Congestion Management /
Crash Mitigation Process
HOV, Reversible Lanes and
On/Off Peak
Parking Strategies
“Doing more with less”
Technical Memorandum #1
July 31, 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Congestion Management / Crash
Mitigation Process
HOV, Reversible Lanes and On/Off Peak
Parking Strategies
Technical Memorandum #1
Prepared for:
Hillsborough County
Metropolitan Planning Organization
P.O. Box 1110
Tampa, FL 33601
Ph. (813) 272-5940, Fax (813) 272-6258
Prepared by:
Michael Baker Jr., Inc.
4503 Woodland Corporate Blvd, Suite 400
Tampa, FL 33614
Ph. (813) 889-3892, Fax (813) 889-3893
July 31, 2012
Table of Contents
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Page
Section 1:
Introduction……………………………………………………..….……1-1
Section 2:
On-Off Peak Parking Strategies...………………………… ………2-1
Overview of the study
14th Street, Washington, DC
Main Street, Richmond, VA
Miami Avenue, Miami, FL
General Conclusions
Similar Local Examples
Florida Avenue
Tampa, FL
Section 3:
Reversible Lane Strategies……….……………………………..….…3-1
Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC
Tyvola Road, Charlotte, NC
7th Street/7th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ
General Conclusions
Similar Local Examples
Bloomingdale Avenue,
Hillsborough County, FL
Section 4:
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Strategies…………………………4-1
Patrick/Henry Street, Alexandria, VA
Santa Fe Drive, Denver, CO
Downtown Dual Diamond, Houston, TX
General Conclusions
Similar Local Examples
Bruce B. Downs
Hillsborough County, FL
Appendix:
Case Study Interviews ………….……………………………..…….A-1
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Section 1:
Introduction
Currently the Tampa Bay area is the 10th most congested area in the country with the
average commuter cost and time rising dramatically thru the year 2035. The following
maps demonstrate roadway expansion projects needed in Hillsborough County to ease
congestion from expected growth by the year 2035 and the cost to mitigate by new or
reconstructed roadway capacity projects. Most of the projects shown are unfunded
and the possibility of future funds unlikely.
If certain funding sources become
available, the level of service will still be inadequate as demonstrated.
The Hillsborough MPO is faced with finding solutions to assist the local governments
to meet these transportation challenges.
The best way to do so is to work within
existing right of way’s and use available lanes in more effective ways, “Doing More
With Less”.
The primary objective of this study is to document long term uses of proactive
measures on arterial corridors as researched from other agencies throughout the
United States and illustrate the benefits of these congestion management measures to
be considered within the Metropolitan Planning Area of Hillsborough County, Florida.
This report summarizes three strategies in particular that have been in place within
major cities of the United States.
The strategies consist of existing On/Off Street
Parking Restrictions, Reversible Lane options and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane
usage.
This is the first of two technical memoranda which document the successes
taken for congestion problems and the opportunities to face the challenge and
overcome issues.
These findings to be shared with transportation stakeholders in
Hillsborough County.
With “state of the art” congestion management measures being used throughout the
United States, the metropolitan Hillsborough County area needs to consider “tried and
true” measures to reduce traffic delays.
Page 1-1
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Cost estimate:
$15 billion
Congested Roads –
Year 2035
Page 1-2
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Overview of the study
The Hillsborough County, Florida, Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is
conducting this Congestion Management Study (CMS) with five (5) tasks to be
accomplished.
The first task is to contact nine (9) agencies throughout the United
States that have accomplished congestion management practices with case studies.
This Technical Memorandum #1 is the working document of the first task
demonstrating results of the interviews. Second, provide in a workshop setting the
results from the agency interviews with transportation stakeholders from the
Hillsborough County Area. Third, with input from the workshop, the team will identify
Hillsborough County arterial corridors, with similar conditions, to consider for
implementation. With the stakeholders on track, the fourth task will be to provide a
second workshop with the original stakeholders for potential implementations of
congestion management practices.
Last, the final Technical Memorandum #2 will
provide an executive summary of the findings with recommendations.
Agencies Contacted
Richmond, Virginia
Washington, D.C.
Miami, Florida
Phoenix, Arizona
Houston, Texas
District Dept. of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Denver, Colorado
Alexandria, Virginia
Charlotte, North Carolina
Page 1-3
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Section 2:
North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida
On / Off Peak Parking Strategies:
On/off peak parking strategies allows for on-street parking designated times with
restrictions during peak traffic times of the day. The concept is used when an arterial
has an extreme peak hour traffic flow in any direction that requires as much capacity
of the pavement section that can be handled safely. During the off peak traffic flow in
any direction, the arterial can handle on street parking without disruption of capacity
or safety.
The added benefit of this treatment is to preserve or promote business
opportunities along the urban arterial corridor. This strategy is highly cost-effective
as the process involves public involvement, signs and markings and with no new
construction or right of way needs.
The following project managers in cities from around the country were interviewed and
provided questions concerning issues and obstacles, factors about the corridor and the
implementation strategies for on/off peak parking. The arterial corridors were from
mid- level to large population centers throughout the United States. These strategies
are demonstrated on the following pages.
The general conclusions and sample
corridors in Hillsborough County with similar conditions are discussed as possible
candidates as part of phase two of this study.
Page 2-1
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study
On/Off Peak Parking Restrictions, Arterial Corridors
14th Street, 2900 to 3300 block, Washington, D.C.
The District Department of Transportation (DDOT), Washington DC, was charged with
the need to create more parking in the District, particularly around the museum areas
and business core areas when capacity of the corridor was not critical. 14th Street was
chosen as a pilot corridor in particular near a museum. The success of this application
has been very positive with high turn-over parking, full utilization of spaces and high
end technology of cell phone pay options.
I.
Benefits, Issues and Obstacles
a. New to the area commuters consider this option as a hindrance to traffic
flows. Day to day usage has proved the understanding of this need and
the simplicity of time of day restriction consistency has brought positive
reactions from commuters.
b. Enforcement is challenging in transient parking areas. With the intense
amount of rental car usage, the difficulty of violation penalty return is
un-timely.
c. Takes time for commuters and local business and resident users to get
used to restrictions.
Shop owners typically adjust their hours of
operations to the restricted hours of parking.
d. Requires specific signage. Signage costs are minimal and the key is very
clear understanding of the time of operation
for restricted parking.
e. Deliver
vehicles
require
special
parking
areas. Typically at the ends of the parking
restricted areas delivery vehicles need 15
minute loading and unloading parking.
f. Restricted parking has been successful. The
14th Street
business, museum and general public have embraced the on-off peak
parking and this strategy has been implemented in other areas of the
City.
Page 2-2
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
II.
Other facts about the system
a. Utilization of infrastructure capacity
i. During non-peak travel times, when vehicle capacity is not an
issue, on-street parking is an effective usage of expensive public
owned right of way.
ii. When peak vehicle capacity is required, full usage of the pavement
right of way is available.
b. Safety
i. Crashes have not been a major issue.
The only real issues of
minor crashes have been prior to the allowed parking time and the
movement out of the designated lane.
ii. Very difficult for bicycle commuters and not recommended as a
route for bicycle usage.
With the dynamic operation of timed
parking and no parking, very difficult for the cyclist to maneuver in
and out of the lane area
iii. Sidestreet and driveway access may be a visual concern when
exiting. Prior to providing on street parking, access management
policies should be reviewed for side street visibility and sidewalk
concerns.
c. Land use/economic development impacts
i. Major incentive for businesses and residential needs. It has clearly
been found that business support is overwhelming and that
residents appreciate the opportunity to park in front of their
property during certain times of the day.
Providing on street
parking encourages development.
ii. Potential for revenue source. With the latest technology in parking
monitoring available, Cities can claim a positive return on their
investments with innovative visitor monthly passes, cell phone
user fees, etc.
Page 2-3
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
III.
DDOT’s recommendations for implementing on/off peak parking restrictions
a. Success!!! The Business community has widely accepted this action as an
opportunity to better serve the neighbors as a convenience and a safer
plan than lot parking.
b. Community input has been invaluable in adjusting parking times and
violation proceedings.
Allowing visitor passes on a monthly basis has
been a time saving and cooperative measure for the City.
c. Community input is critical. Let the neighborhood have their say. You
would be amazed at the positive powerful impact that will come from this
meeting.
d. Provide an excellent monitoring and action plan. Use the data received
from the meetings with the public to achieve an excellent rapore with the
neighborhood.
Page 2-4
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study
On/Off Peak Parking Restrictions, Arterial Corridors
Main Street, 15th Street East to 25th Street East, Richmond, Va.
The City of Richmond, Virginia, is in the midst of revitalizing the downtown near the
Interstate with refurbished housing, business grants, corner markets, etc. with the
intention of growth returning to the core of the City. The need for parking was a key
issue as part of this growth and creative solutions were born. One such solution was
to transform Main Street in the heart of downtown to an on – off peak parking strategy.
The idea is to allow parking on Main Street during those times of day when traffic
capacity is not a problem and casual parking can occur. Main Street has been a huge
success for this new development and growth while still providing traffic capacity
during the rush hours for motorists.
I.
Benefits, Issues and Obstacles
a. The City Transportation planners and engineers worked very closely with
the community and found no real issues.
b. Generally a successful restriction. In the beginning the commuters were
not engaged in the lane changes as part of the allowed parking. Over
time and with signage revisions, the system was a success.
c. Provides needed alternative parking for the downtown area and
businesses. The residential areas were being
bombarded with business overflow parking
and permits now had to be provided with
restricted
parking
in
the
neighborhoods.
Allowing on street parking during off peak
periods solved the issue.
d.
Older section of downtown with grid streets. The grid
Main Street
street network allowed parkers to revolve around the block to find spaces
instead of making U-turns etc. This was a positive geometry condition.
e. City code authorizes these parking strategies. The public works director
provided a parking campaign with strategies to the City Council. One of
these strategies was the on-off peak parking and was widely accepted.
f.
With the backing of the City Council, this program is very successful and
well accepted by the businesses and public.
Page 2-5
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
II.
Other facts about the system
a. Utilization of infrastructure capacity
i. Even though Main Street carries approximately 20,000 vehicles per
day, the parking restrictions worked very well.
ii. During non-peak travel times, a very strong usage of all available
parking is capitalized.
This has been a catalyst for new
development in this area, and when peak vehicle capacity is
required, full usage of the pavement right of way is available.
b. Safety
i. Crashes have not been a problem due to speed limit reductions in
this area.
ii. Bicycle usage has been re-routed to the side streets within the grid
pattern for safety.
iii. The Public Works and Police staff worked with the community on
driveway access and delivery vehicle options.
c. Land use/economic development impacts
i. Allowing parking during off-peak traffic periods has changed the
whole appearance of the main Street area.
More pedestrians,
shoppers, business patrons.
ii. As business became more successful and parking became a
premium, special parking monitoring or meters were considered
for economic boost to the area.
iii. With sustainability comes a new idea. The City and neighborhood
created incentives for “GREEN” vehicle usage.
III.
Richond’s
recommendations
for
implementing
on/off
peak
parking
restrictions
a. The success of leased buildings has proven the effect of on-street
parking during the off-peak travel times. This has been a success for our
downtown.
b. Stay in touch with the business community and residents of the area.
New ideas can come from friendly chatter.
Page 2-6
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study
On/Off Peak Parking Restrictions, Arterial Corridors
North Miami Avenue, 20th street to 56th Street, Miami, Florida
I.
Benefits, Issues and Obstacles
a. The challenge was more of an understanding of time of day and
direction. This street has no parking northbound in the evening and no
parking southbound in the morning.
b. After several weeks of the installation, the businesses and general public
that uses these businesses understood the restriction.
c. The businesses needed the off-peak parking as the overflow would
spread into the surrounding neighborhood which was a problem.
d. There is an extremely heavy traffic pattern southbound in the a.m. of
which we restrict parking.
parking northbound.
Then in the evening, 4-6 pm, we restrict
The northbound is more difficult because of the
afternoon shoppers to control.
e. The
implementation
was
very
simple
involvement was critical for this success.
II.
and
inexpensive.
Public
Other facts about the system
a. Utilization of infrastructure capacity
i. North Miami Avenue carries approximately 30,000 vehicles per day
with a very high percentage of directional split. Approximately 25
% of the daily volume is entering southbound in the morning and
25% of the volume traveling northbound in the evening’s
ii. It has amazed the staff how the business patrons and visitors have
recognized these parking restrictions and have not been a big
problem.
iii. Vandalism of signs has been a problem but is no different than any
other signs we install.
b. Safety
iv. We do not have any records
of
major
accounted
crashes
for
by
as
the
restrictions.
Page 2-7
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
v. Our bicycle plan does not utilize this corridor because of the
extensive commuter traffic and parking restrictions.
Alternative
bike routes are available.
vi. As part of the driveway access to the businesses, The City worked
with the owners of the property to share how the parking
allowance and restrictions would function.
Some driveways
became obsolete in the process.
c. Land use/economic development impacts
vii. Most of the business we spoke with preferred the parking
allowance during both times of the day. However the peak traffic
flow is so demanding in the morning southbound and demanding
the evening northbound we cannot allow both sides during both
peaks.
viii. There was discussion of parking meters as an option but not in
this area. Restricting metering has helped the businesses grow.
III.
Miami’s recommendations for implementing on/off peak parking restrictions
a. The desire to have on street parking is vital to businesses in the
downtown Miami area. As this part of downtown has a rich history of
small parcels of land, providing parking on these parcels is next to
impossible. Street parking has become a way of life.
Due to this limit
of land, the City worked with the community and the traffic needs during
the peak times and developed parking strategies along North Miami
Avenue for on-off peak parking. This has been extremely successful for
all parties.
Page 2-8
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study
On/Off Peak Parking Restrictions, Arterial Corridors
Table 1: Case Study Areas
Quick Facts
Total
Population
Washington, DC 601,723
Richmond, VA
Miami, FL
204,214
399,457
Population
Density
9,856.5/sq. mi
3,414.7/sq. mi
11,135.9/sq. mi
Source: U.S. Census 2010 Quick Facts
General Conclusions
•
There must be a dedicated enforcement program
•
Performance/variable based parking rates should be considered if a financial
policy is in place
•
Community oriented feedback is extremely important
•
Latest technology in hardware/software is critical for convenience
•
Sensitive enforcement programs should be considered
•
It is important to understand the needs when implementing On/Off Peak
Parking Restrictions
o
Limited parking restrictions requires visible/detailed signage
o
Limited parking restrictions requires time to adjust by users
o
Limited parking restrictions can be detrimental to bicycle routing
o
Limited parking restrictions requires enforcement and monitoring
Specific research was conducted on several corridors as shown on the following pages.
Page 2-9
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Florida Avenue
Site ID:
County:
FD_105067
Hillsborough
Number of Lanes (Directional):
Description:
SR 685/BUS US 41/N FLORIDA AVE, NORTH OF US 92/HILLSBOROUGH AVE
2
Volume (15 min)
500
400
300
200
NB
100
SB
0
Page 2-10
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Section 3:
Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D.C.
Reversible Lane Strategies:
Reversible Lane strategies are used when the peak direction traffic flow is dominant
during a specific time of day, when underutilized roadway lanes can be converted to
assist in the peak directional flow and when safety can be managed with driver
expectations understood. This technique is a highly cost-effective method of creating
additional roadway capacity without significant construction cost, environmental or
property impacts. For a highly directional facility, such a strategy would be a small
fraction of the cost of a full symmetric widening.
The Hillsborough County Area has experienced the use of reversible lane technology
dating back to the early 1970’s. At that time the directional split in traffic volumes on
the Howard Franklin Bridge, Interstate 275, was severe enough that overhead
illuminated lane usage signs were used for control.
More recently, the Selmon
Expressway was converted to an elevated reversible lane facility between Tampa and
Brandon, Florida.
The reversible lane arterial corridors that were selected for this case study were also
from mid-level to large population centers throughout the United States.
Page 3-1
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
The interviews with the selected cities yielded positive results, issues and obstacles as
well as factors about the corridor and the implementation strategies. These findings
are detailed on the following pages.
The general conclusions are presented and a
Hillsborough arterial corridor is identified as a possible candidate for reversible lane
treatment.
Page 3-2
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study
Reversible Lanes, Arterial Corridors
Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC
The District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DCDOT) elected to convert
Connecticut Avenue to a reversible lane facility many years ago to serve the directional
traffic flows that exist each morning and afternoon in this corridor. Due to the mature
nature of the land use and lack of building set-backs in many of the blocks, the idea of
a traditional widening was completely out of the question. With the urban grid street
system found in Washington DC, it is easy to understand that no community would
want their street to be the ‘sacrificial’ corridor to be selected to carry the heavy
demand via a reversible lane concept.
This required DCDOT to make the hard
decision, looking at the larger responsibility of moving all people, to select certain
streets for this treatment. Alternatives to implementing a reversible lane facility could
certainly include increased investment in transit modes, HOV strategies, peak/off-peak
parking strategies, widening of parallel streets or construction of freeway capacity
nearby. Although any transportation strategy has pros and cons, reversible lanes were
ultimately selected for Connecticut Avenue. Below is a listing of key benefits, issues
and obstacles associated with reversible lanes on Connecticut Avenue.
I.
Benefits, Issues and obstacles
a. Highly effective at moving daily peak direction flows of traffic
b. Accomplished with very little cost and implementation time
c. Did not require construction of additional lanes within the immediate
corridor or the construction of parallel capacity nearby to serve same
demand. These alternatives would have been impossible in this environment
d. Not perceived as conducive to local economic development because of
emphasis on through-traffic, deemphasizing the needs and wants of
pedestrians, residents and communities
e.
The legal left turns are permissive rather than protected – causes safety
concerns
f. Some left turns are prohibited from corridor – this creates some undesired
cut-through traffic in surrounding neighborhoods
Page 3-3
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
g. DDOT has noticed that the center-most lanes are often underutilized due to
lack
of
positive
barrier
between
directions of travel
h. Corridor has high percentage of tourist
(National Zoo, etc.) – this population
group
may
not
be
familiar
with
reversible lane concept and operation
II.
Other facts about the system (Source: Dey,
Connecticut Ave, Washington DC.
Aden, Ma; ITE Journal, 2011)
a. Utilization of infrastructure capacity
i. Reversible segment shows high peak hour (K) factor, ranging from .09
to .10
ii. Peak direction accounts for 70 percent of bidirectional traffic
iii. Three times as many crashes as Mass. Avenue comparable, but only
40 percent more traffic
b. Safety
i.
18-30% of crashes occur during Reversible Lane hours, but same
hours account for 30-35% of traffic
ii. Connecticut Avenue had greater number of head-on, sideswipe
crashes than comparable non reversible lane facilities
c. Land use/economic development impacts
i. Eliminates potential for planted medians
ii. Some perceive this format as pro commuter/anti resident (through
traffic vs. community)
III.
DDOT’s recommendations for implementing a new reversible lane system
a. Evaluate existing and future land uses
b. Consider and study reversible lanes as well as a range of other alternatives
before making final decision
Page 3-4
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
IV.
Other noteworthy reversible lane systems in Washington DC
a. Canal Road
i. Current state: operational and generally considered a successful
model due to the longer distances between intersections and the fact
that through traffic makes up a larger percentage of the traffic stream
when compared to Connecticut Avenue
ii. Background/Function: links residential areas of Maryland and Virginia
to Georgetown and downtown Washington, DC
iii. Facility type: minor arterial with very few intermediate access points
iv. Segment length: 3 mile reversible lane segment
v. Total number of lanes: 2 lanes; Reversible configuration: 2:0 (full oneway)
vi. Control strategy – roadside signs and VMS
vii. Hours of operation – 2.5 hours in a.m. and 2.5 hours in p.m.
viii. Managing/operating agency – DDOT with help from DC Metro Police
Page 3-5
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study
Reversible Lanes, Arterial Corridors
Tyvola Road, Charlotte, NC
The Tyvola Road reversible lane system was specifically implemented to accommodate
the heavy directional traffic demand associated with a sports arena.
Due to the
infrequent nature of this need, the system was designed to be staffed with up to 20
police officers that would place cones and direct traffic to ensure smooth operations.
The corridor still relied on overhead changeable electric signs as well as the staffing
described above. Below is a listing of key benefits, issues and obstacles associated
with reversible lanes on Tyvola Road.
I.
Benefits, Issues and Obstacles
a. Highly effective at moving peak direction flows of traffic during special
events
b. Avoided the tremendous right-of-way that would have been necessary to
offer a symmetric facility with the same peak direction capacity.
c. Fiber-optic signals are costly to maintain (e.g. problems with transformers) –
note: this technology may have
become stronger since it was
used at Tyvola Road
d. Significant manpower required
to implement the use of the
Tyvola reversible system since it
was only implemented during
major events at a sports arena
II.
Tyvola Road, Charlotte. Overhead signs
along reversible lane segment.
Other facts about the system
a. While the function of the roadway was considered a success, its use has been
discontinued since the major sports arena was moved to another location.
Page 3-6
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
III.
Other noteworthy reversible lane systems in Charlotte
a. Parkwood Avenue
i. Current state: reversible lanes were retired in 2000 after residents
cited high vehicle speeds and accidents. Divided median replaced
reversible center lane following a traffic study
ii. Background/Function:
“spoke”
roadway
that
was
converted
to
reversible lane system to address peak period congestion
iii. Total number of lanes: 5 lanes; Reversible configuration: 3:2
b. Seventh Street
i. Current state: operational
ii. Background/Function: NCDOT hoped to widen Seventh Street to 4lanes to reduce congestion, but encountered heavy community
opposition. The public engagement eventually lead to reversible lanes
iii. Total number of lanes: 3-4 lanes depending on the segment
iv. Reversible configuration: 2:1, 3:1
Seventh Street, Charlotte. Overhead signs
along reversible lane segment.
Seventh Street, Charlotte. Schematic
shows cross-section of the reversible lane
section of the corridor.
Page 3-7
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study
Reversible Lanes, Arterial Corridors
7th Street and 7th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ
The City of Phoenix elected to convert 7th Street and 7th Avenue to reversible lane
facilities many years ago to serve the directional traffic flows that exist each morning
and afternoon in this corridor.
The circumstances and constraints of these two
Phoenix corridors are quite similar to that described for the Washington DC case study.
Due to the mature nature of the land use and lack of building set-backs in many of the
blocks, the idea of a traditional widening would have been extremely unpopular. With
the urban grid street system found in this portion of Phoenix, the City needed to make
some hard decisions, looking at the larger responsibility of moving all people, to select
certain streets for this treatment.
Where DCDOT made a unilateral decision about
Connecticut Avenue, the City of Phoenix involved a stakeholder committee approach to
agree on the idea of reversible lanes and identifying corridors for treatment.
Alternatives to implementing a reversible lane facility could certainly include increased
investment in transit modes, HOV strategies, peak/off-peak parking strategies,
widening of parallel streets or construction of freeway capacity nearby. Although any
transportation strategy has pros and cons, reversible lanes were ultimately selected for
7th Street and 7th Avenue.
Below is a listing of key benefits, issues and obstacles
associated with reversible lanes on these corridors.
I.
Benefits, Issues and Obstacles
a. Highly effective at moving daily peak direction flows of traffic
b. Accomplished with very little cost and implementation time
c. Did not require construction of additional lanes within the immediate
corridor.
Parallel freeway capacity was indeed constructed since the
reversible lanes were originally put into service but the regional growth in
travel demand was so great their use was continued and remains today.
d. Business opposition – stating that reversible lanes reduce access and
profitability due to a perception that people customers find it more difficult
to locate their businesses.
July 2012
Page 3-8
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
e. Density for new development is perceived as limited because of lack of leftturn capacity from corridors. This was an unexpected effect that showed up
in Traffic Impact Studies for new development.
f. Mid-block left turns are somewhat uncomfortable from inner lanes because
the
turning
protection
traffic
or
vehicles
from
lack
opposing
rear-approaching
traffic
g. Neighborhood
cut-through
traffic due to prohibited left
turns at some intersections.
Drivers
sometimes
turn
left
one
block
before
7th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ.
upcoming prohibited turn and traverse through side streets.
h. Conflicts between Council Districts over traffic generation and routing.
Some Council members would talk about ‘your traffic coming through our
district’
II.
Other facts about the system
a. City has an ad-hoc citizen task force that watches over anything associated
with reversible lanes – the group is currently proposing more enforcement
b. Speeding is not significantly different on these lanes when compared to a
non-reversible peer facility
c. Reversible lanes carry substantial amount of peak traffic
i. Utilization AM peak: 30.0% (7th Street) and 26.0% (7th Avenue)
ii. Utilization PM peak: 17.0% (7th Street) and 14.0% (7th Avenue)
d. Reversible Lane Study (2008) showed that both intersection and segment
crash rates on the reverse lane streets did not vary significantly from those
on non-reverse streets
e. Reversible Lane Study (2008) predicted that commute times would increase
by as much as 75 percent along 7th Street
f. In survey of 100 residents, 75 percent agreed that the operating rules were
clear; roughly 50 percent felt that the system was safe
Page 3-9
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
g. They used CMAQ funding.
Some currently use air quality arguments to
support the use of these reversible lanes, saying they improve congestion
and thus reduce mobile source emissions.
h. City has a new set of Public
Service
Announcements
to
remind people about the rules
and operations of the lanes
i.
Installing
new
electronic
overhead signals would cost
approximately $20 million
III.
Travel times on 7th Street, Phoenix, AZ.
Phoenix recommendations for implementing a new reversible lane system
a. Explore use of lighted overhead traffic control signals – yet this could lead to
problems of synchronization and liability issues.
For example, when the
driver has to rely on a static sign, the burden is on them to decide if it is
indeed 2:58pm or 3:00pm, for example. If the signs are electronic and have
to change at a specific time, what if the controlling clock is off my a few
minutes or is not functioning correctly and there is a crash in the corridor.
The City is now potentially involved in the problem.
Page 3-10
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study
Reversible Lanes, Arterial Corridors
Table 1: Case Study Areas
Quick Facts
Total
Population
Washington, DC 601,723
Charlotte, NC
Phoenix, AZ
731,424
1,445,632
Population
Density
9,856.5/sq. mi
2,457.0/sq. mi
2,797.8/sq. mi
Source: U.S. Census 2010 Quick Facts
General Conclusions
•
There is no “one size fits all” approach to reversible lanes
•
Reversible lane strategies can be a highly effective and low cost way to achieve
increased capacity on roadways with very directional traffic Reversible lanes can
be implemented quickly with little or no construction or right-of-way
requirements.
•
Innovative signage can help reduce accidents and confusion.
Yet, overhead
electronic signals are extremely expensive to implement and maintain
•
It is important to understand the neighborhood context when implementing
reversible lanes
o
Reversible lanes can cause cut-through traffic in surrounding areas
o
Reversible lanes can potentially hamper economic development efforts by
placing emphasis on through traffic, rather than local traffic
o
•
Reversible lanes can be detrimental to pedestrian mobility
When considering reversible lanes, it is best to conduct a comprehensive study
of all potential strategies (e.g. conventional widening, HOV, peak period parking
policies, transit initiatives, etc.) to fully understand the costs, benefits, and
impact on land use and the community.
The following corridor has congested traffic with a directional nature and is a potential
candidate for reversible lanes or other congestion management treatments. A proper
corridor analysis would yield the best treatment for Bloomingdale Avenue.
Page 3-11
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Bloomingdale Avenue
Page 3-12
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Section 4:
Houston, Texas
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes Strategies:
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes are typically reserved for carpools, vanpools,
buses and motorcycles to provide priority to people traveling by these modes. HOV
restrictions are generally applied during designated time periods of travel, such as
during morning and afternoon commuting periods, though some HOV facilities restrict
travel throughout the day. HOV lanes play an integral part in helping metropolitan
areas address their mobility, safety, productivity, environmental stewardship and
quality of life needs.
Presently, there are approximately 100 instances where HOV
lanes are in use nationwide.
Many of these HOV lanes are located on interstate
facilities within urban areas. Others are located along arterial streets carrying high
volumes of commuting automobile and transit vehicle traffic. It is this use of arterial
HOV lanes that is being examined for applicability to corridors in Hillsborough County.
The arterial corridors that were selected as subjects for interviews with the operators
of the HOV Lane facilities are located in large population centers throughout the United
States: Alexandria, Virginia, Denver, Englewood and Littleton, Colorado, and Houston,
Texas.
Page 4-1
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Representatives from agencies responsible for the HOV facilities were interviewed to
obtain insight into the issues and obstacles encountered during the planning and
implementation of the HOV facilities, the factors leading to their successful operation,
and the lessons learned and changes in approach they recommend to others
evaluating this congestion management technique.
Information about the specific
corridors and their implementation strategies are demonstrated on the following
pages.
The general conclusions about the utility of Arterial HOV lanes and a potential Corridor
where this treatment may prove beneficial are discussed for further consideration in
the second phase of this study.
Page 4-2
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study
HOV Lanes, Arterial Corridors
Washington Street, Patrick Street/Henry Street (NB/SB one-way pair), Alexandria, VA
The City of Alexandria implemented two arterial HOV corridors within its municipal
limits to facilitate commuting traffic traveling between Fairfax County and Washington
D.C. Major regional roadways, including the George Washington Memorial Parkway,
Richmond Highway (U.S. Route 1) and the Capital Beltway (I-95/I-495) bring
commuting traffic into Alexandria from the south.
North of the city, U.S. 1 (as
Jefferson Davis Highway) and the George Washington Memorial Parkway are the only
two routes connecting Alexandria to Washington.
Alexandria’s gridded multilane
urban network, which includes multi-lane urban neighborhood streets, a number of
one-way pairs and streets with on-street parking, is much different in character from
these major commuting routes. Within Alexandria, U.S. 1 operates as a multi-lane oneway pair (Patrick Street in the northbound direction and Henry Street in the southbound
direction); the George Washington Memorial Parkway becomes Washington Street, a
two-way multilane urban street. As direct connections between the commuter routes
north and south of the city, these streets were converted to restricted hour Arterial
HOV treatment to provide continuity of traffic flow during major commuting hours
while providing on-street parking to local residences and businesses during the
remainder of the day.
I.
Benefits, Issues and Obstacles
a. Multi-jurisdictional agencies (City, VDOT, National Park Service) involved in,
planning, design, operation, and maintenance of the HOV facility.
For
example, Washington Street is a VDOT road maintained by Alexandria within
the city limits, but is operated and maintained as the George Washington
Memorial Parkway by the National Park Service south of Alexandria.
b. Bottlenecks are present at either end of the arterials where lane drops occur,
creating congestion for HOV and regular traffic.
c. There are issues with turning traffic and orientation of HOV lanes to desired
turns.
All right turns must be made from the HOV lane and left turns
opposing the HOV lane are prohibited in some locations for safety
considerations.
Page 4-3
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
d. Regional continuity doesn’t exist: there are no HOV lanes on these routes
outside of Alexandria, limiting their overall effectiveness.
e. Changes in the city’s elected officials can result in changes in the HOV
operation and enforcement policy.
f. On-street parking (non-metered and metered) is provided in the HOV lanes
during the hours when the HOV restrictions are not in effect. The towing of
parked vehicles is sometimes necessary to clear the lane for HOV use.
II.
Other facts about the system
a. Washington Street HOV system (Green Street to 1st Street) is about 1.4 miles
in length
i. Continues parallel to George Washington Memorial Parkway on
East/West Abingdon Drive to Slaters Lane for another 0.5 miles.
b. Patrick Street/Henry Street system (Duke Street to Montgomery Street) is
about one mile long.
c. Routes were chosen because they
i.
were major commuting routes through Alexandria and
ii. had sufficient available capacity for converting to part time HOV use.
d. Enforcement is a concern –
i. It is difficult for police to safely stop and ticket violators within the
HOV without blocking the HOV lane,
rendering it useless.
ii. Enforcement has been challenged in
court on the basis that the HOV
restrictions are selectively enforced.
iii. Dillon
Rule
issues
also
create
legal/enforcement problems.
There
Northbound Washington Street, Arlington VA
have been instances where violations were dismissed by judicial
interpretations that the city had no authority to enforce the HOV
restrictions.
iv. Enforcement
efforts
decrease
and
law
enforcement
frustration
increases if citations are successfully challenged in court.
Page 4-4
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
e. Different treatments and signing have to be applied in locations where
metered on-street parking is provided compared to locations
with
unmetered on-street parking;
f. Maintenance of signing and pavement marking is a concern.
i. Maintenance is difficult due to on-street parking and other uses
during non –HOV times;
ii. Enforcement is more difficult when signing and striping deteriorate.
III.
Alexandria’s recommendations for implementing a new arterial HOV lane system
a. Provide adequate signing and pavement markings
b. Establish a mechanism to clear lanes and keep them clear prior to and during
HOV hours
c. Plan to avoid bottlenecks and conflicting crossing movements
d. Ensure agency buy-in among municipal and other agencies
e. Avoid implementing HOV on streets with metered parking.
f. Consider commercial effects of Arterial HOV lanes replacing on-street
parking, even on a limited basis during the day, on businesses and
residences
Page 4-5
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study
HOV Lanes, Arterial Corridors
Santa Fe Drive (U.S. 85), Denver, Englewood and Littleton, CO
Santa Fe Drive is a multilane commuter route located south of Denver. In the 1980s,
the Colorado DOT implemented Arterial HOV treatments to facilitate the flow of
commuting traffic to and from communities south of Denver. This pioneering arterial
HOV treatment was planned, designed and implemented at a time when the policies
and standards for HOV lanes on arterials and freeways were evolving or non-existent.
In the decades this facility has operated with HOV restrictions during peak commuting
periods, HOV standards and guidelines have matured at the federal level and within
many states.
Ironically, many of the HOV features along Santa Fe Drive no longer
comply with current HOV standards. Despite the age of this arterial HOV facility,
Colorado has yet to enact regulations to establish standards, guidelines and policies
for their use, leading to inconsistencies in signing and pavement markings and local
enforcement efforts.
I.
Benefits, Issues and Obstacles
a. Arterial HOV facility planned, designed and implemented at a time when
FHWA
had
no
implementation
and
performance guidelines; the HOV facility
currently does not comply with FHWA
guidelines.
b. Lack of design standards or regulatory
guidance (signing and pavement markings)
at the Colorado DOT made implementation
a challenge.
Santa Fe Drive at West Hampden Avenue
c. Maintenance of the HOV facility is difficult
due to the location of the restricted lanes on the left side of the arterial and
their unrestricted use by traffic outside of the restricted hours.
d. Enforcement is uneven along the HOV facility since it crosses through three
communities with different levels of commitment to the HOV operation as
well as the lack of standards supported by state regulation.
Page 4-6
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
II.
Other facts about the system
a. The Santa Fe Drive Arterial HOV facility is about 7.5 miles long northbound
and 5.7 miles long southbound and travels through three municipalities.
b. The Arterial HOV lanes have no embedded data collection systems like the
freeway HOV/HOT lanes.
Operation of Interstate facilities is the primary
focus of Colorado DOT.
c. The sources of funding for the planning, design and construction of the HOV
facility are now unclear due to age of system.
It is – likely that these
activities involved FHWA funding (possibly CMAQ funding)
d. Traffic turning left at signalized intersections has to cross HOV lanes to enter
the left turn lane. Lack of state standards for the facility has led to the
absence of clearly marked crossing areas, increasing enforcement difficulties
and leading to apathetic enforcement.
e. No benefit-cost assessment or methods to measure the success of the HOV
facility are in place.
III.
Denver’s recommendations for implementing a new arterial HOV lane system
a. Give consideration to which side of the road should be used for HOV lane to
facilitate operational and maintenance needs.
b. If not already established, determine appropriate pavement marking and
signing standards and obtain appropriate regulatory approval/adoption.
c. If facilities cross jurisdictions, ensure compatibility in enforcement policies
and procedures.
Santa Fe Drive approaching West Chenango
Avenue – entry into left turn lane across
solid white line marking the edge of the
arterial HOV lane.
Page 4-7
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study
HOV Lanes, Arterial Corridors
Downtown Dual “Diamond Lane” Network, Houston, TX
The central business district of Houston has a gridded network of multilane one-way
roadway pairs. In addition to heavy vehicular traffic, there is substantial use of transit
buses run by METRO, the Houston mass transit agency.
In the 1980s, the City of
Houston, Texas DOT and METRO embarked on a major long-term multi-phase project
to reduce vehicular congestion, enhance pedestrian travel, improve stormwater
drainage, and upgrade water and sanitary sewer lines. METRO’s goal in this project
was to improve bus transit operations and facilitate the flow of commuters arriving and
departing from the CBD each day. This was accomplished through the implementation
of bus-only lanes in the curb lane on major one-way street pairs and HOV lanes for
cars and buses in the next adjacent lane during restricted time periods. Though it was
occasionally difficult to navigate the conflicting agendas and goals of the various
agencies and reach consensus, METRO’s extensive planning and analysis to prioritize
project phases so that the most critical needs were met first and their determination to
maintain quality transit service for their customers during the long construction period
was crucial to the success of the project.
I.
Benefits, Issues and Obstacles
a. Constructed as part of a larger project to address congestion in downtown
Houston
b. Pavement was deteriorating from heavy bus
use (90 – 125 buses come into downtown
during the peak hour).
c. Multi-agency project with multiple funding
sources, including FTA (40-50%), FHWA and
local funds.
d. Overall
project
was
complex,
involving
multiple facilities: HOV lanes, storm sewers,
sidewalk
widening,
water
lines,
sanitary
sewers, traffic signal optimization
Figure 1: Downtown Diamond Network, Houston, TXZ.
Source: MRC Worldwide Arterial HOV Lane Database
e. Delays arose from agency coordination, agendas
Page 4-8
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
f. Total project took seven years to complete in prioritized stages.
II.
Other facts about the system
a. Total length of the system is over 20 miles, covering over 320 city blocks on
three north-south one-way pairs and three east-west one-way pairs
b. METRO, the Houston Transit Agency, operates and maintains the arterial and
freeway HOV facilities.
METRO distinguishes between HOV lanes (barrier
separated lanes) and “Diamond Lanes” (non-barrier separated lanes). Since
they are not barrier separate lanes, the Arterial HOV lanes are classified as
“Diamond Lanes”.
c. METRO has two classifications of Diamond Lanes:
i. The curb lane marked with a solid diamond is designated for use by
transit vehicles only;
ii. The adjacent second lane is a time restricted HOV lane marked with a
Dashed Diamond.
d. The curb lane was designed for constant bus traffic - has 9-inch reinforced
concrete section.
Repair work requires full replacement of the pavement
section rather than partial replacement or patching overlays.
e. Storm drains were relocated to the center of curb lane to eliminate splashing
of pedestrians on sidewalk. However, this created a maintenance issue with
the drainage grates, which run longitudinally along the lane.
f. Enforcement is an concern
i. METRO enforces their HOV and Diamond Lanes with agency police.
The enforcement of the Interstate HOV lanes is METRO’s top priority,
leaving few resources for the enforcement of the Diamond Lanes
ii. Traffic exiting parking garages, and pick-up/drop-off traffic can
block the Diamond Lanes
g. As part of the overall downtown improvement program, extensive modeling
of the improvements was performed to establish improvement program
funding priorities and schedules.
h. Diamond lanes used extensively for hurricane evacuation
Page 4-9
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
III.
Houston’s recommendations for implementing a new arterial HOV system
a. Involve other agencies (in this case, the City of Houston and Texas DOT)
early to get consensus; recognize individual
agency
agendas
implementation
may
of
conflict
planning,
with
design,
and
construction; execute appropriate agreements
between agencies
b. Estimate/monitor
travel
time
and
transit
operations savings; model improvements and
estimate
costs
to
accurately
prioritize
improvements
c. Take
opportunity
to
address
other
Typical signing and pavement markings.
transportation / infrastructure needs and
construct at one time.
d. Adjust transit schedules, vehicle headways to meet customer demand and
adjust for travel delays during construction.
IV.
Page 4-10
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Hillsborough MPO, Congestion Management Study
HOV Lanes, Arterial Corridors
Table 1: Case Study Areas
Quick Facts
Total
Population
Washington, DC 601,723
Denver, CO
Houston, TX
600,158
2,099,451
Population
Density
9,856.5/sq. mi
3,922.6/sq. mi
3,501.5/sq. mi
Source: U.S. Census 2010 Quick Facts
General Conclusions
•
Arterial HOV lanes are adaptable under a number of circumstances
•
Arterial HOV lanes tend to focus on moving commuters
•
Enforcement of compliance with Arterial HOV lane restrictions is generally
difficult for manpower and logistical reasons
•
Implementing Arterial HOV lanes
o
Adequately plan to achieve specific goals
o
Avoid choke points at the termini
o
Establish continuity on longer facilities crossing jurisdictions for users to
see benefits.
o
Consider if adequate resources are available to address general logistical
and operational concerns (keeping the lanes clear of parked vehicles,
scheduling construction and maintenance, enforcement) before and
during restricted use periods
o
Consider the impact on local businesses where the HOV lane shares
space with on-street parking during non-restricted periods
o
Consider enforcement and maintenance issues
o
Provide sufficient infrastructure for anticipated traffic
o
Establish proper signing and pavement markings standards with
appropriate regulatory support
Specific research was conducted on several corridors as shown on the following pages.
Page 4-11
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Bruce B. Downs
Page 4-12
July 2012
Congestion Management / Crash Mitigation Process
Appendix “A”
Page A -1
July 2012
Appendix: Case Study Questions – Reversible lanes
I. Connecticut Avenue, Washington DC
Case study interview participants
Soumya S. Dey, District DOT, Deputy Associate Director
Facility type
Why candidate for Rev Lane
Largest issue/obstacle in providing
RL
What would you do differently
How was the success measured
How were problems measured
Was special funding used
Feds involved
Legal challenges
Public acceptance
Enforcement / control strategy
Maintenance
Entrance/exit fees used
Transit allowed
Hours of operation
Segment length
Built on new or existing corridors
Elevated
Electronic fees
Limited access corridor
Special lighting
Total number of lanes
Reversible lane configuration/ratio
Managing/operating agency
Currently under operation?
Notes
Urban Arterial
Peak period congestion
Negative impact on land use and economic development – focus on through
traffic
Consider alternatives such as bus designated lanes or other transit priority
concepts
Utilization, safety, land use/development impacts, compliance
Utilization, safety, land use/development impacts, compliance
No
No
No
Opposition to mast arms for overhead signals (particularly from Fine Arts
Commission)
Roadside signs/pavement markings/VMS
Minimal
No
Yes
M-F (7:00am-9:30am, 4:00pm-6:30pm)
th
2.7 miles (24 Street to Legation Street)
Existing
No
No
No
No
6
4:2
District DOT
Yes
Parking lanes (2) are opened to traffic during peak
RLs viewed as pro commuter/anti residents/anti local business
Appendix: Case Study Questions – Reversible lanes
II. Tyvola Road, Charlotte, North Carolina
Case study interview participant
Charles Abel, Transportation Systems Section Manager, Charlotte
Date of Rev. lane treatment
1987 (rebuilt in 1998) - originally intended for intermittent use, but since
initiation
retired
Facility type
Major collector
Why candidate for Rev Lane
Special events (i.e.: basketball games)
Largest issue/obstacle in providing
Fiber-optic signal maintenance was extremely challenging
RL
How was the success measured
Considered popular and successful during time of operation
Was special funding used
No special funding used
Feds involved
No
Legal challenges
No
Public acceptance
Generally, yes
Enforcement / control strategy
Overhead signals/traffic enforcement /pavement markings
Maintenance
Intensive: cameras, lighted fiber-optic signals, 22 officers req. for
supervision
Entrance/exit fees used
No
Transit allowed
Yes
Hours of operation
Seasonal/as needed for 1-2 hour periods
Segment length
3.5 miles
Built on new or existing corridors
New - completed in 1998
Elevated
No
Electronic fees
No
Limited access corridor
No
Special lighting
Yes, 196 fiber-optic control signals
Total number of lanes
6
Reversible lane configuration/ratio
Customizable
Managing/operating agency
City of Charlotte: Dept. of Public Works, Police Dept.
Currently under operation?
No - system retired following construction of new stadium at different
location
Notes
Tyvola Road and overhead control system constructed in 1998 for $22
million
Appendix: Case Study Questions – Reversible lanes
th
th
III.
7 Street / 7 Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona
Case study interview participants,
Kerry Wilcoxon, P.E.., Traffic Engineer, City of Phoenix
3/21/12
th
th
Date of Rev. lane treatment initiation
1982 (7 Street), 1979 (7 Avenue)
Facility type
Arterial roads
Why candidate for Rev Lane
Traffic concerns assoc. with growing city, began as citizen-initiative
Largest issue/obstacle in providing RL Impacts on businesses and traffic in residential neighborhoods
What would you do differently
Consider use of overhead lighted signs
How was the success measured
Crash rate comparison, reverse lane utilization
How were problems measured
Public input, traffic studies
Was special funding used
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and federal stimulus
program for signage
Feds involved
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and federal stimulus
program for signage
Legal challenges
No
Public acceptance
Process reviewed in 2010 and operations will continue> Some are
strongly against RLS
Enforcement / control strategy
Overhead / roadside signs, pavement markings, recently used VMS for
left hand turns
Maintenance
Additional signage and safety measures in 2010-2012
Entrance/exit fees used
No
Transit allowed
Yes
Hours of operation
M-F (6:00am-9:00am, 4:00pm-6:00pm)
th
th
Segment length
7 miles (7 Street), 6 miles (7 Ave)
Built on new or existing corridors
Existing
Elevated
No
Electronic fees
No
Limited access corridor
No
Special lighting
No
Total number of lanes
6 (3 northbound, 2 southbound, center land designated for left turns)
Reversible lane configuration/ratio
3:3 (am), 4:2 (pm)
Managing/operating agency
City of Phoenix
Currently under operation?
Yes
Notes
Considerable public opposition
Appendix: Case Study Questions – Limited On Street Parking (LOSP)
th
I. 14 Street, 2900 – 3000 block, Washington DC
Local contact
Damon Harvey, District DOT, Parking Manager, 202-671-0493
Facility type
Why candidate for LOSP
Largest issue / obstacle in providing
LOSP
What would you do differently
How was the success measured
How were problems measured
Was special funding used
Feds involved
Legal challenges
Public acceptance
Enforcement / control strategy
Maintenance
Special lighting
Transit allowed
Hours of operation
Segment length
Built on new or existing corridors
Benefit to Cost
Electronic fees
Limited access corridor
Merchants/residents involved
Total number of lanes
Towing
Managing / operating agency
Currently under operation?
Notes
Urban Arterial
Peak period congestion with limited street use during off peak
Drivers getting use to the parking on the street during the off hours
Place larger information signage at the beginning of the restriction
area
Utilization, land use / development increase, compliance
Enforcement, safety, development impacts, compliance
No, but as time went on, success was providing metering for income
No
None
Very positive acceptance form residents and merchants
Roadside signs / pavement markings / towing
Minimal
No
No, maybe in the future
M-F (9:00am-4:00pm) parking allowed
1.5 miles
Existing
No
Yes, cell phone parking meters
No
Yes
6
Yes
The District with private towing
Yes
Parking lanes are open to traffic during peak
Appendix: Case Study Questions – Limited On Street Parking (LOSP)
th
th
I. North Miami Avenue, 20 Street to 56 Street, North Miami, Florida
Local contact
Humberto Escandon, City of Miami, Fl., Parking Manager
Facility type
Why candidate for LOSP
Largest issue / obstacle in providing LOSP
What would you do differently
How was the success measured
How were problems measured
Was special funding used
Feds involved
Legal challenges
Public acceptance
Enforcement / control strategy
Maintenance
Special lighting
Transit allowed
Hours of operation
Segment length
Built on new or existing corridors
Benefit to Cost
Electronic fees
Limited access corridor
Merchants/residents involved
Total number of lanes
Towing
Managing / operating agency
Currently under operation?
Notes
Urban Arterial
Local business demand more parking, near their shops
Drivers getting use to the parking on the street during the off hours
Provided this opportunity sooner
Utilization of business enhanced with capacity of the road unchanged
Enforcement, safety, compliance
No
No
None
Very positive acceptance form residents and merchants
Towing
Minimal
No
No
M-F (9:00am-4:00pm) parking allowed
2.0 miles
Existing
No
No
No
Yes, public meetings regularly
4
Yes
City Parking Division
Yes
Parking lanes are open to traffic during peak
Appendix: Case Study Questions – Limited On Street Parking (LOSP)
I. Main Street, Downtown, Richmond, Virginia
Local contact
Thomas Flynn, traffic Engineer, City of Richmond, Virginia
Facility type
Why candidate for LOSP
Largest issue / obstacle in providing LOSP
What would you do differently
How was the success measured
How were problems measured
Was special funding used
Feds involved
Legal challenges
Public acceptance
Enforcement / control strategy
Maintenance
Special lighting
Transit allowed
Hours of operation
Segment length
Built on new or existing corridors
Benefit to Cost
Electronic fees
Limited access corridor
Merchants/residents involved
Total number of lanes
Towing
Managing / operating agency
Currently under operation?
Notes
Urban Arterial
Downtown parking a premium, spaces needed everywhere
Merchants wanted more time, no real obstacles
Provide truck bays on either end of the restrictions
Public acceptance
Enforcement
No, but metering became popular for the City
No
None
Very positive
Tickets, towing
Minimal
No
No
M-F (9:00am-4:00pm) parking allowed
2.0 miles
Existing
No
Yes, meters
No
Yes
4
Yes
The City with private towing
Yes
Successful
Appendix: Case Study Questions – HOV Lanes
I. Washington Street (Two-way) and Patrick Street / Henry Street (N-S One-way pair) Alexandria, VA
Contact
Date of Initiation
Bob Garbacz 703-746-4143
Jim Neurohr 703-746-4404
Mid 1980’s
Facility Type
Urban Arterial
Reason for HOV
Implementation
Largest Issue/Obstacle
Major commuting routes
What would be done
differently?
How was success measured?
Enforcement
Unknown
How were problems
measured?
Was special FHWA/FTA
funding used
Legal Issues
Unknown
Level of Public
Acceptance/Opposition
Enforcement issues
Generally accepted; issues with enforcement
Maintenance Issues
Signing/pavement marking deterioration
Turns from HOV lanes?
Right turns at first opportunity or risk citation
Passing from HOV lanes?
No; turning traffic will often wait until last minute to enter
Motorcycle Use Permitted?
Not sure; motorcycles likely ignored
Exemptions to occupancy
requirements
Hours of Operation
None
Project Limits
Green St to First St (Washington St)
Duke St to Montgomery St (Patrick St/Henry St)
Length
Washington Street: about 1.4 miles
Patrick Street/Henry Street: about one mile
Special signing / pavement
marking
Maintaining Agency
Yes; side and overhead signing, diamond markings
Notes
HOV sections operate in isolation; no continuity outside the City limits; bottlenecks
and difficult movements at termini; keeping lanes clear prior to HOV period
Unknown
Dillon Rule, Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction questions, traffic disruption, LEO frustration
7-9 AM Northbound, 4-6 PM Southbound
City of Alexandria, Virginia
Appendix: Case Study Questions – HOV Lanes
II.
Santa Fe Drive (US 85), Denver, Littleton and Englewood, CO
Contact
Date of Initiation
Alazar Tesfaye 303-757-9511
Jeff Lancaster 303-757-9511
Mid 1980’s
Facility Type
Urban Arterial
Reason for HOV
Implementation
Largest Issue/Obstacle
Major commuting route
What would be done
differently?
How was success measured?
Evaluation of maintenance and enforcement prior to implementation
How were problems
measured?
Was special FHWA/FTA
funding used
Legal Issues
Unknown
Level of Public
Acceptance/Opposition
Enforcement issues
Generally accepted; issues with enforcement
Maintenance Issues
Left side lanes create difficulty; regular use outside of restricted hours
Turns from HOV lanes?
No; have to cross HOV lanes to enter intersection left turn lanes
Passing from HOV lanes?
No
Motorcycle Use Permitted?
Yes
Exemptions to occupancy
requirements
Hours of Operation
Hybrid/Electric by state legislation
Project Limits
Bowles Avenue/Platt River Drive to Alameda Avenue
Length
7.5 miles northbound; 5.7 miles southbound
Special signing / pavement
marking
Yes; side and overhead signing, overhead green signals, diamond markings
Maintaining Agency
Colorado Department of Transportation
Notes
Prior to FHWA guidelines were issued; now out of compliance. No regulatory
guidance for CDOT to implement consistent signing and pavement markings.
Cooperation between multiple jurisdiction
Unknown
Yes, FHWA CMAW
None
Jurisdictional differences and inconsistency
6-9 AM Northbound, 4-6:30 PM Southbound
Appendix: Case Study Questions – HOV Lanes
III.
Multiple One-Way Pairs, Houston, TX
Contact
Nader Mirjamali, P.E. 713-652-4375 (temporary)
Date of Initiation
1990’s; opened in stages through the 2000’s
Facility Type
Urban Arterials
Reason for HOV
Implementation
Largest Issue/Obstacle
Major commuting routes with heavy transit vehicle traffic
What would be done
differently?
How was success
measured?
How were problems
measured?
Was special FHWA/FTA
funding used
Improve agency coordination; reconsider shift of storm inlets
Legal Issues
None
Level of Public
Acceptance/Opposition
Enforcement issues
Generally accepted; public happy when construction over
Maintenance Issues
None with robust pavement section, storm water inlets are maintenance issue
Turns from HOV lanes?
Right turns permitted
Passing from HOV lanes?
Not permitted, but happens due to low enforcement
Motorcycle Use Permitted?
Unknown – not an issue downtown
Exemptions to occupancy
requirements
Hours of Operation
No – METRO directed they are not allowed
Project Limits
Not applicable
Length
Total length over 20 miles; over 300 blocks
Special signing / pavement
marking
Yes; side and overhead signing, diamond marking in curb lane, dashed diamond in
second lane
Maintaining Agency
METRO
Notes
Part of multi facility improvement; Seven year construction period; included
relocation of storm drain inlets from curb to middle of curb lane, Unique “dual
diamond” lanes; METRO distinguishes between “diamond lanes “ (non-barrier
separated lanes) and HOV lanes (barrier separated lanes)
Time for construction; unforeseen utility conflicts
Detailed system modeling, measurement of time savings
Not applicable
FTA funding for bus lanes; FHWA, City funding for other elements
METRO responsibility; lack of resources
6-9 AM Northbound, 4-6:30 PM Southbound