TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. Report No. 3. Recipienl't CaWog No. UMTA/TX-89/1-925-3 S. Report Date High-Occupancy Vehicle Project Case Studies History and Institutional December 1990 Arrangements 1. AUl.bm(•) &. Pezforming Orpniwio11 Report No. Katherine F. Turnbull Technical Report 925-3 9. Performill& Orpniwioa Name ud Addnm 10. Wodt UAil No. Texas Transportation Institute Texas A&M University System 11. Conlract or Gnat No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Study No. 2·11-89/1-925 13. 1yPe of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation P.O. Box 5051 . Austin. Texas 78763 15. Supplememary Noces Research performed in cooperation with DOT, UMTA. Technical Study Title: An Assessment of Freeway High-Occupancy Vehicle Projects 16. Abstncl This report presents an analysis of the history and institutional arrangements associated with high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) projects in Houston, Texas; Minnea~lis - St. Paul, Minnesota; Orange County, California; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Seattle, Washington; and Washington, D.C./Northern Virginia. The report provides a summary of the elements common to the different projects, and a detailed description of the background and institutional arrangements associated with each of the case studies. The analysis includes an examination of the reasons behind the development of the projects, the background and history of the facilities, a discussion of the relevant issues associated with the HOV projects, and roles and responsibilities of the different agencies and organizations involved in the process. The analysis was conducted to identify common elements and unique characteristics leading to the implementation and operation of the HOV facilities. 17. Key Words No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161 19. Sealrily a-it (of thill n:pol'I) 20. Sccwily c..it. (of Ibis page) 21. No.of...,.. Unclassified Unclassified 326 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-69) METRIC (SI*) CONVERSION FACTORS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS Symbol WIHln You Know Multiply ly To Find Symbol Symbol WMn You Know Multlptr By To Find Sy111bol LENGTH .. ... LENGTH - .. - mm mllllmetres 0.039 Inches In In Inches 2.54 centimetres cm m metres 3.28 feet ft It feet 0.3048 metres m m metres 1.09 yards yd yd yards 0.914 metres m - ~ • km kilometres 0.821 miles ml km a ml miles 1.81 kilometres - - - ~ - - AREA AREA .. - = :! - mm• millimetres squared 0.0016 square Inches ln 1 - = !:: m• metres squared square feet 1 ln1 square lnche1 945.2 centimetres squared cm I 10.78' ft km1 kilometres squared 0.39 square mlles ml 1 ft' square feet 0.0929 metres squared m• - =-- :! yd' square yards 0.836 metres squared m• .. - ha hectores (10 000 ml) 2.53 acres ac - ::!! ml1 square mllea 2.59 kilometres squared km• - ~ ac acres 0.395 hectares ha : MASS (weight) - :: .. 0 grams 0.0353 ounces oz MASS (weight) :: kg kilograms 2.205 pounds lb - = Mg megagrams (1 000 kg) 1.103 short tons T oz ounces 28.35 grams g - = = lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg .. - ~ ~ VOLUME T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams Mg - .. ~ ml mlllllltres 0.03-4 fluid ounces fl oz - L lltres gallons gal .. ~ 0.264 VOLUME .. m• metres cubed 35.315 cubic feet ft' - m• metres cubed 1.308 cubic yards yd' fl oz fluld ounces 29.57 mlllllltres ml - = .. gal gallons 3.785 ntres L .. - = .. ft• cubic feet 0.0328 metres cubed m• - - TEMPERATURE (exact) yd' coble yards 0.0765 metres cubed m• ... - E "C Celsius 915 (then Fahrenheit OF NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown In m'. - ==- temperature add 32) temperature OF - .,, 32 98.8 212 - - 1 TEMPERATURE (exact) 3 - -~.I I~ I I~~ •• I f!O. bo''~. I • ~. I .2?0J =-- • - 40 I - io I 0 iO I i 80 I Jo I 100 ! - -- " ~ ~ ~ Of Fahrenheit 519 (alter Celslus "C temperature subtracting 32) temperature These factors conform to the requirement of FHWA Order 5190.1A. • SI ts the symbol for the International System of Measurements IDGH OCCUPANCY VEIDCLE PROJECT CASE STUDIES History and Institutional Arrangements By Katherine F. Turnbull Assistant Research Scientist Technical Report 925-3 An Assessment of Freeway High-Occupancy Vehicle Projects Technical Study 2-11-89/1-925 Sponsored by Texas Department of 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 December 1990 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. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Summary of Case Study Findings . 1 Introduction . 1 Background and Purpose . 2 Report Organization . 3 Summary of Common Elements . 3 Common Characteristics in the Decision-Making Process .... 3 Common Characteristics in the Implementation Process . 6 Conclusion . " . 8 II. HOV Project Case Studies . 11 Houston, Texas - Richard J. Kabat, Texas Transportation Institute . 13 Minneapolis - St. Paul, Minnesota - Katherine F. Turnbull, Texas Transportation Institute . 4 7 Orange County, California - Charles Fuhs . 101 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania- Kilareski and Mason, P.C. ...... 173 Seattle, Washington - G. Scott Rutherford . 217 Washington, D.C./Northern Virginia: Shirley Highway - JHK & Associates . 251 Washington, D.C./Northem Virginia: I-66 - JHK & Associates . 277 iii I. SUMMARY OF CASE STUDY FINDINGS Introduction The Texas Transportation Institute (IT!), a part of The Texas A&M University System, is conducting an assessment of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) projects located either on freeways or in separate rights-of-way in North America. The three-year research study is being funded by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration through the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). The research study includes an overall assessment of the status of HOV projects on freeways and in separate rights-of-way in North America, an examination of procedures for conducting before-and-after evaluations of HOV facilities, and detailed examinations of specific case study HOV projects. 1 One of the major elements of this assessment is the detailed examination of selected HOV facilities in six case study sites. High-occupancy vehicle facilities in Houston, Texas; Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota; Orange County, California; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Seattle, Washington; and Washington, D.C./northem Virginia represent the selected case study sites. An intent of the case study analysis is to provide an examination of the history, institutional arrangements, operating characteristics, utilization rates, and impact of selected HOV projects in different parts of the country. This report contains the analysis of the history and institutional arrangements associated with HOV projects in the six case study sites. The report provides a summary of the elements common to the different projects, and a detailed description of the background and institutional arrangements of each case study. 1The first two elements of the three-year research study, the examination of existing HOV projects in North America and procedures for evaluating HOV facilities, have been completed. The reports, A Description ofHigh-Occupancy Vehicle Facilities in North America and Suggested Procedures for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Freeway HOV Facilities, are available through the United States Department of Transportation Technology Sharing Program. 1 Backcround and Pur:pose Since the opening of the Shirley Highway exclusive bus lanes in the Washington, D.C. area in 1969, numerous metropolitan areas have developed priority facilities on freeways for high-occupancy vehicles. As of April, 1990, there were some 40 HOV facilities in 20 metropolitan areas in operation on either freeways or in separate rights-of-way. These facilities, while sometimes differing in design and operation, have similar purposes. In general, HOV facilities are intended to help maxi~ze the person-carrying capacity of the roadway. This is done through altering the design and/or the operation of the facility in order to provide priority treatments, such as travel time advantages and improved travel time reliability, for high­ occupancy vehicles (HOVs). High-occupancy vehicles are usually defined as buses, vanpools, and carpools. In order to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the variety of factors associated with the planning, implementation, operation, and evaluation of HOV facilities, a series of case studies is being conducted of selected HOV projects. The case study sites were selected to provide a mix of old and new projects, HOV design treatments, and geographic coverage. One element of the case study analysis focuses on the history of the HOV projects and the institutional arrangements associated with the planning, development, implementation, and ongoing operation of the facilities. This analysis includes an examination of the reasons behind the development of the projects, the background and history of the facilities, a discussion of relevant issues associated with the HOV projects, and the roles and responsibilities of the different agencies and organizations involved in the process. The analysis was conducted to identify common elements, as well as the unique characteristics, leading to the implementation and operation of the HOV facilities. 2 Report Or2anization This report presents the