Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study

December 2016 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Table of Contents

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

SECTION 0 Table of Contents Contents Table of Contents ...... 3

Executive Summary...... 8

Tier 1 Screening ...... 9 Tier 2 Screening ...... 9 Recommendations ...... 10

Introduction ...... 15

Purpose of the Study ...... 16

The Context for Managed Lanes ...... 18

Defining Managed and Transit Priority Lanes ...... 19 Principal Components of Managed Lanes...... 20 Eligibility Control ...... 20 Access Control ...... 21 Flow Control ...... 21 Managed Lanes Objectives ...... 22 Operational Objectives ...... 22 Financial Objectives ...... 22 User Objectives ...... 22

Managed Lanes Alternatives Studied ...... 24

Hard Shoulder Running ...... 25 Contra Flow and Reversible Lanes ...... 26 Express Lanes...... 27 Access-Controlled Express Lanes ...... 27 Occupancy-Controlled Express Lanes ...... 28 Pricing-Controlled Express Lanes ...... 29 Bus Only Shoulder Lanes ...... 30 Truck Only Lanes ...... 30 Flow Control Corridors ...... 31 Ramp Metering ...... 31 Active Traffic Management ...... 32

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 3 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Managed Freeways ...... 32 Existing Managed Lanes in San Antonio ...... 33 Ramp Metering ...... 33 Left Lane Truck Restriction ...... 33 Hurricane Response Lanes ...... 34 Arterial Treatments ...... 34 Applying Managed and Transit Priority Lanes ...... 34 Corridor/Strategy Selection Criteria ...... 36 Integration with Regional Transportation Planning...... 37

Tier 1 Screening ...... 39

Existing Congestion ...... 39 Modeling ...... 41

Tier 2 Screening Methodology ...... 46

Safety Assessment ...... 47 Hard Shoulder Running ...... 47 Express Lanes ...... 47 Contra Flow Lanes ...... 48 Truck Only Lane ...... 48 Corridor Definition for Analysis ...... 49 Detailed Geometric Features and Existing Cross-Sections ...... 52 Strategy specific right-of-way and/or pavement width requirements ...... 54 Right-of-way assessment ...... 57 Evaluation Methodology ...... 61

Tier 2 Screening Results ...... 65

Hard Shoulder Running – Mixed Traffic ...... 65 Inside Shoulder Versus Outside Shoulder ...... 65 Bus on Shoulder ...... 69 Contraflow Lanes ...... 71 Reversible Lanes ...... 73 Express Lanes...... 75 Access Controlled ...... 75 Occupancy Controlled ...... 75 Pricing Controlled ...... 75 Truck Only Lanes ...... 81 Flow Controlled Corridors ...... 83

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 4 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Recommendations ...... 86

Summary of Recommendations ...... 87 Strategy & Corridor Recommendations...... 88 Strategy: Bus on Shoulder ...... 88 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic ...... 91 Express Lanes...... 92 Contraflow Lanes and Dual Reversible Lanes ...... 96 Truck Only Lanes ...... 96 Flow Controlled Corridors ...... 97 Strategies Not Currently Recommended ...... 99

Corridor / Strategy Ranking Criteria ...... 101

Corridor/Segment-Oriented Criteria ...... 101 Criterion - Features in 100 Most Congested Highways in Texas: Weighting of 5...... 101 Criterion - Project Has Been Identified in State/Regional Planning: Weighting of 5...... 102 Criterion - Percentage of Truck Traffic on the Corridor: Weighting of 3...... 103 Criterion - Annual Hours of Truck Delay per Mile: Weighting of 3...... 103 Criterion - Employment density on the corridor: Weighting of 3...... 103 Criterion - Population density on the corridor: Weighting of 3...... 103 Criterion – Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT): Weighting of 5...... 104 Criterion - Annual Hours of Delay per Mile: Weighting of 3...... 104 Criterion – Effective Congestion: Weighting of 3...... 104 Criterion - Number of Existing Bus Routes on ML Candidates: Weighting of 3...... 104 Criterion - Potential for future expansion in addition to the proposed improvement: Weighting of 3...... 105 Criterion - Current Park and Ride Facilities: Weighting of 1...... 105 Criterion - Potential for additional park and ride facilities based on land available at logical locations: Weighting of 1...... 105 Criterion - Opportunities for transit feeder service or innovative solutions such as subscription transportation or ride-sourcing for last mile services: Weighting of 1...... 105 Criterion - Identify high crash locations: Weighting of 5...... 106 Criterion - Ability of existing cross sections to accommodate Improvements: Weighting of 5...... 106 Criterion - Low income/low auto ownership areas served by Tier 2 corridors: Weighting of 3...... 106 Criterion - Ability to improve transit connections between activity centers, and between activity centers and residential areas: Weighting of 3...... 107 Strategy Oriented Criteria ...... 107 Criterion - Ability to Influence Mode Choice to More Efficient Modes: Weighting of 3...... 107 Criterion - Ability to Implement Effective Lane Management: Weighting of 3...... 107 Criterion - Improved System, Intermodal, and/or Multimodal Connectivity: Weighting of 3...... 108 Criterion - Ability to Use the ML to Develop Transit Networks to Facilitate Transit Travel: Weighting of 5. .. 108 Criterion - Potential for Transit and Carpool Time Savings: Weighting of 3...... 108

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 5 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Synthesis ...... 108

Numerical Ranking Results ...... 110

Hard Shoulder Running in Mixed Traffic ...... 110 Bus on Shoulder ...... 112 Contraflow Lanes ...... 114 Reversible Lanes ...... 117 Access Controlled Express Lanes ...... 120 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes ...... 122 Price Controlled Express Lanes ...... 124 Truck Only Lanes ...... 126 Flow Controlled Corridors ...... 128

Strategy Performance by Corridor ...... 130

Corridor Evaluation Results ...... 139

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 6 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Executive Summary

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 7 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

SECTION 1 Executive Summary

The Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning  Assess traffic and geometric conditions Organization (MPO), in partnership with the within the Alamo area's corridors. Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT),  Screen regional corridors for VIA Metropolitan Transit (VIA), and other applicability of managed lane regional partners, evaluated the potential for strategies. managed and transit priority lanes to provide  Screen shortlisted corridors for strategic reliable travel on the region’s congested identification and prioritization. highway corridors, while increasing person  Evaluate regional network throughput. Of particular interest in the Alamo considerations for managed lane region are managed / transit priority lanes implementation. applications that enhance traffic operations  Recommend a network deployment of through flow maximization, improve average managed lane strategies. vehicle occupancies and transit ridership, reduce crashes and other incidents, and This analysis yielded two levels of screening improve travel time reliability. Managed lanes analysis, and subsequent packaging of managed are a family of operating strategies, in existence lane strategy prioritization. The first screening for over forty years, that are increasingly identified corridors that experience significant utilized as an approach to effectively and traffic congestion, in order to establish those efficiently use existing capacity, recapture corridors that could benefit from managed capacity present in congested corridors, and lanes and associated treatments. The second provide alternatives to recurring travel time screening identified corridor characteristics to delay. Specific freeway lane management identify those corridors most in need of strategies have many operational variants, improvement and identify managed lanes including system-management techniques (such improvements that should be considered for as time-of-day restrictions), vehicle-type those corridors. The findings of these two restrictions, and congestion pricing. screenings led to recommendations described in the full report. While increasing vehicle throughput is important, the ultimate objective is moving Nine primary managed lane strategies were more people as efficiently as possible. All considered for implementation to improve the strategies studied can achieve the goal of performance of congested segments: moving more people, and some directly support  Hard Shoulder Running more efficient modes including transit and  Bus-Only Shoulder Lanes carpooling. The process for examining these  Contraflow / Reversible Lanes possibilities in the Alamo region included:  Access-Controlled Express Lanes  Identify best practices for consideration  Occupancy-Controlled Express Lanes and deployment of managed and transit  Pricing-Controlled Express Lanes priority lanes.  Truck-Only Lanes  Flow-Controlled Corridors

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 8 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Tier 1 Screening combinations of strategies and segments were paired together, with differences in scores for Two major elements were taken into account in segment-based criteria and strategy-based Tier 1 screening. The first was the presence of criteria contributing to a unique overall score congestion in the near to medium term. for each segment/strategy combination.

Without congestion, the impact of the Highlighted findings include: improvements considered would have little to no effect. Second, improvements on isolated  Hard Shoulder Running scored well on facilities will have much less benefit than most corridors, although it is only improvements that can be extended and appropriate when sufficient pavement networked. For that reason, in Tier 1, the San width exists. This can be implemented Antonio region was evaluated as a whole to on the inside or outside shoulders. determine the existing patterns of congestion,  Bus on Shoulder scored very well on using the regional travel demand forecast several corridors, with similar findings model for 2020 and 2040 conditions. Although and caveats for Hard Shoulder Running. the 2040 model includes managed lanes, these This strategy emphasizes benefits to were removed so as to avoid any transit services, where they exist, predetermination of managed lanes without adding new pavement. effectiveness.  Contraflow Lanes are unlikely to be a viable strategy for the Alamo region, Tier 2 Screening because no corridor has both the required directional split and number of For Tier 2 screening, specific managed lanes lanes in each direction. strategies were analyzed for use on the study  Reversible Lanes require a minimum of corridors advancing from Tier 1 screening. The 60% to 40% directional split during peak Tier 2 screening process involved several periods, and only three segments on iterative steps: two corridors in the region met this  Selection criteria development criterion (Loop 1604 and SH 151).  Safety screening  Express Lanes are already in the  Corridor definition, segmentation, and Mobility 2040 Plan, and moving forward analysis in development. Early in the project,  Assessment of strategy-specific right-of- the decision was made to proceed way and/or pavement width without any consideration of these requirements developments, so as to avoid  Managed lane strategy evaluation predetermined results. Findings indicated all corridors previously in Quantitative data was used when available. development were warranted, and rank However, at this level of screening, much of the very well for managed lane treatments. data available is qualitative. To allow both Access controlled express lanes ranked qualitative and quantitative data in the analysis, well in some corridors, but not as qualitative data was assigned a numerical value broadly as other strategies. Occupancy based on observed conditions, deployments of controlled express lanes offer additional the strategy outside of San Antonio, academic flexibility, and yielded more success. research, and professional judgment. All Finally, pricing controlled express lanes

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 9 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

scored even better, given the additional Based on the above factors, implementing Bus access to the express lanes. on Shoulder is the overall highest  Truck Only Lanes have limited recommended strategy. Bus on Shoulder scored application in the Alamo region, as well throughout the Alamo region, so continuity truck traffic is not high enough to between various segments can be achieved. warrant this strategy’s deployment in Further, Bus on Shoulder Tier 2 strategy / lieu of other managed lane treatments. corridor scores were high, it is relatively easy to  Flow-Controlled Corridors, which implement, it can be built upon by other include adaptive ramp metering and strategies, and it can be implemented with other active traffic management other strategies. In terms of sequential strategy technologies, scored well, including the deployment, Mixed-Use Shoulder Running can only strategy that can be used generally follow Bus on Shoulder deployment effectively on I-10 and US 281 between where appropriate. Implementation of one of Loop 1604 and Downtown San Antonio. several express lanes can follow after that. By implementing in this order, the performance of Recommendations each strategy informs the order in which subsequent strategies should be implemented. Based on the Tier 2 screening, the project team Flow-controlled corridors can be implemented developed a set of recommended managed at any time and with any other strategy lanes treatments for select corridors in the San examined in this study that is contemplated, Antonio metropolitan region. The planned or already implemented. recommendations in this section take into account several factors, including: Maps demonstrating individual corridor segments and recommended strategies for  Continuity on connected segments deployment are provided in the report. A  Strategy / Corridor Tier 2 score summary of recommendations for all corridor  Ease of implementation segments are provided in Table 1.  Builds upon strategy  Complements other strategies

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 10 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Corridor- Corridor Limits Recommended Alternatives Segment

1A Loop 1604 Interstate 35 to US 281

1B Loop 1604 US 281 to Interstate 10

1C Loop 1604 Interstate 10 to SH 151

2A Loop 410 Interstate 35N to US 281

2B Loop 410 US 281 to Interstate 10

2C Loop 410 Interstate 10 to SH 151

2D Loop 410 SH 151 to US 90

2E Loop 410 US 90 to Interstate 35

2F Loop 410 Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd

3A Interstate 35 NE Division Ave to US 90

3B Interstate 35 NE US 90 to Interstate 10

3C Interstate 35 NE Interstate 10 to Interstate 37

3D Interstate 35 NE Interstate 37 to Loop 410

3E Interstate 35 NE Loop 410 to Loop 1604

3F Interstate 35 NE Loop 1604 to SH 46

4A Interstate 35 SW Loop 410 to SH 422

4B Interstate 35 SW SH 422 to Division Ave

5A Interstate 10 NW Loop 410 to Loop 1604

5B Interstate 10 NW Loop 1604 to SH 46

6A Interstate 10 I-35 to Loop 410

7A Interstate 10 E I-37 to Loop 410

7B Interstate 10 E Loop 410 to Loop 1604

8A US 281 Fair Ave to Interstate 10

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 11 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Corridor- Corridor Limits Recommended Alternatives Segment

8B US 281 Interstate 10 to interstate 35

8C US 281 Interstate 35 to Loop 410

8D US 281 Loop 410 to Loop 1604

8E US 281 Loop 1604 to SH 46

9A SH 151 Loop 1604 to Loop 410

9B SH 151 Loop 410 to US 90

10A US 90 SH 151 to Interstate 35

10B US 90 Interstate 35 to Interstate 37

11A US 90 W Loop 1604 to Loop 410

11B US 90 W Loop 410 to SH 151

12A Interstate 37 Loop 410 to US90

Table 1: Summary Recommendations for All Corridor Segments

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 12 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 13 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Introduction

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 14 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

SECTION 2 Introduction

As with most metropolitan areas in San Antonio Regional Population the United States and 2,500,000 throughout the world, San Antonio, Texas 2,000,000 experiences significant traffic congestion, 1,500,000 particularly during the morning and evening 1,000,000 peak commute hours. Much of this can be 500,000 attributed to the region’s strong 0 population growth, 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 which is expected to Population continue for the near future (Figure 1). Figure 1: San Antonio Regional Population, 1990 - 2015

Mobility 2040, the long range enhanced person throughput, meaning multi-modal transportation plan for the San increasing the number of people a given Antonio metropolitan (Alamo) region, roadway facility carries, are necessary. concluded that travel demand and associated Through the course of this study, the Alamo congestion in the Alamo region is expected to Area Metropolitan Planning Organization grow substantially. Meeting this demand by (MPO), in partnership with the Texas increasing roadway capacity, such as by adding Department of Transportation (TxDOT), VIA new roadway facilities and lanes, is one Metropolitan Transit (VIA), and other regional potential strategy. However, key corridors such partners, evaluated the potential for managed as IH 35, US 281, IH 10, Loop 1604, Loop 410, and transit priority lanes to provide reliable and IH 37 are constrained by right of way, travel on the region’s congested highway environmental, and development issues. corridors. Additionally, this evaluation Furthermore, adding roadway space within examined options for providing new incentives major metropolitan areas is costly and can take for ridesharing and transit ridership that many years to complete. increase the number of people travelling on a These physical, financial, and environmental roadway without increasing the number of constraints emphasize the need to meet current vehicles. and future demand through innovative use of Overall, this effort worked to identify innovative existing infrastructure assets. Through the and sustainable transportation concepts that Mobility 2040 development process, regional can lead to better long term performance in the partners confirmed that innovative solutions to Alamo region. address population and travel growth through

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 15 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

At the direction of the Alamo Area MPO, decisions regarding the future consideration of metropolitan San Antonio was analyzed to managed lanes implementation as a cohesive determine what combinations of managed lane network throughout the Alamo region. While strategies could assist in reducing current increasing vehicle throughput is important, the congestion and that likely to be brought about ultimate objective is moving more people as by future demand. Of particular interest in the efficiently as possible. All strategies studied can Alamo region are managed / transit priority achieve the goal of moving more people, and lanes applications that enhance traffic some directly support more efficient modes, operations through flow maximization, improve including transit and carpooling. average vehicle occupancies and transit The structure of the study involved the ridership, reduce crashes and other incidents, following components identified in Figure 2. and improve travel time reliability. Specific freeway lane management strategies, which will This analysis yielded two levels of screening be discussed in more detail in the next analysis, and subsequent packaging of managed subsection, have many operational variants, lane strategy prioritization. All of these stages including system-management techniques (such are summarized in this report. as time-of-day restrictions), vehicle-type restrictions, and congestion pricing. To receive The first screening identified corridors that the maximum benefit from managed lanes, experience significant traffic congestion, in determining that they are the right fit for any order to establish those corridors that could given facility is appropriate prior to benefit from managed lanes and associated development. treatments. The second screening identified corridor characteristics in order to perform Purpose of the Study additional analysis to identify those corridors most in need of improvement and identify The purpose of the Managed / Transit Priority managed lanes improvements that should be Lanes Feasibility Study is to inform regional considered.

Figure 2: Study Components for the Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Study

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 16 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Context for Managed Lanes

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 17 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

SECTION 3 The Context for Managed Lanes

Almost every metropolitan area in the United different stakeholders in the transportation States has witnessed an increase in vehicle industry, meaning that there is a wide array of miles traveled and congestion over the past different strategies (Figure 3). However, one decade. Furthermore, highway construction key aspect that all managed lanes strategies costs continue to grow, right of way availability share in common is active management. is exceptionally limited, and traditional Managed lanes actively control demand for transportation funding sources have continually those facilities, in contrast to traditional lost purchasing power. There is a growing roadways where agencies have little control acceptance that with unlimited demand and over when and how often travelers use them. limited capacity, metropolitan regions are The ability of managed lanes operators to unable to build new capacity to accommodate manage, often on a dynamic real-time basis, future demand. who uses the facility and when they use it Instead of accepting the status quo as the “best allows for improved efficiency of existing we’re going to get” in terms of regional capacity. This holds especially true in situations congestion mitigation and interconnectivity, where options for constructing new capacity states and metropolitan areas are evaluating are limited. Latent demand in moderate to and implementing creative approaches to severely congested corridors can quickly fill managing transportation infrastructure. capacity that is not managed.

Emerging technologies have allowed for the Managed lanes strategies can be deployed to development and refinement of strategies to improve recurring congestion or safety issues at meet these challenges. Flexible operating a specific location, or be deployed across a strategies offer a means of addressing mobility highway corridor as a broader transportation needs and providing new travel options with management strategy. In addition, different minimal roadway capacity improvements. managed lanes strategies are often deployed in combinations to maximize benefits and make Managed lanes are a family of operating efficient use of the managed lanes strategies, in existence for over forty years, that infrastructure. are increasingly utilized as an approach to effectively and Express toll lanes efficiently use existing capacity, recapture capacity present in HOV lanes congested corridors, and provide alternatives to recurring travel time Reversible & contra-flow lanes delay. Shoulder lanes Managed lanes systems are designed to address a wide array Truck & bus only lanes of transportation goals. The term itself is ambiguous and Flow controlled freeways can mean different things to Figure 3: Example Managed Lanes Strategies Commonly Found in the U.S.

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 18 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Managed lanes encompass proactive management, control, and influence of the demand for and use of surface transportation facilities. Under a Managed lanes system, transportation system performance is the primary metric by which the system is operated.

Many strategies invoke continuous assessment and response in real time to achieve performance objectives, such as preventing or delaying breakdown conditions, ensuring travel times Figure 4: Universe of Managed Lanes Strategies, adapted from WSP | Parsons and speeds, improving Brinckerhoff, Texas Transportation Institute, and Federal Highway Administration safety, promoting Managed Lanes also include the concepts of sustainable travel modes, reducing emissions, intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and or maximizing system efficiency. Implemented active traffic management (ATM), which utilize actions are further monitored as they start to real-time transportation management affect system performance. This cyclical, real- strategies to better inform travelers’ choices time monitoring and adjustment approach can and use of specific routes and lanes of travel. be carried out at various operational time- This expansive use of technology is oriented scales, ranging from longer-term strategic directly towards efficiency and safety approaches to the short-term tactical decisions. enhancement. Regardless of the specific Defining Managed and Transit application, the ultimate purpose of Managed Priority Lanes lanes is the proactive management of traffic within designated systems of corridors and Since the deployment of the first managed connecting facilities. lanes in the early 1970’s, various types of Managed lanes strategies are intended to managed and transit priority lane systems have reduce traffic congestion, enhance mobility and been applied on limited access roadways. travel options, and improve safety, through the Initial exclusive-use facilities for buses quickly introduction of controlled use of dedicated or evolved to allow for high occupancy vehicles time-of-day highway capacity. The universe of (HOV) to optimize use of those lanes and managed / transit priority lanes is illustrated in increase the number of travelers moved. Within the continuum of Managed Lanes graphic, the past twenty years, electronic toll collection shown in Figure 4. on managed lanes have added the capability for As can be seen in the figure, pricing, eligibility, many to use the lanes with payment of a fee. and access controls are combined with various

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 19 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report traffic technologies to form any number of Principal Components of managed lanes strategies. Strategies combining Managed Lanes more combinations of control result in increasing complexity but are also more flexible Active management, as previously introduced in response to dynamic conditions. In general, encompasses a range of strategies, with three three basic categorizations comprise the principal elements: Eligibility, Access Control universe of managed lanes, wherein the much and Flow Control. broader diversity of strategies can emerge, as shown in the figure above. Eligibility Control Eligibility refers to the restriction of certain Dedicated Managed Lanes involves dedicating vehicles and vehicle types from accessing a lanes for use by any combination of high- given facility, which is most often based on occupancy vehicles, buses, trucks, or any other occupancy, vehicle type, or pricing. vehicle meeting eligibility requirements. Lanes operate at a higher speed than adjacent general Restrictions based on occupancy generally purpose lanes, creating an incentive to utilize a stipulate that only vehicles carrying a certain lane eligible mode. Dedicated managed lanes number of occupants – usually two or greater – may be oriented towards a particular mode may enter a facility. For example, on traditional (such as buses) or they may involve the HOV lanes, single occupant vehicles (SOV) are reallocation of existing lanes (such as reversible barred completely from accessing such and contra-flow facilities). facilities. By comparison, on priced dynamic shoulder lane (PDSL) applications, all passenger Use of Shoulders either involves operating vehicles are eligible to access the facility, but buses on roadway shoulders in slower speed they are required to pay a fee for access (albeit, application to bypass general purpose lane free use may be offered to HOV’s). traffic queuing during peak periods, or, using the shoulders for general traffic during peak Restrictions based on vehicle type generally bar periods to maintain or provide added capacity. certain types of vehicles from entering a facility, Either option may be deployed in conjunction such as large commercial trucks, or provide free with the application of other managed lanes on access for others, such as buses, low emission the inside of the roadway. vehicles or motorcycles.

Active Traffic Management (ATM) denotes Eligibility may also vary by time of day or application of advanced electronics to assign change over the life of the facility in response to traffic priority, lane assignment, speed control, changing volumes of various vehicle classes. and flow control, and includes such systems as Shoulder lane facilities, for example, may ramp metering, speed harmonization, queue experience growth in the volume of users such warning, and dynamic re-routing. These that congestion begins to occur and the level of strategies may be deployed in conjunction with service on the facility is degraded. This dedicated managed lanes as well as shoulder degradation of service may require a use applications. restructuring of eligibility requirements so as to reduce the number of eligible vehicles and thus reduce congestion in the lane.

For eligibility controlled facilities a hierarchy of user classifications should therefore be

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 20 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report established and eligibility requirements may be Metering can occur with traffic signals (such as adjusted so as to eliminate lower priority users. ramp or mainline signals), or as a proxy through variable pricing. Adaptive ramp metering is Access Control commonly found in the United states, whereas If the desire is for managed traffic speeds in predictive and coordinated ramp metering are certain lanes, then another management option the cornerstone of managed motorway is to separate vehicles on managed facilities strategies, as found in Australia. (regardless of vehicle type or occupancy) from adjacent general purpose lanes and restrict Most contemporary managed lanes strategies – physical access to those managed lanes. such as HOV facilities, queue bypasses, bus rapid transit, managed motorways, and other Access control is often accomplished by such facilities – do not feature a pricing physically separating a managed facility from component. However, for the 30 facilities other facilities via barrier, such as those nationally that do, pricing may be set on a commonly found on express lanes where the variable schedule, where rates change pursuant managed lanes are separated from general to a pre-established schedule, or dynamic, purpose lanes by a barrier of plastic delineators. where the price for access increases during In some situations, such as a bus-on-shoulder times of day where volumes are the highest. program in a confined urban area, right of way (ROW) may not be sufficient to construct a Table 2 illustrates how eligibility, access barrier and a simple stripe has to suffice. management and metering may be used in managed lanes applications. These are Flow Control illustrative examples only. Managing flow on any managed lanes system involves metering of traffic demand.

Strategy Examples Characteristics Techniques in Operation ELIGIBILITY Occupancy Lanes based on occupancy provide a priority California, Texas, Washington, Virginia, to HOVs. Typically implemented in Minnesota, Colorado, Pennsylvania. congested corridors to encourage shift to Arizona, Florida, Connecticut, Georgia, HOVs. Designed to provide travel time Maryland, New York, New Jersey, advantage and trip reliability. Oregon, Tennessee, Hawaii Vehicle Management based on vehicle type. May Bus-only: Pittsburgh, Ottawa, Canada; provide a superior service as in the case of Dual-Dual facility: New Jersey transit-only facilities. May seek to improve Turnpike. Bypass lanes: New Jersey, operations by separating vehicles types, like Hawaii, Texas, Illinois, Washington, trucks. California, Minnesota ACCESS Express Limited access points, reducing weaving and I-90 and I-5, Seattle; Dan Ryan CONTROL Lanes disruptions in traffic flow Expressway, Chicago

Shoulder Limited access to shoulders during peak Various cities throughout the US Lanes periods for vehicular travel. FLOW Variable Alter speed limits in real time, so as to avoid Minnesota, Washington, Utah, CONTROL Speed shockwave effects of queuing, resulting in Colorado, and Missouri Limits smoother flow. Ramp Meters control the flow of traffic onto a Various cities throughout the US Meters facility to reduce turbulence, resulting in smoother flow. Table 2: Managed Lanes Strategy, Examples, Characteristics, and Operations

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 21 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Managed Lanes Objectives Achieving operational efficiency objectives means maintaining both high levels of Just as managed lanes strategies are most throughput as well as high operating speeds for effective when applied in the right vehicles on the facility. circumstances, they are also most effective when developed with appropriate goals and Financial Objectives objectives, which may vary based on the Financial objectives are those that set targets specifics of the project. These objectives are for the level of revenue to be generated by a usually informed by operational, financial and facility. user perspectives. In most managed lanes applications, there are Operational Objectives no financial objectives, as the goal of the facility Operational objectives seek to optimize the is to maximize person throughput on the utilization of the managed lanes facility. corridor. However, pricing-oriented managed However, optimal utilization may have different lanes strategies do generate revenue. Facility meanings to different agencies. operators may therefore choose to set pricing policies so that potential revenues are For example, an agency might seek to optimize maintained at a specific level, generally one that utilization by keeping travel speeds in the allows that operator to meet operations and managed lane above a minimum threshold and maintenance expenses, maintain debt service, therefore maximize the number of vehicles and develop future projects. Operators may using the facility. Such an agency might also choose to pursue economic efficiency with therefore impose pricing policies to manage their pricing mechanism, wherein fees are set at demand and associated congestion regardless a level equal to the marginal economic cost of vehicle type. Another agency might seek to imposed on the transportation system by each optimize utilization by maximizing the number new user on a given facility. This is most often of people moved within the managed lane. Such done through some form of congestion pricing, an agency might therefore impose eligibility with dynamic pricing applications being the requires that favor vehicles carrying more most effective at setting price closest to people such as HOVs, carpools and transit marginal economic cost. vehicles. User Objectives Other agencies may take a broader view and User objectives are those that improve a optimize utilization through overall congestion traveler’s experience on a given facility. This can management, meaning it will impose eligibility be done by adopting policies that increase requirements, access controls as well as pricing safety, improve reliability, or improve policies to influence demand in given corridors convenience. These objectives often overlap so that fluctuations in traffic flows are minimal with a facility’s financial and operational between peak and off peak periods of the day. objectives. For example, improving traffic Reliability for users is thus insured regardless of throughput through pricing can address when they choose to travel. congestion, thus meeting operational objectives Objectives aimed at throughput maximization and improving the experience of drivers while will ultimately lead to policies that maximize also generating revenue. either the number of vehicles or the number of people traveling through a given corridor.

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 22 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Managed Lanes Alternatives

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 23 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

SECTION 4 Managed Lanes Alternatives Studied

Nine primary managed lane strategies were efficiency. Implemented actions are considered for implementation to improve the continuously monitored as they start to affect performance of congested segments. system performance. This cyclical, real-time monitoring and adjustment approach can be Examined managed lanes treatments are carried out at various operational time-scales, characterized by proactive and dynamic ranging from longer-term strategic approaches management, control, and influence of travel to short-term tactical decisions. demand, traffic demand, and traffic flow of transportation facilities. With the managed The nine managed lanes strategies evaluated in lanes strategies identified, the transportation this study are shown in Table 3 below. These system performance is continuously assessed; strategies can be deployed to improve recurring dynamic actions using contemporary congestion or safety issues at identified monitoring tools, algorithms and decision locations, or deployed across a highway support systems are constantly evaluated and corridor as a broader transportation implemented in real time to achieve management strategy. In addition, the performance objectives, such as preventing or strategies are often deployed in combinations delaying breakdown conditions, improving to maximize the benefits and make efficient use safety, promoting sustainable travel modes, of infrastructure. reducing emissions, or maximizing system

Table 3: Managed Lanes Strategies Considered

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 24 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Hard Shoulder Running message signs that inform drivers when the shoulder is available and actively managing This strategy involves allowing vehicles, often access to the shoulder in response to buses but sometimes passenger and other conditions. Alternatively, the shoulder can be vehicles as well, to utilize the shoulder of a managed with time of day restrictions and static highway facility. signing. While a dynamic lane assignment system in conjunction with mixed use Hard Allowing mixed traffic to utilize a shoulder Shoulder Running is preferred, systems using requires different designs and operational static signing have been successfully strategies than bus only operations (discussed implemented. later in this section) to ensure safety. Additionally, shoulder design may warrant Hard shoulder running effectively adds capacity restrictions on the vehicles eligible for hard during peak periods but can increase safety shoulder running but such restrictions are much risks by removing shoulders that are used for more often the result of the overall managed break downs, emergency response, incidents, lanes strategy. These restrictions may include and for drivers to divert to avoid a rear end limiting the shoulder to use by certain vehicle collision. However, hard shoulders are eligibility or other characteristics. deployed in areas where congestion already exists, and by utilizing the shoulder the overall In allowing passenger vehicles (as opposed to capacity of the corridor is expanded. just buses), the assumption is that traffic will operate at speeds up to free flow and that there This reduces congestion and crashes due to will be much higher volumes of traffic on the congestion, compared to conditions where the shoulder than a bus only shoulder operation. shoulder is not utilized. For traffic to operate safely in hard shoulder operations, the shoulder width should ideally be a minimum of 11 feet for the traffic, and an additional width of shoulder to the median or edge of pavement of three or more feet (see Figure 5).

Also, for right side shoulder lanes, merges for entrances and exits must conform to safe standards. Hard shoulder running can be accomplished in conjunction with Dynamic Lane Assignment, which usually takes the form of Figure 5: Hard Shoulder Running on I-66 in Virginia overhead dynamic

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 25 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Contra Flow and Reversible Access points to contra flow and reversible Lanes lanes vary by design. For these types of operation, the number of access points is Contra flow lanes involve taking one lane from typically limited, often with little or no mid- the off peak direction and converting it for use point access between the beginning and end of in the peak direction, usually using a movable the facility. As described above, for safety center barrier. The barrier is moved utilizing reasons the access points are usually controlled special equipment called “zipper trucks”. Contra by gating systems and electronic signs that flow lanes are typically installed in corridors allow the facility to be closed for changing the where there is a significant difference in direction of operations. directional flow during the peak hours of travel and constraints exist (physical or financial) that limit how many lanes can be built in each direction of traffic. Contra flow lanes can also serve special event traffic or be utilized for emergency management and evacuations.

Reversible lanes are similar; however, the barriers involved remained fixed. Flow is usually inbound to the central business district in the morning and outbound in the afternoon. Direction is controlled using gates that open to Figure 6: Contraflow Lanes on I-30 in Dallas allow access to operating direction of travel and then close when the operation is reversed and different access gates are opened. During the reversal of flow, all entrance gates are closed until the facility clears completely.

Examples of Contra flow and reversible lanes include:

 I-30, Dallas  H-1, Honolulu  I-95, Boston  Tappan Zee Bridge, New York  Coronado Bay Bridge, San Diego Figure 7: Reversible Lanes on I-25 in Denver  Selmon Expressway, Tampa

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 26 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Express Lanes Through traffic access the express lanes prior to entering the urban core and exit after leaving Express Lanes are a grouping of managed lane the urban core, thereby avoiding the turbulence types generally classified as being focused on created by the multiple entrances and exits of providing an expedited trip along a corridor, local traffic. Because of the lack of turbulence, thus the term “express.” The facility control access controlled through lanes should have a scheme determines the means by which drivers higher capacity than lanes being used by a receive the expedited trip. Each of these significant amount of local traffic. This can be control strategies is discussed below: offset somewhat, as express lanes are often single lane facilities, meaning that capacity is  Access Controlled reduced by the inability of traffic to effectively  Occupancy Controlled maneuver.  Pricing Controlled With access controlled express lanes there is a The type of express lane implemented in any trade-off between the number and location of given region is often a policy decision. The access openings and throughput. Too few physical requirements in terms of construction access points will lower the number of vehicles and operation for each type of express lane is able to access the express lanes and might similar enough that construction and result in sub-optimal volumes and throughput. operational requirements usually have little to However, too many access points might result do with the decision regarding which variant of in oversaturation of the lanes and could result express lanes to implement. In making this in congestion. Furthermore, the increased decision, regional, and/or state policies are number of access points increases the number often a key factor. of vehicles maneuvering into and out of the Access-Controlled Express Lanes express lanes, which may impact travel speeds Access-controlled express lanes, as the name and throughput. implies, limit the ability of drivers to move into and out of the express lane. The lanes have been developed as a mechanism to separate through traffic from local traffic on urban expressways.

Although other types of express lanes often include access-control, the use of access-controlled express lanes does not require any other type of restriction. For example, access-controlled express lanes on the New Jersey Turnpike only differentiate by end destination, not be vehicle class or eligibility (Figure 8).

Figure 8: New Jersey Turnpike Access-Controlled Express Lanes

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 27 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

This tradeoff in access versus throughput vehicles through carpooling. Their disadvantage capacity requires a significant understanding of is that occupancy-controlled access, by itself, the traffic using the express lanes, particularly does not allow for precise lane management the origins and destinations of that traffic. and it is possible for significant over or under demand to exist. While express lanes controlled only by access are possible and is common in large The use of access-control with occupancy- metropolitan areas throughout North America, control is common, but limited. The majority of access control is often implemented along with HOV lanes in the U.S. utilize continuous access, priced and/or occupancy controlled managed including those in Arizona, Washington, express lanes to better manage the traffic northern California, Tennessee, and elsewhere. flows. However, access-control through use of painted-buffer and dedicated ingress / egress Occupancy-Controlled Express Lanes points are increasingly found, including in Texas Occupancy-controlled express lanes are usually and southern California. referred to as high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. In these lanes, the number of vehicle Despite the availability of electronic toll occupants is the determining factor as to which collection, and increasing use of pricing for vehicles may access the lane. While the providing access to express lanes, the total majority of HOV lanes in the United States have number of lane miles of occupancy-controlled a two occupant minimum, three occupant express lanes dwarfs that of priced express minimum lanes are becoming more common as lanes. Furthermore, state DOTs continue to traffic and demand growth continue within construct new HOV lanes including most large metropolitan areas. recently in California, Michigan, and Massachusetts. HOV lanes have a significant advantage in the fact that they encourage more efficient use of

Figure 9: US 75 (Dallas) Occupancy-Controlled Express Lane

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 28 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Pricing-Controlled Express Lanes Pricing-controlled express lanes are in operation Pricing-controlled express lanes can exist either on 32 facilities in the U.S. (as of summer 2016), as express lanes that require all vehicles to pay including extensive use in the Houston, Dallas, a toll, or require vehicles to pay a toll that have and El Paso regions of Texas, and additional fewer than the number of occupants required facilities in Austin currently under construction. to be considered an HOV. In the latter case, Like occupancy-controlled express lanes, the these are commonly referred to as High use of access-control concurrent with pricing- Occupancy Toll (HOT) or priced managed lanes. control is common, but not required. In the former case, the common terminology is Minnesota and Washington have deployed express toll lanes. pricing-controlled express lanes with Pricing-controlled express lanes have the continuous access; California, Colorado, advantage of being most able to maximize Georgia, and Utah have used a buffer- vehicle throughput as the requirement for entry separation without physical barrier; and (payment of a toll) can be controlled in a way to California, Texas, Florida, and Virginia have fully utilize the capacity of a lane. The toll itself deployed physical barriers – either concrete or acts as a meter upon traffic: higher demand pylons – to fully separate traffic. carries a higher likelihood of over-use, so the In all known cases, the use of access control price is raised in order to discourage that over- was driven by the local build environment and use scenario from occurring. traffic operations requirements, as opposed to Political and public acceptance is often a major enforcement or policy concerns. disadvantage for pricing-controlled express lanes. The payment of a fee for use is a significant barrier, as media and the general public focus upon the toll value as opposed to the congestion-free benefits of a pricing-controlled express lanes. Additionally, social equity issues are also sometimes raised as an issue; albeit, how toll revenues are used can sometimes offset both of these concerns. Figure 10: US 36 (Denver) Pricing-Controlled Express Lanes

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 29 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Bus Only Shoulder Lanes Bus on shoulder operations exist in 13 states, including Ohio, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Allowing buses to operate on the existing New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, outside shoulder in congested areas improves Minnesota, Illinois, Kansas, California, Colorado, transit travel times and transit trip reliability. and Washington. Minnesota has the largest These improvements can lead to increased system, with over 300 miles of bus shoulders. transit ridership. Given the limited number of buses that will use the facility in any given hour Truck Only Lanes and the use of professionally trained drivers, Truck only lanes separate truck traffic from experience with this managed lanes strategy general-purpose traffic to improve the flow of has indicated no inherent impact on safety. goods movement and improve traffic flows in To operate a hard shoulder for buses, key general traffic lanes. While there are very few provisions must be in place to ensure that no truck only lanes in the United States, separating safety issues are created. These criteria include trucks from general traffic is common through limiting the maximum speed buses can travel the use of truck lane restrictions. Formally (typically 35 mph) and/or limiting the speed separated trucks, however, yield safety that buses can travel relative to the adjacent improvements as well as overall improved traffic speeds (typically no more than a 15 mph traffic flow as measured on the corridors where difference). they are implemented.

Professional drivers can potentially operate The New Jersey Turnpike has a barrier busses on shoulders with a width of 10 feet or separated set of lanes and interchanges that more, especially around bridge piers and other trucks are required to use. Cars are permitted impediments; however, for this study, a in the truck lanes but trucks are not allowed in minimum width of 11 feet is recommended. the car lanes.

Adding a pricing component to the concept, truck only toll lanes have been studied but not implemented in Georgia, Oregon, California, Kansas, and Missouri as a way to improve goods movement and improve safety for general traffic.

Figure 11: I-94 (Minneapolis) Bus Only Shoulder Lanes

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 30 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Flow Control Corridors case of communications failure. Adaptive ramp metering utilizes traffic responsive or adaptive Controlling the flow of traffic onto the mainline algorithms (as opposed to pre-timed or fixed freeway is oriented toward balancing traffic time rates) that can optimize either local or demand with the capacity of the freeway. clustered conditions. Dynamic coordinated Unlike the other strategies, this concept applies metering takes this concept further, and applies the traffic management concept across all lanes in a systemwide context. in a freeway corridor, which yields greater efficiency and safety on the freeway as a whole. As a freeway management strategy, real-time The purpose of the flow control strategy is to and anticipated traffic volumes on the freeway better regulate and manage facility control the rate that vehicles enter the freeway itself. Based on the conditions, the The most common application of flow control is ramp meter rates are adjusted dynamically. the use of ramp meters that control traffic flows at specific locations. Ramp metering is in effect Ramp meters are utilized in nearly a third of the in at least some locations in most metropolitan largest 100 urban areas in the U.S. When areas. Active traffic management (ATM), as deployed as an adaptive, corridor wide implemented in Minnesota, California, approach, ramp meters improve safety by Colorado, and Washington, includes the use of reducing the number of rear end crashes and overhead gantries with lane control signals for crash rates in merge zones and on the metered either smoothing traffic or diverting traffic in freeway segment. Ramp meters also increase times of incidents. Finally, a new approach to the throughput of freeways and improve travel flow control from Australia involves managing time reliability. traffic flows in a predictive, dynamic and system Ramp meters do not change the number or wide manner. design of specialized access points; however, to Ramp Metering give travel time advantages for transit or carpools, several cities have installed HOV Ramp meters (or traffic signals on ramps) bypasses at metered ramps. This is another control the rate at which vehicles enter a freeway facility. Ramp metering can be operated in a variety of methods, including fixed time, real time adaptive, and dynamic coordinated.

Fixed time meters apply a static metering rate, based upon historic volume patterns. More advanced metering systems may maintain a fixed time pattern as Figure 12: I-15 (Salt Lake City) Entrance Ramp Meter a fallback system in

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 31 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report method of focusing on person throughput Melbourne, Australia, under the moniker versus simply increasing vehicular throughput. “Managed Motorways” (Figure 14). Active Traffic Management ATM enhances freeway operations by dynamically managing traffic flow and lane assignment based on prevailing traffic conditions and presence of collisions or other incidents.

ATM generally includes traditional ITS strategies, including metering, cameras for incident and traffic management, and changeable messaging signs. ATM also Figure 13: I-94 (Minneapolis) Active Traffic Management System includes contemporary systems oriented towards variable speed limits, speed harmonization, and dynamic lane assignment through the use of overhead signals spaced frequently throughout the freeway corridor (Figure 13).

Focusing on trip reliability, ATM’s goal is to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of the facility under recurring congestion and non-recurring incidents or road work. Through the flexible use of the roadway, Figure 14: M1 (Melbourne) Managed Freeway it aims to increase system performance as well as traveler throughput and One of the most basic elements of the managed safety through the use of strategies that freeways concept is extensive, dynamic and actively regulate the flow of traffic on a facility coordinated ramp metering of on-ramps and to match current operating conditions. freeway interchanges. Access to the managed freeway is controlled by ramp meters, the Managed Freeways timing and operation of which are informed by The managed freeways concept is a new vehicle detection and data collection systems, operational model for controlling traffic flows incident detection systems, closed circuit along an entire corridor, not just at key television surveillance and enabled by various junctures and along corridor segments. The strategic design considerations. concept was created and first deployed in

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 32 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

The result is a coordinated ramp metering present in the past. TxDOT installed the first network that synchronizes the flow of vehicles ramp control signal in 1973 on the entrance entering a freeway with those that are already ramp from Culebra to eastbound I-10 (Figure on the freeway as opposed to simply managing 15). By 1980, there were nine locations the flow of vehicles onto a roadway at certain equipped with meter signals. All but one of locations, as with traditional ramp metering. these were in the downtown area along I-10 or I-35. The exception was the southbound US 281 Powered by the HERO algorithm developed by entrance ramp from eastbound Basse. the University of Crete, managed freeways take collected data on corridor traffic volumes, travel San Antonio also had a meter signal on a speeds and ramp queues to dynamically freeway-to-freeway ramp, specifically the optimize the phasing of ramp meters along the southbound US 281 ramp to southbound I-35. entire length of the roadway. In addition to In addition to the meter signals, there were also these advance access control systems, managed two entrance ramp gates. TxDOT used these freeway systems can also integrate eligibility gates to close the entrance ramps during the and pricing controls. These may include variable morning rush hour to help reduce congestion speed limits, dynamic lane management, hard caused by traffic influx and weaving problems shoulder running, advanced traveler due to the proximity of those entrances to information systems, variable/congestion other ramps. The ramps along I-10 and I-35 pricing, and priority vehicle queue bypass lanes. were removed in the 1980s. The Basse Existing Managed Lanes in San entrance ramp to US 281 was the last one Antonio remaining in the city, but was subsequently removed in June 2005. While most people think of lane management using tolls, there are multiple ways to manage capacity on the freeway system. The San Antonio area is no stranger to managed lanes, with many applications throughout the metropolitan area.

This section covers the types of managed lanes found in the Alamo region, including use of vehicle eligibility or access control to manage demand. Here are a few current and historical examples of managed lanes in San Antonio.

Ramp Metering Figure 15: Historic Ramp Meter on I-10, Source: A ramp meter typically consists of a traffic TexasHighwayMan.com, 2015 signal or a two-section signal (red and green only) that works with a signal controller to Left Lane Truck Restriction regulate traffic flows entering a highway facility. Many states and regions have deployed restrictions on truck use of interior freeway Although TxDOT no longer deploys ramp meters lanes. The purpose of these restrictions is to in the San Antonio region, they have been provide for greater speeds, reduced friction,

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 33 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report and less weaving impacts resulting from truck / evacuation lanes are the first to be activated passenger vehicle interface. during a stage of emergency. These lanes include special pavement striping. In 2004, the San Antonio City Council passed an ordinance prohibiting trucks from using the left Arterial Treatments lane of US 90 (both East and West) inside Loop Probably the most frequent type of managed 410 between 6am and 9pm Monday through lane in San Antonio is bus only lanes, or lanes Friday. This was a trial project to determine restricted to use by buses. Because of their whether similar restrictions should be frequent stops, most drivers prefer to find a implemented on other area highways. A way around buses, and bus drivers frequently before-and-after study showed an overall 10% cite difficulty merging in and out of travel lanes reduction in crashes along the corridor with a after bus stops. Bus lanes are designed to 30% reduction in crashes involving trucks. resolve both issues, but largely depend on However, the restriction has not been enforcement to work. expanded to any other highways within the City of San Antonio. There are a number of dedicated bus lanes in the downtown area including Navarro, St. According to TxDOT, prohibiting large trucks Mary’s, Commerce, and Market St. to name a from sustained travel in the far left lane allows few. The bus only lane that travels from San passenger vehicles to move more quickly and Pedro / Main Street, on the north side of freely. It also reduces the number of lane Downtown to Alamo and south to Commerce is changes and passing maneuvers attempted by a bus contraflow lane. It travels in the passenger vehicles thereby reducing the southbound direction for a short distance on likelihood of crashes. Navarro to Alamo, past Alamo Plaza and ending at Commerce Street. It was put in place to Hurricane Response Lanes allow VIA’s buses to access downtown from the Hurricane evacuation planning is necessary in bus facility on San Pedro. San Antonio, especially to prepare for the influx of people coming from Corpus Christi, Victoria, The City of San Antonio also has a reversible and Houston areas. lane system near the AT&T Center that includes two reversible lane systems over a total 27 Two options are currently provided: contraflow signals. Reversible lanes manage the flow of routing and shoulder lanes. Contraflow lanes traffic by maximizing the use of available traffic alter the normal flow of traffic to enhance lanes. This is done by reversing traffic flow to directional capacity. In order to help evacuate meet travel demand. The city is also the Texas Coastline safely and efficiently, TxDOT considering a similar system for San Pedro and identified a number of hurricane evacuation Fredericksburg. contraflow routes including IH 10 in the Houston/Galveston area and IH 37 from Corpus Applying Managed and Transit Christi. When stage 2 of the evacuation plan is Priority Lanes activated, southbound lanes reverse to carry two lanes of northbound traffic. The Alamo area is not alone in recognizing there are insufficient funds to undertake major TxDOT also provided a plan for using both inside capacity improvement projects to meet and outside shoulder lanes as needed to help anticipated travel demand and population with evacuations. Emergency shoulder growth.

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 34 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

The region has identified a preference for travel equally. Active traffic management as incorporating operations and management deployed in Europe and Australia attempts to strategies into its long range transportation regulate the flow of all vehicles across all lanes plan as a means of enhancing efficiency, of traffic through the implementation of speed improving safety, and generating more harmonization, queue warning, lane controls, reliability on the region’s transportation system. junction controls, dynamic rerouting, and In many ways, this policy preference reflects a dynamic travel time information. more “21st Century” approach to traffic Despite this difference, the broad implication is management; indeed, metropolitan areas that urban areas across the developed world throughout the U.S., Australia, and Europe are are increasingly investing in demand and also relying on management and operational system management strategies that emphasize strategies to address anticipated traffic operational performance rather than broad congestion and growth in travel demand. system capacity. The primary difference between U.S. Table 4 shows the implementation of managed implementation, including that of the Alamo lane strategies by state, with a qualitative area, and the Australian / European experience assessment as to how extensive the strategy is the U.S. dedication of one or more managed deployment has been throughout the state’s lanes of travel for free-flow condition urbanized areas. In the past decade, not only maintenance. are managed lanes becoming an increasingly In the United States, common types of managed important component of U.S. freeway lanes are HOV lanes, priced managed lanes, operations, but for many regions, managed bus-only shoulders, and limited-access express lanes have become a featured component for lanes. addressing long-term capacity constraints in a corridor. By comparison, Australia and Europe tend to prefer a flow-control oriented system, where the operational treatments apply to all lanes of

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 35 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

State HOV lanes Bus Priced Express Flow ATM Shoulders Lanes Metering Arizona      California      Colorado      Florida      Georgia      Hawaii      Illinois      Kansas      Maryland      Massachusetts      Minnesota      Nevada      New Jersey      New York      North Carolina      Ohio      Oregon      Pennsylvania      Tennessee      Texas      Utah      Virginia      Washington      Wisconsin       = Extensive  = Moderate  = Limited  = None Table 4: Managed Lanes Strategies by State, 2016

Corridor/Strategy Selection Criteria For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area, a The nature of managed lanes in certain comprehensive phasing plan has been communities has evolved from a short-term, developed for the development of the corridor-specific, operationally-focused strategy “Freeway Performance Initiative”. In a few to a long-term, system-wide, mobility-focused corridors, managed lanes are implemented strategy. Although project development still concurrent with flow-control strategies to occurs at a corridor level for managed lanes, provide better traffic management. In this capacity planning and systems integration are context, the Bay Area generated a prioritized increasingly conducted at a regional / system list of system management and capital level. In this context, managed lanes are often investments for each corridor. From this list, a considered side-by-side with active traffic comprehensive benefit / cost analysis was management. conducted and prioritization / phasing completed.

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 36 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

For example, for a corridor with a long-term shows a preference for operational and projected need for managed lanes, a new management treatments that maximize the use auxiliary lane along a portion of the eventual of available capacity before new capacity is managed lane corridor might have been added to the system. recommended as an initial measure to “buy An interesting development witnessed in some time” until the fully realized managed various metropolitan areas is the extensive use lane implementation was warranted and of regional partnerships to implement and funding was available. deliver managed lanes strategies for congested By comparison, North Central Texas Council of freeway corridors. Although financing is a key Governments’ policy endorsing toll road consideration within the development, it should viability has yielded a system-wide approach to be noted that this extends beyond financial implementing priced managed lanes. considerations. For example, partnerships with regional / county authorities, as well as non- Both metropolitan regions envision managed profits (transportation management lanes as the principal capacity expansion associations) and private-sector enterprises, function for the 20-year long range plan. have helped bring projects to fruition quicker Integration with Regional Transportation and with greater regional concurrence. Planning The current effort to assess the appropriateness There is no established guidance for the of various managed lane treatments for incorporation of managed lane strategies within application on San Antonio roadways is similar the context of the long-range plan, although a to the processes undertaken in San Francisco. current FHWA research project is developing this guidance. Indeed, the development of the Like San Francisco, the Alamo region is long-range plan as a 20- or 30-year snapshot of interested in making the most efficient use of the future network is inherently biased towards current capacity and not undertaking a planning identifying capacity improvements independent process that prioritizes adding capacity. As will of their operational function. be seen in subsequent sections, the evaluation framework adopted for this exercise identifies Again referencing the San Francisco Bay Area, those corridors and associated managed lane the region has fundamentally changed the treatments that are not compatible given development of the long range plan through the existing roadway dimensions and right-of-way Freeway Performance Initiative (FPI). and would therefore require significant The FPI created a system-wide evaluation of reconstruction. These facilities and treatments regional project priorities, but developed the are not recommended for further consideration list of priorities in partnership with the project at this time. Furthermore, the scoring criteria sponsors. Thus, when projects were proposed utilized in the evaluation framework was for development or inclusion with the long developed with input from regional range plan, the phasing of the project in the FPI transportation stakeholders, echoing the Bay determined its suitability for inclusion. If Area’s premium on regional partnerships in iterative steps (as identified in the FPI) were not implementing managed lanes projects. conducted first, the project was not included. This prevents big-capacity projects from absorbing regional funds. Furthermore, it

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 37 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Tier 1 Screening

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 38 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

SECTION 5 Tier 1 Screening

In order to concentrate upon those freeway were no preconceived assumptions as to which corridors that would most likely benefit from corridors would move forward from Tier 1 manage lanes strategies, the Feasibility Study screening, and all freeway corridors in project team conducted a high level screening metropolitan San Antonio were included. Tier 1 process known as “Tier 1 Screening”. There study corridors are shown in Figure 16.

Figure 16: Tier 1 Screening Analysis Study Corridors Existing Congestion Antonio region was evaluated as a whole to determine the existing patterns of congestion. Two major elements were taken into account in Tier 1 screening. The first was the presence of Information regarding existing recurring congestion in the near to medium term. congestion was obtained from TxDOT corridor Without congestion, the impact of the video as well as traffic counts. This information improvements considered would have little to was examined to identify existing recurring no effect. Second, improvements on isolated congestion. The result of this examination as facilities will have much less benefit than well as traffic counts are shown in Figure 17. improvements that can be extended and networked. For that reason, in Tier 1, the San

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 39 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Figure 17: Existing Recurring Congestion and Traffic Counts

In this first step in Tier 1 screening, termini. The corridors were then reviewed with consideration was only given to identifying the working group and further refined. those corridor segments with existing In this exercise logical connections between congestion. This approach, while a good initial congested segments were developed. The final step, does not take into account the need for corridors taken into Tier 2 screening combined continuity on the network. the congested corridors with the logical As seen in Figure 17 above, there are multiple connections between them as well as corridors short uncongested segments between that will likely become congested in the future congested segments. Applying strategies only to as described in the modeling discussion below. those segments specifically identified as being congested would result in a piecemeal, ineffective application of strategies.

Therefore, the second step in Tier 1 screening was to identify logical connections between congested segments so that strategies considered would begin and end at reasonable

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 40 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Modeling

Existing congestion is an important In this study, if the traditional approach using consideration; however, San Antonio will the existing network or a network with only experience significant growth in the coming 2020 improvements in place, had been used, years. If this growth is not taken into account in the project team might have spent resources the analysis, multiple corridors that will become examining issues that would be solved with congested, and may therefore benefit from improvements already planned between 2020 managed lane improvements, could be and 2040. In other words, the project team overlooked. For this reason, modeling runs designed this approach so that only congestion were made using the San Antonio multimodal existing in 2020 that would not be solved with travel demand forecast model so that future improvements in future years was revealed. conditions could be taken into account in the While significantly different than a traditional study. modeling approach, this ensured that solutions Runs were made to simulate both 2020 and for problems that would not exist in the longer 2040 conditions. There were, however, two term were not pursued. A more traditional decisions made that differ from how area wide approach could have introduced significant modeling is normally performed and utilized. inefficiencies into the study. As discussed below, and as discussed with the The process was described as a “reverse” working group, the modeling methodology is, in process since the 2020 modeling was done in some ways, the reverse of how models of this such a way as to “mask” congestion that could type are traditionally used. be solved with later improvements rather than Based on information contained in the AAMPO running the existing 2015 network to identify all 2040 plan, it is known that many improvements problems that might exist in 2020. are planned to address congestion. These The purpose of this study does not include improvements are included as part of the 2040 completely redefining the AAMPO’s 2040 plan. model. So that the impact of planned It does include evaluating managed lanes improvements could be taken into account, strategies including various types of lane runs reflecting both 2020 and 2040 land use management. To analyze managed lane were made on the on the 2040 network. strategies, the project team wanted the analysis Normally, the modeling runs with 2020 land use to be performed with a “clean slate” from a would use the existing network or only those freeway management and improvement network improvements projected to be in place standpoint. For this reason, changes were by 2020. Areas of congestion would be made to the 2040 network to remove all identified and appropriate mitigation measures managed lanes included in the model. would be proposed. Modeling, as the study did, This approach resulted in a network that based on the 2040 network would normally be included all improvements in the AAMPO 2040 criticized for potentially overlooking problems plan, except that managed lanes, none of which that could exist in 2020 if the additional currently exist, were removed. This allowed the improvements planned to be in place by 2040 project team to begin its analysis including all were used in the 2020 modeling. However, for improvements other than those in the freeway the purpose of this study, the methodology is management realm without predetermining sound and useful. any managed lanes solutions. The model

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 41 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report therefore included the effects of all non- Using a graphical representation of Volume / managed lanes strategies, such as the addition Capacity ratios allowed the project team to of lanes, while revealing those areas where quickly identify areas with probable congestion these strategies could provide needed and expand the study area to encompass these improvements. In this way, the project team areas. In general, the 2020 modeling showed knew that it was not attempting to solve issues potential “hot spots” where congestion is likely that were already being resolved in AAMPO’s to occur within five years. Not surprisingly, the 2040 plan, so that it could concentrate on areas 2040 model revealed much broader areas of where freeway management strategies were likely congestion. Modeling results for 2020 needed and useful. and 2040 are shown in Figure 18 and Figure 19.

Figure 18: 2020 Modeling Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 42 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Figure 19: 2040 Modeling Results

Based on the results of the 2020 and 2040 In addition to expanding the facilities moving modeling, the corridor segments taken into Tier into Tier 2 analysis, potential congestion in the 2 screening were significantly expanded beyond year 2040 identified addition al corridors existing areas of congestion and their related showing a propensity to eventual congestion, connections previously identified. The results of but not to the level for inclusion in Tier 2 the 2020 and 2040 modeling were reviewed screening. For this reason, a significant set of with the project working group, and corridors roadways was identified as corridors for future that were likely to become congested in the study. midterm (2020) were added to Tier 2 screening. The final corridor segments recommended for Only limited access facilities were considered in advancement in the Tier 2 screening are shown the study. However, two facilities that are not in Figure 20. As shown, there are some limited access appear to become congested by corridors in the San Antonio area that are not the year 2020 based on the modeling results. currently recommended for either Tier 2 These are US 87 to the east of I-410 and US 181 screening or definitively identified for future east of I-37. While these two roadways were study. However, in the event that any of these not taken into Tier 2 screening, if they are facilities undergo reconstruction, managed lane converted to limited access facilities in the strategies deserve full consideration in the future, some type of managed lane treatment planning and design process. should likely be considered.

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 43 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Figure 20: Corridors Recommended for Tier 2 Screening and for Future Study

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 44 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Tier 2 Screening Methodology

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 45 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

SECTION 6 Tier 2 Screening Methodology

For Tier 2 screening, specific managed lanes 4. Evaluation methodology development – In strategies were analyzed for use on the study order to determine selection criteria corridors advancing from Tier 1 screening. The appropriate for the region, the project team Tier 2 screening process involved several convened a workshop of regional agencies iterative steps: to identify transportation goals for the region. These goals informed the selection 1. Safety screening - All managed lane of qualitative and quantitative criteria that treatments considered for implementation were then ranked and weighted based on in San Antonio were first given a high-level their importance in terms of meeting safety assessment without regard to regional transportation goals. specific corridors in order to identify 5. Managed Lane Strategy Evaluation – treatments that could pose heightened Finally, strategies and corridors where safety risks. combined and scored based on the selected 2. Corridor definition, segmentation and criteria and weighting. Segments were then analysis - San Antonio roadways advancing ranked within each strategy to show those from the Tier 1 assessment were broken segments that would most likely benefit down into “micro segments” for a more from the selected managed lane strategy. detailed assessment. 3. Assessment of strategy specific right-of- The overall process in arriving at recommended way and/or pavement width requirements managed lane treatments for San Antonio – San Antonio micro-segments where roadways is shown in Figure 21. analyzed in order to establish available Quantitative data was used when available. right-of-way and existing pavement width. However, at this level of screening, much of the Next, right-of-way and pavement width data available is qualitative. To allow both requirements for each of the managed lane qualitative and quantitative data in the analysis, treatments under consideration where qualitative data was assigned a numerical value determined and compared to the available based on observed conditions, deployments of right-of-way and pavement width the the strategy outside of San Antonio, academic selected corridor segments to determine research, and professional judgment. which strategies are feasible from a footprint perspective.

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 46 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Figure 21: Tier 2 Screening Process Safety Assessment Hard Shoulder Running Information available for two facilities, Virginia If any of the alternatives considered had been I-66 and Minnesota I-35W, has been reviewed found to have a poor safety record based on for Hard Shoulder Running. experience in other implementations, then the alternative would not have been considered Virginia I-66: Based on a safety analysis using further in this study. As such, the managed lane crash data from 2002 to 2004, researchers treatments considered for this study were first concluded that there was no evidence that the subject to an overall safety assessment without HOV/Shoulder Lane managed-lane strategy had regard to their application on any specific a statistically significant effect on crash facility. frequency during peak hours.

No prohibitive safety concerns were found. Minnesota I-35W: The safety statistics are not However, this is not meant to serve as a available at this time. However, MnDOT definitive safety analysis of any alternative, as personnel believe that the facility is operating this initial assessment occurred without safely and as planned. consideration of the various design features of Express Lanes San Antonio’s roadway segments. As such, The safety benefits of operating an express lane significant additional analysis of safety and depends on how the system is implemented. If other issues and benefits during subsequent the express lane is added to a corridor, thereby planning and design phases for specific facilities increasing the overall capacity, then overall will be required. corridor congestion and associated crashes are This high-level safety assessment is presented in expected to be reduced. The same is true if an the following subsections. existing underutilized occupancy-controlled express lane is converted to a price-controlled express lane.

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 47 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

A reduction in overall corridor congestion is implemented. The increase in capacity that expected to reduce side swipe and rear end results from the contra flow lanes reduces crashes. congestion and thus improves the overall corridor safety; however, care must be taken Regardless of type, an express lane introduces that congestion in the opposite direction is not new safety issues that would not exist if the adversely affected. lane were a general purpose lane. Operation of an express lane is expected to be at higher Contra flow lanes have many design options. speeds than adjacent general purpose lanes. Freeway implementation of contra flow lanes This speed differential creates potential safety requires physical separation because of the issues where traffic is merging into or out of the potential for very high speed head-on collisions express lane. with opposing traffic.

A variety of designs are available to deal with In freeway applications, it is not recommended this access issue and operate the lane safely. To that contra flow lanes be deployed without improve safety, express lanes often have positive access control using a barrier system. buffers between the lane and the adjacent general purpose lane. The buffer can be a fixed Truck Only Lane permanent barrier, pylons, or striping. Access Truck only lanes are intended to separate truck in or out of the lane is managed by direct traffic from general traffic to improve the flow ramps, merge/diverge buffer lanes, or through of the general traffic lanes. There is limited open access areas where drivers negotiate experience with truck only lanes in the U.S. merging. Truck only toll lanes have been studied in Georgia, Oregon, California and Missouri as a With the wide variety of available designs for way to improve goods movement and improve express lanes, the expected safety outcome of safety for general traffic. its implementation is dependent on the circumstances and design of the express lane. To date, no truck only toll lanes have been Operation of express lane in a variety of implemented, so safety benefits of these locations (Seattle, San Diego, Minneapolis, systems have not been verified. However, there Denver, and Houston, among others) has been is an expected improvement in safety due to accomplished within acceptable safety improved traffic flow similar to that for express thresholds. lanes. Contra Flow Lanes A summary of the safety assessment of the strategies is shown in Table 5 below. As with express lanes, the safety impact of contra flow lanes relate to how the system is

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 48 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Managed Lane Reduction in severity and frequency Proposed improvement has proven Strategy of crashes safety enhancement record Hard Shoulder Reduces congestion and related Existing information is limited, but no Running crashes. Reduction can be significant negative safety impacts have been if corridor congestion is substantially documented. reduced. Contra Flow Expands corridor capacity, reduces Proven safety benefits when tied to Lanes and congestion and crashes. overall reduction in congestion. Reversible Lanes Positive separation required to ensure that the possibility of head on collisions is mitigated Express Lanes – Managed lane deployments have Proven safety benefits in US when tied All Types resulted in reductions in overall to overall reduction in congestion. crashes as congestion is reduced Bus Only No impact on crashes Proven to have no negative or positive Shoulder Lanes impact on safety (Minnesota study)

Truck Only Lane Removing trucks from general Minimal US locations, no proven purpose lane can improve GP lane impact on safety reliability and enhance safety. No documented cases. Flow-Controlled ATM and ramp meters are proven to Yes (multiple documented studies) Corridors reduce both severity and frequency of crashes Table 5: Strategy Safety Assessment Corridor Definition for Analysis over a reasonable distance rather than in multiple “spot” locations. For instance, adding In analyzing strategies for various corridors an additional lane as an express lane over a identified for Tier 2 screening, the corridors short distance accomplishes little as the overall were broken down into very short “micro” capacity of the corridor will still be constrained segments. This allowed the analysis to take into at either end of the express lane. account changes in cross-section, particularly those due to bridges and/or overpasses, as well It was, therefore, necessary to reassemble the as other issues that can impact the desirability segments into a meaningful corridor for of a particular strategy. consideration of each strategy. For this reason, study segments were reassembled and defined While the micro segments are useful for data based on interchanges with major facilities. The collection, the managed lanes strategies resulting study corridors are shown graphically examined in this study are best implemented in Figure 22 and in a tabular format in Table 6.

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 49 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Figure 22: Tier 2 Study Corridor Segmentation

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 50 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Corridor- Corridor Limits Length (miles) Segment

1A Loop 1604 Interstate 35 to US 281 9.72 1B Loop 1604 US 281 to Interstate 10 7.83 1C Loop 1604 Interstate 10 to SH 151 10.77 2A Loop 410 Interstate 35N to US 281 5.29 2B Loop 410 US 281 to Interstate 10 8.33 2C Loop 410 Interstate 10 to SH 151 7.88 2D Loop 410 SH 151 to US 90 2.60 2E Loop 410 US 90 to Interstate 35 4.71 2F Loop 410 Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd 1.00 3A Interstate 35 NE Division Ave to US 90 1.15 3B Interstate 35 NE US 90 to Interstate 10 2.48 3C Interstate 35 NE Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 2.21 3D Interstate 35 NE Interstate 37 to Loop 410 8.74 3E Interstate 35 NE Loop 410 to Loop 1604 4.77 3F Interstate 35 NE Loop 1604 to SH 46 17.18 4A Interstate 35 SW Loop 410 to SH 422 4.42 4B Interstate 35 SW SH 422 to Division Ave 3.10 5A Interstate 10 NW Loop 410 to Loop 1604 7.28 5B Interstate 10 NW Loop 1604 to SH 46 15.68 6A Interstate 10 I-35 to Loop 410 6.42 7A Interstate 10 E I-37 to Loop 410 5.92 7B Interstate 10 E Loop 410 to Loop 1604 6.70 8A US 281 Fair Ave to Interstate 10 0.92 8B US 281 Interstate 10 to interstate 35 2.53 8C US 281 Interstate 35 to Loop 410 6.01 8D US 281 Loop 410 to Loop 1604 6.43 8E US 281 Loop 1604 to SH 46 12.67 9A SH 151 Loop 1604 to Loop 410 5.68 9B SH 151 Loop 410 to US 90 4.44 10A US 90 SH 151 to Interstate 35 4.40 10B US 90 Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 2.29 11A US 90 W Loop 1604 to Loop 410 3.30 11B US 90 W Loop 410 to SH 151 3.94 12A Interstate 37 Loop 410 to US90 6.05 Table 6: Tier 2 Study Corridor Segmentation Descriptions

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 51 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Figure 23: Corridor Assessment Process Detailed Geometric Features and  Short gaps, such as might exist on a bridge Existing Cross-Sections or an underpass, where sufficient cross- section/right-of-way does not exist was Corridors identified for Tier 2 screening were then identified. assessed for existing right-of-way and existing This process is described further in the sections pavement width, which was then compared to below. The availability of sufficient right away the requirements of each strategy being and/or the existing pavement is a critical factor evaluated. The assessment was completed in in determining the desirability of a particular the following steps: strategy for each corridor. Google Earth  Existing geometrics and cross-sections of imagery validated by field visit was used to each study corridor were researched and assess conditions, sufficient for secondary compiled. screening, to determine a facility’s  The geometric and cross-section appropriateness for the various strategies. information developed was compared with Special attention was given to areas around the specific requirements of each of the bridges, overpasses, underpasses or ramps, as various alternatives. available cross section is often reduced in these  Corridor/strategy combinations that would areas. In addition, any areas where the road require significant reconstruction of a major width was observed to change were noted. portion of the corridor were identified. Figure 24 shows this process in detail.

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 52 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Figure 24: Right of Way Data Acquisition Methodology

Existing road geometrics and existing cross- A windshield survey of each of the corridors sections were measured using Google Earth was made to verify the reasonableness of aerials. Information was developed for each information obtained from Google Earth aerials. direction of traffic flow to likely right-of-way. For each of the corridor/strategy scenarios, the The available pavement and areas that could available pavement width, as well as an relatively easily accept new pavement were also estimate of the available right-of-way was determined. compared with the footprint needed to implement the particular strategy.

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 53 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

While pavement width and right-of-way were It must be clearly stated that these minimums held static during this analysis, the use of the are not desirable widths, but rather the right-of-way and/or pavement was assumed to absolute minimum that would be needed to be flexible. In other words, it was assumed that implement a strategy without significant restriping could be done, and new pavement reconstruction in the corridor. Design could be added as needed if it would not exceptions will be needed to implement these require major demolition of existing types of cross-sections, and a full design and infrastructure or incursion beyond the operational study will be needed to ensure that identified right-or-way. the horizontal and vertical curvature would allow such a reduced cross-section. In establishing suitability for a strategy, it was assumed that width for all travel lanes could be Available right-of-way for strategy development reduced to a minimum of 11 feet and that was calculated using the right-of-way formula shoulder width could be reduced to a minimum below. Calculating available pavement width of 1 foot. For concurrent flow express lanes, it used the pavement width formula also shown was assumed that no buffer between the below. The amount of right-of-way and/or express lane or lanes and the general-purpose existing pavement width to accommodate a lanes was required. strategy was calculated as:

Existing laneage (feet) = (11 feet X Existing number of lanes) + 2 feet

Available right-of-way (feet) = Total width (feet) – Existing laneage

Available pavement width (feet) = Total pavement width (feet) – Existing laneage

Strategy specific right-of-way and/or Table 7 describes the right-of-way requirement pavement width requirements for each strategy in detail. The required width for implementation of each As with available pavement width, the strategy was developed using the same minimums specified in the table are not minimum widths described above. necessarily desirable, but serve to assess if a Figure 25 maps the use of available right-of- corridor could possibly accommodate the way, the available pavement width, and the considered strategy. number of lanes in the considered strategies.

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 54 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Figure 25: Use of Available Right-of-Way, Pavement Width, and/or Number of Lanes

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 55 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Separating Minimum # Minimum Minimum Total # lanes barriers of existing Inner Outer required Strategy to be from lanes Shoulder Shoulder footprint added existing (directional) width* width (ft) (ft) lanes (ft) Hard Shoulder Running - - 1 0 0 0 11 Mixed Traffic Bus on - 1 0 0 0 11 Shoulder Lanes Contraflow 3 0 1 1 2 4 Lanes Total 4: 2 for Reversible + 1 Reversible - 1 in each 8 4 27 Lane direction of GP lanes Total 3: 1 for Dual Reversible + 1 Reversible - 2 in each 1 4 30 Lanes direction of GP lanes Access Controlled - 1 1 1 0 13 Express Lanes Occupancy Controlled - 1 1 1 0 13 Express Lanes Pricing Controlled - 1 1 1 0 13 Express Lanes Truck Only - 1 1 1 0 13 Lanes Flow Controlled - 0 0 0 0 0 Corridors Table 7: Right of Way Requirements for Strategies

Contraflow lanes and reversible lanes were pavement. Additional operational costs do exist considered as special cases due to the nature of but they are less than the cost of new their operation. Because of their special nature construction and the cost of congestion to the the specific methodology for evaluating the traveling public. strategies is described below. In contraflow operation, one lane in the off- Contraflow peak direction is temporarily assigned to flow in Contraflow lanes are called for in corridors that peak direction. A movable barrier is used to cannot reasonably accommodate additional accomplish this transition. To maintain smooth

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 56 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report traffic operations, at least two operational lanes the other side of the express lane. This results in in addition to the contraflow lane are needed in a minimum of 21 feet between concrete the off-peak direction. barriers (an 11 foot travel lane plus an 8 foot shoulder plus a 2 foot shoulder) as well as As a result, locations in San Antonio with fewer additional width to accommodate the barriers than three existing lanes in each direction were themselves, generally 2 feet on each side. This considered unable to accommodate contraflow results in a 25 foot cross-section for the single operation. Additionally, as a travel lane is reversible lane alone. As concurrent flow removed from the off peak direction, there express lanes can be handled with a lesser needs to be a significant directional split during cross-section, a single reversible lane is not an the peak hours of operation. A directional split efficient choice. of 66% in the peak direction to 34% in the off peak direction was considered to be a minimum The increased capacity of a lane in each to consider contraflow operation. direction, and the reduced operating costs of one lane in each direction (rather than a No corridors in the study area met both reversible lane) created a scenario where a requirements, therefore contraflow lanes were single lane in each direction was felt by the essentially eliminated from consideration. evaluation team to be superior in all respects to Reversible Lanes a reversible lane. However, a two reversible While movable barriers are not required for lane strategy can potentially be implemented in reversible lanes, the nature of reversible lanes a smaller footprint than two managed lanes in means that there will be concurrent flow with each direction. For this reason, a strategy to the general-purpose lanes in one direction and have one reversible lane was not pursued opposing flow with the general-purpose lanes in further while the strategy to build two the other direction. reversible lanes remained in consideration. A minimum directional traffic factor of 60% in the In general, the concurrent flow will be with the peak direction and 40% in off-peak direction peak direction and the opposing flow will be was considered necessary to consider a two with the off-peak direction. Over a 24 hour reversible lanes strategy. period, directional flow will reverse as the peak direction transitions from inbound to outbound Right-of-way assessment and vice versa. The required footprint for the remaining corridor/strategy combinations were next For this reason, impenetrable barriers are compared to the available width currently in needed on both sides of the reversible lanes to the corridor. As the available width varied over prevent the possibility of head on crashes. Since the corridor, the smaller sub-segments used in this creates a situation where express lane geometric and cross-section data collection traffic cannot easily access the general-purpose were used to compare the required versus the lanes to move around a disabled vehicle, available pavement width and right-of-way. sufficient shoulder width is needed for the Assessments for sub-segments of a corridor express lane to enable this to occur. In general were then re-integrated so to analyze overall this requires an 8 foot shoulder on one side of feasibility. the express Lane, and a 2 to 4 foot shoulder on

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 57 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Figure 26: Right of Way Assessment Process

It is unusual to find a corridor in any In a Bus on Shoulder strategy, buses can merge metropolitan area where the strategies studied back into general traffic in areas with in this project could be implemented with very insufficient shoulder width for operation. little or no reconstruction of the existing Merging several dozen buses each hour in and conditions. The question becomes what is an out of a shoulder lane creates far less disruption appropriate cutoff between mitigating relatively than moving the 1200 to 1800 vehicles that a minor deficiencies versus the need for major mixed traffic shoulder lane would carry back reconstruction for a given strategy. and forth from the shoulder to the general- purpose lanes. Even with a Bus on Shoulder For this study, strategies that contemplated strategy, overall, the corridor should be able to new lanes, other than bus on shoulder, were accommodate operation for most of its length. assumed to require major reconstruction for For this reason, corridors with insufficient corridors with insufficient pavement width that pavement width or right-of-way for 25% or could not be easily added or required additional more of their length were assumed to require right-of-way for 10% or more of its length or if major reconstruction. the deficiency was brought about by a major system to system type interchange. These Flow controlled corridors utilizing ramp strategies include: Hard Shoulder Running for metering, are not dependent on the right-of- Mixed traffic, Express Lanes of all types, Two way available on the corridor mainline. Reversible Lanes, and Truck Only Lanes. If Therefore, flow controlled strategies were insufficient width existed in more than 10% of deemed to not require major reconstruction for the corridor’s length or involved a major any of the considered corridors. Table 8 interchange, the strategy was deemed to summarizes the results of the pavement require major reconstruction of the corridor to width/right-of-way assessment process for allow the strategy to be implemented. corridor/strategy combinations.

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 58 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Contra

Express Lanes (allExpress

Truck Truck Only Lanes

Bus on Shoulder

Flow Controlled Flow

Two Reversible

Hard Shoulder

Corridors

Running

Length

types)

Lanes Lanes

-

flow Lanes ID Corridor

1A Loop 1604 from Interstate 35 to US 281 9.72        1B Loop 1604 from US 281 to Interstate 10 7.83       

1C Loop 1604 from Interstate 10 to SH 151 10.77       

2A Loop 410 from Interstate 35N to US 281 5.29       

2B Loop 410 from US 281 to Interstate 10 8.33       

2C Loop 410 from Interstate 10 to SH 151 7.88       

2D Loop 410 from SH 151 to US 90 2.6       

2E Loop 410 from US 90 to Interstate 35 4.71       

2F Loop 410 from Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd 1       

3A Interstate 35 NE from Division Ave to US 90 1.15       

3B Interstate 35 NE from US 90 to Interstate 10 2.48        Interstate 35 NE from Interstate 10 to 3C 2.21 Interstate 37        Interstate 35 NE from Interstate 37 to Loop 3D 8.74 410       

3E Interstate 35 NE from Loop 410 to Loop 1604 4.77       

3F Interstate 35 NE from Loop 1604 to SH 46 17.18       

4A Interstate 35 SW from Loop 410 to SH 422 4.42       

4B Interstate 35 SW from SH 422 to Division Ave 3.1        Interstate 10 NW from Loop 410 to Loop 5A 7.28 1604       

5B Interstate 10 NW from Loop 1604 to SH 46 15.68       

6A Interstate 10 from I-35 to Loop 410 6.42       

7A Interstate 10 E from I-37 to Loop 410 5.92       

7B Interstate 10 E from Loop 410 to Loop 1604 6.7       

8A US 281 from Fair Ave to Interstate 10 0.92       

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 59 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Contra

Express Lanes (allExpress

Truck Truck Only Lanes

Bus on Shoulder

Flow Controlled Flow

Two Reversible

Hard Shoulder

Corridors

Running

Length

types)

Lanes Lanes

-

flow Lanes ID Corridor

8B US 281 from Interstate 10 to interstate 35 2.53       

8C US 281 from Interstate 35 to Loop 410 6.01       

8D US 281 from Loop 410 to Loop 1604 6.43       

8E US 281 from Loop 1604 to SH 46 12.67       

9A SH 151 from Loop 1604 to Loop 410 5.68       

9B SH 151 from Loop 410 to US 90 4.44       

10A US 90 from SH 151 to Interstate 35 4.4       

10B US 90 from Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 2.29       

11A US 90 W from Loop 1604 to Loop 410 3.3       

11B US 90 W from Loop 410 to SH 151 3.94       

12A Interstate 37 from Loop 410 to US90 6.05       

 potentially not viable  major reconstruction required  potentially feasible

Table 8: Strategy-based Right of Way Assessment of Corridors

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 60 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Figure 27: Evaluation Methodology Evaluation Methodology aligning with those goals and objectives, which were converted into criteria for the evaluation. After establishing available and required right- of-way and pavement, the next step was to The initial workshop engaged representatives develop the evaluation methodology for scoring from agencies throughout the San Antonio facility segments relative to the managed lanes region to identify and define the goals, strategies (Figure 27). objectives, considerations, opportunities and constraints with respect to managed lanes This began with the identification of regional strategies. The results from that exercise were goals and associated objectives by facilitating a categorized and consolidated by the project San Antonio system stakeholder workshop. team into three broad goals and eleven Workshop participants articulated a high-level supporting objectives, as shown in Table 9. vision for San Antonio’s transportation system Screening criteria were developed based on a and then identified goals and objectives for corridor/strategy combination’s ability to satisfy achieving that vision. Next, the project team the established goals and objectives. selected quantitative and qualitative metrics

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 61 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Goals Objectives

A Provide a Smart, Integrated Transportation 1 Increase transit and carpool mode share System 2 Accommodate future travel demand growth 3 Enhance connections and reliability between economic activity centers

4 Preserve and recapture available capacity

B Provide a Reliable and Efficient 1 Improve travel time reliability in peak periods Transportation System 2 Reduce travel time delay in peak periods

3 Increase person throughput

4 Increase vehicular throughput

C Provide Safe and Equitable Transportation 1 Reduce crashes Systems 2 Improve operations to minimize conflicts

3 Provide access to service for all income levels

Table 9: Goals and Objectives for Regional Managed Lanes Strategies

Subsequent stages of the screening process allow a reasonable differentiation between relied on more detailed data than previous corridor/strategy combinations without one stages of the process. In cases where criterion dominating the selection. In general, quantitative data was available, it was utilized. zero was assigned where the corridor / strategy Data from city, county, state and federal combination has little or no positive impact, or transportation agencies as well as other data even potentially a negative impact; one and a resources where used in the development of half was assigned where there was a moderate the screening criteria. As most criteria can help positive impact; and three was assigned where assess the performance of each scenario for a there was a significant positive impact. In this multitude of goals/objectives, a one-to-one way, the highest ranking went to those relationship between a specific criterion and a strategies that best achieve the project goals. specific objective does not exist. Each of the criteria was also weighted as either The screening criteria developed apply to either one (1), three (3), or five (5). A rating of one the regional corridors identified for valuation, indicated the criterion would be tangentially the strategies under consideration, or (for one beneficial to the project; three was assigned criterion) both corridors and strategies. For the when the criterion was felt to be important, but final stage of screening process corridors / not critical; and five was assigned to those segments were paired with managed lanes criteria felt to be critical to the overall project strategies and the sum of the corridor / goals. A brief description and weighting of each segment and strategy criterion yielded one criterion is shown in Table 10 below. Additional overall score for each combination. Each information on each criterion scoring and criterion in each category was scored a zero (0), weighting is provided in Appendix 1; whereas, one and a half (1.5), or three (3). While these numerical rankings for each of the following numbers may seem somewhat unusual, they synthesis criteria ranking are in Appendix 2.

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 62 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Criteria Description Weight Corridor or segment is featured in TxDOT’s listing of the 100 Most Congested Highways in 5 Texas Corridor / segment is identified in State and/or Regional plans 5 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for the corridor / segment as per TxDOT 5 Contains high crash locations 5 Ability of existing cross sections to accommodate Improvements 5 Ability to Use the ML to Develop Transit Networks to Facilitate Transit Travel 5 Annual Hours of Truck Delay per Mile 3 Trucks as a percentage of all traffic on the corridor/segment 3 Employment density along the corridor / segment as per the 2014 Longitudinal Employer- 3 Household Dynamics data set from the US Census Population density along the corridor / segment as per the US Census Bureau's 2010-2014 3 American Community Survey Effective congestion (combination of data from TxDOT) 3 Annual Hours of Delay per Mile (combination of data from TxDOT) 3 Number of Existing Bus Routes along the corridor / segment 3 Potential for future expansion in addition to the proposed improvement based on 3 available right-of-way Presence of low income/low auto ownership areas served by Tier 2 corridors 3 Ability to improve transit connections between activity centers, and between activity 3 centers and residential areas Ability to Influence Mode Choice to More Efficient Modes 3 Ability to Implement Effective Lane Management 3 Improved System, Intermodal, and/or Multimodal Connectivity 3 Potential for Transit and Carpool Time Savings 3 Current park and ride facilities along the corridor / segment 1 Opportunities for transit feeder service or innovative solutions such as subscription 1 transportation or ride-sourcing for last mile services Potential for additional park and ride facilities based on land available at logical locations 1 Table 10: Description and Weighting of Criteria

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 63 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Tier 2 Screening Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 64 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

SECTION 7 Tier 2 Screening Results

Figure 28: Tier 2 Screening Evaluation Process

After the developing the evaluation corridor, and then Truck Only Lanes on the next methodology, establishing criteria and assigning corridor. However, how each strategy fares in scores and weights, the next step was to each corridor is of interest, and Appendix 3 conduct the actual scoring of corridor segments summarizes the performance of strategies for and strategies. All combinations of strategies each corridor. and segments were paired together, with differences in scores for segment-based criteria Hard Shoulder Running – Mixed and strategy-based criteria contributing to a Traffic unique overall score for each segment / Hard Shoulder Running scored well on most strategy combination. corridors. However, there is one caveat that The following pages show the performance of should be kept in mind when considering Hard San Antonio area corridors for each strategy, Shoulder Running: it is only appropriate when with figures and tables that summarize the sufficient pavement width exists to evaluation of corridors and their relative ranks accommodate it without adding pavement. If within each strategy. adding a full lane of pavement is necessary to implement a strategy, some type of express How strategies work together in a network lane is likely a better choice. setting will be more important than their specific ranking with a specific corridor. For Inside Shoulder Versus Outside Shoulder instance, it would not be appropriate to Either Bus on Shoulder (discussed in the next implement Flow Control on a corridor, Price section) or Mixed Traffic Hard Shoulder Running Controlled Express Lanes on the adjacent as discussed below can be implemented on the

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 65 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report inside shoulder, next to the median, or on the in a manner closer to an exclusive managed outside shoulder outside of the right-most lane lane. If the lane is intended for priority traffic, of traffic. There are advantages and there is no need for general purpose traffic to disadvantages to both approaches. travel on the hard shoulder. This eliminates interference for and from entering and exiting Outside shoulders allow priority traffic such as traffic. busses and HOVs (if allowed) to access the priority lane without having to merge across As the majority of fully established Express multiple general purpose lanes. This reduces Lanes are on the inside lane(s), use of an inside weaving and is particularly beneficial when the shoulder for hard shoulder running enables a Hard Shoulder Running segments are fairly much better transition from the Express Lane short. In these shorter segments, the Hard into the shoulder designated for hard shoulder Shoulder may be underutilized if it is the inside running or from the hard shoulder into the shoulder as the time necessary to access the Express Lane when the Express Lane and the lane may not be fully offset by the relatively Hard Shoulder are contiguous. In situations short travel in the priority lane. where this will occur, or is likely to occur in the relatively near future, an inside shoulder is The main disadvantage of outside shoulder use, preferred. particularly when used as a priority lane restricted to certain vehicles, is interference The main disadvantage of using an inside with entering and exiting traffic. This is most shoulder for Hard Shoulder running is that common when Hard Shoulder use extends traffic must merge across several lanes to through an interchange, however, it can also access the shoulder. This is most occur to a lesser extent when Hard Shoulder disadvantageous when the shoulder is being use extends to or from an exit or entrance. used for priority traffic. Usually at entrances or exits, general purpose In any decision regarding whether to use the traffic will mix with priority traffic to the extent inside or the outside shoulder, significant design necessary to allow entry or exit to be and operational issues must be examined. For accomplished. This can degrade the that reason, in this study, specific decisions performance of the Hard Shoulder Running regarding whether the inside or outside where the shoulder is used for priority traffic. shoulder were not made. However, on facilities This is especially problematic where traffic for where hard shoulders are likely to connect to an exit backs up past the beginning of the exit Express Lanes, the inside shoulder likely has an ramp. It can also significantly complicate advantage. This would include facilities such as enforcement as it can be difficult to US 281 south of Loop 1604 and I-10 south of differentiate between general purpose traffic in Loop 1604, as both of these facilities could the lane to make a needed maneuver and connect to the Occupancy Controlled Express drivers trying to illegally use the shoulder. Lanes being constructed on these facilities Using the inside shoulder for hard shoulder north of Loop 1604. running tends to allow the shoulder to operate

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 66 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Figure 29: Hard Shoulder Running with Mixed Traffic – Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 67 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Corridor Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Rating Number 3D Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410 Very good 2C Loop 410 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Very good 1C Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Good 2A Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Good 1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good 3E Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good 2B Loop 410 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good 5A Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good 8D US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good 3B Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10 Good 3C Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 Good 3F Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Good 8B US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Good 12A Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Good 10A US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Fair 3A Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 Fair 8C US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410 Fair 1A Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Fair 8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair 10B US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 Fair 6A Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410 Fair 4B Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave Fair 2D Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90 Fair 5B Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair 8A US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Fair 11B US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151 Fair 9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Fair 2E Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35 Fair 7B Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Fair 4A Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Fair 7A Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410 Poor 9B SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90 Poor 11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Poor 2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Poor Table 11: Corridor Ranking for Hard Shoulder Running with Mixed Traffic

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 68 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Bus on Shoulder Bus on Shoulder. The same caveat discussed for Mixed Use Hard Shoulder Running regarding Bus on Shoulder scored well on almost all lane addition also applies to Bus on Shoulder: it corridors, and very well on several corridors. is appropriate when there is sufficient existing The differences in scoring for this strategy pavement to accommodate the strategy relative to Mixed Use Hard Shoulder Running without adding new pavement. are the result of the specific transit benefits of

Figure 30: Bus on Shoulder Lanes – Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 69 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Corridor Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Rating Number 3D Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410 Very good 2C Loop 410 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Very good 1C Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Very good 2A Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Very good 1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Very good 3E Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Very good 2B Loop 410 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good 5A Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good 3B Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10 Good 3C Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 Good 3F Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Good 8B US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Good 12A Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Good 10A US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Good 3A Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 Good 8D US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good 8C US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410 Good 1A Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Good 8A US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Good 8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Good 4B Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave Fair 2D Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90 Fair 5B Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair 10B US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 Fair 6A Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410 Fair 11B US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151 Fair 9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Fair 2E Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35 Fair 7B Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Fair 4A Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Fair 7A Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410 Fair 9B SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90 Fair 11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Fair 2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Poor Table 12: Corridor Ranking for Bus on Shoulder Lanes

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 70 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Contraflow Lanes and the required number of lanes (three minimum) in each direction. Nonetheless, the Contraflow lanes are unlikely to be a viable strategy was evaluated based on the study strategy for the San Antonio Metropolitan criteria, but was not ranked due to the region because no corridor in the region has unlikelihood of implementation. both the required directional split (66.7/33.3)

Figure 31: Contraflow Lanes – Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 71 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Corridor Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Score Number 3D Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable 5A Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable 2C Loop 410 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Potentially not viable 3B Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10 Potentially not viable 3C Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 Potentially not viable 1C Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Potentially not viable 2A Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Potentially not viable 1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Potentially not viable 3E Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable 2B Loop 410 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Potentially not viable 8C US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable 8D US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable 8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Potentially not viable 3F Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Potentially not viable 3A Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 Potentially not viable 6A Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable 8B US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Potentially not viable 12A Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Potentially not viable 10A US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Potentially not viable 1A Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Potentially not viable 8A US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Potentially not viable 4B Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave Potentially not viable 2D Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90 Potentially not viable 5B Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Potentially not viable 10B US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 Potentially not viable 2E Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35 Potentially not viable 11B US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151 Potentially not viable 9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable 7B Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable 4A Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Potentially not viable 7A Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable 9B SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90 Potentially not viable 11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable 2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Potentially not viable Table 13: Corridor Ranking for Contraflow Lanes

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 72 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Reversible Lanes criterion. Furthermore, due to this strategy’s relatively low scores, the need for major Reversible Lanes were required to have a reconstruction, and the low continuity between minimum of a 60% to 40% directional split and segments, reversible lanes are not a highly only three segments in the region met this ranked strategy for the San Antonio area.

Figure 32: Dual Reversible Lanes – Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 73 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Corridor Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Rating Number 1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good 9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Poor 9B SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90 Poor 3D Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable 5A Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable 2C Loop 410 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Potentially not viable 3B Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10 Potentially not viable 3C Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 Potentially not viable 1C Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Potentially not viable 2A Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Potentially not viable 3E Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable 2B Loop 410 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Potentially not viable 8D US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable 8C US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable 8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Potentially not viable 3F Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Potentially not viable 3A Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 Potentially not viable 6A Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable 8B US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Potentially not viable 12A Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Potentially not viable 10A US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Potentially not viable 1A Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Potentially not viable 8A US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Potentially not viable 4B Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave Potentially not viable 2D Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90 Potentially not viable 5B Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Potentially not viable 10B US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 Potentially not viable 2E Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35 Potentially not viable 11B US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151 Potentially not viable 7B Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable 4A Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Potentially not viable 7A Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable 11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable 2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Potentially not viable Table 14: Corridor Ranking for Dual Reversible Lanes

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 74 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Express Lanes Occupancy Controlled Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes scored well Express Lanes are part of the Mobility 2040 long over a broad area. They offer additional range plan, with projects on I-10, US 281, Loop flexibility compared to Access Controlled 1604, and I-35 already in development. The Express Lanes and the ability to encourage decision was made to proceed without any more efficient mode choice, which led to this consideration of previous decisions. This overall higher score. eliminated the possibly of “predetermined results”; however, the study’s analysis found all Pricing Controlled of these projects are warranted. Pricing Controlled Express Lanes also scored well over a broad area. Combining pricing with Access Controlled occupancy control operations, in particular, Access Controlled Express Lanes rank well in maintains the ability to encourage more some corridors but did not score as well and as efficient mode choice while the pricing element broadly as other strategies. Segments that allows for consistent maximization of overall perform well reflect similar opportunities with vehicle and person throughput in the lane. other capacity oriented options.

Figure 33: Access Controlled Express Lanes – Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 75 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Corridor Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Rating Number 3D Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410 Very good 2C Loop 410 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Good 1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good 3E Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good 5A Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good 1C Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Good 2A Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Good 3B Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10 Good 3C Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 Good 2B Loop 410 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good 8B US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Good 12A Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Good 10A US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Fair 3A Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 Fair 8D US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Fair 3F Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair 8C US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410 Fair 8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair 5B Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair 6A Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410 Fair 4B Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave Fair 2D Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90 Fair 10B US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 Fair 1A Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Fair 8A US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Fair 11B US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151 Fair 2E Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35 Fair 7B Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Fair 4A Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Fair 9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Fair 7A Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410 Poor 11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Poor 9B SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90 Poor 2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Poor Table 15: Corridor Ranking for Access Controlled Express Lanes

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 76 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Figure 34: Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes - Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 77 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Corridor Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Rating Number 3D Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410 Very good 2C Loop 410 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Very good 1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good 3E Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good 5A Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good 1C Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Good 2A Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Good 3B Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10 Good 3C Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 Good 2B Loop 410 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good 10A US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Good 8D US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good 8B US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Good 12A Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Good 3F Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Good 8C US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410 Good 1A Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Good 3A Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 Good 8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Good 4B Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave Fair 10B US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 Fair 8A US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Fair 6A Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410 Fair 2D Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90 Fair 2E Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35 Fair 5B Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair 11B US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151 Fair 7B Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Fair 4A Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Fair 9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Fair 7A Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410 Fair 11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Fair 9B SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90 Poor 2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Poor Table 16: Corridor Ranking for Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 78 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Figure 35: Pricing Controlled Express Lanes – Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 79 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Corridor Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Rating Number 3D Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410 Very good 2C Loop 410 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Very good 1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good 3E Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good 5A Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good 1C Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Good 2A Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Good 3B Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10 Good 3C Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 Good 2B Loop 410 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good 8D US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good 8B US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Good 12A Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Good 3F Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Good 8C US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410 Good 3A Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 Good 8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Good 10A US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Fair 6A Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410 Fair 4B Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave Fair 2D Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90 Fair 5B Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair 10B US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 Fair 1A Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Fair 8A US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Fair 11B US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151 Fair 2E Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35 Fair 7B Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Fair 4A Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Fair 9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Fair 7A Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410 Fair 11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Fair 9B SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90 Poor 2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Poor Table 17: Corridor Ranking for Pricing Controlled Express Lanes

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 80 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Truck Only Lanes significant amount of freight traffic, other types of Express Lanes are likely to offer a greater Truck Only Lanes are a very specialized strategy benefit to the transportation network as a with a relatively small deployment in the United whole. States. While San Antonio does have a

Figure 36: Truck Only Lanes – Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 81 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Corridor Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Rating Number 3D Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410 Good 2C Loop 410 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Good 1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good 2B Loop 410 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good 3E Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good 1C Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Fair 5A Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Fair 2A Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Fair 3F Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair 3B Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10 Fair 3C Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 Fair 8D US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Fair 8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair 8B US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Fair 12A Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Fair 8C US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410 Fair 3A Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 Fair 10B US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 Fair 5B Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair 1A Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Fair 10A US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Fair 2D Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90 Fair 6A Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410 Fair 4B Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave Poor 8A US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Poor 11B US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151 Poor 2E Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35 Poor 7B Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Poor 4A Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Poor 9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Poor 11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Poor 7A Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410 Poor 9B SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90 Poor 2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Poor Table 18: Corridor Ranking for Truck Only Lanes

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 82 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Flow Controlled Corridors strategy is also the only one that can be used effectively on I-10 between 1604 and I-410, and Due to their comparatively low cost and the fact US 281 between 1604 and the Central Business that no right-of-way on the actual mainline District without requiring a major investment in facility is required, Flow Controlled Corridors the corridor. (adaptive ramp metering) scored well. This

Figure 37: Flow Controlled Corridors – Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 83 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Corridor Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Rating Number 3D Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410 Very good 2C Loop 410 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Good 1C Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Good 1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good 5A Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good 2A Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Good 3E Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good 3B Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10 Good 3C Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 Good 2B Loop 410 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good 3F Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Good 8D US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good 8B US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Fair 12A Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Fair 8C US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410 Fair 8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair 10B US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 Fair 3A Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 Fair 4B Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave Fair 10A US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Fair 5B Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair 6A Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410 Fair 1A Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Fair 2D Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90 Fair 2E Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35 Fair 8A US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Fair 11B US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151 Fair 9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Fair 7B Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Poor 4A Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Poor 7A Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410 Poor 9B SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90 Poor 11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Poor 2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Poor Table 19: Corridor Ranking for Flow Controlled Corridors

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 84 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Recommendations

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 85 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

SECTION 8 Recommendations

Figure 38: Recommendations for Managed Lanes Strategies

Based on the Tier 2 screening, the project team Antonio metropolitan region. The developed a set of recommended managed recommendations in this section take into lanes treatments for select corridors in the San account several factors, shown in Figure 39.

Figure 39: Strategy Recommendation Factors

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 86 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Summary of Recommendations appropriate. Implementation of one of several express lanes can follow after that. By Based on the above factors, implementing Bus implementing in this order, the performance of on Shoulder is the overall highest each strategy informs the order in which recommended strategy. Bus on Shoulder scored subsequent strategies should be implemented. well throughout the Alamo region, so continuity between various segments can be achieved. Flow-controlled corridors can be implemented Further, Bus on Shoulder Tier 2 at any time and with any other strategy strategy/corridor scores were high, it is examined in this study that is contemplated, relatively easy to implement, it can be built planned or already implemented. Therefore, upon by other strategies, and it can be flow controlled corridors are discussed implemented with other strategies. In fact, bus separately from other strategies. on shoulder makes an excellent partner with The next section presents specific corridors with the HOV lanes already approved for US 281 and associated managed lanes strategies for I-10 north of the 1604 Loop. In total, and using consideration. To facilitate better the vernacular, Bus on Shoulder provides an comprehension of the recommendations excellent “Bang for the Buck”. presented in the following pages, the corridor In terms of sequential strategy deployment, identification graphic previously presented is Mixed-Use Shoulder Running can generally replicated in Figure 40 below. follow Bus on Shoulder implementation where

Figure 40: Study Corridors and Segments

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 87 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Strategy & Corridor on Shoulder strategy complements the HOV Recommendations lanes that have been approved for construction on I-10 north of 1604 Loop, and US 281 north of Strategy: Bus on Shoulder the 1604 Loop. Bus on Shoulder as a strategy scored very well For these reasons, it is the strategy on almost all corridors and exceptionally well recommended for first implementation. The on several (Figure 41). It is the simplest strategy next section describes a potential to implement of all under consideration. implementation plan for Bus-on-Shoulders in Therefore, it is relatively inexpensive and can be the San Antonio area. implemented relatively quickly. Further, the Bus

Figure 41: Recommendation Factors for Bus on Shoulder Strategies

Numerous segments along I-410, specifically Given these factors this section of I-410 is the those from Valley Hi Drive south of US 90 to I- ideal corridor for initial deployment of Bus-on- 35 (corridors 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D and a portion of Shoulders. 2E), scored very well and, in total, represent a Segments of I-35 and Loop 1604 are also significant continuous corridor. recommended for consideration for Bus-on- Multiple VIA routes already exist on these Shoulder implementation. A map showing the corridors and major trip generators and recommended corridors and associated attractors are located in the corridors, including segments for the implementation of Bus-on- Lackland Air Force Base, Port San Antonio, Shoulder is shown below in Figure 42. North Star Mall, and the San Antonio International Airport.

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 88 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Figure 42: Recommended Alamo Area Corridors and Associated Segments for Bus on Shoulder Implementation

Based on Strategy/Corridor Tier 2 Scoring, the I-35 between US 281 and Loop 1604 (corridors Loop 410 Corridor should receive the highest 3D and 3E) is the next logical implementation of priority for Bus-on-Shoulder implementation, Bus on Shoulder. Both corridors scored with prioritization of segments (based on exceptionally well and the recommended evaluation and continuity) as follows: implementation order is:

1. 2C - Loop 410 between I-10 to SH 151 1. 3D – I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 2. 2A - Loop 410 between I-35 to US 281 2. 3E – I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 3. 2B - Loop 410 between US 281 to I-10 Either corridor supports implementations that 4. 2D - Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90 are assumed to have already been completed 5. 2E - Loop 410 between US 90 to I-35 on I-410. Because of this, other factors can also be considered regarding whether the corridors

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 89 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report are implemented simultaneously, or what the north of Loop 1604 and the ability to implement actual implementation order will be. bus on shoulder on the segment of I-10 south of I-410, allowing flexibility in the implementation Loop 1604 between SH-151 and I-35 is the next evaluation criteria on this portion of I-10 is logical implementation. All corridors, 1A, 1B, appropriate. Bus on Shoulder should be and 1C all scored very highly, and there is considered, and likely implemented on this flexibility on the order that they would be segment as the other improvements to either implemented. Based on continuity and Tier 2 side of the segment come online. scoring, the recommended implementation order is: While the corridors described above are the better corridors for initial pilot type 1. 1B - Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 implementation, coordination between 2. 1C - Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 AAMPO, VIA, and TxDOT should be undertaken 3. 1A - Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 to establish the definitive order of The I-10 corridor from northwest of the city to implementation. Furthermore, the majority of downtown San Antonio is a special case. This is corridors in Tier 2 screening scored well on the due to the HOV lanes planned north of Loop Bus on Shoulder strategy. These corridors are 1604, and with the potential for significant certainly good candidates for Bus on Shoulder investment that would be necessary to implementation. Therefore, as previously implement the strategy between Loop 1604 and discussed, it is recommended that AAMPO I-410. coordinate with VIA and TxDOT to determine which of these additional corridors should move An HOV lane provides more benefit than bus on forward. shoulder. It allows better operating conditions, and it also allows vehicles other than buses to access the lane. The HOV status also encourages the efficient use of the lane by encouraging multiple occupant vehicles, either buses or HOV’s. Because of the additional HOV benefits, implementation of Bus on Shoulder on I-10 north of Loop 1604 is not recommended at this time.

Implementing Bus on Shoulder on segment 6A allows premium bus service to bypass congestion between the I-410 loop and I-35. However, without the ability to implement Bus on Shoulder between Loop 1604 and I-410, a significant gap exists. Closing this gap would provide a continuous bus route between the areas north of Loop 1604 and downtown San Antonio.

For this reason, a deeper analysis was made of the segment of I-10 between Loop 1604 and I- 410. Given the HOV lanes being constructed

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 90 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed the operation of the shoulder as Bus on Traffic Shoulder. Further, some corridors that can accommodate Bus on Shoulder because of the Mixed Traffic Hard Shoulder Running also ability of transit traffic to more easily weave scored well overall (Figure 43). It is a logical onto general-purpose lanes when needed to next step to Bus on Shoulder implementation avoid a Pinch Point, cannot support Mixed-Use and therefore deserves consideration. As Hard Shoulder Running due to the larger discussed above, the decision to convert the number of vehicles that would need to be shoulder to Mixed Traffic or letting it remain accommodated. Bus on Shoulder should be informed based on

Figure 43: Recommendation Factors for Hard Shoulder Running (Mixed Traffic)

Nine corridors scored over 60% of the available the strategy can be considered for points for Mixed-Use Hard Shoulder Running implementation at an appropriate time. Again, and would not require major investment to AAMPO should undertake coordination with accommodate the strategy. These are shown both VIA and TxDOT in making these decisions. below as well as the map in Figure 44: As part of this coordination, the benefits of leaving a particular corridor as Bus on Shoulder  3D: I-35 NE between I-37 to Loop 410 should also be evaluated.  2C: I-410 between I-10 to SH 151  1B: Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 Two other issues regarding Mixed-Use Hard  3E: I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 Shoulder Running deserve discussion: First, if  1C: Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 there is a driving need for congestion relief that  2A: I-410 between I-35 N to US 281 includes SOV’s, Mixed-Use Hard Shoulder  2B: I-410 between US 281 to I-10 Running can be implemented as the first step  3C: I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 rather than converting from Bus on Shoulder.  3F: I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Further, Mixed-Use Hard Shoulder Running can be implemented in an occupancy controlled These nine corridors are recommended for manner. In other words, the same requirements consideration for initial deployment of Mixed- could be imposed on a Mixed-Use Hard Use Hard Shoulder Running. As with Bus on Shoulder Lane that are imposed on an Shoulder, other corridors that scored well for Occupancy Controlled Express Lane, with only

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 91 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

HOVs being able to use the shoulder in addition capacity that the shoulder represents with little to buses. This could allow greater use of the to no degradation in transit performance.

Figure 44: Recommended Alamo Area and Associated Segments for Hard Shoulder Running (Mixed Traffic) Implementation Express Lanes report and the strategy can be built upon. However, in cases that require a significant Express lanes, regardless of the control investment, they are more difficult to mechanism, scored well in the San Antonio implement, but they provide a significant region (Figure 45). Furthermore, they can be capacity increase. implemented with the other strategies in this

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 92 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Figure 45: Recommendation Factors for Express Lanes

The development of a new lane, often on new implementation of some type of express lanes, pavement represents a significant investment. where feasible, is believed to be superior to To protect the value of this investment, and to shoulder operation. This means that if improve mobility in the region, the additional pavement is needed to implement management of this added capacity is critical. some type of shoulder operation, Without some type of management, it is implementation of an express lane should be possible, if not probable, that congestion will strongly considered instead. return with its severe reduction in travel speeds This should not be taken to mean that Bus on and its reduction in vehicular throughput. Shoulder and Mixed-Use Hard Shoulder Running Each of these lane control strategies (access, should not be deployed as initial strategies. To occupancy and price) require essentially the the contrary, these shoulder strategies are far same footprint, and operating conditions are more easily deployed and, as previously not so different that the implementation of one discussed, could assist in informing where any is significantly easier to bring about than the eventual investment in new capacity should implementation of another. For this reason, the take place. Of course, when the resources are type of lane demand management used in the available, it is very reasonable to move directly region is likely to be as much of a policy to new lanes, such as being done on I-10 and US decision as it is a planning and/or engineering 281. decision. The advantages, and in some cases the Using Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes as disadvantages, of each of these lane demand the example, the top 20 corridors in terms of management strategies has been discussed scoring definitively are shown below. Corridors previously in this document. that would require a major investment are Regardless of the type of demand management, shown in red and italicized: the addition of a new lane, particularly one  3D - I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 developed on new pavement, represents a  significant capacity increase. Further, there is 2C - I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 no doubt that an actual lane will operate at  3E - I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 least somewhat better, if not significantly  5A - I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 better, than operating on the shoulder in terms  1C - Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 of travel speed and capacity. For these reasons,  2A - I-410 between I-35 N to US 281

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 93 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

 1B - Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 It should be noted that I-10 (from La Cantera to  8E - US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 FM 3351) and US 281 (north of Loop 1604) are  3B - I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 not shown in the above listing as requiring a  3C - I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 major investment, even though there is  2B - I-410 between US 281 to I-10 currently a significant reconstruction plan to  12A - I-37 between I-410 to US90 add Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes (HOV  8D - US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 lanes) to these facilities. However, the planned  8B - US 281 between I-10 to I-35 improvements to these corridors make  3F - I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 significant improvements beyond simply adding one express lane in each direction. In fact, the  8C - US 281 between I-35 to I-410 currently planned improvements on I-10 and US  3A - I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 281 are substantial improvements that should  6A - I-10 between I-35 to I-410 yield significant benefits to regional mobility. As  5B - I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 such, the accommodation of occupancy  4B - I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division controlled express lanes on these facilities is not Ave deemed to require significant investment for the purposes of this assessment.

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 94 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Figure 46: Recommended Alamo Area Corridors and Associated Segments for Express Lanes

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 95 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Contraflow Lanes and Dual both directions. For that reason, single Reversible Lanes reversible lanes were removed from consideration. Neither of these strategies scored well for Only three corridors met the directional split implementation in the San Antonio area (Figure required to consider reversible lanes. All three 47). Specifically, for Contraflow lanes no of these would have required a major corridors met the dual requirements of three or investment to implement dual reversible lanes. more lanes in the opposing direction and a Other alternatives are likely to be more minimal directional split of 66% to 34%. productive than either of these strategies. For reversible lanes, as previously discussed a Neither Contraflow Lanes nor Reversible Lanes single reversible lane requires a larger footprint are recommended for implementation in the than adding a concurrent flow managed lane in San Antonio region.

Figure 47: Recommendation Factors for Contraflow and Dual Reversible Lanes Truck Only Lanes only lanes are practically identical to those required for other express lanes considered in While truck only lanes are a viable alternative this study. With a lesser benefit and the same for transportation improvement, the efficacy of general cost as other express lanes considered, truck only lanes in the San Antonio region is not Truck Only Lanes are not recommended for San as great as other add-a-lane solutions (Figure Antonio region at this time. 48). The resources required to implement truck

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 96 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Figure 48: Recommendation Factors for Truck Only Lanes

Figure 49: Recommendation Factors for Flow Control Corridors Flow Controlled Corridors this report can lead to improved safety, and therefore fewer crashes, they do not specifically As noted earlier, flow-controlled corridors can address non-recurring congestion and are not be implemented at any time and with any other designed to do so. Non-recurring congestion is strategy examined in this study. They also best handled by improved incident response, scored well over the whole region and can build and other improvements besides those studied upon other strategies (Figure 49). in this project such as improved geometrics that can reduce the number and severity of crashes. There are two types of congestion: recurring and nonrecurring. Either robs roadways of three Recurring congestion is relatively predictable in critical factors: travel speed, vehicular terms of the time of day it will occur and the throughput, and travel time reliability. location where it will occur. It is caused by vehicle density on the roadway, defined by Nonrecurring congestion, as the name implies, vehicles per lane per mile, exceeding the critical is relatively unpredictable. It is caused by density at which point vehicles begin interfering crashes, vehicle breakdowns, weather, and with each other to the extent that other factors that do not recur on a predictable maneuverability is significantly impaired. This basis. Except that the strategies described in

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 97 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report results in reduced speeds and reduced vehicular conditions. Adaptive ramp metering is the most throughput. Because the extent and impact of common type currently deployed in the United recurring congestion differs from day-to-day, it States and produces greater benefits than pre- also impacts travel time reliability. Finally, the timed ramp metering. congested conditions usually result in a higher Coordinated adaptive ramp metering combines frequency of accidents. the capability of adaptive ramp metering with Recurring congestion can be reduced by several the ability to coordinate with other ramp means. The strategies presented in this report, meters at other entrances in real time. The such as express lanes of various types or hard ramp meters not only react to conditions on the shoulder running, increase capacity which mainline roadway, they also react to the queue reduces density and therefore congestion as that is developed on the ramps themselves. As well as increasing the movement of persons. an example, if a ramp is beginning to back up Strategies that encourage mode changes from significantly, it can “request” the ramp SOVs to HOVs and/or transit can reduce the upstream to slow its release rate so that the number of vehicles on the road and therefore downstream ramp can increase its release rate density and congestion. The final method is to and reduce its queue. The most sophisticated control the number of vehicles accessing the systems have the ability to coordinate multiple facility at any given time, and this is what flow ramps to maintain the most efficient operation controlled corridors accomplish. of both the mainline and the ramps.

Flow control as discussed here is obtained by A system known as Managed Motorways ramp metering, in other words using a traffic (sometimes called Managed Freeways) was first signal at the ramp stop bar to briefly hold a deployed in Melbourne, Australia a vehicle in place prior to releasing it to access metropolitan area of over 4 ½ million residents. the mainline facility. There are several types of In Melbourne, the Managed Motorways ramp metering. concept was deployed on the M1, also known as the Monash Motorway. After deployment, Fixed time ramp metering uses ramp signal congestion was significantly reduced. timing that is based on having a certain set time period between vehicles being released at any Following implementation throughput on the given ramp. It is the least sophisticated type of M1increased by 4.7% and 8.4%, travel speeds ramp metering, and generates limited benefits. increased by 34.9% and 58.7% and the This is due to the fact that the system is not percentage of time with less than a 20% speed capable of increasing the time period between variation (a measure of travel time reliability) released vehicles when necessary, and increased by 148.7% and 516.4% for the AM conversely may hold vehicles unnecessarily peak and PM peak respectively. These when freeway densities are low enough to improvements where driven by the more accept additional vehicles. dynamic, predictive and holistic nature or the manage motorways concept relative to the Adaptive ramp metering has the capability or fixed time metering that had previously been in reacting to real time traffic conditions and place. adjusting the time period between released vehicles accordingly. The time period between Managed Motorways, or any type of flow- releases would be increased in high density control when applied to the freeway corridor, conditions and decreased in low-density can be implemented either by itself or with any

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 98 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report of the strategies examined in this study. If Strategies Not Currently AAMPO is interested in pursuing a ramp Recommended metering or active traffic management strategy, it is logical to first study the strategy in the It must be stressed that strategies that are not corridors that would require a major recommended for potential pilot projects in this investment for almost any type of other report are not “bad” strategies. Many of these strategy. US 281 south of Loop 1604 is a good strategies may at some point in time be potential candidate. With the improvements considered for deployment in San Antonio. The being made on US 281 north of Loop 1604, full rankings of individual corridor/strategy increasing the capacity of segments south of combinations are shown in Appendix 2. the Loop might be especially productive.

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 99 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Appendices

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 100 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

APPENDIX 1 Corridor / Strategy Ranking Criteria

Corridor/Segment-Oriented Criteria

Corridor and segment-oriented criteria are those applied to the various San Antonio regional corridor segments considered for managed lane treatments as part of this evaluation and refined in the Corridor Definition phase of this evaluation. Data from city, county, state and federal transportation agencies as well as other data resources where used in the development of these criteria, which include:

 Corridor featured in TxDOT’s listing of 100 Most Congested Highways in Texas;  Corridor / Facility / Project Has Been Identified in State/Regional Planning;  Annual Hours of Truck Delay per Mile;  Percentage of Truck Traffic on the Corridor;  Population density on the corridor;  Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT);  Effective congestion;  Annual Hours of Delay per Mile;  Number of Existing Bus Routes;  Potential for future expansion in addition to the proposed improvement;  Current park and ride facilities;  Opportunities for transit feeder service or innovative solutions such as subscription transportation or ride-sourcing for last mile services;  Contains high crash locations;  Ability of existing cross sections to accommodate Improvements;  Potential for additional park and ride facilities based on land available at logical locations;  Presence of low income/low auto ownership areas served by Tier 2 corridors;  Ability to improve transit connections between activity centers, and between activity centers and residential areas.

Each criterion and their associated scores and weighting are discussed in further detail below. Criterion - Features in 100 Most Congested Highways in Texas: Weighting of 5. Texas DOT frequently releases a list of the top 100 most congested corridors in the state. It is calculated based on a variety of performance measures such as auto/truck delay, congestion cost per person, and a collection of travel time indices. This list was used to identify corridors in San Antonio with existing severe congestion. If all or part of the corridor was a part of the top 100 list, it was given a score of 3. As congestion is a major metric for determining corridor performance for essentially all transportation agencies, this criterion was considered to be critical to regional goals and objectives and therefore given a weighting of 5. San Antonio Corridors in the 100 Most Congested Highways in Texas are identified in Table 20.

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 101 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Corridors Segments

US 281 to Interstate Interstate 10 to SH Loop 1604 Interstate 35 to US 281 10 151 Interstate Interstate US 281 to Interstate US 90 to SH 151 to 35 to Loop 410 35N to US Interstate 10 to SH Interstate US 90 Somerset 281 10 151 35 Rd Loop 410 Interstate Loop Interstate US 90 to SH 46 to to 37 to Interstate 35 1604 to 10 to US Division Loop 1604 Interstate Interstate Loop 410 90 Ave 37 10

Interstate 35 Division Ave to SH 422 SH 422 to Loop 410

Interstate 10 Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Loop 1604 to SH 46

Interstate 10 I-35 to Loop 410

Interstate 10 I-37 to Loop 410 Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Interstate Fair Ave to Interstate Loop 410 10 to US 281 Interstate 35 to to Loop Loop 1604 to SH 46 interstate 10 Loop 410 1604 35 SH 151 Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Loop 410 to US 90 US 90 SH 151 to Interstate 35 Interstate 35 to Interstate 37

US 90 Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Loop 410 to SH 151 Interstate 37 Loop 410 to US 90

LEGEND - Features among 100 most congested Yes Partial Corridor No Corridors in Texas

Table 20: Corridors in 100 Most Congested Highways in Texas Criterion - Project Has Been Identified in State/Regional Planning: Weighting of 5. Projects in a state or regional transportation plan are already identified as a corridor needing improvement and were given a score of 3, otherwise it received a score of 0. Projects being identified in planning documents also indicates the possibility of existing funding availability or likely funding. Additionally, if the strategy has been included in a document that requires public adoption, it has the benefit of having been seen by the public during the development and adoption of the document. As a result, this criterion was considered to be critical to project goals and given a weighting of 5.

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 102 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Criterion - Percentage of Truck Traffic on the Corridor: Weighting of 3. As trucks that carry freight are impacted by the strategies contemplated in the corridors, the percentage of trucks that will be impacted was used as the indicator of whether the corridor is a significant freight movement corridor. Freight concerns are important but not critical to project goals and objectives, so truck traffic percentages where given a weighting of 3. Specific scoring occurred as follows:

 Corridors with percentage of trucks greater than 15% were given a score of 3,  Corridors with percentage of trucks between 10% to 15% were given a score of 1.5,  Corridors where trucks accounted for less than 10% of the traffic were given a score of 0.

Criterion - Annual Hours of Truck Delay per Mile: Weighting of 3. Reducing annual hours of truck delay per mile would help in providing reliable and efficient transportation systems in the region. It was considered to be important but not critical to the overall project goals and objectives and therefore given a weighting of 3. This criterion was scored based on a combination of evidence of overall congestion in the corridor and observed truck traffic in the corridor. The combination of these performance measures is likely to be an indicator of potential truck delay in the corridor. The specific scoring criteria are as follows:

 3 if the corridor featured in the 100 most congested corridor list and if the truck volume exceeded 10% or traffic.  1.5 if the corridor featured in the 100 most congested corridor list or the truck volume on the corridor exceeded 10% of traffic, but not both.  0 if corridor does not feature in the list and truck volume is under 10% of traffic.

Criterion - Employment density on the corridor: Weighting of 3. Greater employment density along the corridor indicates a greater opportunity to reduce person travel time and is considered important but not critical to achieving project goals. Employment density on corridors was therefore given a weighting of 3. Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data (2014) from the US Census was used to estimate number of jobs within one-half mile of the corridor. The average employment density of the county or counties through which each corridor travels was also developed and used in scoring. The specific scoring criteria are as follows:

 A score of 3 was assigned if the employment density in the corridor exceeds 200% of the county average.  If the employment density within the corridor was between 100% and 200% of the county average, a score was 1.5 was given.  A score of 0 was given to the corridor if the employment density was lower than the county average.

Criterion - Population density on the corridor: Weighting of 3. As with employment density, greater population density along the corridor indicates a greater opportunity to reduce person travel time and is considered important but not critical to achieving project goals and therefore given a weighting of 3. American Community Survey (2010-2014) data from the US Census Bureau was used to estimate population within one-half mile of the corridor. The specific scoring criteria are as follows:

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 103 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

 A score of 3 was assigned if the population density in the corridor exceeds 200% of the county average.  If the population density within the corridor was between 100% and 200% of the county average, a score was 1.5 was given.  A score of 0 was given to the corridor if the population density was lower than the county average.

Criterion – Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT): Weighting of 5. AADT is a primary metric for all roadway facilities. AADT also serves as a direct parameter to assess the extent of the potential impact of improvements on each corridor. Hence, it was considered to be critical in satisfying goals and objectives of the project and given a weighting of 5. AADT values for the corridors were obtained from TxDOT. Scoring proceeded as follows:

 Corridors, with AADT higher than 150,000, were given a score of 3.  Corridors with an AADT between 80,000 and 150,000 were given a score of 1.5.  Corridors with an AADT less than 80,000 were given a score of 0.

Criterion - Annual Hours of Delay per Mile: Weighting of 3. As other criteria consider the amount of congestion present on the corridor, Annual Hours of Delay per Mile was felt to be important to include in the analysis, but with other congestion factors in the analysis it was not considered critical so it was weighted at 3. It was rated based on a combination of observed AADT in each corridor and if the corridor featured in the Top 100 Most Congested Roadways in Texas. The specific scoring criteria are as follows:

 3 if corridor is in Top 100 Most Congested Corridors and AADT was ranked as medium (1.5) or high (3).  1.5 if the corridor is in the Top 100 Most Congested Roadways or the AADT is medium or high, but not both.  0 if the corridor is not in the Top 100 Most Congested Roadways and AADT was scored 0.

Criterion – Effective Congestion: Weighting of 3. This criterion was considered as a proxy to the overall congestion experienced by users in San Antonio. As with annual hours of delay per mile, effective congestion was rated based on a combination of observed AADT in each corridor and whether the corridor featured in the Top 100 Most Congested Roadways in Texas. The specific scoring criteria are as follows:

 3 if corridor is in Top 100 Most Congested Corridors and AADT was ranked as medium (1.5) or high (3).  1.5 if the corridor is in the Top 100 Most Congested Roadways or the AADT is medium or high, but not both.  0 if the corridor is not in the Top 100 Most Congested Roadways and AADT was scored 0.

Criterion - Number of Existing Bus Routes on ML Candidates: Weighting of 3. As a higher number of bus routes on a corridor indicates a potentially larger benefit for transit operations, this criterion was considered to be important but not critical, receiving a weighting of 3. The number of VIA bus routes currently running on the corridor was considered in this process. As strategies

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 104 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report are implemented, additional routes are certainly possible and desirable, beyond those considered in this ranking. Scoring was as follows:

 Corridors with more than 2 routes were given a score of 3;  Corridors with one or two routes were given a score of 1.5; and  Corridors without any existing bus routes were given a score of 0.

Criterion - Potential for future expansion in addition to the proposed improvement: Weighting of 3. This measure assesses proposed strategies based on ROW availability once the proposed strategy is implemented. For example, if Bus on Shoulder was implemented in a corridor with a 40 foot grass median, it would have the capacity to implement an additional strategy, such as an Occupancy Controlled Express Lane, without the need for expensive reconstruction. That would provide flexibility to further upgrade the corridor in the future. For scoring, if a corridor had significant additional right-of- way available after implementing the strategy under consideration, it was given a score of 3. If the corridor did not have sufficient space for adding an additional strategy, it was given a score of 0. Criterion - Current Park and Ride Facilities: Weighting of 1. While important, this is the first of a pair of park and ride criteria which led to a lower weighting of 1. This measure was scored based on the number of park and ride lots near study corridors as follows:

 Corridors with more than one park and ride facilities that could serve the corridor were given a score of 3;  Corridors with one park and ride facility in proximity were given a score of 1.5; and  Corridors which did not have any park and ride facilities located near them were given a score of 0.

Criterion - Potential for additional park and ride facilities based on land available at logical locations: Weighting of 1. As the second of the two park-and-ride criteria, a weighting of 1 was also assigned to this criterion. It was scored based on a qualitative review of satellite imagery. Available areas along a corridor and connectivity to major activity centers in the region were assessed qualitatively based on the corridor’s location and the potential for new park and ride facilities to be added. Scores were assigned as follows:

 Corridors were given a score of 3 for good potential for adding park and ride facilities,  Corridors with a fair potential were scored 1.5; and  Corridors with poor potential for adding park and ride facilities were scored 0.

Criterion - Opportunities for transit feeder service or innovative solutions such as subscription transportation or ride-sourcing for last mile services: Weighting of 1. This criterion was scored based on suitability of land use near each corridor for implementing subscription/ride-sourcing for last mile services as follows:

 Corridors with good suitability to improve transit connections between activity centers and between activity centers and residential areas were given a score of 3;  Corridors with fair suitability were given a score of 1.5; and  Corridors with poor suitability were given a score of 0.

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 105 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Criterion - Identify high crash locations: Weighting of 5. The frequency of crashes along corridors was considered very important and critical for project goals, thus receiving a weighting of five. The number of crashes per mile on each corridor was determined based on 2014 data available on San Antonio’s MPO’s data portal. To enable comparison of corridors of different lengths, the number of crashes per mile on each corridor was calculated. Scoring of this criterion occurred as follows:

 If more than 45 crashes per mile were recorded on a corridor, it was assigned a score of 3;  If the number of crashes was between 22 and 45, a score of 1.5 was assigned; and  For corridors where the number of crashes per mile was lower than 22, a score of 0 was assigned.

Criterion - Ability of existing cross sections to accommodate Improvements: Weighting of 5. In addition to assessing the corridor as a whole, existing right-of-way and existing pavement width was also assessed within the corridor at locations such as bridges, overpasses, and ramps. In some of these locations, available width for an improvement is insufficient, usually due to the presence of bridge piers in underpasses or a narrow bridge in overpasses. These “pinch points” were classified into two categories: Major and Minor, based on visual inspection using Google Earth Imagery. Major and Minor pinch points were assigned a weights of 1 and 2 respectively to calculate a weighted average of pinch points per mile for each corridor. Scores were assigned to this criterion based on the values for average pinch points per mile as follows:

 Corridors with an average of 0.5 or fewer pinch points per mile were given a score of 3;  Corridors with more than an average of 0.5 pinch points per mile but less than 1.5 pinch points per mile received a score of 1.5; and  Corridors with an average of 1.5 or more pinch points per mile were given a score of 0.

In addition to providing an indication of the ability of a corridor to accommodate a particular improvement, this criterion also acts as a proxy for a cost factor for the corridor/strategy combination. While not an exact measure, in general, the higher the number of pinch points the more expense a corridor would be to upgrade.

Criterion - Low income/low auto ownership areas served by Tier 2 corridors: Weighting of 3. Low income families and families with no auto access were felt to potentially benefit greatly from some strategies, particularly when transit services can be improved due to strategy implementation. “Low Income” was defined as income below the poverty threshold for the county. The percent of low income population within half mile of corridor was estimated using data from the US Census Bureau’s 2010 and 2014 American Community Survey and compared with the average percent population below poverty threshold for the corresponding County/Counties. Similarly, the percentage of households with no available vehicles was also compared with corresponding County/Counties averages. Scoring was assigned as follows:

 If both the percentage of low income population within a half mile of the corridor and the percentage of household with no available vehicles exceeded corresponding County average, a score of 3 was assigned;  If only one of these statistics exceeded the corresponding County average, a score of 1.5 was assigned; and

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 106 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

 If neither percentage exceeded the County average, a score of 0 was assigned to the corridor.

Criterion - Ability to improve transit connections between activity centers, and between activity centers and residential areas: Weighting of 3. The scoring of this criterion was primarily subjective and was based on a combination of the existing transportation network and the suitability of land use near each corridor to form transit connections between activity centers and residential areas. Scoring occurred as follows:

 Corridors with good suitability to improve transit connections were given a score of 3;  Corridors with fair suitability were given a score of 1.5; and  Corridors with poor suitability were given a score of 0.

Strategy Oriented Criteria

Strategy-oriented criteria are those applied to the various managed lane strategies under consideration for this exercise. Criteria were selected, scored and weighted based on the professional knowledge and experience of the evaluation team. These assessments are therefore qualitative in nature; however, they are informed by real world experience and results from other managed lanes system deployments from around the US.

The strategy-oriented criteria used for this evaluation include the following:

 Ability to Influence Mode Choice to More Efficient Modes;  Ability to Implement Effective Lane Management;  Improved System, Intermodal, and/or Multimodal Connectivity (BOTH);  Ability to Use the ML to Develop Transit Networks to Facilitate Transit Travel; and  Potential for Transit and Carpool Time Savings.

Criterion - Ability to Influence Mode Choice to More Efficient Modes: Weighting of 3. This criterion was considered important, but was not ranked as critical due to the relatively subjective nature of the scoring. This criterion was scored based on the impact each strategy is expected to have on shifting mode choices toward more efficient modes. Strategies such as Bus on Shoulder Lanes or Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes have a direct impact on modal choice by providing benefits to transit or high occupancy vehicles and were therefore scored as 3. Strategies such as Price Controlled Express Lanes have moderate impact on mode choice and received a score of 1.5 as the lane is managed to free flow conditions and more efficient mode choices are able to access the lanes at a lower, or no, toll. Strategies such as Hard Shoulder Running for Mixed Traffic, Access Controlled Express Lanes and Truck Only Lanes are not necessarily managed to maintain free flow conditions and/or are not available to HOVs or transit and are not likely to have a positive impact on mode choice. A score of 0 was assigned to these strategies. Criterion - Ability to Implement Effective Lane Management: Weighting of 3. This criterion has a significant impact on preserving and recapturing existing capacity and on increasing person and/or vehicle throughput in the corridor. This criterion was scored based the ability of a considered strategy to effectively manage peak demand and thereby maintain throughput capacity.

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 107 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Strategies able to do this efficiently received a score of 3. Strategies able to indirectly implement effective lane management were given a score of 1.5. Strategies that do not impact effective lane management were given a score of 0. Criterion - Improved System, Intermodal, and/or Multimodal Connectivity: Weighting of 3. Improvement in intermodal or multimodal connectivity can directly reduce passenger travel time through more efficient use of the network. While important, it is a relatively qualitative assessment and was therefore weighted as 3 rather than 5. This measure was scored by looking at the transportation infrastructure in the region in a holistic manner. As such, this is the only criterion in the framework where scoring was based on the particulars of both the managed lane strategy as well as the corridor under consideration. Modes such as Auto, Freight and Air were considered when scoring corridor/strategy combinations. The Flow Controlled strategy received a 0. This is due to the fact that, while flow control increases mobility by providing better operating conditions, it does not change intermodal connectivity. On the other hand, truck only lane strategies on corridors outside of Loop 410 (including Loop 410 itself) were given a score of 3, as freight movement is significantly enhanced. For truck only strategies, corridors inside the 410 loop were scored 1.5. The change in scoring for facilities inside the 410 loop reflects the fact that through freight movements are best handled by circumferential facilities such as the 410 loop. For other strategies, including all types of express lanes, mobility inside the 410 loop increases multimodal connectivity by reducing congestion near the central business district. These strategies on corridors within Loop 410 (including Loop 410) were scored at 3, while those outside of 410 received a score of 1.5. Criterion - Ability to Use the ML to Develop Transit Networks to Facilitate Transit Travel: Weighting of 5. This criterion is critical in developing integrated, efficient transportation networks in the region and was therefore given a weight of 5. Strategies that can support an integrated transit network, including all types express lanes and hard shoulder running, received a score of 3. Strategies such as Truck Only Lanes and Flow Controlled that have little to no direct benefit for transit network development and were given a score of 0. Criterion - Potential for Transit and Carpool Time Savings: Weighting of 3. Strategies that can provide a direct benefit to transit and carpool vehicles received a 3 on this criterion. These included Bus on Shoulder Lanes, Occupancy Controlled Lanes, and Pricing Controlled Lanes. Similarly, Flow Controlled Corridors can make use of technology such as queue jumps for transit vehicles to provide a direct travel time benefit. Strategies such as Hard Shoulder Running for Mixed Traffic, Contraflow or Reversible Lanes and Access Controlled Lanes can improve operations for transit and carpool vehicles. However, these strategies provide the same benefit to general traffic and therefore given a score of 1.5. Truck Only Lanes, assuming they are not available to HOVs and busses, do not provide any major travel time benefit to transit vehicles and were scored 0. Synthesis

As discussed in the text, the various strategies and corridors are diverse. To be able to compare strategy corridor combinations, corridor/strategy scoring was performed as described above. To enable an understandable scale, options were ranked on both the total points they achieved as well as the percentage of total points available. Multiplying each criteria by the maximum score of three times the

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 108 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report weighting of that criteria and then summing the result of each criteria gives a maximum score of 225. Because of the diversity of the strategies and corridors, it is not surprising that no strategy/corridor combinations score a perfect, or even close to a perfect, score.

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 109 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

APPENDIX 2 Numerical Ranking Results

Hard Shoulder Running in Mixed Traffic

Figure 50: Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic - Numerical Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 110 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Points Rank Corridor Ranking Strategy/Corridor Ranking List (Maximum Rating within Number Score of 225) strategy 3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 180 80.0% Very good 1 2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 171 76.0% Very good 2 1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 165 73.3% Good 3 2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 165 73.3% Good 3 1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 163.5 72.7% Good 5 3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 163.5 72.7% Good 5 2B I-410 between US 281 to I-10 154.5 68.7% Good 7 5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 153 68.0% Good 8 8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 145.5 64.7% Good 9 3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 144 64.0% Good 10 3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 142.5 63.3% Good 11 3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 142.5 63.3% Good 11 8B US 281 between I-10 to I-35 138 61.3% Good 13 12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 136.5 60.7% Good 14 10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 133.5 59.3% Fair 15 3A I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 132 58.7% Fair 16 8C US 281 between I-35 to I-410 126 56.0% Fair 17 1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 124.5 55.3% Fair 18 8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 121.5 54.0% Fair 19 10B US 90 between I-35 to I-37 118.5 52.7% Fair 20 6A I-10 between I-35 to I-410 114 50.7% Fair 21 4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division 111 49.3% Fair 22 2D I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 109.5 48.7% Fair 23 5B I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 109.5 48.7% Fair 23 8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 106.5 47.3% Fair 25 11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 106.5 47.3% Fair 25 9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 102 45.3% Fair 27 2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 100.5 44.7% Fair 28 7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 99 44.0% Fair 29 4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 93 41.3% Fair 30 7A I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 87 38.7% Poor 31 9B SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 79.5 35.3% Poor 32 11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 76.5 34.0% Poor 33 2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 67.5 30.0% Poor 34 Table 21: Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic - Numerical Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 111 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Bus on Shoulder

Figure 51: Bus on Shoulder - Numerical Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 112 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Points Rank Corridor Ranking Strategy/Corridor Ranking List (Maximum Rating within Number Score of 225) strategy 3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 193.5 86.0% Very good 1 2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 184.5 82.0% Very good 2 1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 178.5 79.3% Very good 3 2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 178.5 79.3% Very good 3 1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 177 78.7% Very good 5 3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 177 78.7% Very good 5 2B I-410 between US 281 to I-10 168 74.7% Good 7 5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 166.5 74.0% Good 8 3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 157.5 70.0% Good 9 3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 156 69.3% Good 10 3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 156 69.3% Good 10 8B US 281 between I-10 to I-35 151.5 67.3% Good 12 12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 150 66.7% Good 13 10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 147 65.3% Good 14 3A I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 145.5 64.7% Good 15 8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 144 64.0% Good 16 8C US 281 between I-35 to I-410 139.5 62.0% Good 17 1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 138 61.3% Good 18 8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 136.5 60.7% Good 19 8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 135 60.0% Good 20 4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division 133.5 59.3% Fair 21 2D I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 132 58.7% Fair 22 5B I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 132 58.7% Fair 22 10B US 90 between I-35 to I-37 132 58.7% Fair 22 6A I-10 between I-35 to I-410 127.5 56.7% Fair 25 11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 120 53.3% Fair 26 9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 115.5 51.3% Fair 27 2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 114 50.7% Fair 28 7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 112.5 50.0% Fair 29 4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 106.5 47.3% Fair 30 7A I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 100.5 44.7% Fair 31 9B SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 93 41.3% Fair 32 11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 90 40.0% Fair 33 2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 81 36.0% Poor 34 Table 22: Bus on Shoulder - Numerical Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 113 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Contraflow Lanes

Figure 52: Contraflow Lanes - Numerical Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 114 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Points Rank Corridor Ranking Strategy/Corridor Ranking List (Maximum Rating within Number Score of 225) strategy Potentially 3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 180 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 177 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 171 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 168 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 166.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 165 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 165 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 163.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 163.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 2B I-410 between US 281 to I-10 154.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 8C US 281 between I-35 to I-410 150 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 147 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 145.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 142.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 3A I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 139.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 6A I-10 between I-35 to I-410 138 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 8B US 281 between I-10 to I-35 138 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 136.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 133.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 124.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 123 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division 120 0.0% N/A not viable

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 115 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Points Rank Corridor Ranking Strategy/Corridor Ranking List (Maximum Rating within Number Score of 225) strategy Potentially 2D I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 118.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 5B I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 118.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 10B US 90 between I-35 to I-37 118.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 109.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 106.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 102 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 99 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 93 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 7A I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 87 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 9B SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 79.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 76.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 67.5 0.0% N/A not viable Table 23: Contraflow Lanes - Numerical Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 116 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Reversible Lanes

Figure 53: Dual Reversible Lanes - Numerical Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 117 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Points Rank Corridor Ranking Strategy/Corridor Ranking List (Maximum Rating within Number Score of 225) strategy 1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 148.5 66.0% Good 1 9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 87 38.7% Poor 2 9B SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 64.5 28.7% Poor 3 Potentially 3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 165 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 162 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 156 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 153 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 151.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 150 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 150 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 148.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 2B I-410 between US 281 to I-10 139.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 139.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 8C US 281 between I-35 to I-410 135 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 130.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 127.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 3A I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 124.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 6A I-10 between I-35 to I-410 123 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 8B US 281 between I-10 to I-35 123 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 121.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 118.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 109.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 108 0.0% N/A not viable

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 118 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Points Rank Corridor Ranking Strategy/Corridor Ranking List (Maximum Rating within Number Score of 225) strategy Potentially 4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division 105 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 2D I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 103.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 5B I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 103.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 10B US 90 between I-35 to I-37 103.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 94.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 91.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 84 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 78 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 7A I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 72 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 61.5 0.0% N/A not viable Potentially 2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 52.5 0.0% N/A not viable Table 24: Dual Reversible Lanes - Numerical Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 119 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Access Controlled Express Lanes

Figure 54: Access Controlled Express Lanes - Numerical Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 120 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Points Rank Corridor Ranking Strategy/Corridor Ranking List (Maximum Rating within Number Score of 225) strategy 3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 171 76.0% Very good 1 2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 162 72.0% Good 2 1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 154.5 68.7% Good 3 3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 154.5 68.7% Good 3 5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 153 68.0% Good 5 1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 148.5 66.0% Good 6 2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 148.5 66.0% Good 6 3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 144 64.0% Good 8 3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 142.5 63.3% Good 9 2B I-410 between US 281 to I-10 138 61.3% Good 10 8B US 281 between I-10 to I-35 138 61.3% Good 10 12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 136.5 60.7% Good 12 10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 133.5 59.3% Fair 13 3A I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 132 58.7% Fair 14 8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 130.5 58.0% Fair 15 3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 126 56.0% Fair 16 8C US 281 between I-35 to I-410 126 56.0% Fair 16 8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 121.5 54.0% Fair 18 5B I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 118.5 52.7% Fair 19 6A I-10 between I-35 to I-410 114 50.7% Fair 20 4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division 111 49.3% Fair 21 2D I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 109.5 48.7% Fair 22 10B US 90 between I-35 to I-37 109.5 48.7% Fair 22 1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 108 48.0% Fair 24 8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 106.5 47.3% Fair 25 11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 106.5 47.3% Fair 25 2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 100.5 44.7% Fair 27 7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 99 44.0% Fair 28 4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 93 41.3% Fair 29 9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 93 41.3% Fair 29 7A I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 78 34.7% Poor 31 11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 76.5 34.0% Poor 32 9B SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 70.5 31.3% Poor 33 2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 67.5 30.0% Poor 34 Table 25: Access Controlled Express Lanes - Numerical Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 121 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes

Figure 55: Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes - Numerical Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 122 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Rank Corridor Points Ranking Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Rating within Number (Maximum Score strategy of 225) 3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 184.5 82.0% Very good 1 2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 175.5 78.0% Very good 2 1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 168 74.7% Good 3 3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 168 74.7% Good 3 5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 166.5 74.0% Good 5 1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 162 72.0% Good 6 2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 162 72.0% Good 6 3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 157.5 70.0% Good 8 3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 156 69.3% Good 9 2B I-410 between US 281 to I-10 151.5 67.3% Good 10 10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 147 65.3% Good 11 8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 144 64.0% Good 12 8B US 281 between I-10 to I-35 142.5 63.3% Good 13 12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 141 62.7% Good 14 3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 139.5 62.0% Good 15 8C US 281 between I-35 to I-410 139.5 62.0% Good 15 1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 138 61.3% Good 17 3A I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 136.5 60.7% Good 18 8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 135 60.0% Good 19 4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division 133.5 59.3% Fair 20 10B US 90 between I-35 to I-37 132 58.7% Fair 21 8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 129 57.3% Fair 22 6A I-10 between I-35 to I-410 127.5 56.7% Fair 23 2D I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 123 54.7% Fair 24 2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 123 54.7% Fair 24 5B I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 123 54.7% Fair 24 11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 120 53.3% Fair 27 7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 112.5 50.0% Fair 28 4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 106.5 47.3% Fair 29 9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 106.5 47.3% Fair 29 7A I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 91.5 40.7% Fair 31 11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 90 40.0% Fair 32 9B SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 84 37.3% Poor 33 2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 81 36.0% Poor 34 Table 26: Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes - Numerical Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 123 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Price Controlled Express Lanes

Figure 56: Price Controlled Express Lanes - Numerical Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 124 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Rank Corridor Points Ranking Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Rating within Number (Maximum Score strategy of 225) 3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 184.5 82.0% Very good 1 2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 175.5 78.0% Very good 2 1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 168 74.7% Good 3 3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 168 74.7% Good 3 5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 166.5 74.0% Good 5 1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 162 72.0% Good 6 2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 162 72.0% Good 6 3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 157.5 70.0% Good 8 3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 156 69.3% Good 9 2B I-410 between US 281 to I-10 151.5 67.3% Good 10 8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 144 64.0% Good 11 8B US 281 between I-10 to I-35 142.5 63.3% Good 12 12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 141 62.7% Good 13 3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 139.5 62.0% Good 14 8C US 281 between I-35 to I-410 139.5 62.0% Good 14 3A I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 136.5 60.7% Good 16 8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 135 60.0% Good 17 10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 130.5 58.0% Fair 18 6A I-10 between I-35 to I-410 127.5 56.7% Fair 19 4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division 124.5 55.3% Fair 20 2D I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 123 54.7% Fair 21 5B I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 123 54.7% Fair 21 10B US 90 between I-35 to I-37 123 54.7% Fair 21 1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 121.5 54.0% Fair 24 8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 120 53.3% Fair 25 11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 120 53.3% Fair 25 2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 114 50.7% Fair 27 7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 112.5 50.0% Fair 28 4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 106.5 47.3% Fair 29 9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 106.5 47.3% Fair 29 7A I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 91.5 40.7% Fair 31 11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 90 40.0% Fair 32 9B SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 84 37.3% Poor 33 2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 81 36.0% Poor 34 Table 27: Price Controlled Express Lanes - Numerical Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 125 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Truck Only Lanes

Figure 57: Truck Only Lanes - Numerical Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 126 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Points Rank Corridor Ranking Strategy/Corridor Ranking List (Maximum Rating within Number Score of 225) strategy 3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 147 65.3% Good 1 2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 142.5 63.3% Good 2 1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 139.5 62.0% Good 3 2B I-410 between US 281 to I-10 135 60.0% Good 4 3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 135 60.0% Good 4 1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 133.5 59.3% Fair 6 5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 133.5 59.3% Fair 6 2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 129 57.3% Fair 8 3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 127.5 56.7% Fair 9 3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 120 53.3% Fair 10 3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 118.5 52.7% Fair 11 8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 111 49.3% Fair 12 8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 106.5 47.3% Fair 13 8B US 281 between I-10 to I-35 105 46.7% Fair 14 12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 103.5 46.0% Fair 15 8C US 281 between I-35 to I-410 102 45.3% Fair 16 3A I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 99 44.0% Fair 17 10B US 90 between I-35 to I-37 96 42.7% Fair 18 5B I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 94.5 42.0% Fair 19 1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 93 41.3% Fair 20 10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 93 41.3% Fair 20 2D I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 90 40.0% Fair 22 6A I-10 between I-35 to I-410 90 40.0% Fair 22 4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave 87 38.7% Poor 24 8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 82.5 36.7% Poor 25 11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 82.5 36.7% Poor 25 2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 81 36.0% Poor 27 7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 79.5 35.3% Poor 28 4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 69 30.7% Poor 29 9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 69 30.7% Poor 29 11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 57 25.3% Poor 31 7A I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 54 24.0% Poor 32 9B SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 51 22.7% Poor 33 2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 48 21.3% Poor 34 Table 28: Truck Only Lanes - Numerical Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 127 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Flow Controlled Corridors

Due to their comparatively low cost and that no right-of-way on the actual mainline facility is required, Flow Controlled Corridors (adaptive ramp metering) scored well. This strategy is also the only one that can be used effectively on I-10 between 1604 and I-410, and US 281 between 1604 and the Central Business District without requiring a significant investment in the corridor.

Figure 58: Flow Controlled Corridors - Numerical Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 128 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Points Rank Corridor Ranking Strategy/Corridor Ranking List (Maximum Rating within Number Score of 225) strategy 3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 169.5 75.3% Very good 1 2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 160.5 71.3% Good 2 1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 159 70.7% Good 3 1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 157.5 70.0% Good 4 5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 157.5 70.0% Good 4 2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 154.5 68.7% Good 6 3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 153 68.0% Good 7 3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 148.5 66.0% Good 8 3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 147 65.3% Good 9 2B I-410 between US 281 to I-10 144 64.0% Good 10 3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 136.5 60.7% Good 11 8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 135 60.0% Good 12 8B US 281 between I-10 to I-35 118.5 52.7% Fair 13 12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 117 52.0% Fair 14 8C US 281 between I-35 to I-410 115.5 51.3% Fair 15 8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 115.5 51.3% Fair 15 10B US 90 between I-35 to I-37 114 50.7% Fair 17 3A I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 112.5 50.0% Fair 18 4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division 109.5 48.7% Fair 19 10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 106.5 47.3% Fair 20 5B I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 103.5 46.0% Fair 21 6A I-10 between I-35 to I-410 103.5 46.0% Fair 21 1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 102 45.3% Fair 23 2D I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 99 44.0% Fair 24 2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 99 44.0% Fair 24 8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 96 42.7% Fair 26 11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 96 42.7% Fair 26 9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 91.5 40.7% Fair 28 7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 88.5 39.3% Poor 29 4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 82.5 36.7% Poor 30 7A I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 76.5 34.0% Poor 31 9B SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 69 30.7% Poor 32 11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 66 29.3% Poor 33 2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 57 25.3% Poor 34 Table 29: Flow Controlled Corridors - Numerical Results

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 129 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

APPENDIX 3 Strategy Performance by Corridor

Total Points Rank within Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Ranking Score (Maximum of 225) corridor Corridor - 1A: Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 138 61.3% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 138 61.3% 1 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 124.5 55.3% 3 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 121.5 54.0% 4 Access Controlled Express Lanes 108 48.0% 5 Flow Controlled Corridors 102 45.3% 6 Truck Only Lanes 93 41.3% 7 Contraflow Lanes 124.5 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 109.5 0.0% N/A Corridor - 1B: Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 177 78.7% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 168 74.7% 2 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 168 74.7% 2 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 163.5 72.7% 4 Flow Controlled Corridors 157.5 70.0% 5 Access Controlled Express Lanes 154.5 68.7% 6 Reversible Lanes 148.5 66.0% 7 Truck Only Lanes 139.5 62.0% 8 Contraflow Lanes 163.5 0.0% N/A Corridor - 1C: Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 178.5 79.3% 1 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 165 73.3% 2 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 162 72.0% 3 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 162 72.0% 3 Flow Controlled Corridors 159 70.7% 5 Access Controlled Express Lanes 148.5 66.0% 6 Truck Only Lanes 133.5 59.3% 7 Contraflow Lanes 165 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 150 0.0% N/A Corridor - 2A: Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 178.5 79.3% 1 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 165 73.3% 2 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 162 72.0% 3 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 162 72.0% 3 Flow Controlled Corridors 154.5 68.7% 5 Access Controlled Express Lanes 148.5 66.0% 6

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 130 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Points Rank within Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Ranking Score (Maximum of 225) corridor Truck Only Lanes 129 57.3% 7 Contraflow Lanes 165 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 150 0.0% N/A Corridor - 2B: Loop 410 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 168 74.7% 1 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 154.5 68.7% 2 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 151.5 67.3% 3 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 151.5 67.3% 3 Flow Controlled Corridors 144 64.0% 5 Access Controlled Express Lanes 138 61.3% 6 Truck Only Lanes 135 60.0% 7 Contraflow Lanes 154.5 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 139.5 0.0% N/A Corridor - 2C: Loop 410 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 184.5 82.0% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 175.5 78.0% 2 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 175.5 78.0% 2 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 171 76.0% 4 Access Controlled Express Lanes 162 72.0% 5 Flow Controlled Corridors 160.5 71.3% 6 Truck Only Lanes 142.5 63.3% 7 Contraflow Lanes 171 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 156 0.0% N/A Corridor - 2D: Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 132 58.7% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 123 54.7% 2 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 123 54.7% 2 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 109.5 48.7% 4 Access Controlled Express Lanes 109.5 48.7% 4 Flow Controlled Corridors 99 44.0% 6 Truck Only Lanes 90 40.0% 7 Contraflow Lanes 118.5 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 103.5 0.0% N/A Corridor - 2E: Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 123 54.7% 1 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 114 50.7% 2 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 114 50.7% 2 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 100.5 44.7% 4 Access Controlled Express Lanes 100.5 44.7% 4 Flow Controlled Corridors 99 44.0% 6 Truck Only Lanes 81 36.0% 7

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 131 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Points Rank within Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Ranking Score (Maximum of 225) corridor Contraflow Lanes 109.5 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 94.5 0.0% N/A Corridor - 2F: Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Bus on Shoulder Lanes 81 36.0% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 81 36.0% 1 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 81 36.0% 1 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 67.5 30.0% 4 Access Controlled Express Lanes 67.5 30.0% 4 Flow Controlled Corridors 57 25.3% 6 Truck Only Lanes 48 21.3% 7 Contraflow Lanes 67.5 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 52.5 0.0% N/A Corridor - 3A: Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 145.5 64.7% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 136.5 60.7% 2 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 136.5 60.7% 2 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 132 58.7% 4 Access Controlled Express Lanes 132 58.7% 4 Flow Controlled Corridors 112.5 50.0% 6 Truck Only Lanes 99 44.0% 7 Contraflow Lanes 139.5 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 124.5 0.0% N/A Corridor - 3B: Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 157.5 70.0% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 157.5 70.0% 1 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 157.5 70.0% 1 Flow Controlled Corridors 148.5 66.0% 4 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 144 64.0% 5 Access Controlled Express Lanes 144 64.0% 5 Truck Only Lanes 120 53.3% 7 Contraflow Lanes 168 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 153 0.0% N/A Corridor - 3C: Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 156 69.3% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 156 69.3% 1 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 156 69.3% 1 Flow Controlled Corridors 147 65.3% 4 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 142.5 63.3% 5 Access Controlled Express Lanes 142.5 63.3% 5 Truck Only Lanes 118.5 52.7% 7 Contraflow Lanes 166.5 0.0% N/A

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 132 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Points Rank within Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Ranking Score (Maximum of 225) corridor Reversible Lanes 151.5 0.0% N/A Corridor - 3D: Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 193.5 86.0% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 184.5 82.0% 2 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 184.5 82.0% 2 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 180 80.0% 4 Access Controlled Express Lanes 171 76.0% 5 Flow Controlled Corridors 169.5 75.3% 6 Truck Only Lanes 147 65.3% 7 Contraflow Lanes 180 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 165 0.0% N/A Corridor - 3E: Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 177 78.7% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 168 74.7% 2 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 168 74.7% 2 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 163.5 72.7% 4 Access Controlled Express Lanes 154.5 68.7% 5 Flow Controlled Corridors 153 68.0% 6 Truck Only Lanes 135 60.0% 7 Contraflow Lanes 163.5 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 148.5 0.0% N/A Corridor - 3F: Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 156 69.3% 1 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 142.5 63.3% 2 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 139.5 62.0% 3 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 139.5 62.0% 3 Flow Controlled Corridors 136.5 60.7% 5 Truck Only Lanes 127.5 56.7% 6 Access Controlled Express Lanes 126 56.0% 7 Contraflow Lanes 142.5 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 127.5 0.0% N/A Corridor - 4A: Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 106.5 47.3% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 106.5 47.3% 1 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 106.5 47.3% 1 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 93 41.3% 4 Access Controlled Express Lanes 93 41.3% 4 Flow Controlled Corridors 82.5 36.7% 6 Truck Only Lanes 69 30.7% 7 Contraflow Lanes 93 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 78 0.0% N/A

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 133 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Points Rank within Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Ranking Score (Maximum of 225) corridor Corridor - 4B: Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave Bus on Shoulder Lanes 133.5 59.3% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 133.5 59.3% 1 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 124.5 55.3% 3 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 111 49.3% 4 Access Controlled Express Lanes 111 49.3% 4 Flow Controlled Corridors 109.5 48.7% 6 Truck Only Lanes 87 38.7% 7 Contraflow Lanes 120 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 105 0.0% N/A Corridor - 5A: Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 166.5 74.0% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 166.5 74.0% 1 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 166.5 74.0% 1 Flow Controlled Corridors 157.5 70.0% 4 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 153 68.0% 5 Access Controlled Express Lanes 153 68.0% 5 Truck Only Lanes 133.5 59.3% 7 Contraflow Lanes 177 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 162 0.0% N/A Corridor - 5B: Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 132 58.7% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 123 54.7% 2 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 123 54.7% 2 Access Controlled Express Lanes 118.5 52.7% 4 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 109.5 48.7% 5 Flow Controlled Corridors 103.5 46.0% 6 Truck Only Lanes 94.5 42.0% 7 Contraflow Lanes 118.5 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 103.5 0.0% N/A Corridor - 6A: Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 127.5 56.7% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 127.5 56.7% 1 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 127.5 56.7% 1 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 114 50.7% 4 Access Controlled Express Lanes 114 50.7% 4 Flow Controlled Corridors 103.5 46.0% 6 Truck Only Lanes 90 40.0% 7 Contraflow Lanes 138 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 123 0.0% N/A Corridor - 7A: Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 134 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Points Rank within Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Ranking Score (Maximum of 225) corridor Bus on Shoulder Lanes 100.5 44.7% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 91.5 40.7% 2 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 91.5 40.7% 2 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 87 38.7% 4 Access Controlled Express Lanes 78 34.7% 5 Flow Controlled Corridors 76.5 34.0% 6 Truck Only Lanes 54 24.0% 7 Contraflow Lanes 87 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 72 0.0% N/A Corridor - 7B: Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 112.5 50.0% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 112.5 50.0% 1 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 112.5 50.0% 1 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 99 44.0% 4 Access Controlled Express Lanes 99 44.0% 4 Flow Controlled Corridors 88.5 39.3% 6 Truck Only Lanes 79.5 35.3% 7 Contraflow Lanes 99 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 84 0.0% N/A Corridor - 8A: US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 136.5 60.7% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 129 57.3% 2 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 120 53.3% 3 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 106.5 47.3% 4 Access Controlled Express Lanes 106.5 47.3% 4 Flow Controlled Corridors 96 42.7% 6 Truck Only Lanes 82.5 36.7% 7 Contraflow Lanes 123 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 108 0.0% N/A Corridor - 8B: US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 151.5 67.3% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 142.5 63.3% 2 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 142.5 63.3% 2 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 138 61.3% 4 Access Controlled Express Lanes 138 61.3% 4 Flow Controlled Corridors 118.5 52.7% 6 Truck Only Lanes 105 46.7% 7 Contraflow Lanes 138 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 123 0.0% N/A Corridor - 8C: US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 139.5 62.0% 1

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 135 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Points Rank within Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Ranking Score (Maximum of 225) corridor Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 139.5 62.0% 1 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 139.5 62.0% 1 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 126 56.0% 4 Access Controlled Express Lanes 126 56.0% 4 Flow Controlled Corridors 115.5 51.3% 6 Truck Only Lanes 102 45.3% 7 Contraflow Lanes 150 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 135 0.0% N/A Corridor - 8D: US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 145.5 64.7% 1 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 144 64.0% 2 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 144 64.0% 2 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 144 64.0% 2 Flow Controlled Corridors 135 60.0% 5 Access Controlled Express Lanes 130.5 58.0% 6 Truck Only Lanes 111 49.3% 7 Contraflow Lanes 147 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 139.5 0.0% N/A Corridor - 8E: US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 135 60.0% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 135 60.0% 1 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 135 60.0% 1 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 121.5 54.0% 4 Access Controlled Express Lanes 121.5 54.0% 4 Flow Controlled Corridors 115.5 51.3% 6 Truck Only Lanes 106.5 47.3% 7 Contraflow Lanes 145.5 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 130.5 0.0% N/A Corridor - 9A: SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 115.5 51.3% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 106.5 47.3% 2 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 106.5 47.3% 2 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 102 45.3% 4 Access Controlled Express Lanes 93 41.3% 5 Flow Controlled Corridors 91.5 40.7% 6 Reversible Lanes 87 38.7% 7 Truck Only Lanes 69 30.7% 8 Contraflow Lanes 102 0.0% N/A Corridor - 9B: SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 93 41.3% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 84 37.3% 2

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 136 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Points Rank within Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Ranking Score (Maximum of 225) corridor Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 84 37.3% 2 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 79.5 35.3% 4 Access Controlled Express Lanes 70.5 31.3% 5 Flow Controlled Corridors 69 30.7% 6 Reversible Lanes 64.5 28.7% 7 Truck Only Lanes 51 22.7% 8 Contraflow Lanes 79.5 0.0% N/A Corridor - 10A: US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 147 65.3% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 147 65.3% 1 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 133.5 59.3% 3 Access Controlled Express Lanes 133.5 59.3% 3 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 130.5 58.0% 5 Flow Controlled Corridors 106.5 47.3% 6 Truck Only Lanes 93 41.3% 7 Contraflow Lanes 133.5 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 118.5 0.0% N/A Corridor - 10B: US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 132 58.7% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 132 58.7% 1 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 123 54.7% 3 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 118.5 52.7% 4 Flow Controlled Corridors 114 50.7% 5 Access Controlled Express Lanes 109.5 48.7% 6 Truck Only Lanes 96 42.7% 7 Contraflow Lanes 118.5 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 103.5 0.0% N/A Corridor - 11A: US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 90 40.0% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 90 40.0% 1 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 90 40.0% 1 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 76.5 34.0% 4 Access Controlled Express Lanes 76.5 34.0% 4 Flow Controlled Corridors 66 29.3% 6 Truck Only Lanes 57 25.3% 7 Contraflow Lanes 76.5 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 61.5 0.0% N/A Corridor - 11B: US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 120 53.3% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 120 53.3% 1 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 120 53.3% 1

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 137 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Points Rank within Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Ranking Score (Maximum of 225) corridor Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 106.5 47.3% 4 Access Controlled Express Lanes 106.5 47.3% 4 Flow Controlled Corridors 96 42.7% 6 Truck Only Lanes 82.5 36.7% 7 Contraflow Lanes 106.5 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 91.5 0.0% N/A Corridor - 12A: Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Bus on Shoulder Lanes 150 66.7% 1 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 141 62.7% 2 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 141 62.7% 2 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 136.5 60.7% 4 Access Controlled Express Lanes 136.5 60.7% 4 Flow Controlled Corridors 117 52.0% 6 Truck Only Lanes 103.5 46.0% 7 Contraflow Lanes 136.5 0.0% N/A Reversible Lanes 121.5 0.0% N/A

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 138 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

APPENDIX 4 Corridor Evaluation Results

Total Percentage Points Strategy/Corridor Ranking List of Total (Maximum Points of 225) Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 193.5 86.0% Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 184.5 82.0% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 184.5 82.0% Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 184.5 82.0% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 NE between I-37 to I- 180 80.0% 410 Bus on Shoulder Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 178.5 79.3% Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-410 between I-35N to US 281 178.5 79.3% Bus on Shoulder Lanes for Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 177 78.7% Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 177 78.7% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 175.5 78.0% Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 175.5 78.0% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 171 76.0% Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 171 76.0% Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 169.5 75.3% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between US 281 to 168 74.7% I-10 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 168 74.7% Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-410 between US 281 to I-10 168 74.7% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 168 74.7% 1604 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 168 74.7% 1604 Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 166.5 74.0% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 NW between I-410 to 166.5 74.0% Loop 1604 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 166.5 74.0% 1604 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for Loop 1604 between I-10 to 165 73.3% SH 151 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-410 between I-35N to US 165 73.3% 281 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for Loop 1604 between US 281 163.5 72.7% to I-10 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 NE between I-410 to 163.5 72.7% Loop 1604

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 139 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Percentage Points Strategy/Corridor Ranking List of Total (Maximum Points of 225) Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 162 72.0% 151 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 162 72.0% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-35N to US 281 162 72.0% Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-35N to US 281 162 72.0% Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 162 72.0% Flow Controlled Corridors for I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 160.5 71.3% Flow Controlled Corridors for Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 159 70.7% Flow Controlled Corridors for Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 157.5 70.0% Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 157.5 70.0% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 157.5 70.0% Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 157.5 70.0% Flow Controlled Corridors for I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 157.5 70.0% Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 156 69.3% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 156 69.3% Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 156 69.3% Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 156 69.3% Access Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 154.5 68.7% Flow Controlled Corridors for I-410 between I-35N to US 281 154.5 68.7% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-410 between US 281 to I-10 154.5 68.7% Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 154.5 68.7% 1604 Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 153 68.0% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-10 NW between I-410 to 153 68.0% Loop 1604 Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 153 68.0% 1604 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between US 281 to I-10 151.5 67.3% Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between US 281 to I-10 151.5 67.3% Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 281 between I-10 to I-35 151.5 67.3% Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-37 between I-410 to US90 150 66.7% Two Reversible Lanes for Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 148.5 66.0% Access Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 148.5 66.0% Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-35N to US 281 148.5 66.0% Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 148.5 66.0% Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 147 65.3% Truck Only Lanes for I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 147 65.3% Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 147 65.3% Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 145.5 64.7% Flow Controlled Corridors for I-410 between US 281 to I-10 144 64.0%

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 140 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Percentage Points Strategy/Corridor Ranking List of Total (Maximum Points of 225) Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 NE between US 90 to I- 144 64.0% 10 Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 144 64.0% Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 144 64.0% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-410 to Loop 144 64.0% 1604 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-410 to Loop 144 64.0% 1604 Truck Only Lanes for I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 142.5 63.3% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 142.5 63.3% Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 142.5 63.3% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 NE between Loop 1604 142.5 63.3% to SH 46 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-10 to I-35 142.5 63.3% Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-10 to I-35 142.5 63.3% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-37 between I-410 to US90 141 62.7% Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-37 between I-410 to US90 141 62.7% Truck Only Lanes for Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 139.5 62.0% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to 139.5 62.0% SH 46 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 139.5 62.0% 46 Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 281 between I-35 to I-410 139.5 62.0% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-35 to I-410 139.5 62.0% Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-35 to I-410 139.5 62.0% Bus on Shoulder Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 138 61.3% Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between US 281 to I-10 138 61.3% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 281 between I-10 to I-35 138 61.3% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between Division Ave 136.5 60.7% to US 90 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between Division Ave to 136.5 60.7% US 90 Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 136.5 60.7% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-37 between I-410 to US90 136.5 60.7% Truck Only Lanes for I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 135 60.0% Flow Controlled Corridors for US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 135 60.0% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between Loop 1604 to 135 60.0% SH 46 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 135 60.0% 46 Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 135 60.0%

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 141 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Percentage Points Strategy/Corridor Ranking List of Total (Maximum Points of 225) Truck Only Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 133.5 59.3% Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave 133.5 59.3% Truck Only Lanes for I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 133.5 59.3% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 90 between SH 151 to I- 133.5 59.3% 35 Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 132 58.7% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 NE between Division 132 58.7% Ave to US 90 Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 132 58.7% Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 90 between I-35 to I-37 132 58.7% Flow Controlled Corridors for US 281 between I-35 to I-410 115.5 51.3% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 281 between I-410 to 145.5 64.7% Loop 1604 Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-410 to Loop 130.5 58.0% 1604 Flow Controlled Corridors for US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 115.5 51.3% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 147 65.3% Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 130.5 58.0% Truck Only Lanes for I-410 between I-35N to US 281 129 57.3% Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 112.5 50.0% Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 136.5 60.7% Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-10 to I-35 138 61.3% Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-10 between I-35 to I-410 127.5 56.7% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 between I-35 to I-410 127.5 56.7% Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 between I-35 to I-410 127.5 56.7% Flow Controlled Corridors for US 281 between I-10 to I-35 118.5 52.7% Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-37 between I-410 to US90 136.5 60.7% Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 126 56.0% 46 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 281 between I-35 to I-410 126 56.0% Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-35 to I-410 126 56.0% Flow Controlled Corridors for I-37 between I-410 to US90 117 52.0% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for Loop 1604 between I-35 to 124.5 55.3% US 281 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 SW between SH 422 to 133.5 59.3% Division Ave Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 SW between SH 422 to 124.5 55.3% Division Ave Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between SH 151 to US 123 54.7% 90 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 123 54.7%

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 142 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Percentage Points Strategy/Corridor Ranking List of Total (Maximum Points of 225) Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-410 between US 90 to I-35 114 50.7% Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between Division Ave to 132 58.7% US 90 Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 NW between Loop 1604 123 54.7% to SH 46 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 123 54.7% 46 Flow Controlled Corridors for US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 106.5 47.3% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 between I-35 to I-37 132 58.7% Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 between I-35 to I-37 123 54.7% Flow Controlled Corridors for US 90 between I-35 to I-37 114 50.7% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 138 61.3% 281 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 121.5 54.0% Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 121.5 54.0% 46 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 281 between Loop 1604 121.5 54.0% to SH 46 Truck Only Lanes for I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 120 53.3% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 SW between SH 422 to 111 49.3% Division Ave Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between Fair Ave to I- 129 57.3% 10 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 120 53.3% Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 120 53.3% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 W between I-410 to SH 120 53.3% 151 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 120 53.3% Flow Controlled Corridors for Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 102 45.3% Truck Only Lanes for I-410 between US 281 to I-10 135 60.0% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-410 between SH 151 to US 109.5 48.7% 90 Truck Only Lanes for I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 118.5 52.7% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-10 NW between Loop 1604 109.5 48.7% to SH 46 Flow Controlled Corridors for I-10 between I-35 to I-410 103.5 46.0% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 90 between I-35 to I-37 118.5 52.7% Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 133.5 59.3% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 281 between Fair Ave to 106.5 47.3% I-10 Bus on Shoulder Lanes for SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 115.5 51.3%

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 143 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Percentage Points Strategy/Corridor Ranking List of Total (Maximum Points of 225) Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between US 90 to I-35 123 54.7% Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between US 90 to I-35 114 50.7% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-10 between I-35 to I-410 114 50.7% Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 between I-35 to I-410 114 50.7% Flow Controlled Corridors for I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 103.5 46.0% Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 112.5 50.0% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 112.5 50.0% 1604 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 112.5 50.0% Flow Controlled Corridors for US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 96 42.7% Truck Only Lanes for I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 127.5 56.7% Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 SW between SH 422 to 111 49.3% Division Ave Truck Only Lanes for US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 111 49.3% Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 109.5 48.7% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-410 between US 90 to I-35 100.5 44.7% Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave 109.5 48.7% Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 118.5 52.7% 46 Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 between I-35 to I-37 109.5 48.7% Access Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 108 48.0% Flow Controlled Corridors for I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 99 44.0% Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 106.5 47.3% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 106.5 47.3% 422 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 106.5 47.3% Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 106.5 47.3% Truck Only Lanes for US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 106.5 47.3% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for SH 151 between Loop 1604 to 106.5 47.3% I-410 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I- 106.5 47.3% 410 Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 90 W between I-410 to 106.5 47.3% SH 151 Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 106.5 47.3% Truck Only Lanes for US 281 between I-10 to I-35 105 46.7% Truck Only Lanes for I-37 between I-410 to US90 103.5 46.0% Truck Only Lanes for US 281 between I-35 to I-410 102 45.3% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for SH 151 between Loop 1604 102 45.3% to I-410 Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between US 90 to I-35 100.5 44.7%

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 144 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Percentage Points Strategy/Corridor Ranking List of Total (Maximum Points of 225) Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 100.5 44.7% Flow Controlled Corridors for I-410 between US 90 to I-35 99 44.0% Truck Only Lanes for I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 99 44.0% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 99 44.0% 1604 Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 99 44.0% Truck Only Lanes for US 90 between I-35 to I-37 96 42.7% Flow Controlled Corridors for US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 96 42.7% Truck Only Lanes for I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 94.5 42.0% Truck Only Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 93 41.3% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 93 41.3% 422 Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 93 41.3% Access Controlled Express Lanes for SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I- 93 41.3% 410 Bus on Shoulder Lanes for SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 93 41.3% Truck Only Lanes for US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 93 41.3% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 91.5 40.7% Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 91.5 40.7% Flow Controlled Corridors for SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 91.5 40.7% Truck Only Lanes for I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 90 40.0% Truck Only Lanes for I-10 between I-35 to I-410 90 40.0% Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 90 40.0% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 W between Loop 1604 90 40.0% to I-410 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I- 90 40.0% 410 Flow Controlled Corridors for I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 88.5 39.3% Truck Only Lanes for I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave 87 38.7% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 87 38.7% Two Reversible Lanes for SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 87 38.7% Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for SH 151 between I-410 to US 84 37.3% 90 Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 84 37.3% Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 82.5 36.7% Truck Only Lanes for US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 82.5 36.7% Truck Only Lanes for US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 82.5 36.7% Truck Only Lanes for I-410 between US 90 to I-35 81 36.0% Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 81 36.0%

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 145 Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Total Percentage Points Strategy/Corridor Ranking List of Total (Maximum Points of 225) Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-35 to 81 36.0% Somerset Rd Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 81 36.0% Truck Only Lanes for I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 79.5 35.3% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for SH 151 between I-410 to US 79.5 35.3% 90 Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 78 34.7% Flow Controlled Corridors for I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 76.5 34.0% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 90 W between Loop 1604 76.5 34.0% to I-410 Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I- 76.5 34.0% 410 Access Controlled Express Lanes for SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 70.5 31.3% Truck Only Lanes for I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 69 30.7% Truck Only Lanes for SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 69 30.7% Flow Controlled Corridors for SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 69 30.7% Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-410 between I-35 to 67.5 30.0% Somerset Rd Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 67.5 30.0% Flow Controlled Corridors for US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 66 29.3% Two Reversible Lanes for SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 64.5 28.7% Flow Controlled Corridors for I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 57 25.3% Truck Only Lanes for US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 57 25.3% Truck Only Lanes for I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 54 24.0% Truck Only Lanes for SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 51 22.7% Truck Only Lanes for I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 48 21.3%

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 146