SUGGESTED PROCEDURES for EVALUATING the EFFECTIVENESS of FREEWAY HOV FACILITIES by Katherine F
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. UMTA/TX-91/925 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Suggested Procedures for Evaluating the Effectiveness of February 1991 Freeway HOV Facilities 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Katherine F. Turnbull, Russell H. Henk, Dennis L. Christiansen Technical Report 925-2 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Texas Transportation Institute Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843 11. Contract or Grant No. Technical Study 2-11-90/1-925 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation; Transportation Planning Division P.O. Box 5051 Austin, Texas 78763 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Research Performed in cooperation with DOT, UMTA Research Study Title: An Assessment of Freeway High-Occupancy Vehicle Project 16. Abstract This report presents the results of the state-of-the-art review of evaluation practices used with different high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane projects in North America. Based on this review, suggested procedures are outlined for conducting before-and-after evaluations of freeway HOV facilities and ongoing monitoring activities. Evaluation studies of HOV facilities in Washington, D.C./Northern Virginia, Los Angeles, Houston, Seattle, Minneapolis, Orange County, Santa Clara County, and Fort Lee, New Jersey are examined. Based on this review, a general approach is presented for designing and conducting evaluations of freeway HOV facilities. This includes a discussion of the overall steps in the evaluation process, and the suggested objectives, measures of effectiveness, threshold ranges, and data needs. A more detailed discussion of the specific data collection techniques and methodologies needed to conduct the examination is also presented. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Facilities, No restrictions. This document is available Busways, Transitways to the public through the: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 152 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-69) SUGGESTED PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FREEWAY HOV FACILITIES by Katherine F. Turnbull Assistant Research Scientist Russell H. Henk Assistant Research Scientist and Dennis L. Christiansen Research Engineer Technical Report 925-2 An Assessment of Freeway High-Occupancy Vehicle Projects Technical Study 2-11-89/1-925 Sponsored by Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation in Cooperation with the United States Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Administration Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843 February 1991 This study was financed in part through a grant from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, United States Department of Transportation, under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT A National Peer Group, comprised of representatives from federal, state, and local agencies, university research institutes, and consulting firms, assisted with the review of the draft of this report. The Peer Group provided a valuable contribution to ensuring the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the final report. The following individuals are thanked for their assistance as members of the National Peer Group. Dr. Donald Capelle, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Mr. Edward Collins, Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation Mr. Donald Emerson, Urban Mass Transportation Administration Mr. Les Jacobson, Washington State Department of Transportation Dr. Dolf May, University of California, Berkeley Mr. Allen Pint, Minnesota Department of Transportation Mr. Jim Robinson, Federal Highway Administration Mr. Morris Rothenberg, JHK & Associates In addition, TTI staff members Robert Stokes, Robert Wright, and Wanda Hinshaw provided valuable assistance on the literature search, current Houston data collection procedures, and statistical analysis procedures, respectively. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I.Introduction...............................................................................................................................1 Background.........................................................................................................................1 Organization of This Report...............................................................................................2 II.Purpose and Benefits of HOV Project Evaluations...................................................................5 Purpose and Scope of HOV Project Evaluations................................................................5 Benefits of Conducting Before-and-After Evaluations...................................................................................................................6 Audiences for HOV Evaluations........................................................................................7 Objectivity/Third Party Evaluations...................................................................................8 III.HOV Facility Evaluations - Summary of Existing Practices....................................................9 Development of HOV Facilities and Evaluation Programs......................................................................................................................9 Literature Review Summary.............................................................................................11 Review of Selected HOV Evaluation Studies...................................................................15 Shirley Highway HOV Lanes, Northern Virginia......................................................16 San Bernardino Freeway Busway, Los Angeles........................................................22 Houston HOV Lanes..................................................................................................24 I-5 HOV Lanes, Seattle..............................................................................................28 I-394, Minneapolis.....................................................................................................29 Route 55 Commuter Lanes, Orange County, California............................................32 Santa Clara County, California, Commuter Lanes.....................................................34 I-95 HOV Lane, Fort Lee, New Jersey......................................................................35 Summary...........................................................................................................................36 IV.The Overall Approach for Evaluating Freeway HOV Facilities.............................................37 Suggested Approach.........................................................................................................38 v TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page Suggested Objectives, Measures of Effectiveness, Thresholds, and Data Needs..........................................................................................................41 Summary...........................................................................................................................50 V.Suggested Data Collection Techniques...................................................................................53 Freeway Vehicle and Occupancy Counts.........................................................................57 Travel Time Data..............................................................................................................71 Surveys.............................................................................................................................77 Safety and Accident Information......................................................................................81 Violation Rates.................................................................................................................82 Data Reduction and Analysis............................................................................................83 Staffing and Resources.....................................................................................................88 Issues Associated With Data Collection Activities..........................................................91 Summary...........................................................................................................................98 V.Conclusion...............................................................................................................................99 References.............................................................................................................................101 Bibliography..........................................................................................................................103 Appendix A - Katy HOV lane User Survey.................................................................................129 Appendix B - Katy HOV lane Carpool/Vanpool Survey.............................................................133 Appendix C - Katy Freeway Motorist Survey.............................................................................137 Appendix D - Additional Examples of the Application of Statistical