels US 290 from IH 610 to west of BW 8. Hempstead Road is generally three lanes in each direction from IH 610 to Mangum Road and two lanes from Mangum Road to west of BW 8. The UP Railroad owns, operates, and maintains a single-track railroad line in the corridor. The approximately 100-foot railroad ROW is immediately south of Hempstead Road or immediately south of the US 290 ROW where Hempstead Road does not exist. METRO is the primary transit agency in Harris County. In the study corridor, it currently operates eleven bus routes and three primary park and ride lots with a total of 3,795 spaces (Pinemont, West Little York Road, and the Northwest Station). A future park and ride lot is planned near Skinner Road. METRO manages a single-lane, reversible, HOV facility located in CSJ 0050-06-061, etc. 2-3 May 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Statement US 290 Corridor the center of US 290, extending from near North Eldridge Parkway in the west to the Northwest Transit Center (at IH 10/IH 610). The HCTRA constructed, manages, and operates BW 8 (Sam Houston Tollway), a toll road around the City of Houston that crosses US 290 in the study area. HCTRA manages 83 miles of toll roads in Harris County and is currently constructing toll lanes (Katy Toll Road) on IH 10 from IH 610 to SH 6 in the vicinity of the US 290 Corridor study area. 2.2 Development of Alternatives 2.2.1 Major Investment Study The US 290 Corridor MIS, completed in 2003, analyzed the transportation needs in the US 290 corridor, including Hempstead Road. The corridor was of varying width and extended approximately 38 miles from the interchange area of US 290/IH 610/IH 10 to FM 2920. The study was conducted to comply with the requirements for major transportation investments established by the 1991 ISTEA and 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments. ISTEA required that an MIS be initiated on new transportation projects where the improvements to a transportation corridor involve using substantial federal funds, and where the improvements are expected to have a significant impact on the capacity, traffic, LOS, and mode share. In 1998, ISTEA was replaced by the TEA-21. TEA-21 no longer required that an MIS be a separate study, requiring instead that it be integrated, as appropriate, into the NEPA process. Because the US 290 MIS process was already underway, and many of the MIS requirements remained the same under TEA-21, the study was completed prior to the initiation of the EIS process. The MIS process implemented for the US 290 Corridor provided a focused analysis and extensive evaluation of mobility needs, identified a set of multimodal options to address problems and needs throughout the corridor, developed measures of benefits, identified costs and impacts, and allowed for a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of options.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Preferential and Managed Lane Signs and General Information Signs
    2009 Edition Page 253 CHAPTER 2G. PREFERENTIAL AND MANAGED LANE SIGNS Section 2G.01 Scope Support: 01 Preferential lanes are lanes designated for special traffic uses such as high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs), light rail, buses, taxis, or bicycles. Preferential lane treatments might be as simple as restricting a turning lane to a certain class of vehicles during peak periods, or as sophisticated as providing a separate roadway system within a highway corridor for certain vehicles. 02 Preferential lanes might be barrier-separated (on a separate alignment or physically separated from the other travel lanes by a barrier or median), buffer-separated (separated from the adjacent general-purpose lanes only by a narrow buffer area created with longitudinal pavement markings), or contiguous (separated from the adjacent general-purpose lanes only by a lane line). Preferential lanes might allow continuous access with the adjacent general-purpose lanes or restrict access only to designated locations. Preferential lanes might be operated in a constant direction or operated as reversible lanes. Some reversible preferential lanes on a divided highway might be operated counter-flow to the direction of traffic on the immediately adjacent general-purpose lanes. 03 Preferential lanes might be operated on a 24-hour basis, for extended periods of the day, during peak travel periods only, during special events, or during other activities. 04 Open-road tolling lanes and toll plaza lanes that segregate traffic based on payment method are not considered preferential lanes. Chapter 2F contains information regarding signing of open-road tolling lanes and toll plaza lanes. 05 Managed lanes typically restrict access with the adjacent general-purpose lanes to designated locations only.
    [Show full text]
  • DE MUTCD Page 3A-1 DRAFT Revision 3, October 2017
    DE MUTCD Page 3A-1 CHAPTER 3A. GENERAL Section 3A.01 Functions and Limitations Support: 01 Markings on highways and on private roads open to public travel have important functions in providing guidance and information for the road user. Major marking types include pavement and curb markings, delineators, colored pavements, channelizing devices, and islands. In some cases, markings are used to supplement other traffic control devices such as signs, signals, and other markings. In other instances, markings are used alone to effectively convey regulations, guidance, or warnings in ways not obtainable by the use of other devices. 02 Markings have limitations. Visibility of the markings can be limited by snow, debris, and water on or adjacent to the markings. Marking durability is affected by material characteristics, traffic volumes, weather, and location. However, under most highway conditions, markings provide important information while allowing minimal diversion of attention from the roadway. Section 3A.02 Standardization of Application Standard: 01 Each standard marking shall be used only to convey the meaning prescribed for that marking in this Manual. When used for applications not described in this Manual, markings shall conform in all respects to the principles and standards set forth in this Manual. Guidance: 02 Before any new highway, private road open to public travel (see definition in Section 1A.13), paved detour, or temporary route is opened to public travel, all necessary markings should be in place. Standard: 03 Markings that must be visible at night shall be retroreflective unless ambient illumination assures that the markings are adequately visible. All markings on Interstate highways shall be retroreflective.
    [Show full text]
  • Facts About the Interstate 15 Managed Lanes Project Segment Description Cost Funding Constr
    LEGEND (Million$) Facts About the Interstate 15 Managed Lanes Project Segment Description Cost Funding Constr. North Centre City Pkwy TRANSNET Freeway to SR-78 $249 CMAQ 2008-2011 RSTP SHOPP Middle TRANSNET TCRP STIP-IIP 2003- SR-56 to STIP-RIP Freeway $430 2008 Centre City Pkwy SHOPP RSTP CMAQ GARVEE-RIP GARVEE-IIP DEMO COOP South SR-163 to Freeway $481 TRANSNET 2008-2012 SR-56 CMAQ CMIA TRANSNET TCRP Transit Escondido to $122 2008-2012 Downtown CMAQ Federal Bus FileName:1-15MngLanes(5/04) April 2008 Interstate 15 Managed Lanes GOALS The I-15 Managed Lanes Project will manage traffic An integral part of the Managed Lanes is the Bus Rapid congestion and reduce delays on Interstate 15 (I-15), Transit (BRT) System -- a system of transit routes between State Route 163 (SR-163) and State Route 78 connecting residential areas with major employment (SR-78) by optimizing and increasing freeway capacity centers along the corridor. Preferential access to the and transportation alternatives in the corridor. Managed Lanes will allow buses to provide high-speed, "rapid" service. Bus Rapid Transit Centers (BRTCs) are planned adjacent to the freeway in Mira Mesa, Sabre PURPOSE AND NEED Springs/Rancho Penasquitos, Rancho Bernardo, near I-15 has serious traffic congestion problems affecting North County Fair and in Escondido. commuters, businesses, and regional goods movers. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on the corridor today In addition, the stations will have "Park & Ride" lots for ranges from 170,000 to 290,000 vehicles, with daily carpools and will be connected to the managed lanes by commute delays ranging from 30-45 minutes.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Practices: Separation Devices Between Toll Lanes and Free Lanes
    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA/TX-07/0-5426-1 Accession No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Best Practices: Separation Devices between Toll Lanes and October 2006; Revised February 2007 Free Lanes 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Ian Hlavacek, Mike Vitek, and Randy B. Machemehl 0-5426-1 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Center for Transportation Research 11. Contract or Grant No. The University of Texas at Austin 0-5426 3208 Red River, Suite 200 Austin, TX 78705-2650 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report Research and Technology Implementation Office September 2005–August 2006 P.O. Box 5080 Austin, TX 78763-5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. 16. Abstract Transportation agencies around the nation find themselves pushing the envelope of innovation to keep up with congestion caused by exploding demand for limited roadway space. Managed lanes provide a mechanism for harnessing the potential of the current infrastructure. Special-purpose lanes, including high- occupancy vehicle (HOV) and high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, allow engineers to manipulate roadway parameters to achieve varying levels of service. Managed lanes are controlled access facilities, and must somehow
    [Show full text]
  • NCMUG Fall 2015: Potential Updates to North Carolina Travel Demand Models
    NCMUG Fall 2015: Potential Updates to North Carolina Travel Demand Models Brian Wert, P.E. November 19, 2015 Agenda • Goals and Outcomes • Impetus for Change • Potential Issues • Managed Lanes • Superstreets • What can be done? 2 Goals and Outcomes 3 Goals • Share recent findings • Alert model custodians to recent rulings • Help determine path forward 4 Outcomes Make some decision soon • Deciding to decide later is acceptable • Deciding sufficient data does not exist is also acceptable • Choosing not to decide may no longer be acceptable Document decisions 5 Impetus for Change 6 Impetus for Change Recent best practice updates • NCHRP 716 • NCHRP 765 Recent court rulings • Yadkin Riverkeeper v NCDOT et al (Monroe Bypass) • Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation v NCDOT (Garden Parkway) • Midewin Heritage Association v Illinois DOT et al (Illiana Tollway) • 1000 Friends of Wisconsin v USDOT et al 7 Impetus for Change Recent best practice updates • NCHRP 716 • NCHRP 765 Recent court rulings • Yadkin Riverkeeper v NCDOT et al (Monroe Bypass) • Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation v NCDOT (Garden Parkway) – Documentation and SE Data • Midewin Heritage Association v Illinois DOT et al (Illiana Tollway) • 1000 Friends of Wisconsin v USDOT et al 8 Impetus for Change Recent best practice updates • NCHRP 716 • NCHRP 765 Recent court rulings • Yadkin Riverkeeper v NCDOT et al (Monroe Bypass) • Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation v NCDOT (Garden Parkway) • Midewin Heritage Association v Illinois DOT et al (Illiana Tollway) – Rationality and SE Data • 1000 Friends of
    [Show full text]
  • Feature 215 Medians
    Chapter 7. RCI Features & Characteristics Feature 215 FEATURE 215 MEDIANS Roadway Side Allows Tie LRS Package Feature Type Interlocking Secured C Yes Yes Length Yes Yes Responsible Party for District Planning Data Collection Definition/Background: Denotes type of medians and median barriers on divided highways. MDBARTYP | TYPE OF MEDIAN BARRIER Who/What uses this Offset Offset HPMS MIRE Information Required For Direction Distance 35 Planning, Maintenance, Work All functionally classified N/A N/A Program, Traffic Operations, roadways on the SHS, all HPMS HPMS standard samples off the SHS, Active Exclusive roadways, all SIS related roadways, and all managed lanes. Definition/Background: Denotes type of median barrier. Important When Gathering: A barrier is defined as any longitudinal and vertical physical structure between roadbeds preventing motorists from crossing to the other side of the travelway. How to Gather this Data: Record appropriate code. Special Situations: When more than one barrier type exists, use Code 20-Other. Codes Descriptions 03 Cable Barrier 04 Guardrail (all types) 05 Fence 06 Barrier Wall 20 Other 28 Canal, river, or other waterway 7-172 | RCI Handbook Feature 215 EXAMPLES EXAMPLES OF CODING COMBINATIONS RCI Handbook | 7-173 Chapter 7. RCI Features & Characteristics Feature 215 MEDWIDTH | HIGHWAY MEDIAN WIDTH Who/What uses this Offset Offset HPMS MIRE Information Required For Direction Distance 36 Planning, Maintenance, Work All functionally classified N/A N/A Program, Traffic Operations, roadways on the SHS, all HPMS HPMS standard samples off the SHS, Active Exclusive roadways, all SIS related roadways, and all managed lanes. Definition/Background: Denotes the median width in feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Barrier Versus Buffer Separated Managed Lanes
    EMERGING ISSUES: BARRIER VERSUS BUFFER SEPARATED MANAGED LANES PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY Georgia Department of Transportation HNTB Corporation Office of Planning 3715 Northside Parkway 600 West Peachtree Street NW 400 Northcreek, Suite 600 Atlanta, GA 30308 Atlanta, GA 30327 Phone: (404) 631-1796 Phone: (404) 946-5708 Fax: (404) 631-1804 Fax: (404) 841-2820 Contact: Michelle Caldwell Contact: Andrew C. Smith, AICP January 2010 c Georgia Department of Transportation FINAL Barrier Versus Buffer Separated Managed Lanes January 2010 Atlanta Regional Managed Lane System Plan Technical Memorandum 17B: Advantages and Disadvantages of Barrier Versus Buffer Separated Managed Lanes Prepared for: Georgia Department of Transportation One Georgia Center, Suite 2700 600 West Peachtree Street NW Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Prepared by: HNTB Corporation Atlanta Regional Managed Lane System Plan Georgia Department of Transportation, Office of Planning FINAL Barrier Versus Buffer Separated Managed Lanes January 2010 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF BARRIER VERSUS BUFFER SEPARATED MANAGED LANES WHITE PAPER Introduction The purpose of this white paper is to explore the advantages and disadvantages associated with the separation of managed lanes from the general purpose lanes by means of a barrier or buffer system. A number of factors contribute to the selection of a buffer or barrier system including issues of design specifications, costs, access, safety, congestion pricing operations, enforcement and public perception. The advantages and disadvantages of barrier and buffer separated managed lanes facilities are fully elaborated on in the sections below. Each corridor within Atlanta should decide for itself, based on its current and projected needs, operational guidelines and ultimate goals, which system, or combination thereof, works best for their area.
    [Show full text]
  • 7 Managed Lanes Discussion
    MEMORANDUM TO: THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: LISA STREISFELD, DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS DATE: OCTOBER 17, 2018 SUBJECT: COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MANAGED LANES GUIDELINES DOCUMENT Purpose Managed lanes are comprised of a set of operational strategies to improve traffic flow on highways in response to changing conditions. These strategies reduce congestion, improve safety, and improve reliability. Policy Directive number 1603.0, concerning “Managed Lanes,” was approved in December 2012 by the Colorado Transportation Commission (See Appendix of Attachment B). As part of Section VII., Implementation Plan, “CDOT staff shall develop guidance to support this Policy Directive.” This memorandum provides an update to the Transportation Commission on the preparation of the Colorado Department of Transportation Managed Lanes Guidelines document (Attachment B). Action No formal action required. Background The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defines managed lanes “as a set of lanes where operational strategies are proactively implemented and managed in response to changing conditions1.” Managed lanes strategies are grouped in the following categories: 1) Active Traffic Management, 2) Transit Management for Express Bus Lanes, 3) Special Use Lanes 4) Express Lanes, 5) High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes, 6) High Occupancy Toll Lanes, 7) Reversible Lanes (also known as Counter-flow Lanes), 8) Shoulder Lanes, and 9) Connected and Autonomous Vehicle Technology. These strategies regulate demand in lanes, separate traffic streams to reduce turbulence, and efficiently utilized available and unused capacity. With limited financial resources to construct new capacity, managed lane strategies can improve travel time reliability, travel mode split, and foster public-private partnerships to invest in infrastructure. To promote managed lanes strategies, Policy Directive number 1603.0, concerning “Managed Lanes,” was approved in December 2012 by the Transportation Commission (See Appendix in Attachment B).
    [Show full text]
  • ITD Traffic Manual Provides Supplemental Information to the MUTCD and Provides Information on Practices Common in Idaho
    Traffic Manual: Idaho Supplementary Guidance to the MUTCD April 2020 Idaho Transportation Department This Page Intentionally Left Blank Traffic Manual: Idaho Supplementary Guidance to the MUTCD Page TC-1 TRAFFIC MANUAL: IDAHO SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE TO THE MUTCD TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PART 1 GENERAL CHAPTER 1A GENERAL Section 1A.01 Purpose of Traffic Control Devices ..................................................................1 Section 1A.02 Principles of Traffic Control Devices ...............................................................1 Section 1A.03 Design of Traffic Control Devices ...................................................................1 Section 1A.04 Placement and Operation of Traffic Control Devices ......................................1 Section 1A.05 Maintenance of Traffic Control Devices ..........................................................1 Section 1A.06 Uniformity of Traffic Control Devices .............................................................1 Section 1A.07 Responsibility for Traffic Control Devices ......................................................1 Section 1A.08 Authority for Placement of Traffic Control Devices ........................................1 Section 1A.09 Engineering Study and Engineering Judgment .................................................2 Section 1A.10 Interpretations, Experimentations, Changes, and Interim Approvals ...............2 Section 1A.11 Relation to Other Publications ..........................................................................2 Section 1A.12
    [Show full text]
  • High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane Degradation in California (PDF)
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA-CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN Jr. Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR P.O. BOX 942873, MS-49 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 Making Conservation PHONE (916) 654-6130 a California Way ofLife. FAX (916) 653-5776 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov April27, 2018 Ms. Diane Boyer-Vine Legislative Counsel State Capitol, Room 3021 Sacramento, CA 95814 Mr. Daniel Alvarez Secretary of the Senate State Capitol, Room 3044 Sacramento, CA 95814 Mr. E. Dotson Wilson Chief Clerk ofthe Assembly State Capitol, Room 3196 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Ms. Boyer-Vine and Messrs. Alvarez and Wilson: I am pleased to submit the California Department of Transportation's "High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane Degradation in California" as required by Vehicle Code Section 21655.9(±). Distribution to the California State Legislature has been made pursuant to Government Code Section 9795. This report can also be found at <http://www.dot.ca.gov/reports-legislature.htm>. Sincerely, A~r- LAURIE BERMAN Director Enclosure "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" H igh–Occupancy Vehicle Lane Degradation in California Report to the Legislature April 2018 [This page intentionally left blank.] Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 2 Background ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix B: Limited Access Dual HOV White Paper
    Appendix B. Limited Access Dual HOV White Paper Alternatives Screening Technical Report – Appendix B This page is intentionally left blank. Alternatives Screening Technical Report – Appendix B ISSUES AND FACTORS INFLUENCING THE CHOICE BETWEEN CONTINUOUS‐ AND LIMITED‐ACCESS MANAGED LANE FACILITIES June 28, 2017 This page is intentionally left blank. Issues and Factors Influencing the Choice Between Continuous‐ and Limited‐Access Managed Lane Facilities EXECUTIVE SUMMARY lanes congestion in the GP freeway lanes is reduced, which, in turn, results in higher overall average speed, reducing vehicle emissions through the corridor, increasing person throughput, and contributing to regional air quality goals. Recommendations incorporated in the Spine Corridor Master Plan include provision of additional “managed lanes” in HOT lanes would allow motorists to opt for an alternative travel experience, per se, at a given price that generally three segments of the corridor. The term “managed lane” can refer to any lane that has restrictions or constraints on varies throughout the day according to travel demand in the corridor where the facility is located. use; most commonly in the form of high‐occupancy vehicle (HOV) and high‐occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. HOV lanes Managed lanes generally are not viewed as degrading the overall mobility and safety performance of a freeway restrict use of the lanes to vehicles with a minimum number of occupants, currently two or more in the MAG region. system. On the other hand, these facilities permit transportation officials to better manage roadway capacity to create HOT lanes allow single‐occupancy vehicles (SOVs) to operate in the HOV lanes or a dedicated, separate facility for a the most efficient travel system possible throughout the day.
    [Show full text]
  • Managed Lanes
    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: MANAGED LANES by Baruch Feigenbaum and Austill Stuart January 2019 Reason Foundation’s mission is to advance a free society by developing, applying and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets and the rule of law. We use journalism and public policy research to influence the frameworks and actions of policymakers, journalists and opinion leaders. Reason Foundation’s nonpartisan public policy research promotes choice, competition and a dynamic market economy as the foundation for human dignity and progress. Reason produces rigorous, peer- reviewed research and directly engages the policy process, seeking strategies that emphasize cooperation, flexibility, local knowledge and results. Through practical and innovative approaches to complex problems, Reason seeks to change the way people think about issues, and promote policies that allow and encourage individuals and voluntary institutions to flourish. Reason Foundation is a tax-exempt research and education organization as defined under IRS code 501(c)(3). Reason Foundation is supported by voluntary contributions from individuals, foundations and corporations. The views are those of the author, not necessarily those of Reason Foundation or its trustees. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 WHERE ARE MANAGED LANES BEING USED, AND WHY ARE THEY BECOMING MORE PREVALENT? ..........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]