UC Berkeley Earlier Faculty Research Title A Comparison of High Occupancy Vehicle, High Occupancy Toll, and Truck-Only Lanes in the Sacramento Region Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/493389jw Authors Rodier, Caroline J. Johnston, Robert A. Publication Date 1999-03-01 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California A Comparisonof High Occupancy Vehicle, High OccupancyToil, and Truck Only Lanes in the SacramentoRegion Caroline J Rodler Rob¢rt A Johnston UCTC No 422 The University of California Transportation Center Umversltyof Cahforma Berkeley, CA94720 The University of California Transportation Center The Umversity of Cahfomm Center actlvlttes Researchers Transportation Center (UCTC) at other umversmes w~thm the ~s one of ten regional umts regmn also have opportunmes mandated by Congress and to collaborate w~th UCfaculty estabhshed m Fall 1988 to on selected studies support research, educatmn, and training in surface trans- UCTC’seducatmnal and portation The UC Center research programs are focused serves federal Region IX and on strateglc planning for is supported by matching zmprowng metropohtan grants from the U.S Depart- accessibility, with emphasis ment of Transportatmn, the on the specml condmons m Calfforma Department of RegmnIX Particular attentmn Transportation (Caltrans), and ~s d~rectedto strategies for the Umverslty using transportatlon as an instrument of economac Based on the Berkeley development, while also ac- Campus, UCTCdraws upon commodating to the regmn’s exlstmg capabll~tles and persistent expansmn and resources of the inst, tutes of while maintaining and enhanc- Transportation Stud,es at ing the quahty of hfe there Berkeley, Davls, Irvme, and Los Angeles, the Insutute of The Center dastnbutes reports Urban and RegmnaI Develop- on ,ts research an workang ment at Berkeley, and several papers, monographs, and m acadermc departments at the repnnts of pubhshed amcles Berkeley, Davis, Irwne, and It also pubhshes Access, a Los Angeles campuses magazine presenting sum- Faculty and students on other manes of selected studies For Umverslty of Cahforma a hst of pubhcatmns m pnnt, campuses may pammpate m write to the address below DISCLAI~ER Thecontents of this report reflect the wews of the authors, who are responsablefor the facts and the accmacy of the ~formahon presented Umversatyof California hereto.ThFs document ISdJs~emma~ed~ ~under the spons~rsb, lpof the Transportation Center Departmentof Transportation, Umvers~ty T"ansporz~m~l Cente;s Program, mthe interest of mformat~onexchange TheU S Governmentassumes no 108Naval Arehatecture Building Berkeley, Cahfomm94720 I~ablhtyfor the contents oruse thereof. Tel 510/643-7378 FAX510/643-5456 Thecontents of tlus report reflect the ,newsof the author whoas responsible for the facts and accuracyof the data presentedhereto The contents do not necessarily reflect the officml viewsor pohc~esof the State of Cahfommor the U S Departmentof TransponataonTtas report does not constatute a standard, specaficatxon,or regulatmn A Comparisonof High OccupancyVehicle, High OccupancyToll, and TruckOnlyLanes in the Sacramento Region A Report to the Umversltyof Cahfornla Transportation Center by Caroline J Rodler and Robert A Johnston Department of Environmental Sclence and Pohcy Unxverslty of Cahfomla One Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 March l9, 1999 Rodier, Carohne. (530) 757 -2791 (phone); (530) 752-3350 (fax); c]rodler@ucdavls edu Johnston, Robert. (530) 582-0700 (phone); (530) 782-0707 (fax); ra}olmston~ucdavls ABSTRACT As the evidence mounts that HOVlanes will not produce expected reductions m congestion and emission, alternatives are being sought High occupancytoll (HOT)lanes and truck only lanes are attractive alternatives In this study, a region-widesystem of new HOVlanes, HOTlanes, and truck only lanes m the Sacramentoregion are comparedThe travel effects are stmulated with the Sacramentoregional travel demand model (SACMET96)The economic benefits for both personal travel and commercial vehicle travel are obtained from economicwelfare models developedfor use with the travel model The DTIM2model IS used for the emassIons results The scenarios are evaluated against travel, emissions, total economicbenefit, and equity criteria With respect to travel and emissions, the results did not vary muchamong scenarios but the economicbenefit results did have more significant variation The scenarios that included HOTlanes producedeconomic benefits that were clearly superior to the other scenarios As a result, it is concludedthat the economicwelfare modelsapplied m this study can be useful tools m the analysis of transportation policies 2 INTRODUCTION To date nearly 1,200 miles of high occupancyvehicle (HOV)lanes have been built m the U S Federal and state policies currently promoteHOV lane projects In air quality non- attainment regions, HOVlanes are virtually the only roadwayprojects approved The rational behind these policies is that HOVlanes foster carpoolmgand transit use and thus will reduce congestlon and emissions However,Increasingly the evidence has suggested that HOVlanes may not produce expected reductions in congestion and emissions (Dalgren, 1996, Johnston and Ceerla, 1996, Rodler and Johnston, 1997) As a result, alternat~.ves to HOVlanes are being considered High occupancytoll (HOT)lanes are one attractive alternative HOTlanes have been implementedon State Route 91 in Orange County, CA, I-15 in San Diego, CA, and 1-10 (Katy) m Houston, TX Manyother regions are actively considering HOTfacilities Truck Only lanes are another alternative to HOVlanes m corridors with high volumesof truck travel Truck freight travel is expected to growrapidly within the next decadewith the potential to increase congestion and emissions and heighten public concern over truck accidents that are dlspropomonatelyfatal The Congestion ManagementSystems mayfavor the approval of proJects that include Track Only lanes (Martin and Coogan, 1995) The Transportation EqmtyAct for the 21~t Century (1998) or TEA-21recogmzes the importance of efficient movementof both people and goods" and reqmres that transportation projects and plans be evaluated for econormcefficiency However,to date, there xs a discrepancy between these requirements and the planning methodsused by metropohtan transportatlon organizations (MPOs)Coogan (1996) describes ad performancemeasures currently used by MPOsto evaluate freight planning, which are not measures of economicefficiency and do not meet TEA-2l’s requirements Efficiency measures based on the correct application of economictheory should be adopted by all MPOsto meet TEA-21’srequirement and to facilitate a rational comparisonand integration of reformation about freight and personal mobdltyacross states and the U S In this study, a region-wide system of new HOVlanes m the Sacramentoregion is comparedto a system of HOVlanes and Truck O~ylanes for the year 2015 The travel effects are s~mulated with the Sacramentoregional travel model (SACMET96)This modelcan be classified as representative of the state-of-the-practlce travel demand model Modelsto obtain the economicbenefits for both personal travel and commercial vehicle travel are developed by us for use with the SACMET96model The DTIM2 modelis used for the emissions results The scenarios are evaluated against travel, emissions, total economicbenefit, and equity criteria BACKGROUND Recent evidence has challenged the rationale behind the adoption of HOVlane projects, namelythat HOVlanes foster carpoohngand transit use and thus will reduce congestion and emissions Rodier and Johnston (1997) simulate an extensive system of HOVlanes m the Sacramentoregion for the year 2015 They find, comparedto a no-build scenario, only a modest reduction m congestion, an increase in emissions, and a loss m economic benefits whenthe unobservedprivate cost of additional auto travel is considered Johnston and Ceerla (1996) also fred that new HOVlanes mayincrease vehicle miles traveled (VMT)and thus emissions comparedto a no-braid scenario Joy Dalgren (1996) develops a model to estimate person-delay and emissions for a numberof HOVand general purpose lane alternatives She finds that HOVlanes will only be moreeffective m reducing congestion and emissions than general purpose lanes whenthere is a high level of congestion and a high proportion ofHOVsm the general purpose lanes Alan Plsarski (1996) finds that nationwide carpoohngto workhas declined by 19%during the 1980s and that average vehicle occupancyhas dechned from I 17 m 1970 to 1 09 m 1990, despite the increase in HOVlanes As the evidence mounts that HOVlanes may not dehver expected reductions in congestion and emissions, HOTlanes are increasingly becomingan attractwe alternative HOTlanes allow non-ca-pools and somecarpools to use HOVlanes by paying a toll HOTlanes have been implementedon State Route 91 in Orange County, CA, I-15 In San ]Diego, CA, and 1-10 (Katy) in Houston, TXSince the State Route 91 Express Lanes opened in December1995, there has been a reduction in peak period congestion on adjacent non-toll lanes (ARDFA,1997) However,this reduction in congestion was due to the combinationof the openingof the express lanes as well as the openingof Metrohnkrail hnes which serves the same corridors These two improvements essentially doubled the person-carrying capacity of the comdorIn San Diego, the HOT lanes on 1-15 have been open since December1996 There has been considerable demandfor use of these HOTlanes (ITE Task Force, 1998) as well as an 11%increase