THE HOV EXPERIENCE

HOV Lessons from the Dulles Toll Road

JOSEPH R. STOWERS

In what appeared to be a replay of the Santa Monica Freeway Diamond Lane debacle several years ago, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) diamond lane operations on the Dulles Toll Road in Fairfax County, Virginia, were stopped after one month of controversial operation in 1992, and the lanes were opened to all traffic. The deci­ sion to halt operation of the HOV lanes, at least temporarily, occurred during two congressional races and involved thou­ sands of angry, petitioning commuters bogged down in Level of Service (LOS) F conditions during most of the 2.5-hour morning peak period. Commuters often spent a half hour or longer on the 14-mile route.

Outbound car pools in Dulles Toll Road lane, Fairfax, Virginia. History Repeats Itself

The Santa Monica Freeway Diamond Lane experience is recalled because it was the because of the intensity of the reaction of road are limited to on-ramps in the air­ most controversial and well-publicized motorists, the high profile of the contro­ port-bound direction and off-ramps in the case where already congested lanes were versy, and the removal of a lane from gen­ other direction. The toll road provides taken from general traffic for HOV use. It eral traffic use for HOV use when existing local access and egress at most major cross was also an early (1976) major diamond traffic volumes were in excess of the routes for tolls that range from 25 to 85 lane HOV demonstration project-one capacity of the remaining non-HOV lanes. cents, depending on the distance. that should have resulted in important However, it differs from the Santa Monica The access road was built at the same lessons learned for planners of all future situation in some important respects and time as the airport in the early 1960s to HOV projects. It was a complete failure offers some new lessons to be learned for provide high-speed access to the then­ from a public relations and political per­ planning future HOV systems. remote location about 30 miles from spective, but in the few weeks before it downtown Washington, D.C. To preserve was shut down, data show that it was an free-flow service into the long-term future, operational success on the basis of mea­ Background on Dulles Corridor the access road was designed to serve air­ sures of throughput, transit ridership, car port traffic only; however, space was pooling, energy consumption, and carbon The Dulles Toll Road is an 18-mile-long reserved for future roadways that could monoxide concentrations. Unfortunately, radial highway in Fairfax County, Virginia, provide local service. the lessons learned from that experience that runs parallel to the Dulles Airport About a decade ago, after substantial have not been communicated effectively. Access Road from an outer suburban loca­ development had occurred and congestion Thus, it is important to examine the (sim­ tion (Route 28) near the Dulles Airport to on parallel routes had become a problem, ilar) story of the Dulles Toll Road HOV another radial freeway (I-66) in the inner the toll road was built in the Dulles corri­ debacle. suburb of Arlington County, about 6 miles dor right-of-way as a four-lane facility. The Dulles Toll Road HOV experience from downtown Washington, D.C. The Rapid development continued throughout resembles the Santa Monica experience toll road consists of the two outer road­ the rest of the 1980s, in part due to service ways of a dual-dual highway. The two improvements provided by the toll road, interior roadways comprise the access resulting in regularly occurring peak­ Joseph R. Stowers is President, SYDEC, Inc., road, which provides service only to and period congestion by the end of the Reston, Virginia. from the airport. Ramps on the access decade. To help alleviate this congestion, a

TR News 170, January-February 1994 5 THE HOV EXPERIENCE

Dulles Toll Road Future Westbound transit SOURCES: American Automobile Association, Virginia Department of Transportation .HOV-3 DULLES ACCESS ROAD (4-6:30 p.m.) Figure 1 Dulles Toll Road and carpool lanes. decision was made to widen the toll road became the nation's first major barrier­ from near the Beltway to near Dulles Air­ to six lanes, and, as part of a planned separated HOV facility. Today, after sev­ port. At that time no commitment had areawide HOV grid network, to dedicate eral extensions, the two 1-95 HOV lanes been made to serve HOV traffic for the the two inner lanes to HOV during peak serve more people than any other HOV main part of the toll road; however, for a periods. At the time , this decision was facility in the country and serve more peo­ several mile section between 1-66 and an widely supported by local officials and ple during peak periods than the six non­ interchange near the Beltway, the Dulles community organizations, who pressured HOV lanes. The lanes were originally highway serves only HOV traffic and air­ Virginia officials to begin HOV operations operated under a four-occupant HOV port-bound traffic. Also, when the Federal when the new lanes were first opened to (HOV-4) restriction, with high LOS, but Aviation Administration granted the ease­ traffic. as a result of a congressional mandate, ment to the state for the toll road in 1983, However, the lessons from the Santa they are now operated as HOV-3, with it specified that the Virginia Department of Monica diamond lane debacle had not reduced LOS. Transportation (VDOT) should "expedite been learned. The new toll road lanes In the early 1970s, then Secretary of the flow of high occupancy vehicles dur­ were first opened to all traffic , then con­ Transportation William Coleman resolved ing the peak hours in the peak direction" verted to HOV operations after commuters a long-standing controversy over plans if traffic congestion on the toll road had enjoyed free-flow conditions for a few for construction of another radial free­ impeded the flow of HOVs. weeks. When the HOV operations began way, 1-66, inside the Washington Beltway Traffic growth was so great on the the day after Labor Day 1992-one of the (I-495) through Arlington County by Dulles Toll Road that planning for a heaviest traffic days of the year-the LOS requiring that the highway be limited to widening project was initiated in 1985. went from A to F, and opposition to HOV four lanes and that it be operated as an Projected traffic on the original four lanes went from being an occasional dissent to HOV facility in the peak direction. 1-66 for the design period had been 47,000 the dominant transportation issue in the now carries more people during the peak vehicles per day, but by the time widening region. period, peak direction than could be car­ was completed in 1992, traffic had grown ried if the lanes were open to all traffic, to 76,000 in the peak-volume section. By and it carries them at a good LOS, whereas 1990, when daily traffic had reached Actions Leading to HOV Lane major backups would undoubtedly occur 73,000 in the peak section, LOS F was Opening if the HOV-3 lanes were open to all traffic. occurring in the peak period over about HOV lanes were recently opened on half the length of the toll road. Northern Virginia has had two major 1-66 for several miles outside the Beltway. Meanwhile, because of the success of HOV facilities in successful operation for Subsequently, as a result of experience in the HOV system in Northern Virginia and some time and has recently planned an the Dulles corridor and further study of because of overwhelming support from ambitious "grid" of interconnecting HOV the issue, the Virginia Commonwealth local governments, citizen groups, and routes. Transportation Board (CTB) decided to others at the design hearing in 1988, both During the mid-1960s, then Federal change the designation of these lanes from houses of the state legislature unanimously Highway Administrator Lowell Bridwell HOV-3 to HOV-2 on a temporary basis passed a bill in 1989 requiring that the took the initiative to have a busway oper­ until the level of HOV traffic approaches new lanes of the Dulles Toll Road be ate during reconstruction of the Shirley capacity. reserved for HOVs during the peak Highway, the northern part ofl-95 in Vir­ Meanwhile, the outer lanes of the period, peak direction. According to one ginia approaching Washington, D.C. On Dulles highway were constructed as a toll of the authors of the legislation, the leg­ completion, the reversible center two lanes road and opened in 1984 to general traffic islative intent was that the new lanes be

6 TR News 170, January-February 1994 THE HOV EXPERIENCE

opened for HOV use from the beginning. ies. One of the key features of the plan was Employment is highly concentrated in the However, the language of the bill was not an "HOV grid," with several interconnect­ regional core and at Tysons Corner (the entirely clear on this point, and a period of ing radial and circumferential routes, inner end of the Dulles Toll Road)-the debate about safety, HOV volumes, and served by a new network of express buses nation's largest suburban center or "edge other issues followed for the next 1.5 years operating between all major suburban city." Employment in the corridor is without a firm decision on the HOV lanes, centers with timed-transfer connections at highly concentrated in office space, which while construction proceeded. transit centers and rail stations. The net­ is most conducive to ridesharing. The After considerable pressure from local work included a Dulles corridor HOV average trip length in the corridor is quite governments, citizen groups, and legisla­ facility connecting with other new HOV long. Congestion levels are high along all tors, and after extended negotiations with routes on the Beltway, and eventually, the parallel radial routes, and it is the most the airports authority over design details, Fairfax County Parkway (an outer circum­ rapidly growing corridor in the Washing­ CTB resolved in December 1990 to have ferential route). ton, D.C., metropolitan area. the new lanes opened as diamond lanes. Although strong support for HOV Unfortunately, lengthy construction As a result of the negotiations with the air­ existed among elected officials, local and delays occurred on the Dulles Toll Road ports authority, CTB committed several regional agencies, and community organi­ widening project, and traffic congestion million dollars to the construction of a fly­ zations, this support was largely based on continued to worsen. ln mid-1991, CTB over ramp to serve traffic from the airport an understanding of the cost-effectiveness decided to open sections of the widened to Tysons Corner, Virginia (a major of HOV systems, not on broad popular toll road to all traffic. Eventually, the employment center about 15 miles from enthusiasm. A newspaper report during entire length of the new lanes was opened the airport), so that this traffic would not this period showed that a small majority to all traffic before VDOT was prepared to have to weave across the diamond lane responding to a smvey supported the pro­ initiate HOV operations. Traffic conditions and the other two toll road lanes. vision of additional HOV lanes in the went from LOS F for a substantial portion Also during the late 1980s, then Gov­ communities served by the major HOV of the morning peak over a several mile ernor Gerald Baliles undertook a major routes, but that a small majority county­ stretch to free-flow conditions. During the effort to develop a new transportation plan wide did not support such facilities. This summer of 1992, before HOV restrictions for Northern Virginia. After an intensive suggests that HOV systems must be man­ were imposed on the new lanes, traffic effort, with in-depth involvement from a aged and marketed well to gain sufficient was undoubtedly diverted from parallel large citizens' committee, local elected offi­ support for an ambitious HOV develop­ routes, so that volumes grew to well over cials, and local agency staffs, a plan was ment program. the capacity of the original two lanes in developed and adopted in concept by Conditions in the corridor were almost each direction. This intensified the level of most local governments and regional bod- ideal for success of an HOV facility. congestion that occurred when the HOV restrictions were imposed. Other unfortunate conditions have become clear in retrospect. HOV restric­ tions were first imposed on the Tuesday after Labor Day, traditionally one of the worst traffic days of the year because it marks the end of vacations, the beginning of school, and the beginning of a new ses­ sion of Congress. Travel time that day, at its worst, was 45 minutes-an average of 18 mph for the 14-mile stretch. Congres­ sional campaigns were hitting full stride, and one candidate sent an anti-HOV mail­ ing to all registered voters in the district. On more than one occasion, candidates stirred up anti-HOV protests. The only major park-and-ride lot in the corridor was filled to capacity early each morning before the new HOV lanes were put in operation. No new bus service was added, and little was done to make new Number of drivers using car pools on Dulles Toll Road grew rapidly during opening parking spaces available. Prominent signs weeks of HOV lane operation, but lane use appeared low. were installed announcing the coming of HOV restrictions, but there were no spe-

TR News 170, January-February 1994 7 THE HOV EXPERIENCE

Decision to Stop HOV Operations

The decision was made to suspend HOV operations by CTB, following Governor Douglas Wilder's decision that the state would take this action on its own instead of being forced to do so by the federal government. Congress had just passed an appropriations bill that was about to be signed by the President that included a provision preventing HOV restrictions untiljuly 1, 1993, on any toll road on fed­ eral land (i.e., the Dulles Toll Road). The provision was inserted as part of the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee action in drafting the bill by Congressman Frank Wolf, who repre­ sented most of the affected commuters, and it passed without debate or challenge by Virginia officials. After the 1992 election and 3 months HOV users were offered their own lane through the toll plaza. into the 9-month "cooling off period" required by the appropriations bill, CTB extended the ban on HOV on the Dulles Toll Road until April 1, 1994, to provide cial marketing efforts for transit and 7 percent of the peak-period toll-road more time for (a) citizen involvement, (b) ridesharing in the corridor. users were ridesharing before HOV­ full consideration of several HOV and During the first 8 days of HOV opera­ about 300 carpools during the peak related alternatives being analyzed by tion, VDOT made several speed runs dur­ period. This grew rapidly to about 600 by VDOT and a special advisory task force, ing the peak periods. The average time the second week of operation, compared and (c) opportunity for the state legisla­ loss for single-occupant vehicles (SOVs) with 360 carpools at the beginning of ture to review the results of the task force using the conventional lanes was 4:29 HOV operation on the Shirley Highway­ effort and any subsequent decisions made during the morning peak and 2:40 during the most successful HOV facility in the by CTB and to consider possible legislative the afternoon peak, compared with the country in terms of persons served. By the action in the 1994 session. average travel time of about 14 minutes end of the month of operation, despite over the 14 miles of the HOV lanes. How­ widely publicized efforts to stop HOV ever, the variation in travel times was sig­ operations, the average number of people Alternatives for Possible nificant. On 5 of 39 morning speed runs, legally using the HOV lanes was approach­ Future HOV Systems SOVs took more than 10 minutes longer ing that of each of the other two lanes. than HOVs, with the worst cases requiring VDOT expected that within 3 months the Several alternatives to reimposing three­ approximately 30 minutes extra travel HOV lanes would be carrying more people occupant HOV (HOV-3) restrictions on a time. The evening conditions were less than each of the other two lanes in the diamond lane of the toll road were ana­ severe; only 2 of 44 speed runs had more peak direction. Based on the experience of lyzed by the HOV advisory task force, than 10 minutes extra travel time, with the the first month, this was a conservative including the following: worst case being about 17 minutes extra. projection. After HOV operations ceased, condi­ Like the Santa Monica experience, the • Two-occupant HOV (HOV-2) restric­ tions returned to relatively freer flow, with short-lived Dulles Toll Road HOV experi­ tions; LOS C or better during most of the peak ence showed strong evidence of proving to • Construction of a temporary reversible period. However, projections are for con­ be a substantial success based on technical HOV lane in the median for use until a rail gestion to continually worsen, with LOS E criteria, but it was a complete failure from transit system is built; expected in 1994 and LOS F in 1996 in the political and transportation manage­ • Addition of a shoulder lane (a fourth the peak travel sections. Surveys show that ment perspectives. lane in each direction) on the toll road, and

8 TR News 170, January-February 1994 THE HOV EXPERIENCE

the designation of one lane as HOV (pre­ fourth lane in each direction, but urges that their worst. Open them when traffic con­ sumably the original HOV lane-the left the access road lanes be used as an interim ditions are moderate, well before worst­ lane); HOV facility until construction of the new case conditions are expected. • Construction of a fourth lane in each lanes is completed. The task force also rec­ • Do not open portions of completed direction (the shoulder would be retained), ommends implementation of a comprehen­ facilities to all traffic before HOV opera­ achievable within the available right-of-way sive program involving improvements in tion starts, and certainly do not open the by narrowing all lanes from 12 to 11 feet. transit service, park-and-ride facilities, and entire new facility to all traffic. • Opening of Dulles Airport Access interchanges, together with a marketing • Document the reasons for HOV fail­ Road lanes to HOV traffic (the inner lanes, program. ures elsewhere and make this information which currently serve only airport traffic available to all elected officials and other and commuter bus operations) (an alterna­ responsible leaders in metropolitan areas tive that is opposed by the airports author­ Lessons Learned where HOV improvements are planned. ity); and • Educate the public about HOV sys­ • Contraflow HOV lanes with movable Unfortunately, the Santa Monica lesson tems, which have much higher capacity, barriers. had to be relearned in the Dulles corridor: almost always serve more people, and do do not take space away from general traf­ more to alleviate congestion than building Reimposing HOV restnct10ns, even fic for diamond lanes in the peak period additional conventional lanes. HOV-2, on the existing toll road would be unless capacity remains available for gen­ • Make all elected and other responsi­ extremely difficult, given the intensity of eral traffic. This lesson should not have to ble officials aware that HOV facilities can­ the controversy and the continued growth be relearned in other future HOV corri­ not easily be put in place in the future in traffic, which nearly reaches capacity on dors. In addition to this one major lesson, when congestion occurs and space for the three lanes during the morning peak at however, the Dulles HOV experience widening is not available. a critical merge point where the heaviest offers several other lessons: • Make all elected officials and other entrance-ramp volume occurs. responsible officials aware that HOV use Despite the debacle, support for some • Do not open HOV facilities during usually starts at a modest level but builds form of HOV incentives exists among local election campaigns unless there is firm up to a level at which HOV lanes carry officials and community organizations. The support from elected officials. To do so is more people than general traffic lanes. most popular alternative is opening of the to invite candidates to campaign against • Develop an areawide strategy for airport access road to HOV. However, HOV, invite violations, and almost guar­ HOV system development, including tim­ opposition of the airports authority to this antee failure. ing of new facilities and all services. Build has remained adamant. The task force has • Do not open HOV facilities when consensus around the strategy, adopt it, instead recommended construction of a traffic conditions are expected to be at and regularly update it. • Develop a comprehensive HOV im­ plementation program for each corridor, including a major marketing effort, im­ proved transit services, park-and-ride spaces, consensus building among all lead­ ers in the corridor, and careful control over timing of each element of implementation.

Frequent signing on Dulles Toll Road provided information on HOV lane eligibility and hours of operation. Buffer area helped promote safe separation of traffic operation.

TR News 170, January-February 1994 9