REGIONAL HOV STUDY
Kansas City Metropolitan Area
Considerations for a regional system of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes
and traffic management for sustainability, mobility, and equity.
Freeway Tools
Active traffic management concept – Parsons Brinckerhoff
& Tools for City Streets
May 2009
Study Team
This study was sponsored by the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) and
managed by Ron Achelpohl, Assistant Transportation Director, and Marc Hansen,
Planner. The study was conducted by the University of Kansas, Urban Planning
Department of the School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Transportation
Planning Implementation class (UBPL 757). The student team included Gabe
Casner, Tyler Means, and Lance White. The class instructor was Marcy Smalley.
Input was also received from MARC staff including Marge Gasnick, Rideshare
director; Tom Gerend, Assistant Transportation Director; and Jim Hubbell, Planner.
Special Thanks
The study team also appreciates the assistance of John Dobies, HNTB Corp., Chuck
Fuhs, Parsons Brinckerhoff and Dick Jarrold, KCATA.
i
Table of Contents
Page Number
Study Team ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
i.
Executive Summary (insert)
TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………………………………………………………….
ii.
I. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………………………..
1
A. Background
B. Study Goals and Organization
II: EXISTING CONDITIONS……………………………………………………………………………………..
A. Regional Overview
1. Congestion and candidate roadways
2. Carpool Trip Length
3. Travel Time and Trends
B. Potential User Characteristics ……………………………………………………………………………
1. General Characteristics
2. Transit……………………………………………………………………………………………………
3. Ridesharing……………………………………………………………………………………………
C. Environment……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
D. Environment Justice………………………………………………………………………………………….
E. Journey to Work………………………………………………………………………………………………
F. Population
G. Employment..…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
H. Trucking…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
III. TOOLKIT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
A. Overview
B. Freeways
1. A. Facilities
New HOV Lanes…………………………………………………………………………
Lane Conversions
Bus-on-Shoulder………………………………….……..………………………………
Express Lanes………………………………………………………………………………
Queue bypass……………………………………………………………………………..
Direct access……………………………………………………………………………….
1. B. Facility Cost Comparisons
ii
3
9
12
16
20
22
24
27
31
33
34
37
38
39
40
1. C. Special Application
High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes………………………………………………..
2. Traffic Demand Management………………………….…………………………………
Ramp metering
Active traffic management……….………………………………………………
Advance traveler information systems ATIS……………………………….
C. Arterials……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
1. Facilities
Bus Rapid Transit BRT
Diamond Lanes
Queue bypass…………………………………………………………………………….
Boarding islands and Curb extensions
2. Traffic Management/Bus Preference
Light preference
Special bus turns……………………………………………………………………
Advance travel information system ATIS
IV. ASSESSMENT…………………………………………………………………………………………………
A. Overview
B. Four-step screening process……………………………………………………………………………..
C. Demand Estimation – HOV projection process
D. Roadways under consideration………………………………………………………………………..
1. Freeways
2. Arterial Roads
E. Screening………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
1. Freeways – Primary Criteria
2. Freeway HOV Demand Assessment Results…………………………………………
V. RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………….……………………………………………………..
A. Overview and Capital Cost Comparisons
B. Freeways
1. Services and Facilities
Expand express bus service (Transit and Social Equity)………..……
Implement Bus on Shoulder………………………………………………………….
Identify Lane Conversion project (with tolling consideration)
Educate public……………………………………………………………………………..
Implement queue jumpers………………………………………………………….
Develop I-29 / BRT tourism strategy with KCI link
Study new HOV Lane (with tolling and trucking considerations)
iii
43
44
45
47
48
49
50
51
53
55
59
62
64
66
67
68
Commuter Rail considerations…………………………………………………..
70
2. Traffic Management
Expand traffic management capabilities
Implement ramp metering
Implement active traffic management
C. Arterial Recommendations
1. Services and Facilities .………………………………………………………………………….
Expand transit services on arterial roads
Expand bus rapid transit system (first priorities)
Implement bus preference tools on high volumes routes
BRT and Freeway linkages
Queue bypass……………………………………………………………………………
Bus preference in Environmental Justice areas………………………………..
Curb extensions
2. Traffic Management
Enhance MAX signal priority to all day
Implement light preference on all major transit routes.
71
72
73
D. Next Steps…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
1. Seek community review
2. Conduct government regulations and enforcement review
3. Conduct a tolling study
73
References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
75
iv
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
I: INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Kansas City’s population is expected to reach two million by 2020, and the already congested
roads within the metropolitan area will only worsen. High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and
managed lane applications, used in conjunction, have the potential not only to lessen congestion
and increase the amount of persons moved during peak-hour traffic, but also improve air quality,
save travel time, and conserve resources. More importantly, these applications can be used
together to incorporate park and ride lots, rideshare, and bus rapid transit into a regional HOV
managed lane system.
MARC’s long-range transportation plan for the Kansas City region (Transportation Outlook
2030) encourages HOV lanes on major roadways, and calls for an evaluation of their feasibility
as major investment studies are conducted. Historically, these studies have been conducted at
the corridor rather than regional level. A preliminary assessment of regional HOV potential was
completed in 1999 (MARC Regional HOV Assessment) and identified the need for a more
detailed regional focus.
Over the last decade, the concept of HOV and managed lanes has evolved with new ideas and
technologies such as bus on shoulder applications and high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes.
MARC’s RideShare program, the commuter resource center has continued to progress. It offers a
web-based registration system serving the Greater Kansas City and Lawrence region.
With renewed interest in maintaining our existing road system (outlined in Transportation
Outlook 2040 Update) and the impact of energy prices on commuting patterns, citizens, planners,
and stakeholders are beginning to change the way they think. The concept of a regional HOV
system on regional highways and arterials may now be a more attractive option.
B. Study Goals and Organization
The study intent is to enhance the understanding of a potential regional approach to HOV and
managed lanes and identify strategies that provide:



Cost-effective congestion relief and travel time reliability
Equity (strategies that support MARC’s environment justice policies)
Sustainability (strategies that supports MARC’s Eco-logical initiative)
1
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
The study was designed to provide a sustainable transportation planning approach. Table I-1
describes sustainable planning principals that were used as a general guide. The study includes
a review of existing conditions (Chapter II); a comprehensive toolkit of HOV and managed lane
options (Chapter III); a general assessment based on professional standards and criteria (Chapter
IV); and study recommendations (Chapter V.)
Table I-1
Principles of Sustainable Planning
Principle
Explanation
Comprehensive Analysis
Transportation planning should address economic, social, and environmental
factors.
Strategic Planning
Transportation planning decisions should be subordinated to strategic economic,
social, and land use plans.
Focus on Goals,
Performance, and
Outcomes
Transportation planning is to focus on goals and outcomes such as improved
social welfare, ecological health, and access.
Consideration of Equity
Equity impacts should be considered in decision-making, especially those that
could be imposed on future generations.
Market Principles
Markets should eliminate incentives to abuse and misuse natural resources and
the degradation of the environment.
Precautionary Principle
(Incorporate Risks)
Transportation planning should emphasize the importance of incorporating and
minimizing risks in decision making.
Conservation Ethic
Transportation planning should create solutions that increase efficiency and
reduce resource consumption.
Transparency,
Accountability, and
Public Involvement
There should be ample opportunities for the stakeholder(s) to become informed
and to be involved in the decision-making and consensus-building processes.
Source: Victoria Transport Policy Institute
2
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
II: EXISTING CONDITIONS
This chapter summarizing regional congestion and travel time conditions, potential HOV system users,
environmental and social conditions, commute patterns, population, employment and trucking.
A. Regional Overview
1. Congestion and candidate roadways
The roadways assessed in this study are identified in the regional Congestion Management
System (Exhibit II-1) and other major transit routes. Roadways of 10 miles or more are of
particular interest in this study because HOV applications are typically most effective for longer
commuters. ( TCPR 100 Report).
2. Carpool Trip Length
In the Kansas City region, 95% of all rideshare trips exceed 10 ten miles, while over 30 percent
of trips exceed 50 miles.
Exhibit II-1:
Typical Carpool Travel Distances
Percentages of Rideshares by Trip Length
0-10 Miles
11_20 Miles
21_30 Miles
31_40 Miles
41_50 Miles
51 + Miles
Source: Data from Mid-America Regional Council, Rideshare Survey
3. Travel Time and Trends
Historically, from 1977 to 2000, overall travel times improved in the region, allowing residents
to live and work farther away from the central business district CBD and commute to the
Downtown Loop within 20 minutes. Exhibit II - 2 illustrates the 20-minute interval contours that
indicate travel times to and from the CBD. Travel times have begun to degrade in some parts of
the region, particularly on the eastern section.
3
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
During this period, speeds on inner freeways increased by 23 percent, while outer and regional
freeways increased by 29 and 34 percent, respectively. (Table I-2) The speeds for all three
classifications have increased since 1977.
Inner major arterial speeds increased by 13 percent, while outer and regional major arterials
increased by 23 and 21 percent, respectively. Table I-3 shows percent increases and decreases, in
miles per hour. As with the expressways, during this period, the speeds increased, however, by a
lower rate in comparison to the freeways. Overall average speeds have increased since 1977.
(Table II-4).
Exhibit II–2:
Congestion Management System Map
4
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Exhibit II-3:
Historical 20-Minute PM Travel Time Intervals
from Downtown Loop in Kansas City
Source: 2000/2001 MARC Travel Time Study
Table II-2: FREEWAYS/EXPRESSWAYS
Percent Increase/Decrease 1977 – 2000 in Miles per Hour
Freeways/Expressways
Years
1977
2000
Increase/Decrease
Percent Increase/Decrease
Inner
Outer
44.9
55.4
10.5
0.23
Source: 2000/2001 MARC Travel Time Study
5
47.8
61.6
13.8
0.29
Regional
45
60.2
15.2
0.34
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Table II-3: Major Arterials
Percent Increase/Decrease 1977-2000 in Miles per Hour
Major Arterials
Years
Inner
1977
2000
Outer
25.4
28.8
3.4
0.13
Increase/Decrease
Percent Increase/Decrease
30.8
38
7.2
0.23
Regional
29.8
36
6.2
0.21
Source: 2000/2001 MARC Travel Time Study
Historic AverageTable
TravelII-4:
Speeds
Historic Average Travel Speeds
1977
1987
1990
1993
1996
2000
Freeway/Expressway
Principal Arterial
Inner
Outer
Regional Inner
Outer
Regional
44.9
47.8
45
25.4
30.8
29.8
44.4
53.6
51.6
27.5
31.1
29.7
49.6
52.8
52.2
26.3
29.1
27.8
45.6
57.7
53.9
25.6
35.4
31.4
53.7
59.3
57.4
28.1
32
30.6
55.4
61.6
60.2
28.8
38
36
Source: 2000/2001 MARC Travel Time Study
Table I-5 and Table I-6 have travel times data for major routes in Kansas City from 1977 to
2000. As you can see, travel times, for each route, decreased between 1977 and 1993, but
increased from 1993 to 1996. However, since 1996, travel times have decreased.
Table II-5: Travel Times on Selected Routes
Using Typical and Reverse Commuter Data (minutes)
Travel Time on Selected Major Routes using Typical & Reverse Commute Data (minutes)
Route
Downtown-Airport
I-70 West
I-70 East
I-35 South
I-435 South
SW Trafficway/Ward Parkway
95th Street/Bannister Road
Begin
6th and Broadway
I-70 and Broadway
14th and Charlotte
12th and I-35
I-35 (S. Junction)
12th and I-35
Switzer Road
End
KCI
Turner Diagonal
M-291
I-435
US-71
I-435
I-435
Source: 2000/2001 MARC Travel Time Study
6
1977
21.9
11.2
19.8
20.4
22
25.5
22.6
1987
20.7
15.5
26.2
15.5
19.8
26.6
26.3
1990
19.2
10.5
17.8
15.2
20
24
25
1993
19
9.2
12.4
16.3
20.7
20.2
21
1996
18.5
9.6
17.5
20.8
19.5
27.2
33.1
2000
19.6
9.2
19.2
17.9
11.8
24.1
21.2
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Table II-6: Travel Times on Selected Routes
Using Only Typical Commute Data (minutes)
Travel Time on Selected Major Routes using only Typical Commute Data (minutes)
Route
Downtown-Airport
I-70 West
I-70 East
I-35 South
I-435 South
SW Trafficway/Ward Parkway
95th Street/Bannister Road
Begin
6th and Broadway
I-70 and Broadway
14th and Charlotte
12th and I-35
I-35 (S. Junction)
12th and I-35
Switzer Road
End
KCI
Turner Diagonal
M-291
I-435
US-71
I-435
I-435
1977
21.9
11.2
19.8
20.4
22
25.5
22.6
1987
20.7
15.5
26.2
15.5
19.8
26.6
26.3
1990
19.2
10.5
17.8
15.2
20
24
25
1993
19
9.2
12.4
16.3
20.7
20.2
21
1996
18.5
9.6
17.5
20.8
19.5
27.2
33.1 -
2000
21
9.1
25.8
21
12.4
23.9
Source: 2000/2001 MARC Travel Time Study
Table II-7 and Table I I-8 show data for average speeds and miles per hour for freeways and
principal arterials. As you can see, the average speeds increased between 1977 and 2000.
Table II-7: Average
Travel
usingTypical
Typical
Reverse
Commuter
Average
TravelSpeed
Speed (MPH
(MPH) using
andand
Reverse
Commute
Data Data
1977
1987
1990
1993
1996
2000
Freeway/Expressway Principal Arterial
Inner
Outer
Inner
Outer
44.9
47.8
25.4
30.8
44.4
53.6
27.5
31.1
49.6
52.8
26.3
29.1
45.6
57.7
25.6
35.4
53.7
59.3
28.1
32
56.1
60
28.8
37.3
Source: 2000/2001 MARC Travel Time Study
Table II-8
Average Travel Speed (MPH) using only Typical Commute Data
1977
1987
1990
1993
1996
2000
Freeway/Expressway Principal Arterial
Inner
Outer
Inner
Outer
44.9
47.8
25.4
30.8
44.4
53.6
27.5
31.1
49.6
52.8
26.3
29.1
45.6
57.7
25.6
35.4
53.7
59.3
28.1
32
56.1
60
60.2
28.8
Source: 2000/2001 MARC Travel Time Study
7
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Table II-9
Delay (seconds/mile) using Typical and Reverse Commute Data
1977
1987
1990
1993
1996
2000
Freeway/Expressway
Principal Arterial
Inner
Outer
Inner
Outer
4.2
1.8
19.8
18
3
2
22
19
1
2
25
21
3.1
0.7
25.5
13.9
1.8
2.3
26.9
20.3
1.6
3.2
23.2
19
Source: 2000/2001 MARC Travel Time Study
The Travel Time Survey selected highly-congested corridors to conduct further analysis. They
were Broadway/I-29 Northbound, I-35 North, I-35 South, I-70 Eastbound (most congested
between the Jackson Curve and Van Brunt), I-70 Westbound, I-435 (most congested between
Metcalf and Wornall; and between Holmes and I-470), US-69, and US-71.
4. Transit Ridership
Average daily ridership fluctuated between 1972 and 2005. Ridership increased, significantly,
between 1972 and 1980. One theory behind the ridership increase during this time revolves
around the global oil crisis. However, a large decline in average daily ridership ensued, from
1980 to 1983. Ridership levels remained constant between 1983 and 1991, only to decrease
slightly in 1992. From 1992 to 2005, ridership levels remained constant, once again.
Exhibit II-4: Historic Average Daily Transit Ridership 1972-2005
8
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
However, average daily ridership levels increased slightly from 2005 to 2007 and more
significantly between 2007 and 2008. The ridership increase from 2007 and 2008 can be
attributed to gasoline prices, which approached $4.00 per gallon.
Exhibit II-5:
Average Daily Transit Ridership 2005-2008
Average Daily Ridership (KCATA)
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
B. Potential User Characteristics
1. General Characteristics
Vehicle Availability
The majority of households in the region had two vehicles. Nearly 17 percent of urban
households did not have an automobile. Less than 10 percent of suburban households also did
not have any vehicles in their possession. Nearly 45 percent of urban households had only one
automobile, while nearly 36 percent of suburban households only had one automobile.
Slightly less than 30 percent of urban households had only two automobiles, while
approximately 40 percent of suburban households had only two automobiles. Just fewer than 10
percent of urban households had three or more automobiles, while nearly 17 percent of suburban
households had three or more automobiles. However, the remainder of households with three or
more vehicles was nearly 21 percent. (MARC Household Travel Survey)
Household Workers by Area
Nearly 30 percent of urban households did not have any workers in the household, compared to
25 percent of suburban household. Roughly 45 percent of urban households had only one
worker compared to 40 percent of suburban households. Fewer than 25 percent of urban
households had two or more workers, compared to 35 percent of suburban households.
9
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Travel by Day of the Week
The majority of the travel, during the workweek, was on Tuesdays (23%) while the least was
done on Fridays (16%)
Travel Mode
An overwhelming majority of the region utilizes personal/private automobiles. Just over 1
percent utilizes transit, while less than 5 percent walk or bike. The same percentage utilizes some
other form of transportation not mentioned previously. Over 90 percent of households with 1 or
more vehicles utilize auto, while less than 1 percent in this category utilizes transit. Nearly 5
percent of households with 1 or more automobiles walk or bike, while the same percentage
utilizes some other form of transportation. Roughly 35 percent of households without a vehicle
utilizes auto, while just over 25 percent of these households utilizes transit. On the other hand,
just fewer than 23 percent of households with no vehicles, bike or walk, while approximately 15
percent utilize some other form of transportation.
Exhibit II-6:
Travel Mode
Travel Mode
4% 4% 1%
Walk/Bike
26%
Transit
Auto (Driver)
Auto (Passenger)
65%
Other
Source: Mid-America Regional Concil
Trip Departure Times
The majority of households in the survey departed between 10 am and 3:59 p.m., while less than
5 percent departed between 11 p.m. and 5:59 am. The majority of auto dependent persons make
their departure between 10 am and 3:59 p.m., while the majority of transit riders and
bikers/walkers make their departures during the same time interval.
10
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Table II-10: Trip Departure Times
Time
%
6 am – 9:59 am
25%
10 am – 3:59 p.m.
37%
4 p.m. – 7:59 p.m.
30%
8 p.m. – 10:59 p.m.
7%
11 p.m. – 5:59 p.m.
2%
Destinations - The majority of the AM peak destinations are in either in Jackson or Johnson
County. Destinations by time of day are illustrated on Exhibit II-7.
Summary of the Household Travel Survey - The percentage of households without vehicles
has increased. Households in the Kansas City MSA averaged 10.6 trips daily, with trip rates
increasing with household size, vehicle ownership, and income. However, there was little
variation in trip purpose. There was some indication of differences in destination choices by
area. Automobiles were the dominant modal choice in the region, but transit, walking, and
biking were more dominant in the urban area. Peaks were typical during the morning,
midday, and evening hours. However, the midday peak period had the most non-household
bound travel and non-auto travel. In comparison to the 1990 study, the household size was
smaller in the latest study and the number of household trips was smaller. Travel mode usage
and travel departure time tendencies did not differ, significantly from 1990.
11
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Exhibit II-7: Destinations by Time of Day
Source: MARC Household Travel Survey
1. Transit
Data from the On-Board Transit Survey was used to create transit volume maps for the Kansas
City area. High volume routes include the top 15 percent of all routes, which included 13 routes
with more than 500 different riders per day. These routes were classified as those with more than
1,000 riders per day. Medium volume routes include the next 15 percent of all routes based on
total ridership, which included 13 routes with 150-500 different riders per day. These routes were
classified as those with between 300 and 1,000 riders per day. Low volume routes include the
bottom 70 percent of all routes based on ridership, which included 60 routes with less than 150
riders per day. These routes were classified as those with less than 300 riders per day. The map
of the three volume classes are on the next page. Table II-11 lists the high transit volume routes.
12
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Table II-11:
High Volume Routes
12- 12th Street
56- Country Club
24- Independence
71- Prospect
25- Troost
106- Quindaro
28- Blue Ridge
108- Indiana
st
31- 31 Street
173- Casino
th
39- 39 Street
53/54- Armour
Swope/Paseo
51- Ward Parkway
Source: MARC On-Board Transit Survey

Proposed Regional Transit Services – Long Range Transit Plan
The regional long range transit plan (Exhibit II-9) proposed regional corridors on both major city
streets and freeways. The commuter corridors are designed to connect large retail and
commercial shopping centers, with retail centers of at least 250,000 square feet and
commercial/office centers of at least 200,000 square feet. The regional routes are to operate at
high levels of at least 3,000 average daily trips. The commuter service routes (blue lines) are part
of the freeway system. Two major commuter routes are indicated for possible future commuter
rail. The urban service routes (red lines) are proposed candidates for bus rapid transit. Other
major fixed routes are denoted by yellow lines.
13
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Exhibit II-8
Transit Route Volumes Map
Source: Mid-America Regional Council On-Board Transit Survey, ETC Institute
14
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Exhibit II-9:
Long Range Transit Plan Conceptual Map
with Park and Ride Lots
Source: MARC Long Range Regional Transit Plan
15
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
2. Ridesharing
Carpooling and vanpooling are other ways of maximizing vehicle occupancy rates. Increasing
vehicle occupancy could go a long way in reducing traffic congestion, air pollution, and energy
consumption. Vanpooling, transit, and car pooling are means of optimizing the performance of
the road network without having to resort to high-cost infrastructure and capacity improvements.
Vehicle Occupancy
Vehicle occupancy data is based on MARC’s 2002 Vehicle Occupancy Study summarized in the
following table.
Table II-12
Average Vehicle Occupancy by Peak Hour
Peak Period
Vehicle Occupancy
A.M. Peak
1.29
Afternoon Peak
1.22
Evening
1.16
Source: 2002 MARC Vehicle Occupancy Study
The data is from work trips during peak periods of 4:30 pm - 6:30 pm and 7:00 am-8:30 am.
Data collection was performed on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, as those days were
more representative of average work-related commuting. According to the Household Transit
Survey, the AM peak period is between 6 am and 9:59 am, the afternoon peak from 10 am to
3:59 pm, and the evening peak from 4 pm to 7:59 pm.
Freeways and expressways had the highest percentage of single-occupant vehicles, with the
evening peak period having the highest percentage of single-occupant vehicles. Collector and
local roads had the highest average vehicle occupancy rate.
The average vehicle occupancy rate in the Kansas City region, during the evening peak, declined
from 1989 to 1997, but has increased since then. The average vehicle occupancy rate for the
morning peak had also declined only to increase again.
16
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Exhibit II-10:
Historic Average Vehicle Occupancy
Historic Average Vehicle Occupancy
1.32
1.30
1.28
1.26
1.24
1.22
1.20
1.18
1.16
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1997
2002
Table II-13
Estimated Vehicle Occupancy by Roadway Classification
Occupants per Vehicle (% of Total Sample)
Evening Peak
Functional
Classification
1
2
3
4
5
6 or
More
AVO
Freeway
83.4%
13.1%
2.3%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
1.19
Principal Arterial
82.2%
14.7%
2.3%
0.6%
0.1%
0.0%
1.22
Minor Arterial
80.9%
15.8%
2.7%
0.6%
0.1%
0.0%
1.23
Collector/Local
76.7%
18.4%
3.9%
0.7%
0.2%
0.1%
1.29
Morning Peak
Functional Class
1
2
3
4
5
6+
AVO
Freeways
89.9%
9.3%
0.7%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
1.14
Principal Arterial
88.1%
10.6%
1.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
1.13
Minor Arterial
89.7%
9.0%
1.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.1%
1.14
Collector/Local
83.8%
13.4%
2.1%
0.6%
0.1%
0.0%
1.21
17
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
According to the study, an array of factors such as MARC’s Rideshare program, increasing
environmental awareness, increasing air quality concerns, and increasing gasoline prices
contributed to the increased average vehicle occupancy rates during the 1980s. However,
increased vehicle miles traveled and private automobile usage, which all are seen as results of
urban sprawl and changing demographics, may have contributed to the decreased average
vehicle occupancy rates during the 1990s.
Vanpooling and carpooling are two practices that aim to reduce auto emissions and other autoinduced effects, while helping people save money on car-related expenses. Someone, who may
either work, or play in a given area, can arrange to ride with another person, headed to the same
destination. Car and vanpooling benefits include less automobile mileage (that prolongs the
lifespan of an automobile), less driving-related stress, and potential friendships with fellow car
and vanpoolers.
MARC Rideshare is a commuter matching service for commuters in the region. It helps
commuters save money, by encouraging motorists to use their automobiles less. This service also
aims to increase mobility, reduce congestion, and decrease commuting time by promoting
commuter transportation services. This service is also part of the State Implementation Plan to
improve air quality in the bi-state Kansas City region. The carpool connection web-based
matching service: Carpool Connection allows motorists to search for other carpoolers living in
close proximity. Patrons can also utilize one of over 50 free park-and-ride commuter lots
throughout the Kansas City area.
MARC Rideshare also offers guaranteed rides home for eligible Rideshare customers in case
they should become ill at work. The workplace location must be within 40 miles of the Kansas
City area. The Kansas City Area Transportation Authority also has its own guaranteed ride
home program. The following graphs and charts illustrate ridesharing trends by month and by
trip length.
There was a notable increase in ridesharing during the summer months of June, July, and August
of 2008, when gasoline prices encroached, and in many cases, surpassed $4.00 per gallon.
18
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Table II-14
Rideshares by Month in Kansas City in 2008
Carpool
April/May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
724
3,245
9,227
7,638
3,668
3,827
1,907
1,623
Vanpool
76
239
796
612
212
212
127
108
31,859
2,382
Source: Mid-America Regional Council
Exhibit II-12
Rideshare Counts by Month and Trip Length
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
0-10 Miles
11-20 Miles
1,500
21-30 Miles
1,000
31-40 Miles
41-50 Miles
500
51 + Miles
0
Source: Mid-America Regional Council
19
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Exhibit II-13:
Rideshares by Month in 2008
Rideshares by Month in 2008
12,000
10,023
10,000
8,253
8,000
6,000
3,880
3,484
4,000
4,039
2,034
2,000
1,731
800
0
Source: Mid-America Regional Council
C. Environment
Reducing Ozone Forming Emissions - At the present time, the Kansas City region is classified as
an attainment area because federal clean air standards are being met. However the region is
expected to lose that status in the future based on new standards and conditions. According to the
MARC Clean Air Action Plan information, ozone concentrations occur at different rates and are
influenced by three factors: local emissions sources, transported ozone and ozone precursor
emissions, and meteorological influences such as warmer days that tend to trap ground-level
ozone (Page 19 of MARC Clean Air Action Plan).
Emissions are categorized as: point sources, area sources, and mobile sources. This study
addresses mobile sources only. Mobile sources are any kind of mobile vehicle or piece of
equipment that is dependent of gasoline or diesel fuel. The following table below described
existing emissions, by source for 1998 and for 2010 projected.
20
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Table III-17
Emissions (Tons/Day) by Source Type for 1998 and 2010 Projected
1998
1998
2010
2010
Source Type
VOC
NO x
VOC
NO x
Area Sources
130.8
24.6
111.0
28.5
Non-Road Mobile Sources
49.5
119.9
32.4
77.8
On-Road Mobile Sources
121.7
140.7
52.1
71.9
Point Sources
28.9
289.9
31.5
226.0
Total
330.9
575.1
227.0
404.2
Source: MARC Clean Air Action Plan
The air quality maintenance conformity boundary for the region is illustrated in Exhibit II-13
Exhibit III-13:
Air Quality Maintenance Conformity Boundary
D. Environmental Justice
The data described in this section, along with related data in other sections was used to help
assess the study’s environmental justice and social equity goals. Environmental Justice
considers how low-income and minority populations are affected by the actions of governing
bodies. All Federal agencies are required to assess environmental justice in their policies,
programs and activities. The purposes are:
21
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study



To avoid, minimize or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental impacts, including social and economic effects on minority populations and
low income populations;
To ensure full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the
transportation decision-making process; and
To prevent the denial of, the reduction in, or significant delay in receipt of benefits by lowincome and minority populations.
MARC’s Environmental Justice assessment determined minority population level thresholds, and
the average percentage of minority populations for all census tracts within the metropolitan
planning boundary. Those tracts where the minority population exceeded the regional average
were identified as tracts where environmental justice issues should be analyzed and are
illustrated in Exhibit II-14.
According to the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) Order on Environmental Justice,
minority persons include Blacks, Hispanics, Asian Americans, American Indians and Alaskan
Natives. A similar process was used to map areas with high portions of low-income individuals.
Low-income was referred to as an individual whose household income was at or below the
United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) guidelines. Social research
considers census tracts with 20 to 40 percent low-income individuals as high poverty areas.
Census tracts with 20 percent or higher low-income individuals are illustrated in Exhibit II-14.
22
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Exhibit II-14
Environmental Justice Map
Kansas City Metropolitan Area
Source: MARC Transportation 2030 Update, Appendix C
The Environmental Justice assessment found that pedestrian crash rates are higher in
Environment Justice areas as compared to other areas. The long range regional plan recommends
that this disparity be addressed.
In addition, MARC’s Household Travel Survey reported that people who lived in Kansas City’s
urban center were less likely to own vehicles and more likely to own fewer vehicles than their
counterparts in lower density housing. Individuals living in urban centers were more likely to
rely on pedestrian and bicycle facilities in their commutes. They tended to have smaller family
units and fewer sources of income; the urban densities were more likely to be out of work.
23
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
MARC’s Onboard Transit survey found that large proportions of transit riders made less than
$20,000 per year; more than 50 percent of Unified Government Transit and 40 percent of
KCATA riders fell into the category of individuals who made less than $20,000. The percentage
of bus riders who made more than $75,000 were 1.6 percent and 2.3 percent for Unified
Government Transit and KCATA respectively. With the high numbers of low-income transit
riders it makes logical sense to include an Environmental Justice component
E. Journey to Work
Major work commuter trips are a primary source of congestion. Journey to work patterns are
illustrated in the following exhibit. Both intra and inter county trips are shown. The broader lines
below illustrate the major work flows that could be candidates for HOV applications.
Exhibit II –14: Journey to Work
Source: Journey to Work 2000, Smart Moves Transit Plan
24
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Table II-18:
Journey to Work Data
Source:
Journey to
Work 2000
Data, Smart
Moves
Transit Plan
Although this data does not describe precise trip origins and destinations, it does, however,
provide general indicators for major roadway congestion conditions as described in Table II - 18.
I-35: This corridor has a service level of E or F throughout the region. South of Downtown
Kansas City, Johnson County has nearly 50,000 residents who commute to Jackson County and
Jackson County has nearly 40,000 residents who commute to Johnson County. I-35 is the
primary corridor between the two counties and the primary north/south corridor through Johnson
County, which has over 160,000 residents who commute within the county. In between these two
counties on I-35 is Wyandotte County which has nearly 19,000 residents commuting to Johnson
County and 11,000 residents commuting to Jackson County. In addition Wyandotte County
receives approximately 15,000 employees from Johnson County and 11,600 from Jackson. North
of Downtown Kansas City
Clay County has nearly 27,000 residents who commute to Jackson County and Jackson County
has 14,500 who commute to Clay. In addition Clay County generates more than 10,000
employees to Johnson and Wyandotte Counties and the two Kansas Counties send more than
5,000 back. Clay County has over 47,000 residents who commute within the County and I-35
serves as one of the primary North/South corridors.
I-70: This corridor has a service level of F from Downtown Kansas City to the Metropolitan
Eastern City Limits. Jackson County has over 230,000 residents who commute within the
County, in which I-70 is the primary East/West corridor. Commuters from several counties who
work in Eastern Jackson County would likely utilize this route. Commuters from Clay and Platte
County to the North and Wyandotte and Johnson to the South that commute to Jackson via I-35
would likely utilize this route. From the West commuters from Wyandotte and Leavenworth
Counties who commute via I-70 likely exacerbate traffic in this corridor.
25
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
I-29: This corridor has a service level of D North of the intersection with I-35 to the Barry Road
exit. The congested portion of this expressway runs North/South through Clay County. This
route runs north through Platte County and converges with I-35 in the southern portion. In
addition, this route is congested from the over 47,000 residents who live and commute in Clay
County. Platte County has 9,548 residents who work in Jackson County and 7,119 who work in
Clay County; I-29 is the most likely route for these commuters. There are many Clay County
residents working in Jackson County and likewise Jackson County residents working in Clay
County. This likely contributes to the congestion along this route.
I-435: The most congested segment of this expressway runs East/West through Johnson County
into Jackson County and North/South in Jackson County. The majority of this congestion likely
comes from those who work and live in Johnson County and those who live and work in Jackson
County. This congestion is also likely influenced by the interchange between Jackson and
Johnson County employees and residents.
US-71: The segment of US-71, with D, E, and F levels of congestion, begins in Cass County
and continues north to its intersection with I-435. This is likely due to the over 16,000 Cass
County residents who work in Jackson County and nearly 7,000 residents who work in Johnson
County. Relatively few Johnson and Jackson County residents work in Cass County. As a result,
this traffic is likely one-way.
F. Population
Future travel patterns will be impacted by increasing and decreasing population centers where
work commutes begin and end. The exhibit below projects those changing patterns for 2030.
Jackson County is expected to increase in population to 710,000 by 2030. In 2000, the
population was 630,000. The population of Jackson County has been fairly stable in recent
decades. However, Jackson County is expected to lose population from the urban core, while the
Eastern sections of the county are expected to gain population which could add to the congestion
on I-435 and I-70.
Johnson County is expected to increase in population to 744,000 by 2030. Johnson County has
been the fastest growing county in the metropolitan area for several decades. This trend is
expected to continue. Most of the growth will occur in the southern tracts of the county near the
metropolitan boundary. This could have a great impact on the already congested I-35, I-435 and
US -69 corridors.
26
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Exhibit II: 15:
Population Change 2000 - 2030
Source: MARC Outlook 2030
Clay County is growing, though at a slower rate than Johnson County. The population is
expected to reach 260,000 by 2030. This could create additional traffic on sections I-35, I-29 and
I-435 already experiencing D, E and F levels of service.
Platte County is another county which is experiencing rapid population growth. The total
population is projected to reach 115,000 by 2030. This could add traffic to I-29 and I-435.
Cass County is a growing county. The northern sections of the county are supposed to increase
rapidly in the coming decades. The 2030 population is projected to reach 130,000. This could
add to congestion on US-71.
27
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Wyandotte County has been fairly stagnant or declining in recent years and is projected to
remain stagnant in the future. Similar to Jackson County, Wyandotte County is experiencing
population loss near the city center and experiencing growth along the edges of the county.
Leavenworth County has been fairly stagnant as well. The population is projected to increase but
at a slow rate by 2030.
G. Employment Centers
While employment has become dispersed over the last decades, Downtown Kansas City remains
the largest employment center. As illustrated in Exhibit II-17 the major employment areas and
corridors are as follows:
Southtown Corridor – The map shows a thin line of high employment density census tracts
beginning in the north at downtown and proceeding south toward the plaza area and beyond
through Brookside and Waldo.
I-35 corridors in Johnson County – Employment concentrations are high throughout
Johnson County, Kansas, especially along the I-35 corridor.
I-435 Corridor in Johnson County – The employment densities along the 435 corridor in
Johnson County are similar to those along the I-35 corridor.
KCI – Located off of I-29 near the northern border of the Kansas City, Missouri city limits,
the airport, hotels, and surrounding office buildings serve as components of a major
employment node.
Northtown Corridor – There appears to be several strong employment concentrations in the
industrial areas of North Kansas City and the Northeastern district industrial areas.
Fairfax/Downtown KCK/Armourdale - There are several high employment concentrations
in close proximity to the city center on the Kansas side. This trend begins in the northern
portion, at the Fairfax industrial district which as the higher employment concentrations, and
continues down through the Downtown office and Armourdale industrial districts.
Northeastern I-435 – There is an employment concentration around the Worlds of Fun
amusement park off of I-435 in northeastern Jackson County. Just to the north is Clay
County, which is home to a major employer, Ford Automotive. Just to the south of the
amusement park is Ameristar Casino.
The Legends – Although completed too late to be included on this map, The Legends
shopping and entertainment district should create an employment node in the next few years.
A development, consisting of an amusement park and casino is scheduled for completion by
2010. This development is within close proximity to Cabbella’s and the Kansas Speedway.
The area is located off of I-435 in Kansas City, Kansas.
28
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Exhibit II-16:
Population Change Trends
29
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Exhibit II-17:
Employment Concentrations
Source: MARC Outlook 2030
30
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
H. Trucking
National corridors for trucking (Exhibit II-18) include I-35 which runs from Texas in the South
to Michigan in the North. I-35 is a National Freight Corridor through out the Metropolitan area.
I-29 runs from Kansas City in the south to the Canadian border in the north. I-70 is the primary
east/west corridor in the city and runs from the west coast to the east coast. Highway 71 runs
north into Kansas City and contributes to national trucking flows in Kansas City. It also appears
that some trucking is diverted onto I-635, I-470, and I-435 on the Missouri side of the border.
Highway 69 and I-435 on the Kansas side appear to be regional freight corridors in the Kansas
City metropolitan area. I-435 on the Missouri side appears to gain traffic from regional trucking
in the north eastern curve. Highway 71 gains traffic from regional trucking.
Exhibit II-18: Significant Freight Corridors
National, Regional and Local Signifance
31
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Source: 2008 Kansas City Regional Freight Outlook Study
32
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
III. TOOLKIT
A. Overview
This chapter provides a comprehensive toolkit of all available HOV and managed lane
applications. The freeways and arterial roadway tools described here include both facililty
applications and traffic management applications.
Table III-1: Toolkit Summary
In Chapter IV, these tools will be examined for their feasibility based on conditions in the
Kansas City metropolitan area. In Chapter V recommendations for each toolkit application is
addressed. This examination will result in a package of proposed modifications to the existing
Congestion Management System (CMS) Toolkit.
B. Freeways
1. A. Facilities
33
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
a). New Lanes
Busway: A roadway or lane built in an entirely separate Right-of-Way. This facility is
exclusively for HOV use, primarily for buses. (Exhibit III-1)
Exhibit III-1:
Busway
Analysis: This practice is the most expensive to implement. Building of the roadway can
range from approximately $8.0 to $17.5 million per mile. The benefit of this facility is
that it can move 1,600 to 2,400 persons/hour/lane. (PB HOV Manual, 1999)
b). Lane Conversion (Freeway Right of Way)
Contraflow: An HOV facility that designates a freeway lane or lanes in the off-peak
direction of mixed-flow travel. The designated lane(s) is commonly separated by plastic
posts or a moveable barrier, but may have no separation. This type of facility usually
accommodates bus only or bus and vanpool only, but can include other HOV vehicles.
34
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Exhibit III-2:
Lane Conversion: Contraflow
Analysis: Contraflow lanes are some of the cheapest facilities to implement. They often
do not necessitate building of new lanes, because existing infrastructure can be converted.
Another aspect that can be either good or bad is that this facility only requires 400-800
vehicles/hour/lane. On the downside, this facility is only worth the effort if there is a
large amount of commuting in one direction, but not in the other. (PB HOV Manual,
1999)
Concurrent Flow (Barrier-Separated)
This consists of lanes built within the freeway right-of-way that is physically separated
from the other freeway lanes by barriers or pylons. This facility is HOV use only during
a portion or for all parts of the day. This facility also can be used in a reversible-flow
basis (like contraflow lanes) or two-way basis.
35
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Exhibit III-3:
Lane Conversion: Concurrant Flow
Analysis: This type of facility is expensive to implement; usually costing between $3.5
and $7.0 million per mile. The reason for the high cost is that often the freeways where
this facility is to be implemented is not wide enough to incorporate an HOV lane and
barrier(s). However, this facility is proven to yield lessened travel time savings and is
easily adjustable to accommodate different traffic scenarios. Also, it has a low peak-hour
minimum volume threshold of 400-800 vehicles/hour/lane. (PB HOV Manual, 1999)
Concurrent Flow (Buffer-Separated)
This facility features a lane that is not physically separated from adjacent mixed-flow
lanes. The lane is instead separated by a distance of one to three feet, and is marked by a
double yellow line and/or road reflectors. This facility often is HOV only use during
portion of the day and then is open to mix-flow traffic during the rest of the day.
Exhibit: III-4:
Concurrent Flow (Buffer-Separated)
36
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Analysis: This facility is easy to implement, in the event that existing infrastructure can
be converted to accommodate a one to three foot buffer. Cost of implementation can
range between $40,000 and $4.4 million per mile (if new infrastructure needs to be built).
This facility only requires a minimum threshold of 400-800 vehicles/hour/lane and
recommends a minimum bus volume of 10 to 15 passengers. (PB HOV Manual, 1999)
Bus on Shoulder
A lane that does not have a buffer between itself and adjacent mix-flow lanes. This
facility is either the farthest inside or farthest outside lane (shoulder may be used), and is
HOV only use during peak-hour traffic.
37
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Exhibit III-5:
Bus on Shoulder
Analysis: Bus on shoulder is fairly inexpensive to implement; only costing between
$42,000 and $66,000 per mile. The only costs are concerned with ensuring that the
shoulder is level, drivable, and wide enough to handle bus traffic. Other non-separated
facilities can range from being around $40,000 to $5 million per mile. (PB HOV Manual,
1999)
Express Lane:
Consists of lanes that are physically separated from the general-purpose lanes, and allow
limited access points. Express lanes are open to general traffic. This practice is usually
implemented between two destinations known to have high volumes of traffic. In some
instances, these lanes are tolled. A benefit of this type of lane management is that it is bidirectional; therefore, the lane(s) can be designated for temporary use in the opposite
direction of usual flow if need be.
38
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Exhibit III-6:Express Lane
Other options
Queue Bypass:
This facility consists of a lane, often non-separated, that operates in the same direction as
mixed-flow traffic lanes through a specified bottleneck, toll plaza, or street light. It is
basically, a “head of the line” process for HOV vehicles to pass queued traffic.
Exhibit III-6:
Queue Bypass
Analysis: This type of facility is very effective at being a preferential treatment towards buses
and HOV vehicles. If a street light does not have to be added implementation cost can be as little
39
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
as $50,000. Furthermore, Kansas City’s Scout Program and traffic coordination system will help
make operational costs minimal.
Direct Access:
This facility involves building additional ramps in the region that connects directly to the HOV
facility. Direct access ramps have been found in the Puget Sound Area to increase speed, access,
and reliability of bus operations. Furthermore, the ramps could also be used to allow direct
access for carpoolers and vanpoolers. In terms of location, direct access ramps can be used for
freeway-to-freeway or arterial-to-freeway connection.
Exhibit III-6:
Direct Access
Analysis: Direct access gives direct preferential treatments to HOV vehicles and buses. If used
in conjunction with the SCOUT program and existing coordinated light system this facility is
effective in creating time savings benefits. Implementation costs are high because of the need to
construct a new right-of-way, but operation and maintenance costs are all that exist upon
completion.
1. B Facility capital cost comparison - – The cost of the new bus lane option is significantly
higher than the conversion of a general purpose lane to a HOV facility as illustrated in the
following table.
40
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Table III-1: Facility Capital Cost Comparison
By $ Million per Mile
Facility operating cost and operations features are described in Table III-2
41
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Table III-2:
Operating Cost Comparisons and Other Factors
HOV Lane Types
Cost/Mile
(in
Millions)1
Annual
Operation
Cost (in
Millions)1,2
Minimum
Volumes
for Buses
Minimum
Volumes for
Peak Hour
Flows
Required
Lane
Width
Existing
Locations
$8.55$17.32
$0.08
40-60
1600-2400
18-24
feet
Pittsburgh,
PA
New Lane Separate Right-ofWay
Busway
Lane Conversions
- Freeway Rightof-Way
New Jersey,
Dallas,
Boston
Houston,
LA, San
Diego
Contraflow
$0.23$0.56
$0.06-$0.76
10 to 15
400-800
10-12
feet
Concurrent flow
(Barrier-Separated)
$3.50$6.45
$0.04-$6.30
10 to 15
400-800
18-24
feet
Concurrent flow
(Buffer-Separated)
$0.04$4.44
400-800
10-12
feet w/ 13 foot
buffer
Orlando,
Seattle,
Honolulu
$0.01-$0.26
10 to 15
Concurrent flow
(Non-Separated)
$0.04$5.00
$0.08
10 to 15
400-800
10-12
feet
Miami,
Montgomery
County
(MD)
Concurrent flow
(Bus on Shoulder)
$0.04$0.07
$0.08
40-60
1600-2400
(passengers)
12 feet
Minneapolis,
MN
$0.05$0.15
minimal
20-30
Preference
Treatment
Queue Bypass
42
Needs a
Oakland,
total of
San Diego,
20 feet
LA, Chicago
1
Prices inflated from 1999 using CPI
Calculator
2
Operation costs reflect existing facilities of
various route lengths.
100-200
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
1. C Special Applications
The following applications may be applied to the proceeding facilities:
a). HOT Lanes: These facilities require single-occupant vehicles to pay a toll in order to use
HOV facilities. The toll often varies based on demand. The idea behind HOT lanes is to
maximize the efficiency of an HOV facility’s ability to move vehicles; therefore, relieving
congestion.
b). Toll Lanes - This type of lane management requires drivers to pay a toll in order to utilize
the freeway. Tolling is conducted at either entry and exit points at designated tolling stations
or at multiple locations along the way via a method known as a mainline toll system. It is
possible to have tolling only during peak-hour in order to limit congestion. This facility may
be effective, but is often very controversial.
Exhibit III-8:
Toll Lanes
b). Temporary Use HOV Lanes: This application is ideal, and capable of providing HOV
facilities during flexible hours. In times of construction or lane closing a general mixed-use
lane can become an HOV lane during peak-hour traffic, in order to alleviate the bottleneck
effect.
43
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
2. Freeways - Traffic Demand Management
a) Ramp Metering This application utilizes a basic traffic light or a two-phase light to
regulate traffic entering freeways via a process called access rate reduction. The rate of
traffic flow entering the freeway is based on current traffic conditions. By utilizing
traffic control systems and the scout program, ramp metering allows a freeway at its
optimal rate of speed and ensures constant traffic flow.
Exhibit III-7:
Ramp Metering
HNTB Corp.
b). Active Traffic Management: (Exhibit III-8) this system involves adjusting speed
limits to better regulate traffic. It focuses on decreasing speeds upon increases in traffic
flow, congestion, or incidents to ensure maximum throughput. Through the use of traffic
control systems and the Scout program this technique’s initial costs are derived from
overhead signage and pavement markings (used to indicate lane status). The main benefit
of this system is the reduction of secondary accidents, and therefore, keeping an efficient
level of traffic movement. It is used primarily in Europe and is now being considered for
US applications.
44
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
C.) Active HOV Management (Exhibit III-9) A key to HOV lane success in ensuring
that volumes are adequate to justify implementation cost, but not so high as to degrade
HOV lane service. Active management provides tools to maintain effective balances.
For example, excess demand can be reduced by increasing HOV user requirement. Two
occupant vehicles HOV 2 can be changed to HOV 3 though variable message signs.
This process is illustrated in Exhibit III-9
Exhibit III-8
Active Traffic Management
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Source: Active traffic management concept for I-35W Minneapolis, Minnesota – Parsons Brinckerhoff
45
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Exhibit III-9:
Active HOV Management
A. For some period after opening, an HOV lane may have significant excess capacity
during peak periods. These “empty lanes”, as perceived by the public, often exist sideby-side with congested general purpose traffic.
B. Growth in HOV traffic eventually overwhelmes available capacity. Congestion in the
HOV facility degrades travel times.
C. In order to perserve travel times for transit, authorities must elmininate HOV2 access
to the facility, creating excess capacity that surpasses the amount of excess capacity
present at the opening of the facility.
(Source: Parson Brinckerhoff, workshop presentation, Mid-America Regional Council,
Five County Study, March 2009)
c). Coordinated Light System: This technique is effective at improving traffic flow and
reducing emissions by minimizing stops on arterial streets. Furthermore, this system
improves travel times along arterial networks. Linking all the involved intersection street
lights may make implementation costs high, but once installation is completed costs are
limited to operation and maintenance.
d) Highway Information System: This technique involves placing digital information
boards along the freeway that gives real time information about the upcoming roadways.
This allows freeway users to better plan their trips and reduce overall travel times.
Furthermore, this system can help create peak-period travel shifts; reducing congestion
46
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
during peak-hour travel. Design and implementation costs may be high since all
information boards will be new, but operation and maintenance costs are minimal.
e.) Advanced Traveler Information System: This technique involves creating a database
that contacts registered users over wireless devices and/or anyone interested via the
internet. The information sent gives anticipated freeway-users information about
roadway conditions, closures, accidents, speed estimates, and weather. This type of
system can reduce travel times and create peak-period travel shifts. Costs of
implementing such a system may be expensive due to required designing, but operation
and maintenance costs are minimal.
C. Arterials
1. Facilities
a). Bus Rapid Transit: Kansas City’s bus rapid transit system is integrated into the
Metropolitan Area Express MAX plan. Running on bus only lanes during peak-hour
traffic this system offers increased time savings and convenient locations along the Main
Street corridor between the River City market and Country Club Plaza. GPS units allow
users to know exact arrival times, and well lit bus shelters allow users a more comfortable
place to wait for arriving buses. Special traffic light signals give buses more green light
time through signal priority.
Exhibit III-10:
Bus Rapid Transit
b). Diamond Lanes: This facility is similar to the bus rapid transit system already in place
in that a separate right-of-way for buses is offered. Being able to avoid mixed-use traffic
travel time will be decreased and convenience for users will be increased. A benefit of
this facility is that existing infrastructure can be converted for bus use, and these bus only
lanes can tie directly into freeway HOV facilities.
47
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Exhibit III-11:
Diamond Lanes
c). Queue Jump: An additional travel lane that is restricted to HOV vehicle and bus use. The
lane exists on the approach to an intersection with a traffic signal. This facility focuses on
allowing HOV vehicles and buses to queue the traffic via a light signal that allows them to
proceed through the intersection before the other general purpose lanes.
Exhibit III-12: Queue Jumper
HNTB Corp.
d). Boarding Islands: This facility allows for pedestrians to safely board buses that operate in a
non-curb travel lane. There may be concern about pedestrians crossing the street to board the
buses; therefore, it is important to provide some type of warning to drivers via signage or traffic
calming devices.
e). Curb Extensions: A curb extension is a traffic calming measure that increases driver
awareness and slows traffic by simply narrowing the roadway. The curb extensions are often
marked by paint, barriers, or are raised with painted curbs. This facility is best suited for areas of
high pedestrian traffic.
2. Traffic Management Techniques
a). Light Preference: This technique helps speed up bus travel at intersections with traffic
signals. This system works by having the buses signal ahead, via radio, their arrival times, and
48
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
upon arrival the buses receive green lights at surrounding intersections. This technique often
works in conjunction with bus lanes.
b). Special Bus Turn Provisions: This technique, basically, allows buses along their routes to
commit turns that would otherwise be illegal. These provisions can create better scheduling, and
help buses meet their headways more efficiently.
c). Automated Traveler Information Systems (ATIS): This technique involves creating a
database that contacts registered users over wireless devices and/or anyone interested via the
internet. The information sent gives anticipated freeway-users information about roadway
conditions, closures, accidents, speed estimates, and weather. This type of system can reduce
travel times and create peak-period travel shifts. Costs of implementing such a system may be
expensive due to required designing, but operation and maintenance costs are minimal.
49
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
IV. ASSESSMENT
A. Overview
This chapter identifies and describes the roads to be assessed, the screening process and results,
and the HOV demand estimation process and results. Some of the assessments are based on
professional standards from the following reports:
o Transit Cooperative Research Program. TCRP 100 Report, Transit Capacity and Quality
of Service Manual, 2nd edition. Transportation Research Board, and the
o High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Manual, Parsons, Brinkerhoff, 1999.
A regional perspective is used to identify opportunities to achieve project goals through HOV
and managed lane strategies. Opportunities to apply the tools described in the preceding chapter
are identified. However, final corridor recommendations will be based on further studies that
include public involvement, additional planning and engineering level detail.
Exhibit VI-1:
Levels of Analysis Funnel
………………………...…..Regional………….………....……
Opportunities for regional
lane management & HOV applications
…………....Corridor……....
Treatment type
…..Facility..
engineering
50
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
B. Four step screening process
A four -step screening process was conducted to answer the following questions:
1. What roads are possible candidates for HOV/managed lane tools?
2. Of these roads, which are the most likely candidates for toolkit treatments? Which have
the highest existing and projected congestion, transit and carpool use, trip origins and
destinations in Environmental Justice areas and other factors?
3. Of these freeway candidates, what are the projected HOV lane demand estimates?
Projected HOV volumes can also be used to estimate potential reductions in vehicle miles
traveled, reduced emissions and energy consumption.
4. Are volumes high enough to warrant the implementation costs, and low enough to
prevent degradation of services? What are the pros and cons of various toolkit options
and what can be learned from other communities.
C. Demand Estimation
The number of buses, carpools and vanpools projected to use an HOV facility represents
important criteria in the sketch planning screening process. Demand estimation is based on a
simplistic sketch planning approach described in the HOV manual developed by Parsons
Brinkerhoff (Table IV-1). This technique is based on the following primary sources of demand:



Primary diversion: HOVs diverted from existing general purpose lanes.
Secondary diversion: Existing HOVs on parallel routes diverted to new HOV lane,
Latent demand: People who begin to carpool or use transit because of the new facility.
Projected growth – this study only addresses current conditions.
51
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Table IV-1: Demand Estimation Technique
Primary Diversion – is estimated by assuming that between 70 and 90 percent of the current mainline and
service road HOVs will divert onto the HOV facility, assuming the average trip distance is adequate for
the desired travel time savings. The aggregate directional mainline and service road value is multiplied by
.7 for a minimum estimate and .9 for a maximum estimate.
Secondary Diversion – The secondary diversion is estimated by assuming between 25 and 50 percent of
the currently eligible parallel route HOVs will divert onto an HOV facility, assuming the average trip
distance is adequate for the desired travel time savings. The aggregate HOV value on all parallel routes is
multiplied by .25 for a minimum estimate and .5 for a maximum estimate.
Latent Demand – The latent demand is estimated by taking the low and the high estimates derived for the
primary diversion and multiplying by 1.2 and 1.6 respectively, for a minimum and maximum estimate of
latent demand. The general rule of thumb is that latent demand may represent up to two-thirds of the
forecast use on a new HOV facility. The latent demand will be influenced by the travel time savings and
travel time reliability offered by the HOV facility.
Current Demand – The subtotals for the various estimates are calculated (E+G and E+G+H) to obtain a
low and a high demand estimate for the current year.
Growth – A local growth factor can be applied to the subtotal to project demand in a future year. The
local growth factor may reflect different time periods.
Future Demand – The local growth factor is multiplied by the previous current demand subtotal to obtain
the future demand estimation.
52
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
D. Roadways under consideration
The road network considered includes all freeways, as identified by the Congestion Management
System (CMS), all transit corridors included in the regional transit plan including Commuter
Express, Urban Services and Major fixed routes corridors.
Freeways are assessed separately by the length of congested segments. This is because the
creation of an HOV lane is most useful for road lengths that exceed 10 miles. (TCRP 100 report)
Shorter freeway segments may be more appropriate for treatments such queue jumpers and
traffic management.
1. Freeways
Freeways rated Level of Service LOS D or lower in the Congestion Management System are
described in Table IV-2, and are segments eight or more miles in length. Table IV-3 has road
segments for roads that are less eight than miles long.
Table IV-2: Freeway Candidates for Consideration
Congestion segments 8 miles or longer
Freeway
Boundaries
Level of Service
Distance (miles)
Throughout Metro
E and F
38
East of I-35 to M-7
E and F
18
East from K-10 to US71
E and F
14
South of US-24 to
North of Bannister Rd
E and F
10
I-29
South of Barry Rd. to
I-35
D, E, F
10
US-71
South of Bannister Rd.
to Metro Boundary
D, E, F
8
I-35
I-70
I-435
53
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Freeway
M-7
US-71
M-291
I-635
US-69
M-291
M-350
M-1
I-435
I-470
US-50
US-169
Table IV-3:Freeway Candidates for Consideration
Congested segments less than 8 miles long
Level of
Boundaries
Service
I-70 South to Colburn Rd.
South of Bannister Rd. to Metro
Boundary
South of US-40 to Coburn Rd.
Between I-35 and Santa Fe Ave.
South of I-35 past 135th St.
South of M-210 to North of Us-24
West of I-435 in Missouri
3 mile section North of I-35
Armour Rd to Front St.
East of US-71 Junction
South of I-470 Junction
North of I-29 Junction for 2 miles
Distance
(miles)
F
D, E, F
D
F
E and F
E
F
E
D
E
D
D
1. Arterial Roads
Arterial roads considered include all urban corridor and major fixed routes corridors, as
identified in the regional transit plan (Exhibit II-9).
Table IV-4
Arterial Candidates for Consideration
Urban Services (Bus Rapid Transit Corridors)
Main Street - MAX
State Avenue
Troost Ave
Linwood Street
Truman Avenue
Metcalf Avenue
Shawnee Mission Parkway
54
8
8
7
5
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Table IV-5
Arterial Candidates for Consideration
Major Fixed Routes
12- 12th Street
24- Independence
25- Troost
28- Blue Ridge
31- 31st Street
39- 39th Street
51- Ward Parkway
56- Country Club
71- Prospect
106- Quindaro
108- Indiana
173- Casino
53/54- Armour Swope/Paseo
Source: MARC On-Board Transit Survey
E. Screening
1. Freeways – Primary Criteria
The primary criteria used in the freeway screening process included the factors below.
Congestion Levels – Existing and forecasted traffic congestion levels within a corridor or
on a facility serve as good indicators of the need for a HOV improvement. The criteria
should be revised for local conditions but should be identified by using criterion, such as
level of service (LOS) D or E, or average peak hour speeds in miles per hour. Data from
the MARC Congestion Management System was used.
Travel Patterns – The origins and destinations to be served by a possible HOV facility.
Journey to work data is used to provide general pattern information.
Current Bus and Car Pool Volumes – Existing transit services, carpools and vanpools in a
corridor can be used to provide an indication of the potential use of an HOV facility.
MARC’s Onboard Transit Survey and Vehicle Occupancy studies are the data sources
used.
Travel Time Savings and Travel Time Reliability – Estimating the potential travel time
savings and travel time reliability offered by the HOV facility. MARC has information
on current travel times in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area.
Trip Distance –The average distance of commute trips in a corridor can also provide a
good indication of the possible candidates for HOV facilities. Longer distance trips may
realize greater travel time savings.
55
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Person Throughput – A major objective of the HOV facility is to increase the personmoving capacity of a corridor or facility. To meet this objective, the HOV lane should
carry more people in fewer vehicles than the adjacent mixed-flow lanes. Peak hour travel
volumes are used.
Cost Effectiveness – Cost effectiveness represents another criteria used to choose
between alternative HOV facilities. The toolkit includes generalized cost estimates for
each tool.
Environmental Justice – Special treatment for highways and arterials that provide service
to neighborhoods identified by MARC Outlook 2030 Plan as having Environmental
Justice Concerns.
Environmental Concerns – Special emphasis should be taken to ensure that any HOV
plan contain Environmental considerations. A high level of environmental stewardship
needs to be developed to ensure the Kansas City Metro area receives federal funding.
The screening results are described on Table IV-6
56
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Table IV-6 Screening – Part I
Freeway
Screen
CRITERIA
Standard/Source
Data
FEASIBILITY RANK
FREEWAY
FREEWAY
I-35
1. Lower
2. Medium
3. Higher
FREEWAY
FREEWAY
I-29
I-435
I-70
Description
Throughout
Metro
Rank
E and F
3
Description
Rank
Downtown to
Metro Boundary
Description
Rank
FR
Description
East from K-10
to US-71
From I-35 to
Metro Boundary
Rank
De
So
So
A. CONGESTION
Existing
B. PEAK HOUR
VOLUMES
C. VEHICLE
OCCUPANCY
Level of Service is D or
worse
MARC Congestion
Management
System Report
LOS C or
better
0-1,000
Ability to maximize
vehicle occupancy
LOS D
LOS E AND F
1,500-2,500
greater than
2,500
MARC's Vehicle
Occupancy Report
D. BUS VOLUMES
Number of passengers MARC's On Board Less than
required to justify HOV Travel Study route 300 per day
treatment:
data by high,
medium and low
volumes
E. TRIP DISTANCE
Trip distance is at least Calculated
10 miles
D. MAJOR
EMPLOYMENT
DESTINATIONS and
LAND USE
Trips serve major
employment
destinations
Less than 10
300 to 1,000
per day
10-15
2,977
PM Avg: 1.21,
AM Avg: 1.14
More than a
1,000 per day
120
Over 15
38
Employment
General Observations
Concentration Map
and Journey to
Work Data
F
3
3
2,800
PM Avg:1.18,
AM Avg: 1.13
1 I-70 to Blue
Springs
3
D and E
3
2,501
PM Avg:1.17, AM
Avg: 1.64
1
18
3
3
126
10
E and F
3
3
3,109
PM Avg:1.22, AM
Avg: 1.17
1
180
2
14
3
PM
Av
1 12
2
3
3
3
3
E. ENVIRONMENTAL Trip Origin in
JUSTICE Environmental Justice
Area
Journey to Work
Data,
Environmental
Justice areas
General Observations
Yes
2
3
1
1
F. Population
Centers
Corridor connects
heavily populated
areas and growing
areas
Population growth General Observations
maps
Yes
3
3
2
3
Trucking
National, Regional and Corridor of Freight
Local freight corridors Significance Maps
3
3 National
3 Regional
3 Na
F. PARK AND RIDE
LOTS
Availability to serve
transit users and
carpoolers
G. Past or current
study activity if any.
Yes if application are
recommended
Park N Ride
location data and
population density
around lot
National
1 lot
2 lots
2 +=lots
NO
7
3
6
3
2
2
Yes
Yes
RANKING
3 Yes
27
57
3 Yes
28
3 Yes
23
3 Ye
22
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Table IV-6 Screening – Part II.
Freeway
Screen
CRITERIA
FEASIBILITY
RANK
Data
Data
1. Lower
2. Medium
LOS C or
better
LOS D
3. Higher
Description
Throughout
Metro
FEASIBILITY
RANK
FREEWAY
FREEWAY
I-35
I-70
FREEWAY
FREEWAY
1. Lower
Description
Rank 2. Medium
Description3. Higher Rank
Downtown to
From I-35 to
Metro Boundary
Metro Boundary
Rank
FREEWAY
FREEWAY
I-35
I-435
I-29
FREEWAY
FREEWAY
I-70I-435
FREEWAY
I-29 US 71
Description
Description RankRank Description
Description Rank
Throughout
Downtown
to US-24 to
East from K-10
South of
Metro
Metro
Boundary
to US-71
South
of M-350
FREEWAY
I-435
FREEWA
I-435
Description
Rank
Description
Rank
Description
Rank
South
From I-35
to of US-50 to East from K-10
to US-71
Metro Boundary
Metro Boundary
Rank
US
Description
South of US-24 to
South of M-350
Rank
Descriptio
South of U
Metro Bou
A. CONGESTION
or
MARC Congestion
Management
System Report
0-1,000
MARC's Vehicle
Occupancy Report
rs MARC's On Board Less than
OV Travel Study route 300 per day
data by high,
medium and low
volumes
ast Calculated
ce
Less than 10
Existing
of Service
LOS E AND Level
F
E and Fis D or
worse
B. PEAK HOUR
1,500-2,500
greater than
VOLUMES
2,500
2,977
C. VEHICLE
Ability
toAvg:
maximize
PM
1.21,
OCCUPANCY
vehicle
AMoccupancy
Avg: 1.14
Journey to Work
Data,
Environmental
Justice areas
E. TRIP DISTANCE
10-15
Over 15
Trucking
1 lot
NO
0-1,000
3
2,800
MARC's Vehicle
PM Avg:1.18,
Occupancy
AMReport
Avg: 1.13
Trip distance is at least
38 Calculated
3
10 miles
Trips serve major
employment
destinations
E. ENVIRONMENTAL
Trip Origin in
General Observations
Yes
JUSTICE Environmental Justice
Area
F. Population Yes
Population growth General Observations
Centers
maps
Park N Ride
location data and
population density
around lot
MARC F LOS C or 3
Congestion
better
Management
System Report
RIDE
2 lots F. PARK AND
2 +=lots
LOTS
G. Past or current
Yes
study activity if any.
RANKING
Corridor connects
heavily populated
areas and growing
areas
Yes if application are
recommended
Yes
E and
F F
E and
greater than
2,500
2,501
PM Avg:1.17, AM
Avg: 1.64
1300 to 1,000
per day
10-15
2,9773,109
3
PMPM
Avg:
1.21, AM
Avg:1.22,
AMAvg:
Avg:1.17
1.14
More
than a
126
1,000 per day
1
120 180
Over 15
10
2
38 14
F E and F 3
3
3 D and E E and F 3
3 E and F
3
2,800
3
2,501
3
2,777
3
PM Avg:1.18,
PM Avg:1.17,
PM Avg:1.22, AM
DataAM
Not
AM Avg:
Avg: 1.64Available
Avg: 1.13
1.17
1 I-70
to Blue
1 129
and 243 Routes1
Springs
126471
1 28X and
3
2
2
18
3
14
2,6663
3
3,109
3
PM Avg:1.22, AM
Avg: 1.17
1
10
1
2
8
Employment
General Observations
3
3
Concentration Map
and Journey to
Work Data
Journey
2 to Work
Data,
Environmental
Justice areas
3
E and F
3
E an
1,500-2,500
3
Less
18than 10 3
180
14
3
2,777
PM Avg:1.22, AM
Avg: 1.17
3
Data Not
Available
1 129 and 243 Routes
1 28X and 4
2
2
14
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
General Observations
3
Yes
1
2
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
Population
growth General Observations
3
3
maps
Yes
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3National
Regional
3
3 National
3 National
3 National
3 National
3 National
3 Yes
3 Yes
National,
Regional and Corridor
National
3 of Freight
Local freight corridors Significance Maps
Availability to serve 7
transit users and
carpoolers
LOS D and ELOS E AND 3
F
3
BUS VOLUMES
300 toD.1,000
More than a Number of passengers
120 MARC's
1 On
I-70Board
to BlueLess than
route 300 per day
per day
1,000 per dayrequired to justify HOV Travel Study
Springs
treatment:
data by high,
medium and low
volumes
D. MAJOR
Employment
General Observations
EMPLOYMENT
Concentration Map
DESTINATIONS and
and Journey to
LAND USE
Work Data
nd Corridor of Freight
rs Significance Maps
e
Standard/Source
FREEWAY
Park N3Ride
location data and
population density
around lot
3 National
16 lot
32 lots
NO
3 Yes
27
2 +=lots2
2
7
3
6
3
3 Regional
3
2
72
3
Yes
3Yes
Yes
3 Yes
28
23
58
3 Yes
3 Yes
27 22
3 Yes
28
3 Yes
24
3 Yes
23
3
24
22
24
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
2. Freeway HOV Demand Assessment Results
The following table shows the worksheet for the demand estimation.
Table IV -7
Demand Estimation
Data Requirement
Vehicle
Vehicle
Location
I-35
Throughout
Metro*
I-35 South of
Downtown*
Primary Diversion
Occupancy
Rate
0.7
0.9
Secondary Diversion
0.25
A. AM Peak
B. Percent of 2+ Volume of 2+
Low D=70%
High D=90%
Low D=25%
Hour Volume
vehicles
vehicles
2977
208
146
188
7.0%
Latent Demand
0.5
High D=50%
1.2
Sub-totals
1.6
Low
F=120%
Low High
High F=160%
175
300
321
488
3074
7.0%
215
150.6
193.7
181
310
331
504
I-35 North of
Downtown
2828
7.0%
198
138.6
178.2
166
285
305
463
I-70 Total
East of
Downtown
I-70
Downtown to
M-291
I-70 M-291 to
Metro
Boundary
I-435 K-10 to
US 71*
4350
6.5%
283
197.9
254.5
238
407
435
662
6.5%
363
254
558
849
6.5%
196
137
301
458
8.5%
264
185
407
618
542
824
489
743
321
488
5579
326
3008
3109
I-435 US-71 to
US-24
8.5%
352
I-29
3737
2451
A.
B.
8.5%
318
222
8.5%
208
146
A+B=C
522
176
164
282
238
222
381
317
296
507
286
267
457
246
4142
US 71
305
CxD=E
188
CxD=E
175
CxD=H
CxD=H
300
G
Local Growth Factor
Total Initial 2+ HOV
Demand Range
*denotes dated data not from current Scout figures, dated data
The demand estimates, in Table IV- 8 give evidence of several options for HOV facilities in the
region. On the higher end are I-70, from the Central Business District, to M-291 and I-435 from
US-24 to US-71. Both of these corridors have demand estimates projecting more than 800
vehicles per hour usage of HOV lanes; sufficient to justify separate right of way HOV lanes. I-29
was not far behind I-35 and I-435, in terms of demand, at 743 vehicles per HOV lane, which
qualifies I-29 for several HOV treatments. Several highway segments in Kansas did not have the
most recent traffic counts and may be undercounted (I-35 and I-435). However, there were recent
traffic counts available for the highway segments in Missouri.
59
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Table IV-8:
Projected HOV volumes and Minimum Operating Thresholds
Yes: Meets Standard - No: Does not meet standard.
Projected Freeway HOV Volumes
Minimum Operating Threshold (peak
hour) volumes per lane per hour (vplph)
Location
New
HOV
Lane
800-1000
HOV by
Lane
Conversion
Queue Bypass
400-800
100-200
I-35 Throughout Metro area
321-488
No
Yes
Yes
I-35 South of Downtown
331-504
No
Yes
Yes
I-35 North of Downtown
305-463
No
Yes
Yes
I-70 East of Downtown
435-662
No
Yes
Yes
I-70 Downtown to M-291
558-849
Yes
Yes
Yes
I-70 M-291 to Metro
Boundary
301-348
No
No
Yes
I-435 K-10 to US 71*
407-618
No
Yes
Yes
I-435 US 71* to US 24
542-824
Yes
I-29
489-763
Possibly
Yes
Yes
US 71
321-488
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sources: Minimum Operating Standards (Parsons Brinkerhoff, HOV Manual, 1999)
volumes data (MARC) and calculation (study team)
60
Existing
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Exhibit IV-2
Feasible Freeway Corridors
Freeways Meeting Minimum standards for Lane Conversions and New HOV lanes
61
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Overview
The recommendations presented here are intended to maximize traffic flow for all major
roadway users and provide better service for high occupant vehicles (HOV): transit, carpool,
vanpools, and shuttles. Hopefully by taking an all inclusive approach there will be more
beneficiaries, and benefits that can result in more community support. For example, the
beneficiaries could include carpoolers and transit riders, single occupant cars, commercial
vehicles and tourists, and people of all income levels. The benefits could include more
predictable travel times for all users, improved safety, and cleaner air. Also new toll revenues
could be used for transit expansions.
Historically, the region has enjoyed low congestion as the result of its long-term commitment to
freeway construction. However, travel times have now begun to degrade (Exhibit II-3) and
further degradation is expected as the population continues to grow and as the already massive
amount of land that Kansas City covers develops further.
New technologies however provide important opportunities for the region to move forward in
new ways that may:
Make the most of the region’s infrastructures in a socially and environmentally
responsible manner,
Provide expanded resources for economic development particularly in the area of freight
movement and tourism,
Leverage existing infrastructure while controlling for sprawl,
Decrease vehicles miles traveled, and
More equitably distribute transportation resources.
To achieve this, an incremental and strategic approach is recommended, one based on the
following vision:
Vision:
Freeway and arterial roadway capacity is enhanced by
increased vehicle occupancy and throughput via expanded
transit, HOV facilities, bus preference tools, other active
traffic and demand management techniques
These recommendations are intended to help set the stage for needed conversations and decision
making. They are informed by the previous chapters (Existing Condition, Assessment, and
Toolkit) as well as the capital costs described in the following table.
62
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Exhibit V-1:
Cost Comparisons: Cost per Million per Mile
(Source: Calculations were made based on data from HNTB and Parsons Brinkerhoff)
B. Freeways
1. Freeways - Expanded Transit, HOV Facilities and Other Bus Preference Options.
Recommendation: Implement additional bus service on freeways. The success of a
regional HOV/managed lane system will be based on a strong foundation of regional
transit to enhance HOV ridership. The region’s long range transit plan (Exhibit V-3) has
already identified needed transit services are the regional freeways. (Exhibit V-3: blue
and yellow lines)
Both transit and carpooling support systems (park and ride lots and ride match services)
should be planned, funded and implemented hand-in-hand with roadway improvements.
This collaborative planning could be enhanced administratively by merging MARC’s
transportation committees by function rather than mode. Also improved transit
63
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
expansions are crucial in achieving the major study goal of ensuring regional social
equity. This connection is described in more detail in the following:
Exhibit V-2: Environment Justice Considerations
Transit and Social Equity
 Low income and minority populations are public transit’s most loyal customers but
transportation funds too often go toward increasing suburban ridership. (Taylor
1999)
 In a comparison of roadway expenditures versus mass transit expenditures,
Dittmar and Chen find that urban low-income communities and rural communities
receive a smaller share of transportation funds than their suburban counterparts.
(1994)
 Officials responsible for choosing the location of facilities typically use
conventional market place criteria in making their decision. One factor often
overlooked however: is there a transportation system that can provide people
efficient affordable access to it? (Grimshaw and Mizuno 1994)
 Individuals on welfare with shorter commute times and better access to
employment rich areas tend to leave the welfare program faster than individuals
with longer commute. (Blumenberg and Ong 1994).
 On the link between public transit and employment it appears possible that
improved access to public transit can overcome the physical separation between
the residential locations of nonwhite workers and job locations. (Sanchez 1999).
 African Americans, other ethnic minorities and other persons with low household
incomes walk, bicycle and use transit more than the general populations, but are
also more likely to be the victims in auto-pedestrian/bicycle crashes. (Corless and
Arteaga 2000)
64
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Exhibit V-3: Proposed Regional Transit System - MARC
Commuter Service, Urban Services and Major fixed route service
Source: MARC Regional Transit Plan Update
65
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Bus on Shoulder (BOS)
Bus operations on I-35 freeway shoulder is expected to reduce travel time by 20 percent or
and triple ridership. (I-35 Corridor Study, Johnson County Transit and HNTB Corp.) BOS is
used only when traffic slows to 35 mph or less. For safety sake, speed differential stays at 15
percent or less. Safety is further enhanced by trained bus operators. Cars using the general
purpose lanes typically use the highway everyday for peak hour commutes so they get use to
it quickly.
Recommendation: Implement bus on shoulder on I-35. (South of Downtown to south
metro boundary). This is a high priority recommendation based on feasibility determined
in the I-35 Corridor Study, reasonable capital cost (Exhibit V-1) and the projects potential
to educate the region on BOS potential. The project also received high marks because it
serves the central business district of the region and provides linkages to Environmental
Justice area. (Chapter IV: screening)
Recommendation: Consider bus on shoulder in other corridors.
Assess feasibility on I-70, I-35 (north of Downtown), I-29, US 71, and I-435. As general
purpose lanes are upgraded over time, shoulder can be improved to meet bus-on-shoulder
standards such as ten-foot shoulders, rumble strips and needed drainage inlets
modifications. Structural support may also need to be assessed. Revise Missouri state
laws as needed.
Recommendation: Implementation activities should consider the following: Since bus on
shoulder does not provide benefit to carpoolers, support facility for carpoolers should be
added including park and ride lot improvement or additions, and preferential downtown
parking.
Conversion of General Purpose Lane to HOV lane.
Recommendation: Consider HOV lane conversion on segments that meet minimum
operating standards i.e. HOV volumes of 400 – 800 vehicles per lane per hour (vplph.
Table V-2: Freeway segments meeting standard for HOV Lane Conversion
Freeway Segments
Projected HOV Volumes
Low to High
I-35 Throughout Metro area
321-488
I-35 South of Downtown
331-504
I-35 North of Downtown
305-463
I-70 East of Downtown
435-662
I-70 Downtown to M-291
558-849
I-435 K-10 to US 71
407-618
I-435 US 71 to US 24
542-824
I-29
489-763
US 71
321-488
Sources: Minimum Operating Standards (Parsons Brinkerhoff, HOV Manual, 1999),
existing volumes data (MARC) and calculation (study team)
66
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Recommendation: Review the political feasibility of lane conversions and conduct related public
education activities. Conversion of general purpose lanes can be controversial if the public
thinks they look “empty”. This may be the case even though they may be carrying as many or
more people as general purpose lanes. The study described is
the side bar and exhibit show that past HOV lanes are still in
operation and that HOV lane creation is on the rise.
Exhibit V-1: Locations of US HOV Lanes
Dark dots are projects terminated since 1970
Are HOV Lane Conversions
unpopular to implement?
too
A major study by Parson Brinckerhoff
with FHWA conducted in 2001
addressed this concern. Below are some
findings:
The data does not suggest that there has
been any consistent backlash throughout
the country to terminate existing or
proposed HOV lane projects.
(Source: HOV Facility Development: A Review of National Trends, 2001 Chuck
Fuhs, Parsons Brinckerhoff and Jon Obenberger, FHWA)
Exhibit V-2: Current and Planned Freeway HOV Lane Miles
To the contrary, the last HOV lane to be
terminated in the U.S. occurred on I-80
and I-287 on the Dulles Toll Road in
Northern Virginia, where a lane was
constructed and initially opened to
general purpose traffic, and then it was
converted into an HOV lane. The Dulles
project was terminated because it
reclaimed newly constructed lanes
opened to general traffic for HOV use,
creating a backlash among commuters.
The Dulles HOV lanes have since been
re-implemented along this entire facility
after the additional roadway capacity
was constructed to accommodate HOV
lanes.
The total number of HOV lanes
terminated since 1969 represent less
than 5% of all HOV lane route-miles”
(Source: HOV Facility Development: A Review of National Trends, 2001 Chuck Fuhs,
Parsons Brinckerhoff and Jon Obenberger, FHWA)
67
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Recommendation: Once an HOV lane is implemented, consider using variable message
signs to inform the public of the real time passenger miles traveled in both the HOV and
general purpose lane.
Queue jumpers
Recommendation: Maximize queue jumper use where possible to enhance transit and
carpool use. Enforce existing queue jumpers. Implement in areas such as US 71 (north of
I-435) at signalized intersections to give existing transit services a priority. Also US 71
has reserved right- of-way for future light rail transit. Enhanced bus preference on US 71
now can help build the market for more extensive HOV applications in the future.
Use HOV and Managed Lanes to promote tourism - KCI to Regional Tourist
Attractions.
Recommendation: Use the Regional HOV/Managed Lane toolbox to create tourist
friendly transportation among major destinations: For example, implement between the
airport (KCI) and Downtown along I-29. Next, use tools to link I-29 with the regional
bus rapid transit BRT system. Tools could include lane conversion, bus on shoulder or
just some queue jumpers to give tourist (and local commuters) the advantage over using
rental cars or taxis. Develop a related marketing strategy to attract more tourists to the
region and to serve them well once they arrive.
New HOV Lane(s)
Recommendation: Study the long term feasibility of constructing new HOV lanes on the
region’s most congested freeways such as I-70 (between Downtown and M 291), and
segments of I-435 and I-29. Minimum standards for new HOV lane construction are
800-1000 vehicles per lane per hour. The table below describes the freeway section
currently meeting or nearly meeting that minimum standard.
Table V-3 Freeways meeting standards for New HOV lane
(8 miles or more in length)
Freeway Segments
Projected HOV Volumes
Low to High
I-70 Downtown to M-291
I-435 US 71* to US 24
I-29
558-849
542-824
489-763
Sources: Minimum Operating Standards, (Parsons Brinkerhoff, HOV Manual, 1999)
Existing volumes data (MARC) and calculation (study team)
Recommendation: Due to the cost and possible negative environmental consequences of new
HOV lane construction, each of the following issues should be addressed in future studies.
Caution: The creation of new excess capacity can have the consequence of making car travel
more attractive and actually increasing congestions. (Anthony Downs) A goal is to find the
balance between making the most of existing infrastructure without providing a lot of
incentives for more and more freeway travel.
68
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Tolling/Pricing Based on one sketch planning assessment standard, tolling is not yet
considered feasible. This is because travel times of 30 mph for 2 or more hours for a
distance of 3-5 miles do not exist. (Parson Brinkerhoff) But tolling may used for a
variety of reasons other than travel time conditions. For example: to offset construction
and operating cost, to manage demand, and to provide funding source for additional
transit services. Also HOV lanes operating under capacity can allow single occupant
vehicles to use the lane if a toll is paid. This can expand the HOV lane capacity.
Thoughts on Pricing
“As long as the private vehicle remains underpriced it will be very difficult to develop viable
alternatives. We have made large investment in public transit and HOV lanes, yet transit
market share remains flat and carpooling continues to decline. Why? The low price and
high convenience of private vehicle travel makes it the preferred mode of travel for most
people most of the time. We engage in wasteful public policy when we invest in alternative
modes while doing nothing to correct for the under pricing of the private vehicle.”
Susan Hanson and Genevieve Giuliano, 2004
“Charging employees for parking, even when combined with a transportation allowance of
the same amount, leads to significant reductions in drive alone commuting.”
Shoup and Wilson 1992
Trucking enhancements Future planning should consider that trucks traditionally do not
use HOV lanes unless there is enough demand to warrant two directional lanes. Also,
required use of HOV lanes by trucks has been unpopular. However, high cost projects
such as HOV lane additions, should typically serve multiple objectives. For example, the
region’s trucking industry could potentially be a beneficiary. Future studies should
answer the questions: How might new HOV lane construction with managed lanes
leverage activities at the new intermodal facilities in the southern part of the region?
Barrier-separated bi-directional lanes. This tool would add two new lanes so two inside
lanes could be used as HOV in both directions (simultaneously or at different times). A
benefit of this facility type is that it can handle high degrees of congestion and meet
maximum operating thresholds. Once congestion catches up and service degrades, direct
access ramps could be added. In the Puget Sound Area direct access ramps were found to
69
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
increase speed, access, reliability, and provide added preferential treatment to buses
and/or HOV users.
Recommendation: Consider HOV/managed lane tools as an alternative to, or as a first
phase toward implementing commuter rail. HOV capital costs are lower than commuter
rail. (Exhibit V-1). These tools could help build transit ridership in general commuter
corridors where commuter rail is envisioned in the future. Such a phasing strategy would
help justify commuter rail later, because ridership projections could be higher. Today’s
commuter rail ridership projections have not met standards required to receive federal
funding.
2. Freeways - Traffic Management
The region already benefits from the existence of the traffic management system known as
SCOUT that operating on I-70, I-35, and I-435. The system monitors traffic with cameras
and then uses variable message signs to warn motorist of incidents ahead.
Recommendation: Expand the existing SCOUT system to all major freeways.
Recommendation: Consider adding active traffic management tool to SCOUT. Consider
adding tools to alter speed limits in response to incidents (car wrecks, weather conditions,
etc.) so that traffic does not come to a standstill and also to prevent secondary
accidents/incidents. Slowing speeds to 55 miles per hour during peak hour increases the
people moving capacity of a corridor. (PB) Higher average speeds are more likely to
increase accidents than lower speeds. When speeds are high many drivers feel less safe
and break more often. This breaking then slows traffic. More cars, operating at higher
speeds, require longer headways and thus reduce highway capacity. Implementing active
traffic management may provide an incremental approach that can set the stage for other
more aggressive HOV tools later.
Recommendation: Implement ramp metering. Monitor the success of the region’s first
proposed ramp meter on I-435 and consider expansion to other freeway ramps. Consider
giving ramp metering preference to transit before cars where applicable. This tool has
relative low implementation costs.
While freeways offer opportunities to increase vehicle occupancy particularly for longer
distance trips to major destinations, transit use on freeways however can be problematic.
Riders typically cannot walk to bus stops, and there are fewer connections with local activity
centers. For this reason it is important for a HOV strategy to comprehensively address the
use of HOV and managed lane tools on arterial roads i.e. the city streets.
C. Arterial Recommendations
It is on the city streets/arterial road, rather than freeways, where we access the places we want to
go. It is here that transit riders can also walk or bike to transit stops. The region can further
70
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
increase the effectiveness of its transportation system by maximizing transit service and bus
preference tools throughout the arterial roadway system.
The region’s long range transit plan identifies where arterials transit corridors are warranted
based on transit demand studies (Exhibit V-2). These include Urban Corridor (illustrated in red)
that are now or projected to be bus rapid transit (BRT) services, and the Major Fixed Routes
(illustrated in yellow) that consist of major transit corridors. There are also local services
depicted in grey.
A full complement of HOV/managed lane tools is available to increase vehicle occupancy on
city streets and to link those routes with the freeway improvements previously discussed. This in
turn, can help increase ridership and mitigate the negative environmental and economic effects
caused by private automobiles. The key to creating a city that is eco-friendly is to create a bus
system that is attractive to all citizens, and does not create a substantial inconvenience.
1. Services and Facilities
Expand transit routes and carpool support services.
Recommendation: implement additional bus service to further enhance the capacity of the
existing arterial roadway system. Implement services proposed in MARC regional transit
plan with its comprehensive system of park and ride lots. Continue and expand rideshare
system supports. Enhance rideshare marketing and help make more people aware of the
new internet based Park and Ride lot finder.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) exclusive bus lanes and traffic signal light priority
Recommendation: Maximize BRT implementation on urban transit corridors. (Red lines,
Exhibit V-1). It is a necessity for a city the size of Kansas City to have a bus system that can
supply efficient headways, bus preferential treatment, and decreased commute times to its
residents. The BRT system is Kansas City’s opportunity to do just that. The successful MAX
operation has set the stage for future expansions in the following corridors: State Avenue,
Troost Ave, Linwood Street, Truman Avenue, portions of Metcalf Avenue, and extending the
Shawnee Mission Parkway route west to Metcalf Avenue.
Recommendation: First priorities should include routes in Environmental Justice area. These
particularly include State Avenue, Troost, and Linwood Boulevard. Prospect Avenue should
also be considered.
Recommendation: Another first priority corridor is Shawnee Mission Parkway. The highest
number of work trips (Journey to Work, 2000 U.S. Decennial Census) are between Jackson
and Johnson Counties. (Nearly 40,000 people from Johnson County to Jackson County and
nearly 50,000 in the reverse direction).
71
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Other Major Fixed Transit Routes
Recommendation: Expand bus preference tools to high volume bus routes, as identified by
the MARC On-Board Transit Survey.
Table V-3: High Volume Bus Routes
12- 12th Street
24 Independence
25Troost
28- Blue Ridge
31- 31st Street
56- Country Club
71- Prospect
106- Quindaro
108- Indiana
173- Casino
39- 39th Street
53/54- Armour
Swope/Paseo
51- Ward
Parkway
Source:
MARC On-Board Transit Survey
Recommendation: Link arterial bus routes to freeways with HOV lanes, queue jumpers and
signal priority (including transit preference at ramp meters). Create exclusive bus lane
extensions at interchanges where freeways and BRT routes come together. Such connection
can be made by utilizing either ramp metering that gives preference to buses and HOV users
or queue bypass. The lane extensions would work in- conjunction with a light preference
system that allows buses and HOV users to turn on to entrance ramps before general traffic.
There may be particular opportunities for linkages at the roads described in Table V-4
Table V-4: Possible Opportunities for Freeway to Arterial road links
Via HOV and or Bus Preference Tools
Shawnee Mission Parkway to I-35
Shawnee Mission Parkway to I-435
KCI airport express I-29 to BRT system
to promote tourism.
Prospect Avenue to I-70
Main Street to I-70
Metcalf Avenue to I-35
Metcalf Avenue to I-435.
Queue Bypass
Recommendation: Explore opportunities where queue bypass can be used to provide bus
preference at intersection. The queue would allow for the buses and carpools in a
specified lane to go before general traffic at an intersection. Enforce existing queue
jumpers and maximize use at other locations. One current need is on US 71 at the
signalized intersections north of I-435.
72
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
Bus Preference for pedestrian safety in Environmental Justice Areas
Recommendation: For BRT or other transit services in environmental justice areas,
design bus preferential treatments to promote safety. Pedestrian safety in environmental
justice area is a higher than average and a regional concern. Bus preference features can
make pedestrian access safer. BRT, bus boarding islands, and traffic calming measures,
such as raised crosswalks, speed bumps, sidewalk improvements, and bump outs can go a
long way in making the proposed BRT corridors and other transit routes in
Environmental Justice areas safer for auto, transit and pedestrian activity.
If executed properly, traffic calming measures, can also provide for better pedestrian
access and mobility. Higher percentages of transit riders in low income areas walk to
transit stops. Crosswalks (raised and flat) can permit for better access, by designating
right-of-ways for pedestrians, especially for wheelchair-bound persons. If pedestrian
access to bus and transit stops is increased, an increase in mobility and transit ridership
may soon follow.
Curb Extensions/Boarding Islands
Recommendation: Implement Curb Extensions Where Possible. Curb extensions would
help buses load/unload passengers in a more efficient manner, and would work to
increase pedestrian safety.
2. Traffic Management
Signal Prioritization and Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL)
Recommendation: Implement signal light preference more aggressively on current BRT
service (MAX) and provide some level of signal priority on all major transit routes. Use
AVL units to allow traffic controllers to see where buses are, so that they are able to give
approaching buses green lights at intersections. This can reduce operation cost for transit
operators.
D. Next Steps
In closing the following next steps are recommended.
1. Seek community review of HOV/Managed lane opportunities and constraints
As noted, this study did not include a public involvement component. That is an essential step to
continue a regional conversation with the broad array of potential beneficiaries and stakeholders.
2. Conduct a review of related government regulations and HOV lane enforcement.
73
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
3. Conduct a tolling study to assess opportunities and constraints and to consider the
following activities: the US DOT pricing pilot project, the Metro Congestion Initiative, the
interest of KDOT, and others in addressing climate change. Missouri state laws involving tolling
should also be reviewed. Finally the study team suggests consideration be given to using toll
revenues to help fund the transit improvements and carpool support facilities that are integral to
the all-inclusive transportation system envisioned in this study.
74
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
References
Blumenberg, E. and Ong, P.
(1994) Cars, buses and jobs: Welfare Participants and Employment Access in Los
Angeles
Cambridge Systematics
(2003) Twin Cities HOV Study prepared for the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning
(2008) Managed Lanes Strategy Paper
Corless, J. and Arteaga
(2000) Pedestrian Safety and Social Justice. Surface Transportation Policy Project. Vol.
X(1):8. Federal Highway Administration
Dittmar and Chen
(1994) Equity in Transportation Investments
Downs, A.
(2004) Still Stuck in Traffic, Coping with Peak Hour Traffic Congestion, Brookings
Institute
Federal Highway Administration, FHWA
(2009) High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/hov.htm
Fuhs, C. and Obenberger, J.
(2001) HOV Facility Development: A Review of National Trends, FHWA
Grimshaw and Mizuno
(1994) Justice in Decision Making, Social Equity Conference Proceedings, Chicago
Hanson, C. and Giuliano, G.
(2004) The Geography of Urban Transportation, Third Edition
Henderson, D.
(2009) An Overview of Managed Lanes in the United States, a presentation to the MidAmerica Regional Council
HNTB Corp.
(2008) ITE Presentation, John Dobies
Johnson County Transit and HNTB Corp.
(2008) I-35 Fixed Guideway, Phased Implementation Plan, Bus Rapid Transit and Bus
on Shoulder, PPT a presentation to the Kansas Department of Transportation
Kansas City Area Transportation Authority
(2004) Bus Rapid Transit Study
McCormick Rankin Corporation
(2003) Bus Priority Measures on Highways, Applications in Ottawa, Canada, Stephen
Schijns, P.Eng.
Mid-America Regional Council
(2008) Linking Environmental & Transportation Planning: A Draft Action Plan
(2000/2001) Travel Time Study
(2002) Vehicle Occupancy Study
(2008) Kansas City Regional Freight Outlook Study
(1999) Preliminary Report of High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV) Facility Suitability in the
Kansas City Metropolitan Area, prepared by MARC staff
(2004) Congestion Management System report
(2008) Rideshare Survey
75
Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study
(2001) Smart Moves Regional Transit Plan
Clean Air Action Plan
(2004)Household Travel Survey
(2005) On-Board Transit Survey
(2009) Outlook 2030 and Outlook 2040 in process
(2007) Regional Transit Plan update
(2004) Transportation 2030 Update, Appendix C, Environmental Justice Assessment
Nevada Department of Transportation
HOV/Managed Lanes/Ramp Metering, Public Outreach Primer
http://www.nevadadot.com/reports_pubs/HOV/pdfs/HOV_OutreachPrimer_Challenge.pdf
Parson Brinckerhoff
(2009) Workshop presentation, Mid-America Regional Council, Five County Study
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc
(1999) HOV systems manual / Texas Transportation Institute
Shoup D. and Wilson, R (1992) Employer Paid Parking
Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board
(1999) TCRP 100 Report, Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd edition.
TranSystems
(2007) KCI Airport Area Plan: Review of Multimodal Transportation Needs
(2005) I-35 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis, Bus-Only Freeway Shoulder
Operations Case Study, Draft
Turnbull, K,
Transportation Research Record 2065, High-Occupancy Toll Lanes and Public
Transportation
US Census Bureau,
(2000) U.S. Decennial Census (2000) Journey to Work
US Department of Transportation USDOT
(2003) Houston Managed Lanes Case Study: The Evolution of the Houston HOV System
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
(2009) Sustainability Sustainable Transportation and TDM Planning That Balances
Economic, Social and Ecological Objectives
76