|
Re-Thinking HOV - High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities and the Public Interest
ClickHERE for graphic. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (federal program) EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration HOV High occupancy vehicle ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 SCRTD Southern California Rapid Transit District (now the Metropolitan Transit Authority) SOV Single occupancy vehicle SIP State implementation plan (under the federal Clean Air Act) TRB Transportation Research Board VMT Vehicle miles traveled USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was funded partly by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Bullitt Foundation. It also would not have been possible without the astute suggestions of many individuals, among them Henry Bain, Robert T. Babbitt, Bob Berry, Eric Bruun, Sarah Campbell, Daniel Carlson, Stuart Clark, Nancy Jewell Cross, Flannery Davis, Mike Ferro, Robert Fellows, Rupert Friday, Charles A. Fuhs, Ann Haynes, John Holtzclaw, Mayer Horn, Gary Idleburg, Les Jacobson, Larry King, Nancy F. Leman, Dick Nelson, Richard H. Pratt, Michael Replogle, Dan Ridgeway, Jerry Schneider, William L. Schroeer, Charles Smith, Alvin L. Spivak, Heidi Stamm, Michael Vandeman, Vukan Vuchic, and Lisa Wormser. Agencies that provided useful information include Caltrans, Chicago Department of Transportation, Chicago Transit Authority, Federal Highway Administration, Los Angeles Department of Transportation, Maryland Department of Transportation, Massachussetts Department of Highways, Metro (King County), Metropolitan Transit Authority (Los Angeles), New Jersey Department fo Transportation, Virginia Department of Transportation, Washington State Department of Transportation, and other agencies and organizations. Graphic Designer: Terry Coker Peterson, Chesapeake Bay Foundation ABOUT THE AUTHORS Christopher K. Leman, Ph.D.,is executive director of the Institute for Transportation and the Environment [85 E. Roanoke Street, Seattle WA 98102; (206)322-5463]. He presented versions of this paper at 1994 conferences of the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the Transportation Research Board. Preston L. Schiller, Ph.D.,is coeditor of the Transportation Bulletin and the Gridlock Gazette,publications of the Institute for Transportation and the Environment. He is also a coordinator of ALT-TRANS, the Washington Coalition for Transportation Alternatives, and chairs the Sierra Club's national Urban Environment committee. Kristin Pauly is transportation program coordinator for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. She is also coordinator of the Washington Regional Network, a growth management and transportation alliance of public interest groups from throughout the D.C. metropolitan area. For Additional copies contact CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION 162 Prince George Street Annapolis, Maryland 21401 $3.00 per copy for postage & handling ReThinking HOV RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATION 1: in congested urban areas, newly constructed roadway lanes should be primarily or exclusively for public transit. RECOMMENDATION 2: HOV lanes should be connected to one another and to key transit origins, destinations, and cross routes, construction investment should avoid segments that have little prospect of being connected with the larger network. RECOMMENDATION 3: Newly constructed HOV lanes should be HOV on a 24-hour basis, not just during peak-period or in the peak- direction. RECOMMENDATION 4: The design of transit-only lanes should be determined by the needs of buses and should not envision future use by automobiles. RECOMMENDATION 5: When they contribute to the cost of HOV lanes, transit agencies should insist on limitations as to which vehicles can use the lanes. Buses should have first priority. Paratransit and approved carpools should be allowed only with binding commitments that their numbers be limited and not hamper bus operations. Emergency vehicles should be welcomed to emphasize the lane's special status. RECOMMENDATION 6: Regional transportation plans, spending programs, air quality conformity analyses, and other actions must fully analyze the increases in solo driving and air pollution that would result from each HOV lane construction proposal. Governments should adopt standards to discourage projects that would have these results. RECOMMENDATION 7: Construction of new HOV lanes that are not transit-only should not be listed as a transportation control measure under the federal Clean Air Act unless their long run air quality impacts are shown to be positive in a rigorous analysis. RECOMMENDATION 8: A car with two occupants is low occupancy, not high, and should not be encouraged by new construction. If 2+ is adopted as a minimum occupancy level for HOV lanes, that status should be conditional. The lane should be upgraded based on performance or on an automatic schedule for higher occupancy or bus-only status. RECOMMENDATION 9: States with poor HOV lane enforcement records should have to return part of the federal funds used to construct the lanes and should have a harder time qualifying for future HOV lane construction funds. RECOMMENDATION 10: To help prevent backsliding, peak-period HOV lanes should be extended to 24-hour operation. Existing 24-hour HOV lanes should remain so. RECOMMENDATION 11: Federal or state funding of HOV lanes should be with a "money-back guarantee" requiring return of the funds if the HOV lanes are subsequently changed to general purpose lanes. RECOMMENDATION 12: Do not impose vehicle-flow requirements on HOV or bus-only lanes when people-carrying capacity is the more relevant criterion. RECOMMENDATION 13: Bus-only and HOV lanes should be established first by conversion from existing general purpose roadways. New lane construction should be a second choice, if it is chosen at all. No lane that is HOV at peak periods only should be constructed, such lanes should be established only by conversion. RECOMMENDATION 14: Urban areas should establish contingency plans for the conversion of general purpose lanes to exclusive HOV or transit use in the event of an energy shortage, a disaster, or nonattainment of clean air standards. RECOMMENDATION 15:Highway design manuals, road fund programming guidelines, transportation laws and plans, and other guidance should require study of the conversion to HOV of general purpose lanes as the prime alternative when any construction of new general purpose or HOV lanes is being considered. RECOMMENDATION 16: Conversion to HOV from general purpose lanes should always be preferred to "take-a-rail." TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ABOUT THE AUTHORS LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1. History of transit-only and HOV facilities. . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Historical perspective on ridesharing . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. National policy on exclusive lanes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Ill. TRANSIT: THE FORGOTTEN HOV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 IV. HOV LANES AND AIR QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 V. HIGH AND LOW OCCUPANCY VEHICLES: A DATE IS NOT A CARPOOL. . .13 VI. ENFORCEMENT AND SAFETY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 VII. BACKSLIDING OF HOV LANES TO GENERAL PURPOSE TRAFFIC LANES . .16 VIII. LANE CONVERSION OPTIMIZES-NOT "TAKES"-A LANE . . . . . .18 X. BEYOND THE HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE 1. Least cost planning: efficiency, not expansion. . . . . . . .24 2. The pricing alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 3. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Traffic problems, financial constraints, and a desire for cleaner air are forcing reexamination of traditional efforts to expand the capacity of roads and highways. A popular proposal in recent years has been to build additional lanes and other facilities for high occupancy vehicles (HOVs) - buses, passenger vans, and carpools. This paper reviews the history of the HOV concept and explores the assumptions underlying the expansion of HOV facilities. Some in highway and transit agencies argue that the construction of HOV lanes is a revolutionary new direction that will improve transportation efficiency, provide incentives for higher occu- pancies, promote transit, and reduce car trips, vehicle miles traveled, and air pollution. The authors of this paper question these claims and suggest that new HOV lane construction, as now being planned and implemented, is simply increasing the roadway space devoted to the automobile. A car with two occupants is a low occupancy vehicle, not high occupancy: a date is not a carpool. Constructing HOV lanes has many of the same negative impacts as constructing general purpose lanes - and once constructed, HOV lanes face the constant pressure of being opened up to general purpose traffic (at nonpeak periods, or all the time), or to the smallest possible carpool (of two). Constructing HOV lanes has high initial costs and many recurring costs, especially for maintenance - even aside from its high social and environmental costs, which are both initial and recurring. Any proposal for construction of a new HOV lane should be closely examined. It should be compared with the alternative of converting an existing general purpose lane - a far cheaper alternative, and one that creates a greater incentive to switch from solo driving. When the goal is "to move more people in fewer vehicles and encourage people to use high occupancy vehicles (see page 5)," it becomes clear that transit buses are the workhorses of many HOV lanes and would carry more people if policies were designed to that end. What is best for transit (buses and passenger vans) should be determined first and separately from the issue of what is best for carpools. Lanes available to buses but not to automobiles are a more effective way to promote transit. As transit and emergency vehicle lanes, they should be protected as a public utility. Carpools on these lanes should be allowed-if at all-only with limitations, among them that they be fully loaded or nearly so. A car with two occupants is a low occupancy vehicle, not high occupancy: a date is not a carpool. In the long run HOV lanes may worsen air quality, reduce transit mode share, and increase vehicle trips and the miles driven. Constructing HOV lanes on long stretches of freeway encourages urban sprawl and diverts resources from needed improvements in transit within cities. Only if existing facilities are used efficiently can we assure that public dollars are spent wisely. Over time and with new technologies, pricing is likely to become a more reliable way to moderate roadway demand and reduce the need to build either HOV or additional general purpose lanes. A Report by the CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION 1 ReThinking HOV Introduction Few would dispute the need for a greater proportion of traffic to be in buses, vanpools, and carpools. The debate is whether the best means to that end is to build new lanes and other facilities that admit not only buses and other genuinely high occupancy vehicles (HOVs), but also cars carrying as few as two people. This paper shows that HOV lane construction is in many ways creating rather than solving traffic problems. [see inside front cover for list of abbreviations] I. Historical background 1. HISTORY OF TRANSIT-ONLY AND HOV FACILITIES Early in this century, streetcars enjoyed their own rights-of-way, often in the roadway median. As rails were paved over, the buses that replaced the streetcars generally shared the lanes with other motor vehicles. As bus service began to suffer from the growing traffic congestion, buses were given their own lanes. Apparently the earliest U.S. instance was in 1939, with establishment of more than a mile of lanes on Chicago's North Sheridan Road to bus-only during peak traffic flow periods (termed "peak periods" in this paper) in the direction of peak flow (termed "peak direction" in this paper); local traffic was still allowed on the lanes. The number of bus-only lanes throughout the country increased partic- ularly in the 1960s and 1970s, with some on a 24-hour basis [Levinson, 1973; Turner]. Freeway lanes and ramps have also been set aside for buses. One of the first (1962) was a lane in each direction on the San Francisco- Oakland Bay Bridge (I-80) for bus and construction traffic when the bridge was being rebuilt to pave over the existing passenger rail tracks. Bus patronage across the bridge increased, but went down again when the lanes were restored to general purpose traffic upon completion of the rebuilding. This omission was partially corrected in 1970 when a bus lane was established on the eastern approach to the bridge; alongside it, two additional lanes were also set aside for carpools in 1971. Another early case (I-970) was a morning bus- only lane on the New Jersey Turnpike (I-495) approaching the Lincoln Tunnel into Manhattan. The first U.S. freeway lanes built solely for buses were probably the Shirley Highway Busway on I-395 in northern Virginia (1969). In 1973, the busway was opened to carpools, apparently the first U.S. instance in which buses and carpools officially shared a longhaul HOV lane. HOV lanes on freeways have spread, and now can be found in more than 20 urban areas of the United States and Canada, with projects in other areas being planned [Batz, 1986; Turnbull, 1990; Fuhs, 1993]. 2. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON RIDESHARING Carpools existed long before exclusive lanes and other facilities were set aside to give them a relative advantage over driving alone. Although the term "high occupancy vehicle" had not been invented in the early years of the automobile, most automobiles operated most of the time at high occupancies; the scarcity of vehicles, fuel, roads and parking areas required it. In fact, many cars prior to the 1950s were designed to accommodate five or six occupants in relative comfort. Economic necessity made carpooling a routine part of life. A Report by the CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION 3 The larger families of that era typically "piled into the family car." Neighbors would share the ride to work, school, grocery shopping, the movies, and so on. Employers, schools, and clubs helped connect drivers with potential riders. Hitchhiking was common and encouraged. Wartime gasoline rationing encouraged ridesharing, as did publicity campaigns. One World War II era advertisement portrayed the grim message, "If you ride alone, you ride with Hitler!" But this tradition was greatly weakened by postwar policies to build roads and parking lots and to encourage an automobile- dependent lifestyle. As the two-car family, the three-car garage, and free parking at work became commonplace, carpooling declined. According to the 1990 U.S. census, average vehicle occupancy for commuting has dropped to 10.9, the lowest level ever recorded. Between 1980 and 1990-when the nation's civilian workforce was increasing by 18.6 million-average daily carpools to work declined from 19 million to 15 million. The largest declines occurred in carpools of four or more (over 50 percent decline) and three (almost 40 percent decline). Even two-person carpools for commuting went down by ten percent. Between 1980 and 1990 daily transit ridership to work also declined slightly to six million; solo driving was the only commuting mode that increased, to a record- high 84.2 million-three quarters of all trips [Pisarski]. The decline in ridesharing has coincided with unprecedented governmental peacetime efforts to promote ridesharing. In the energy crises of the 1970s, telephone services were established to encourage ridematching. By the 1990s, many large companies had programs to encourage their employees to take transit, vanpools, or carpools, with such incentives as free or lower-cost parking. ClickHERE for graphic. Even as carpools decreased in the 1970s, a new term emerged, "high occupancy vehicle." It seems doubtful that the average carpooler or busrider prefers this term and its acronym HOV. More common in public parlance are terms like "carpool lane" or "busway," even though the lanes often combine both buses and carpools and (in off- peak periods) single occupancy vehicles. The concept of HOV attempts to encompass carpools, vanpools, and buses in the same category. As discussed in later sections, it is as awkward a fit on the road as it is in terminology. 3. NATIONAL POLICY ON PREFERENTIAL LANES Beginning in the 1970s, officials in the Urban Mass Transit Administration (now the Federal Transit Administration) recognized the advantages of exclusive transit lanes and encouraged their funding-indeed sometimes in preference to rail lines. In the 1970s the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) began to allow (but did little to encourage) state highway agencies to spend federal funds on HOV ReThinking HOV lanes. This policy changed with an October 1990 memorandum from the administrator stating that, "FHWA strongly supports the objective of HOV preferential facilities and encourages the proper application of HOV technology." Regional administrators were directed to promote HOV lanes and related facilities. Two laws in the early 1990s cemented a national commitment to HOV lane construction. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 listed HOV lanes as one of the transportation control measures that could be included in state implementation plans to attain federal air quality standards. The 1990 amendments also deny the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to block FHWA from funding 24-hour HOV lanes as part of the sanctions for a state's failure to comply with the Clean Air Act, if the secretary of transportation wishes to approve the FHWA funds. Withholding of FHWA funds for most other roadway capacity improvements is a sanction available to the EPA administrator without being blocked by the secretary of transportation. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 established some new cautions in the federal funding of general purpose lanes. Yet ISTEA encouraged the construction of HOV lanes, which were made eligible for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds in regions not attaining federal air quality standards. CMAQ funds may be spent on new HOV lane construction, even if the HOV designation holds only at peak travel times or in the peak direction. ISTEA also provided that under the Interstate Maintenance Program, only HOV projects would receive the 90 percent federal matching ratio formerly available for the addition of general purpose lanes. And ISTEA permitted state authorities to define an HOV as having a minimum of two occupants (HOV-2). Until overruled by Congress, FHWA had insisted that 2+: accomplishes little more than rearranging traffic in lanes according to number of occupants. The number of vehicles using the HOV lane may increase but this is offset by a decrease in the average vehicle occupancy in the other lanes. Use of HOV-2 does not generally accomplish the purpose for which priority treatments are implemented; i.e., to move more people in fewer vehicles and encourage people to use high occupancy vehicles [FHWA, February 4,1985]. During the ISTEA debates, Congress did not adopt a proposal by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (Democrat-N.Y.) that would have required states to return a portion of any federal funds used to construct an HOV lane if the lane were later converted to general purpose use. ISTEA also did not (as some proposed) give preference to conversion of general purpose lanes as a means to establish HOV lanes. There is no explicit requirement in the parts of ISTEA referring to HOV lanes that the conversion alternative be studied and compared with construction alternatives, although the regulations implementing ISTEA can be interpreted as requiring such a comparison [USDOT]. A Report by the CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION 5 III. Transit: The forgotten HOV RECOMMENDATION 1: In congested urban areas, newly constructed roadway lanes should be primarily or exclusively for public transit. Public transit buses are the workhorses of many urban freeway HOV lanes, and would do even more if buses received higher priority. As shown by Table 1, inside back cover, [Pratt, 1991 ] even on HOV lanes that admit carpools, more than a third of the travelers are riding by bus, and on some routes they outnumber those in carpools and vanpools. Clearly, many HOV lanes are high performers only because of their usefulness to transit. The most impressive performance is on bus only lanes. The nation's (and possibly the world's) best "people-carrying" road lane is New Jersey's Route 495, where a morning bus-only lane carries more than 20,000 people an hour into the Lincoln Tunnel. The lane serves 30 percent of all trans-Hudson River commuters, more than the combined total of all 12 general purpose lanes next to it [Home and Quelch]. Also notable is the Ottawa Carleton area's network of transitways, which help OC Transpo carry 30 percent of all vehicle-based travel and 70 percent of peak hour trips to downtown [Bonsall]. Many more bus passengers are carried on exclusive bus lanes that are located on surface streets and are too numerous to list. Bus- only lanes can be found in every major city and in many smaller cities. An advantage of buses over carpools is that they require much less road space per passenger [Vuchic et al.]. At freeway speeds, a full bus can carry as many people as a lane of carpools up to a mile long. Buses are rarely so numerous as to cause a traffic Jam, a fact that helps protect the time savings of riding in a bus-only lane. Traffic jams are caused mostly by automobiles, which, even when full, require a lot more road space per passenger, and thus slow one another down. Any discussion of HOV lanes should begin with the question, "What is best for transit?" A common argument in favor of HOV lanes and other facilities is that they promote use of buses. That is not always true. Certainly preferred access for buses can speed schedules, use equipment and drivers more efficiently, and improve reliability and safety. But these benefits are lessened or lost when a bus-only lane is opened to other traffic. A leading textbook on transit facilities observes that allowing other vehicles on bus lanes "is always harmful to transit: buses can only lose from it, while all the benefits are accrued by their competitors, private autos" [Vuchic, 1981, p. 260]. Yet a survey of past evaluations of HOV lanes found in them almost no discussion of bus service productivity, schedule adherence, or safety [Turnbull, 1991, p. 44]. Ongoing pressure to open bus lanes to carpools could diminish or eliminate the lanes' relative advantages for buses. Bus-only lanes provide time and/or service improvements to riders. When an attempt is made to transfer these benefits to carpools by opening the bus lane to them, the bus riders' advantages are lost. When the El Monte and Shirley Highway busways were opened to carpools, many of the resulting carpoolers were former bus riders. Automobile trips increased as transit ridership stagnated. The same sequence occurred when carpool lanes began to compete with the bus lanes on the east 6 ReThinking HOV approach to the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge [Beroldo]. RECOMMENDATION 2: HOV lanes should be connected to one another and to key transit origins, destinations, and cross routes. Construction investment should avoid segments that have little prospect of being connected to a larger network. Currently, there are few HOV lanes and they rarely connect to each other. This is more of a problem for buses than for carpools, which can take alternative routes. Most of the existing mileage of HOV lanes is on long commuting routes. The available HOV lanes are usually not those that would have been chosen based on transit considerations alone. To pick up and discharge passengers at either end of the commute, buses must enter heavy general purpose traffic. And many freeway HOV lanes-especially those on inside lanes far- thest from ramps-are not convenient to exits, discouraging bus stops en route. Flyer stops on freeways-in theory a way to avoid the need to exit the freeway to pick up and discharge passengers- offer little passenger convenience and safety. Most are just too difficult for the pedestrian to reach, and the noise, pollution, security, and amenities are often unacceptable. A better alternative is a freeway pullout that connects with arterial bus service along the freeway. Freeway buses gain time over long distances, but forego passengers along the way. This tendency to favor long-haul over shorter bus routes has serious financial and civic consequences. The longer routes are often the worst money-losers, depending on the shorter local routes as "cash cows." Thus the shorter routes-depended on by many urban residents, especially the low-income-end up with less funding. Meanwhile, these shorter routes receive less benefit from freeway HOV lanes. Bus-only curb lanes and/or other transit priority measures on surface streets are most helpful to these routes. Since Houston is often cited as a case where buses have benefitted from exclusive freeway lanes, it is interesting that transit managers there were originally unenthusiastic about the proposed busways. Feeling that Houston's freeways were poorly located relative to transit corridors, they sought the establishment of a network of bus lanes on arterial roads [Levinson, 1973]. It was only after this plan was rejected by local governments that Houston transit officials became reconciled to relocating some bus routes to the freeways. RECOMMENDATION 3: Newly constructed HOV lanes should be HOV on a 24-hour basis, not just during peak-period or in the peak- direction. Commuting represents barely one quarter of trips, and its share is declining; ridesharing should be promoted around the clock, and especially for the growing proportion of trips that are not a commute. Yet a growing number of lanes give preference to HOVs and buses only during weekday peak periods and in the peak direction- sacrificing any relative advantage for carpoolers and bus riders at other times and denying buses a standard route. Only if the lanes are on or near a 24-hour basis can they help provide relief from the congestion that occurs on holidays, weekends, and during major events and freeway incidents. A Report by the CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION 7 RECOMMENDATION 4: The design of transit-only lanes should be determined by the needs of buses and should not envision future use by automobiles. Lanes designed for carpools must be engineered to more expensive standards than busonly lanes. An Institute of Transportation Engineers report suggests that standards from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) cause the overdesign of exclusive bus lanes: Many designers and operators of HOV facilities are of the opinion that the AASHTO Design Standards are not appropriate for bus-only applications. Since bus-only applications operate with professional drivers who drive the same route day after day, it appears that narrower shoulders, tighter curves, and different stopping sight distance conditions are appropriate [ITE, 1988]. With design standards tailored to the needs of buses, a bus-only lane would not be as expensive to construct or require as much roadway as one open to carpools. The fact that a busonly lane would not meet the standards for use by automobiles would also help prevent its later conversion to carpool or general purpose use. The argument is sometimes made that an HOV lane is a "placeholder" for a future passenger rail system. Since rail lines generally require much less right-of-way than do HOV lanes that are engineered for automobiles, the narrower bus-only lanes would seem a more appropriate placeholder. As discussed in a later section, there has been considerable backsliding of bus or HOV lanes to general purpose use. A lane devoted exclusively or primarily to buses will always be envied and be regarded as "underutilized" by motorists who wish to use it. To allow policy to be dictated by envious motorists is to condemn buses to being slowed down in a sea of carpools, many with only two occupants. In congested urban areas, any new lane construction should be designed for buses alone to help ensure that its effectiveness will not later be destroyed by carpools or general purpose traffic. RECOMMENDATION 5: When they contribute to the cost of HOV lanes, transit agencies should insist on limitations as to which vehicles can use the lanes. Buses should have first priority. Paratransit and approved carpools should be allowed only with binding commitments that their numbers be limited and not hamper bus operations. Emergency vehicles should be welcomed to emphasize the lane's special status. Road space is a scarce good that needs to be allocated among competing social purposes. By the definitions that now prevail, two shoppers chasing a bargain, or two tourists in a motor home are a carpool with priority in use of the road; the availability of the HOV lane may induce their trip, and their presence in the lane may slow down buses. A simple head count requirement is not enough. Beyond a head-count, policymakers should consider whether a carpool actually eliminates any trips. A concert or sporting event with a lot of cars that arrive fully loaded is not the height of success. Carpooling to such events has always been common, but the result is still pollution, 8 ReThinking HOV Traffic, and collisions. Given the parallel trips of many carpools, a large proportion of those attending a major event should arrive by transit or bicycle. With wise policies, it can be done. Toronto's Skydome stadium, sold out for much of the Bluejays' season, offers only 350 parking spaces; 90 percent of the fans arrive by a means other than the automobile. To ensure that buses have priority use of HOV lanes, policymakers could broaden the definition of transit to include paratransit (special vehicles for the elderly or handicapped and vehicles that provide special services, such as airport shuttles and registered vanpools and carpools). If commute trips are judged to be priority trips and buses cannot fully serve them, then vanpools and true high-occupancy carpools could be allowed on the lanes. Transit agencies could "deputize" officially registered, carpools and vanpools. Some already do sponsor vanpools and carpools- sometimes in vehicles furnished by the agency and with an agency logo. Vanpools must be registered to have access to the transit lanes on the Long Island and Gowanus Expressways. The future use of 41 smart cards" (readable by electronic equipment) could monitor access to a special lane, greatly simplifying enforcement. Airport shuttles are paratransit that would be a candidate for using a bus lane. Various van services directed at special populations (elderly, disabled, etc.) might be defined as paratran- sit so long as they are reducing low-occupancy vehicle travel. To facilitate paratransit, it would be necessary Oust as with buses) to allow access to HOV lanes when these vehicles are on the way to or from a fare, even if they are below the occupancy criterion. If taxicabs are allowed, it should be only on condition that they be multipassenger and multidestinational, and only if more buses and other true HOVs have been accommodated. On the Long Island Expressway (I-495) approach to the Queens Midtown Tunnel-a major airport route-it is difficult to justify the current admission of taxicabs to the bus lanes when shuttle vans and non-registered buses are now excluded. ClickHERE for graphic. Emergency vehicles already have access to most transit-only lanes; formally recognizing this use would help protect the lanes from takeover by low and single-occupancy vehicles. The lanes might be explicitly renamed as "transit and emergency vehicle lanes," a designation that would aid in public acceptance of the need to keep them clearer than a general purpose lane. Bicycles are increasingly receiving exclusive lanes. ISTEA prohibited state and local governments from defining bicycles (and motorcycles) as single occupancy vehicles. In central business districts or where buses are infre- A Report by the CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION 9 quent, it may be feasible for bicycles to share a bus lane, as on the Ardmore Busway in the Philadelphia suburbs. Toronto's Bay Street Clearway, which has allowed bicycling since its establishment, attracted an 80 percent increase in bicycle travel in the project's first six months. However, free use of the lanes by taxicabs raises serious bicycle safety issues. Even while bicycles are prohibited from many HOV lanes, motorcycles often are allowed. The motorcycle is by design a low-occupancy vehicle. The now common high-powered models also consume a great deal of fuel. Per rider, motorcycles pollute about as much as automobiles. And they are more collision prone and more dangerous in a collision than passenger cars. The encouragement of motorcycle use that comes with allowing them to use HOV lanes should be reconsidered. Proposals to open HOV lanes to solo motorists driving "clean vehicles" have even less to recommend them. However clean their exhaust, solo motorists are an inefficient use of roadway space. There are a few situations when some general purpose traffic can be permitted on a transit only or HOV lane, as in a genuine emergency. Solo drivers are now allowed to enter many bus-only curb lanes when they must make a right turn. In some cases, local traffic would need to be allowed on an HOV lane converted on an arterial as a way to overcome opposition; some method (e.g. electronic "smart cards") would need to be found to prevent this privilege from being abused [Hare]. Increasing proportions of federal, state, and local transit budgets are being spent to construct HOV lanes that mix buses with car- pools. Meanwhile, some former bus-only lanes have been opened to carpools or are about to be. For their money, transit agencies should obtain assurances that buses in existing lanes will not become mired in carpool traffic-or later by general purpose traffic. And they should insist that HOV lanes-especially any new ones-guarantee bus conditions approaching those that would be available from a bus-only lane. IV. HOV lanes and air quality RECOMMENDATION 6: Regional transportation plans, spending programs, air quality conformity analyses, and other actions must fully analyze the increases in solo driving and air pollution that would result from each HOV lane construction proposal. Governments should adopt standards to discourage projects that would have these results. RECOMMENDATION 7: Construction of new HOV lanes that are not transit-only should not be listed as a transportation control measure under the federal Clean Air Act unless their long run air quality impacts are shown to be positive in a rigorous analysis. Does building HOV lanes improve air quality? It is claimed in a California Air Resources Board report [1991] that new HOV lanes achieve reductions in congestion and in vehicle miles traveled. If this view is correct, HOV lane construction is still a very expen- sive air quality measure. A study done in the San Diego area found it to be the least cost- 10 ReThinking HOV effective air quality measure of all those studied [San Diego Association of Governments, 1991]. But some research suggests that in the long run, congestion and vehicle miles traveled would not go down, and that air pollution would be worsened by HOV lane construction. Jon Kessler and Will Schroeer, two EPA economists, provide a thoughtful discussion of the long run impacts of HOV lane construction [Kessler and Schroeer, 1992] [Forthcoming in Transportation: An International Journal, 1994]. Taking the Washington, D.C., area as their case study, they posit a 334-mile network of HOV lanes-quite an increase over the existing 75 miles. They find that although carpooling would substantially increase, vehicle miles traveled would be only slightly less than if the same mileage of general purpose lanes had been built. Furthermore, air quality would not be appreciably better. Unless the HOV lane offers a minimum of 5 to 10 minutes of travel time savings, its success can be expected to be marginal at best. How could solo commuting go down without appreciably reducing the total amount of driving? For one thing, ridesharing takes some additional driving. A rendezvous with fellow carpoolers or a trip to the park-and-ride can lengthen the overall journey to work. Also, some of the carpools are formed from former transit riders, so that vehicle trips may actually be increased by HOV lane construction. And why would air quality not improve considerably? As much as half of an average trip's pollution is during the engine's warm-up ("cold start") and cool-down ("hot soak"). When people drive to meet a bus or carpool, their car emissions are still high enough that the air quality benefits of their ridesharing are minimal [EPA, 1992]. More effective air pollution strategies are those that bring busriders or carpoolers together with a minimum of additional driving. Another problem: construction of an HOV lane on a freeway encourages more solo driving on that freeway. The new lanes increase road space for the solo driver by removing many carpools, vans, and buses-and even some solo drivers who illegally drive on the HOV lanes-from the general purpose lanes. By a phenomenon known as latent demand, solo drivers who had previously taken the bus, stayed home, or driven at another time or by another route are attracted by the decline in congestion [Newman and Kenworthy]. The increase in solo driving counteracts many of the apparent advantages of newly constructed HOV lanes. HOV authorities Don Capelle and Dennis Christiansen observe that "HOV lanes are a congestion-dependent transportation improvement; they only work well when the main freeway lanes are highly congested. Unless the HOV lane offers a minimum of 5 to 10 minutes of travel time savings, its success can be expected to be marginal at best" [Capelle and Christiansen]. Recognizing this reasoning, the Massachusetts Air Pollution Regulations explicitly disallow construction as a means of achieving high occupancy vehicle lanes on the most heavily traveled section of Interstate 93 north of Boston. HOV lanes can also have a serious impact on land use patterns. Because the lanes temporarily make commuting easier and quicker, their availability encourages housing and job choic- A Report by the CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION 11 es that require long commutes. Since time matters more than distance to most commuters, sprawl growth is promoted by the increased general capacity and (temporarily) lessened roadway congestion that follow new HOV lane construction. Areas of urban sprawl generate more motor vehicle trips than traditional cities, and are more difficult to serve by transit [Relogle]. Computer models have been designed to determine how HOV lane construction in the Sacramento area would affect where people live and their mode of transportation, as well as where and how often the travel. The models show that by the year 2010 carbon monoxide levels would be little better, and oxides of nitrogen levels would actually be worse than if the HOV lanes were not constructed. In the long run, the air quality results would almost certainly be much worse [Johnston; Johnston and Ceerla]. ...in the name of air quality, HOV lane construction could lead us farther from that goal. Even though they are being justified on the basis of claims of air quality benefits, many proposed HOV lane construction projects are escaping close environmental examination. It seems obvious that projects this magnitude ought to be required to file a federal environmental impact statement, although many have not. Careful analysis of air quality impacts and alternatives should precede any effort to: (1) classify an HOV lane construction project as a transportation control measure; (2) fund HOV construction with federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds; or (3) find construction of an HOV lane in conformity with federal clean air requirements. Under the Clean Air Act, transportation control measures must not increase single occupancy vehicle capacity. Since new HOV lane construction undeniably does, it is difficult to see how this construction can be listed as a transportation control measure. And since under ISTEA, federal funds to increase single occupancy vehicle capacity cannot be spent in a nonattainment area unless all alternatives have been considered, new HOV lane construction should not be approved in those regional plans and funding programs. Air quality regulators need to be vigilant; in the name of air quality, HOV lane construction could lead us farther from that goal. They should be particularly skeptical of construction that will designate the new lanes as HOV only at peak periods. It is difficult to understand why, during periods of non-peak traffic volumes, single occupancy vehicles would need access to lanes that the HOVs had used during peak periods. In approving a transit or HOV facilities without guarantees that it will remain so, the regulators are quite likely in the long run to get a general purpose facility that they never intended. In congested urban areas, FHWA, EPA, and state and regional air quality regulators should be hesitant to approve automobile lane construction. As discussed in a later section, converting general purpose lanes to HOV use can more effectively reduce long-run driving and encourage carpooling and transit. Possible short-ten-n carbon monoxide problems are sometimes held against the conversion alternative, even though it would do most in the long run to reduce carbon monoxide, ozone precursors and other air pollutants. 12 ReThinking HOV V. HIGH AND LOW OCCUPANCY VEHICLES: A DATE IS NOT A CARPOOL RECOMMENDATION 8: A car with two occupants is low occupancy, not high, and should not be encouraged by new construction. If 2+ is adopted as a minimum occupancy level for HOV existing lanes, that status should be conditional. The lane should be upgraded based on performance or on an automatic schedule for higher occupancy or bus-only status. What constitutes a truly high occupancy vehicle? Mr. Henry Bain is a consultant in urban transportation and community development with over 30 years of experience. In a letter to the authors, Mr. Bain observes: "Suppose, before HOV became a popular term, we had shown someone a chart displaying the full range of vehicles using the highways, from a driver-only automobile to a large, full bus, and asked which point separated vehicles with a high occupancy from the rest. Would anyone, facing such a choice, have picked four, much less three or two?" Yet much of the recent debate has focused on whether the number should be four, three, or two. Buses were once considered the real high occupancy vehicles; and in some places, such as Ottawa, they still are. But as HOV has been redefined, vehicles carrying four, three, and now as few as two people are considered high occupancy. HOV lanes that for years were operated exclusively for buses or for 3+ carpools are now being downgraded to 2+. It is almost Orwellian to use the term "high occupancy" to refer to a vehicle with only two occupants, especially when four or more could be comfortably accommodated. The weakening of the HOV concept is exemplified by Houston's Katy Freeway (I-10) "transitway." Opened in October 1984, these lanes were constructed solely for buses and authorized vanpools. Only six months later, 4+ carpools were added, and seven months after that, 3+ carpools were added. Then in August 1986-less than two years after opening these lanes (and Houston's other transitways) were opened to carpools with only two occupants. These changes severely compromised the speed and safety of the buses and vanpools for which the transitways were originally built. In a similar story, lanes built exclusively for buses have been opened up to carpools on Virginia's Shirley Highway (1975) and the San Bernardino Freeway (1976). An evaluation of the Seattle area's downgrade from 3+ to 2+ shows a large increase in vehicles in the HOV lanes without a significant reduction of vehicles in the general purpose lanes [Ulberg, 1992]. In fact, there was a decrease in the freeway's overall vehicle occupancy and an increase in the proportion of single occupancy vehicles (SOVs). People left buses (now slowed by the traffic) for carpools and left vanpools and larger carpools for 2+ carpools. They also shifted onto the freeway from parallel arterials, and traveled more at peak periods. And they took trips that formerly they would have not made at all. Collisions also increased. These results did not move Washington state to return the lanes to 3+. However, they did occasion a performance standard suggesting the return to 3+ if vehicles in an HOV lane cannot maintain a 45 mile- per-hour speed during 90 percent of weekday peak hours. An argument sometimes made in favor of a 2+ minimum occupancy requirement is that it is a way to avoid the "empty lane syndrome." In the early years of an HOV project, people are slow to form 3+ carpools or begin taking the A Report by the CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION 13 bus, causing an HOV lane to seem underutilized. The relative lack of vehicles in an HOV lane despite the large number of people served by it-attracts pressure from other drivers to open it up to single occupancy vehicle traffic. Thus the 2+ designation is tempting as a way to protect the lane's HOV designation until enough 3+ carpools join the buses to make it look "full." But is 2+ a reliable route toward higher occupancies? Opening the HOV lane to 2+ carpools eliminates any additional incentive to form or maintain 3+ carpools. If the 2+ designation floods the HOV lane and reduces its time advantage, the advantage for carpools over the general purpose lanes will be inconsequential. And although sufficient 3+ carpools may become available, or there may be sufficient hope of them to justify establishing a 3+ lane, once the 2+ designation has been adopted it will be politically difficult to restore the lane to a 3+ status. Elected officials find it difficult to deny the 2+ carpoolers their newfound privilege, especially as many of the 3+ carpools that would benefit are not yet formed. The resistance to later attempts to institute 3+ or higher occupancies suggests that the 2+ standard is not encouraging, real changes in behavior, and may make it all the harder to encourage 3+ carpoolers and protect transit service in the long run. The counter argument is that when a 2+ minimum begins to degrade the performance of an HOV lane, it can be, raised again to 3+ or higher. And in fact, there is at least one successful example, the restoration of 3+ on Houston's Katy Freeway (peak-period only; at other periods 2+ still applies). However, that change was long delayed, and has not been extended to other worthy HOV lanes in Houston and around the country. In general, the direction of change everywhere is toward the lowest possible carpool minimum, two. A situation where selecting 2+ rather than a higher minimum occupancy might be justifiable is in the initial years when an HOV lane has been converted from general purpose use. In the 1970s the conversions on the Santa Monica Freeway and Boston's Southeast Expressway might have survived if they had been 2+ instead of 3+. The 2+ minimum would moderate additional congestion experienced in the remaining general purpose lanes. But in no case should a 2+ minimum occupancy be allowed to clog the HOV lane. A study of the possible conversion of a lane on I-93 north of Boston found that only a 3+ designation would assure carpools and buses peakperiod speeds significantly more favorable than on the general purpose lanes [Massachusetts Highway Department, p. 191. Although at 3+ the lane would be sufficiently free-flowing to appear "empty" to the envious driver in a nearby lane, it would carry more people than any of the other lanes. In the future, a 2+ occupancy minimum should be adopted only under very specific conditions and deadlines, specifying when a 3+ or higher definition will be adopted. 14 ReThinking HOV VI. ENFORCEMENT AND SAFETY RECOMMENDATION 9: States with poor HOV lane enforcement records should have to return part of the federal funds used to construct the lanes, and should have a harder time qualifying for future HOV lane construction funds. The advantages of HOV lanes are lost if solo drivers use the lanes. Some HOV lanes receive so much illegal single-occupancy vehicle traffic as to be HOV almost in name only. Florida's Department of Highways reports peak-hour violation rates of 75 percent on I-4 in Orlando and 40 percent on I-95 in Miami, a virtually complete breakdown in enforcement. Other examples of high violation rates are on HOV lanes on Virginia's I-66 (45 percent) and I-95 (55 percent), Houston's Katy Transitway (35 percent), New Jersey's I-95 (30 percent), and I-5 south of Seattle (30 percent) and north of Seattle (19 percent) [Tumbull and Hanks; Lomax and Fuhs; Farnsworth]. Violation levels in many areas would be higher, but the general purpose lanes are often uncongested enough that solo drivers are not tempted by the HOV lanes. Even though many jurisdictions are strengthening enforcement, fines are not high enough and enforcement is not stringent enough to stop solo drivers from clogging HOV lanes. States are required to give back federal welfare funds if they allow unreasonable levels of welfare fraud; why should they not also give back a portion of federal construction funds if HOV lanes are not being used as intended? The trend toward allowing general purpose traffic on HOV lanes in non-peak periods is increasing the accident and enforcement prob- lem. Lanes that are HOV only at peak period offer an opportunity for some drivers to sincerely or insincerely plead confusion. In response to proposals to open up Orange County's 24-hour HOV lanes to general purpose traffic in non-peak periods, the California Highway Patrol wrote that 24-hour HOV status is "less confusing to the public, generally safer to operate, and easier to enforce" [Orange County Transportation Authority]. The easiest way to reduce enforcement and collision problems is to limit the number of carpools. If a lane is designated bus-only rather than simply HOV, fewer solo drivers will violate it. Bus- only lanes have almost no violations when separated by barriers from surrounding traffic, and a minimal amount when these barriers are absent. Bus lanes also have lower accident rates than general purpose lanes, whereas HOV lanes have higher accident rates than general purpose lanes. In general, buses (which have professional drivers) are much safer than automobiles. Enforcement and collision problems are sometimes cited to justify constructing new, barrier separated lanes, and to argue against lane conversions or for opening up "substandard" HOV lanes to general purpose traffic. Separating the HOV lanes does aid enforce- ment and discourages solo drivers (SOVS) from treating them as "shoulders." The lack of buffers and enforcement areas often reflects an unwillingness by authorities to take away roadway space from traffic. When this space is genuinely unavailable, an HOV lane at least can be semi-separated by a few feet of buffer, greater marking of the pavement, rubber pylons or other engineering techniques. Especially effective are signs in California that mention a $271 fine for violators! A Report by the CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION 15 VII. BACKSLIDING OF HOV LANES TO GENERAL PURPOSE LANES RECOMMENDATION 10: To help prevent backsliding, peak-period HOV lanes should be extended to 24-hour operation. Existing 24-hour HOV lanes should remain so. Will new HOV lanes be HOV for long? Whether before or after their opening, several HOV lanes around the country have been opened to general purpose traffic. HOV lanes built for Atlanta's I-75 and I- 85 were opened in the 1970s as general purpose lanes. California freeway lanes planned for HOV that were later opened to general purpose traffic include parts of I-580 in the San Francisco Bay area, the San Diego Freeway (I-5), the Ventura Freeway (US- 101 ), and the Long Beach-Artesia Freeway. When a nine-mile stretch of Virginia's SR-44 was opened with a peak period HOV lane in 1986, the state legislature forced the lane's reclassification to 24-hour general purpose traffic. Although the state permitted a return to HOV after 1990, this change was not made until September 1992, and then only for a five-mile stretch, and for 2+ carpools rather than the 3+ that had originally been planned. Meanwhile, the Route 44 shoulder was improved to allow general purpose traffic during peak hours. During peak period HOV restriction, the highway has two more general purpose lanes than originally planned. Planners and air quality regulators cannot be proud of that result. One of the quickest backslides was on the newly constructed HOV lanes on Virginia's Dulles Toll Road; these lanes were opened up to general purpose traffic after only a month of HOV operation. Built between the existing Dulles lanes on a median that had been offi- cially set aside for transit use, the new lanes were nevertheless opened to general purpose traffic on an "Interim" basis as segments were completed. The 12-mile length was dedicated in 1992 as a 24- hour HOV facility with a 3+ requirement, and it had substantial use. It was an election year, however, and opponents persuaded the Virginia Department of Transportation to consider and then adopt general purpose use. The same Congress that the year before had passed ISTEA as a means to promote transportation alternatives and strengthen local prerogatives capitulated to political pressure and forced the new HOV lanes to general purpose use. Although the change was initially portrayed as an "interim" measure, it seems unlikely that the HOV lanes will be restored any time soon [Stowers]. Even agreements negotiated amid great public controversy have later failed to assure ClickHERE for graphic. 16 ReThinking HOV promised HOV designations. Upon their construction in 1977, the I- 580 lanes were, designated HOV as a result of a Sierra Club law- suit; then over Sierra Club protests, Caltrans opened them in 1982 to general purpose traffic. The strong opposition to construction of a ten-mile section of I-66 into downtown Washington, D.C., was overcome in the early 1970s through an agreement allowing access at the peak period only to buses, 4+ carpools, and vehicles going to and from Dulles Airport. But only a year after the new lanes were opened, federal legislation (Public Law 98-105), in a provision applying specifically to this highway, reduced the minimum carpool size to 3+ and shortened the peak period in which restrictions would apply. Regarding I-90 east of Seattle, a 1976 agreement (between the Washington State Department of Transportation, King County and Metro transit, and the cities of Seattle, Bellevue, and Mercer Island) required transit lanes in both directions between Seattle and Bellevue, with the direction of minor flow reserved for buses. However, in 1987-without consulting the public interest groups that had fought for the lanes-these parties decided to make the lanes only one direction during peak periods. As the Dulles case shows, it is risky for the future of HOV lanes to admit general purpose traffic to a future HOV lane segment, whatever the appeal of making some use of it in the interim before connections to other HOV lanes have been established. Once having used the HOV lanes, solo drivers come to see the lanes as their property. The future of HOV lanes is also threatened by allowing general purpose traffic on them during offpeak periods. In some parts of the country, newly constructed HOV lanes have from the start been HOV in the peak period only; in other cases (such as the Shirley Highway "busway" since 1985), 24-hour HOV lanes have later been opened to general purpose traffic in nonpeak periods. When drivers get used to off-peak access to the lanes, they are more skeptical of requirements for busonly, 4+, or 3+ even at peak periods. With the addition of passenger rail lines, there is an unfortunate temptation to open parallel HOV lanes to general purpose use, rather than retain them for short-haul buses, vanpools, carpools, and emergency vehicles. Elimination of a bus-only lane is made more difficult if the lane is designed specifically for buses and will not easily accommodate automobiles. Keeping Ottawa's and Pittsburgh's lanes as bus-only has been assisted by their design, which clearly separates the lanes from surrounding traffic and connects the lanes with on-line stations. RECOMMENDATION 11: Federal or state funding of HOV lanes should be with a "money-back guarantee" requiring return of the funds if the HOV lanes are subsequently changed to general purpose lanes. Much of the backsliding to general purpose lanes mentioned here occurred where federal funding was specifically for HOV lanes. Funding agencies have been very permissive of this drift away from the funding purposes. Federal laws and regulations, and the contracts and other agreements under which funds are conveyed should be strengthened to prevent this problem in the future. Otherwise, the laws, regulations, and agreements could be actively thwarted by subsequent events. A Report by the CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION 17 RECOMMENDATION 12: Do not impose vehicle-flow requirements on HOV or bus-only lanes when people-carrying capacity is the more relevant criterion. It is unfortunate that minimum vehicle thresholds for volume of HOV travel are-formally or informally-being imposed as a condition for reserving some lanes for buses, vanpools, and carpools. In southern California a lane may have to assure 750 to 800 vehicles per hour, and in the Seattle area 400 to 450 vehicles per hour [Fuhs, 1993, p. 20]. The effect is to impose on transit and HOV lane planning a vehicle-flow standard that is more appropriate for general purpose lanes. A more relevant standard would be how many people are being carried on the lane. New Jersey's bus-only lane on I-495 into the Lincoln Tunnel for many years admitted no more than 500 vehicles per hour-even though carrying (as it still does) more people in that hour than any other lane in the nation. Even on HOV lanes where the number of people carried may initially be less than on the adjacent general purpose lanes, HOV status may be justified by the public interest in facilitating transit and a long-range effort to build vanpools and carpools. VIII. HOV BY CONVERSION OPTIMIZES, NOT "TAKES", A LANE RECOMMENDATION 13: Bus-only and HOV lanes should be established first by conversion from existing general purpose roadways. New lane construction should be a second choice, if it is chosen at all. No lane that is HOV at peak periods only should be constructed; such lanes should be established only by conversion. Given the drawbacks and expense of HOV lane construction, it makes sense to establish HOV lanes by conversion of existing general purpose lanes. In fact, most bus-only lanes now in existence-and there are thousands around the world-were conversions from traffic or parking lanes [Turner]. Conversions to bus-only of all or parts of entire streets that were formerly in general purpose use include Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis, the Transit Mall in Portland (Oregon), Denver's 16th Street Mall, Honolulu's Hotel Street Mall, and Chicago's State Street Transit Mall. More common are bus-only lane conversions, some limited to peak periods. A major Caltrans office in Los Angeles is located on Spring Street, which since 1974 has had a 24-hour bus-only lane. Many of the continent's other large cities have bus-only lanes, as well as smaller cities such as Ann Arbor, Harrisburg, Hartford, Indianapolis, Louisville, Madison, Providence, Rochester, and Tucson. Freeway lanes, too, have been converted for bus or carpool use. Successful conversions for peak-period bus travel include the contraflow bus lanes on I-495 eastward into the Lincoln Tunnel (1970) and westward into the Queens 18 ReThinking HOV Midtown Tunnel (1971); a contraflow bus lane on I-278 (the Gowanus Expressway) into the Battery Tunnel; and in Colorado eastbound on U.S. 36 (the Boulder Turnpike). Other lane conversions now in use by buses and carpools include a bus lane (1970) and two carpool lanes (1971) on I-80 on the eastern approach to the San Francisco- Oakland Bay Bridge; SR 676 on and near Philadelphia's Benjamin Franklin Bridge; Honolulu's Kalanianaole Highway; and Route 10 on and near Montreal's Champlain Bridge. In 1975, a lane conversion to create a contraflow bus lane on U.S. 101 in Marin County occasioned a net reduction in general purpose capacity, which was restored in 1983 as a result of new construction. Despite its commonality in practice, the conversion alternative has often been ignored or too readily dismissed in technical studies. Some state highway departments prohibit conversion outright or impose tighter preconditions and analytical requirements than they do for construction projects. Some official analyses even state that, nationally or locally, conversions have not been done. For example, consider the following statement from a 1992 study, "Experience with 'take-a-lane' actions is quite limited, largely because of the failure of the first and only attempt to take a general purpose lane for use as an HOV lane, a 1976 demonstration project on the Santa Monica Freeway. Locally, there have been no take-a-lane actions, but the take-a-lane option was considered for the Pacific Street HOV Project and has been studied for the I-5 South Interim HOV Project. [Parsons Brinckerhoff] Benefit-cost studies [such as Ulberg and Jacobson, 1987] compare HOV construction with the construction of general purpose lanes, without analyzing the alternative of converting an existing general purpose lane. The result is to ignore the high initial and recurring budget costs of the new roadway, as well as its initial and recurring nonbudget costs such as community and environmental impacts. In some cases (such as on I-5 south of Seattle), the Federal Highway Administration has not insisted on an environmental impact statement for HOV lane construction, while saying an EIS would be required for creating the same lanes by conversion. And FHWA has usually failed to require alternatives analyses and major investments analyses to give serious consideration to conversion. This is in spite of the fact that ISTEA and the National Environmental Policy Act both require that proposed construction be compared with less expensive, lower impact, and nonstructural alternatives [USDOT]. In many cases, experts are not providing policymakers detailed analysis of the conversion alternative. It does not seem appropriate for transportation professionals to make political judgments about which alternatives to exclude from the public agenda. Elected leaders and the public need all the options and a comparison of their actual, long-run impacts. National debate regarding proposals for HOV lane construction has not been well served by public agencies dependence on a few consulting firms and university institutes. Land use planners, social scientists, transit experts, and others have important perspectives on whether to construct a new HOV lane. A full range of perspectives should be assembled when public officials are presented with transportation alternatives. Reports and conferences sponsored by the Transportation Research Board's Committee on HOV Systems need to better evaluate the costs and benefits of constructing new HOV lanes and more fully consider the conversion alternative. A Report by the CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION 19 The National Research Council, of which the Board is a part, should insist that a wide range of views be represented on its committees and in their products. In the rare efforts to analyze the conversion alternative, it generally has not received the careful analysis that policy makers deserve. Analyses often use the alarming term "take-a-lane," and sometimes even "take-away" a lane [Parsons Brinckerhoff; Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff]. They might as well call it "steal-a- lane;" it is as if general purpose were the highest and best use. Official use of the term take-a-lane and claims that it is "rarely applied" should be dropped [see glossary in Fuhs, 1993]. The more neutral term "lane conversion" should be employed. It is true that more than a decade ago a few conversions of general purpose lanes to HOV were later reversed, but the wrong lessons have been drawn from these cases. In California and elsewhere, the controversy over the Santa Monica Freeway HOV lanes has often been invoked as reason enough not to try a lane conversion. But that experience was unique: it occurred nearly two decades ago, before many drivers had heard of an HOV lane; southern California drivers are hardly typical of those in other parts of the country, and Caltrans did not manage or market the conversion successfully. Looking back on the 21 week experiment with HOV lanes on the Santa Monica Freeway (I-10) in 1976, a Caltrans official now judges that "we did almost everything wrong" [Baxter, 1994]. Ironically, the experiment did succeed at a number of its immediate goals. The Santa Monica Freeway HOV lanes carried nearly as many people as the other lanes combined, and helped the freeway carry more people in fewer vehicles than any time before or since the experiment. Carpools and bus ridership more than tripled and were increasing further, although they dropped when the lane was discontinued. Air quality appeared to be improving during the period of conversion. [Billheimer et al; SCRTD]. All but forgotten is Caltrans' success-before, during, and after the conversion and revocation of the 1976 HOV lane-in converting lanes on ramps connected to the Santa Monica Freeway itself. Evaluators found that during the period of the demonstration project, the converted HOV bypass lanes, in combination with the timing of the ramp meters to which general purpose traffic was subject, gave more time savings to HOVs than did the converted freeway lanes themselves [Billheimer, et al]. This successful experience led to the creation of hundreds of queue bypass lanes- often by the conversion from general purpose lanes on freeway ramps all over southern California. The January 1994 Northridge earthquake occasioned further lane conversions on the Santa Monica Freeway. When part of the freeway became impassable, Caltrans designated a five-mile exclusive lane on the freeway between La Brea and Overland for exclusive use by buses, vanpools, and carpools. Non-HOVs were not allowed on the freeway and used a longer detour on city streets, giving a fifteen minute time advantage to the HOV lane users. Despite entreaties from city, county, and transit officials, Caltrans resisted pro- posals to make the conversion permanent once repairs on the freeway were completed. An eight-mile temporary shortcut for buses and HOVs was also established on I-14; this conversion too was not expected to survive once repairs reopened the freeway. Similar lane conversions to HOV were accomplished after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in the Bay area; these too did not survive once repairs were completed [Auslam]. 20 ReThinking HOV It did not take an earthquake for the Washington State Department of Transportation to convert a general purpose lane in November 1993. A lane of I-90 (9.4 lane miles) was converted westbound to 24-hour HOV (the eastbound section is scheduled to be converted in connection with a future resurfacing project). The converted lane connects with a recently constructed HOV lane running west to Seattle and cost only $ 100,000. Newly constructed lanes would have cost $70 million and were not scheduled until after the turn of the century. In the peak hour, the converted HOV lanes were carrying about 350 vehicles in 1994-considerably below the threshold that some regard as subject to "empty lane syndrome"-yet there has been little public resistance to the change. In 1994 the New Jersey Department of Transportation was successful in converting five miles of general purpose lanes on I-80 to HOV. These lanes had been constructed for HOV use but were opened up to general purpose traffic until connections were available to other HOV lanes. The conversion was eased by a long period of marketing that included highway signs informing drivers that lanes were scheduled to become HOV [Fisher, 19941. A similar successful conversion of general purpose lanes that were originally built for HOV was accomplished in 1989 on Route 91 near Corona in Southern California [Auslam]. Too often, lane conversion is discounted because it "can't be done" or "hasn't been done." It can be and has been done all over the world; but even if not, why not try? Highway planners once dreamed great dreams; why do they suddenly lose heart when contemplating the opposition of some drivers to more efficient use of existing roads? Converting general purpose facilities to HOV or bus-only use should be regarded as a challenge, to be addressed with the same professionalism that engineers use for construction projects. Research shows that the public often is more supportive of lane conversion than are government officials and the experts they employ. Research shows that the public often is more supportive of lane conversion than are government officials and the experts they employ. In the largest opinion survey yet done on lane conversion, a 1993 study of adults in the Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco Bay areas found substantial support for lane conversion to HOV [Gard et al.]. As many preferred lane conversion as preferred lane construction as a means toward HOV lanes. Many of those who preferred construction also were willing to support conversion (two thirds would support lane conversion if it were to complete an HOV lane network). A similar 1994 survey of adults in the Sacramento area produced similar results; in fact 88 percent supported conversion of a lane in each direction even on a freeway with only four lanes. In both surveys, reasons for preferring conversion over construction included cost, construction-related traffic con- gestion, and the need to more quickly connect existing HOV lanes [Gard et al.]. The standard objection to conversion-that near-term congestion could increase in the remaining general-purpose lanes-should not end discussion. Without lane conversion, increased congestion is forecast for most urban areas-all the more reason for an active effort to limit its effects by establishing a net- A Report by the CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION 21 work of HOV lanes soon by lane conversion. Additional steps can also mitigate or prevent worsened congestion from a conversion. Toronto's Department of Public Works and the Environment showed imagination in implementing the Bay Street Urban Clearway. The addition of turn restrictions at a number of intersections and the prohibition of stopping at curbside actually increased the volume of general-purpose traffic and reduced the levels of congestion on Bay Street [Toronto]. Traffic engineering is being used in a similarly creative way to assure that a conversion project on Montreal's Bonaventure Highway does not increase congestion. A 1.5 mile conversion to HOV of a general purpose lane on the main stem of Washington's I-5 through downtown Seattle was made more palatable by the creation of an additional general purpose lane by restriping a parallel collector-distributor stem of the freeway. To many people, the origin of the HOV lane is less relevant than how well it works. In researching this paper, the authors found that even transportation agency professionals were hazy about whether one or another HOV project had converted a traffic or parking lane, was squeezed in by restriping the roadway, or stemmed from new lane construction on a shoulder or median. Pressure to allow general purpose traffic seems as strong on those HOV lanes that were created by construction as on those that were created by conversion. In fact, more HOV lane mileage created by construction has suffered backsliding to general purpose use than has the HOV lane mileage that was created by conversion. The fact that all HOV lanes-constructed and converted alike-are under pressure to allow general purpose traffic is a reason to discourage the construction alternative. Lane conversion is particularly attractive as a means to connect existing stretches of HOV lanes. Waiting years or decades for new construction has been disastrous for connectivity; conversions should be aggressively implemented even if later construction is contemplated. Lane conversions have been successful in minimizing the traffic tie-ups inflicted by major events, and it is surprising that they are not done more frequently. An outstanding example (begun in 1960) is the conversion of general purpose lanes to a bus and taxi- only lane on Chicago's Lake Shore Drive for three hours before football games, rock concerts, and other major events at Soldiers' Field. The 1984 Los Angeles Olympics occasioned major temporary conversions. A number of freeway ramps (including several on the Santa Monica Freeway), as well as lanes on major arterials, were made bus-only. This measure-part of an ambitious effort to discourage driving helped buses account for an impressive 45 percent of those attending events at the central Coliseum area. During the Olympics, the Los Angeles area experienced less congestion than it does normally and avoided the traffic tie-ups that, before and since, have been typical of major events there. An evaluation of the busonly lanes and other changes in the road net- work found that "the small negative impact on regular traffic was more than offset by benefits of the transit service" [Giuliani, p. 133]. Whereas the conversions adopted during the Los Angeles Olympics did not continue afterward, the permanent conversion to HOV of 58 miles of general-purpose lanes on I-75 and I-85 is now being planned to help Atlanta cope with traffic from the 1996 Olympics. 22 ReThinking HOV RECOMMENDATION 14, Urban areas should establish contingency plans for the conversion of general purpose lanes to exclusive HOV or transit use in the event of an energy shortage, a disaster, or nonattainment of clean air standards. Crises are an opportunity to experiment with a higher use for the public roadways. In the days, after the sinking of an I-90 bridge over Lake Washington, the Washington State Department of Transportation was urged to convert lanes on a temporary basis to high occupancy or transit use on the remaining two bridges and on nearby freeways. The department had no contingency plans for such conversion and resisted even discussing the idea. As mentioned previously, Caltrans was more creative in instituting conversions after the Loma Prieta and Northridge earthquakes, but was not receptive to keeping the new HOV lanes after earthquake repairs were completed. The contingency plans that must be included in all state Implementation plans (SIPS) under the federal Clean Air Act are an appropriate place to include the conversion of general purpose lanes to HOV and bus-only. The contingency measures are to be implemented if the SIP fails to bring the area into attainment with federal clean air standards RECOMMENDATION 15: Highway design manuals, road fund programming guidelines, transportation laws and plans, and other guidance should require study of the conversion to HOV of general purpose lanes as the prime alternative when any construction of new general purpose or HOV lanes is being considered. Sooner or later, large-scale conversion of general purpose lanes to HOV use as a way to more efficiently use our public roadways seems inevitable. Projected traffic volumes are increasing far beyond what can be accommodated by any foreseeable construction of new lanes. Unfortunately, we are missing the window of time when conversion would be easiest, and when transit and ridesharing could most use the boost. Conversion of a general purpose lane is most difficult once that lane has become congested, and when solo drivers have come to regard it as their own. In all lane conversions, there must be an accompanying public information and public relations program that is carefully planned and executed. Building bus ridership and carpooling, takes time. A policy to seek conversions early and support them with well-funded public relations campaigns is the most far-sighted approach. RECOMMENDATION 16: Conversion to HOV from general purpose lanes should always be preferred to "take-a-rail." Much as the street cars were sacrificed to pave more automobile lanes earlier in the century, some HOV lanes are being created on right -of -way that was formerly for passenger rail or that is intended for future use by passenger rail. One remarkable proposal for an HOV lane on I-93 would close tracks now used by Boston's Braintree branch of the Red Line, forcing an extra stop and increasing, travel time for rail passengers [Bechtel /Parsons Brinckerhoff]. To achieve HOV lanes by setting back trains-the ultimate high occupancy vehicle- is to forget under which conditions the lanes can be justified. Rather than "take-a rail," conversion of existing general purpose lanes to HOV should be particularly emphasized. A Report by the CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION 23 IX. Beyond the high occupancy vehicle High occupancy vehicle lane construction has failed to live up to its professed goals of promoting transit, reducing the mileage driven, lessening air pollution, and promoting more efficient land use. The foregoing recommendations-among them, to create HOV lanes mainly by conversion from general purpose lanes, and to limit new construction to transit and emergency lanes-would help to salvage the concept of preferential access. However, continued pressure to build more HOV capacity and then allowing non-HOV use suggests the need for a reconsideration of the idea of giving preference to carpools. 1. LEAST COST PLANNING: EFFICIENCY, NOT EXPANSION Debates over HOV lanes have begun with the assumption that major new roadway capacity is to be constructed. Once it is assumed that more roadway lanes are to be added, of course it would be better for these to be HOV lanes than general-purpose lanes. But these debates fail to consider whether the construction itself is needed. Prior to the 1970s, the fields of electric power and solid waste planning had a similar bias for new capital facilities to supply more power and disposal capacity. However, in a major shift, these fields have come to recognize that maximizing the efficiency of existing facilities and managing demand are more important than expansion. For example, the concept of "least cost planning" has revolutionized the electric power field. Recognizing that demand is uncertain but will increase quickly if supply is subsidized, planners now explore all options, including nonstructural ones, and consider their full costs, including social and environmental costs [Steiner; Sheets and Watson; Nelson and Shakow]. In power planning, the quickest and most inexpensive way to increase "supply" has been to manage demand. Expensive new facilities for peak demand-in fact, overbuilding for demands that never materialize-could be avoided through conservation, peak spreading, and pricing. The least cost perspective encouraged examination of overlooked resources such as co-generation and small sources. In some locales electric utilities have even encouraged peak-demand clients to shift to nonelectricity modes. Some customers are also agreeing to allow their utility to ration their supply of electricity. Just as least-cost planning was pushed along by the concern over the environmental costs of nuclear and coal power generation, the recycling movement was pushed along by the threat of massive garbage incineration and toxic landfills. Recycling compels consumers to pay attention to what they consume and to sort their waste for further processing. By bringing attention to the large amount of nonrecyclable waste, it focuses attention on waste reduction and reuse. Thus it increases the visibility of externalities (costs-such as for pollution-that once were quietly passed on to others or the environment) and internalizes them as direct costs. These successful movements in energy and solid waste suggest some obvious parallels for transportation planning. Capital facilities are costly to site, build, and maintain. This is especially true for transportation, which is society's largest single public investment, even aside from costs to the environment from pollution and sprawl, and to the communities plagued by traffic and urban flight. Building new lanes is extremely expensive and imposes recurring costs for maintenance and enforcement. In 24 ReThinking HOV most cases, it would be useful to examine whether the funds going into HOV construction would be better spent in other ways. An alternative to supplying more room to drive and park is to use existing facilities more efficiently, and find ways to moderate demand. Current policies allow the least efficient users-single- occupancy vehicles-as much access to most lanes as fully loaded vehicles, and without making any distinction as to whether the trip could have been avoided. In the same spirit as recycling, we need to sort trips and set priorities among them. HOV lanes are the beginning of an effort to sort trips, but in most cases the distinctions have been too blurry and the priorities have not been clear. An alternative to supplying more room to drive and park is to use existing facilities more efficiently and find ways to moderate demand. The most effective means of waste reduction is to eliminate a need entirely. In the same sense, trips can be eliminated if people telecommute or live closer to where they work. Public subsidies, zoning, and other means to encourage urban design and land use consistent with these choices could more permanently and cost- effectively address transportation needs than a vain effort to build our way out of burgeoning demand. Public works spending should be redirected into traffic calming (measures that slow motor vehicles to enable sharing of the road with transit and nonmotor- ized uses), pedestrian and bicycle improvements, public transit, and other measures that increase efficiency and cause some automo- bile trips to disappear [Roberts]. 2. THE PRICING ALTERNATIVE The attractiveness of HOV lanes stems significantly from the terribly inefficient management of our general purpose lanes. Society does not benefit when the public roadways are so clogged as to daunt any user. If pricing, permits, or other methods could be used to prevent the overloading of the general purpose lanes, the very need for separate HOV lanes-or any other preferential access would greatly diminish. Pricing is society's most common and effective way to allocate scarce goods among competing priorities. If the nation's long- distance telephone lines were free, they'd be jammed, too. But phone companies not only charge users; the price is higher at peak periods, so the system rarely gets overloaded. If prices for road and bridge access and for parking better reflected the societal cost of the driving decision, congestion would be much less [Johnson]. Toll booths are beginning to be replaced by automated and remote sensor toll collection as a means to reduce delay and vary rates based on the time of day. The HOV concept's emphasis on people-carrying capacity does not address society's interest in assuring the delivery of goods and services. Heavy trucks currently share peak period access with HOVs to the Sterling Street on-ramp eastbound toward the San Francisco- Oakland Bay Bridge, but they pay no premium for this privilege. Heavy trucks cause more than their share of incidents and accidents, road damage, air and water pollution, collisions, and traffic congestion. Trucks now pay only a small proportion of these costs; giving them free access to the HOV lanes would further skew the incentives, and could reduce the safety of other users of these lanes. Only if trucks were charged hefty A Report by the CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION 25 fees would it seem reasonable to grant them access to the HOV lanes. Proposals are increasing to admit general purpose traffic to HOV lanes at the price of a toll. We suggest strong resistance to these proposals. Tolls should be placed on the general purpose lanes. To admit general purpose traffic to HOV lanes would reduce the time advantage enjoyed by users, and would undermine the public utility image of the lanes. To protect their special status, we suggest that the lanes be officially designated as transit and emergency lanes. 3. CONCLUSION HOV lane construction should not be just a new way to get highway expansions past regulators or budgeters. Exclusive lanes should be built for buses and emergency vehicles. If carpools are to be allowed on these lanes, they should be fully loaded and certified as priority trips. Some inconvenience to cars with one or two occupants is in many cases desirable to induce increased car occupancies and transit use. HOV lanes alone cannot correct the current mismatch of incentives and impacts that cause wasteful levels of driving. A more rational system of prices, coupled with better land planning and wiser public investments would reduce the need for more roadway expansion and would help preserve a transit and emergency lane as a modest but important part of the solution. The stakes-healthful air, sound urban design, energy conservation, efficient use of scarce transportation dollars-are too high not to rethink our policy on high occupancy vehicles. 26 ReThinking HOV BIBLIOGRAPHY Mike Auslam (Caltrans), "HOV Lane Conversions in California (I 989- 1994)" paper presented at the 7th National Conference on High Occupancy Vehicle Systems (Transportation Research Board, 1994). T,M. Batz, High Occupancy Vehicle Treatments, Impacts, and Parameters: Vol. 11-Bibliography and Data, Report No. DOT-1-87-14, New Jersey Department of Transportation (August 1986). Richard D. Bauman, "Reserved Bus Lanes on Arterial Streets in Denver," in Compendium of Technical Papers from the 1990 Annual Conference, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Jerry Baxter (Caltrans), comments at a plenary session of the 7th National Conference on High Occupancy Vehicle Systems (Transportation Research Board, 1994). Bechtel, Parsons, Brinckerhoff, High-Occupancy Vehicle Feasibility Study for the Southeast Expressway (I-93) and Route 3, Draft Final Report Prepared for the Massachusetts Highway Department (December 1993). Steve Beroldo, "Casual Carpooling in the San Francisco Bay Area." Transportation Quarterly 44,1 (January 1990). John W. Billheimer, R.J. Builemer, and C. Fratessa, The Santa Monica Freeway Diamond Lanes. Volume 1: Summary. Final Report to UMTA, September 1977. SYSTAN, Inc. John A. Bonsall, "Transitways: the Ottawa Experience," Proceedings of the Second National Conference on High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes and Transitways (1987). California Air Resources Board, High Occupancy Vehicle System Plans as Air Pollution Control Measures (May 199 1) Caltrans, Los Angeles Olympics Summary Report, (September 1984). Don Capelle and Dennis Christiansen, "Common Misperceptions Associated with Preferential Facilities for High Occupancy Vehicles," in Third National High-Occupancy Vehicle Facilities Conference ( 1 988). Citizens for a Better Environment, et a], letter to Charles Thompson, Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (October 15, 1993). Leroy Demery, "Houston Shows HOV Flaws: HOV Lanes Mean a Major Increase in Auto Use," Moving People (August I 99 1). Environmental Protection Agency, Transportation Control Measure Information Documents (1992). Gary Farnsworth, "Evaluation of Seattle's South I-5 Interim HOV Lanes," HOV System Notes, Transportation Research Board (September 1992). Barbara L. Fisher, Lane Conversion Strategy for the I-890 High- Occupancy Vehicle Lanes in New Jersey, paper presented at the 7th National Conference on High-Occupancy Vehicle Systems (Transportation Research Board, 1994). Federal Highway Administration, memorandum of the director of the Office of Engineering on Minimum Criteria for Use of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Facilities (February 4, 1985). Federal Highway Administration, memorandum of the administrator on High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities (October 4, 1990). Charles A. Fuhs, High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities: A Planning, Design, and Operation Manual (New York: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc., 1990). Charles A. Fuhs, Preferential lane Treatment for High-Occupancy Vehicles, Synthesis of Highway Practice 185, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993). John Gard, Paul Jovanis, Ryuichi Kitamura and Vivek Narasayya, Public Attitudes Toward Conversion of Mixed-Use Freeway, Lanes to HOV Lanes, study prepared for the California Air Resources Board and Caltrans by the Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis (draft final report, April 1994). Genevieve Giuliano et al, Evaluatiott (Of 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympics Traffic Management, final report prepared by the Institute of Transportation Studies (UC-Irvine) for Caltrans (April 1987). Theodore C. Hardy, "Busways in Pittsburgh," Proceedings of the Second National Conference on High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes and Transit ways (Transportation Research Board, 1987). Patrick H. Hare, "HOV Lanes: Not Just for Highways," Washington Post, January 20, 1991. Lee L. Home and Gerard E. Quelch, Route 495 Exclusive Bus Lane: A 20 Year Success Story, ITE Journal (April 1991). Institute of Transportation Engineers, The Effectiveness of High- Occupancy Vehicle Facilities, Information Report prepared by an ITE Technical Council Committee (1988). Elmer W. Johnson, Avoiding the Collision of Cities and Cars (Cambridge, Mass.: American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1993). Robert A. Johnston, "The Analysis of New High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane Projects Under the U.S. and California Clean Air Acts," forthcoming in Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research: A. Robert A. Johnston, "Comments on the California Air Resources Board document on HOV Systems Plans as Air Pollution Control Measures" (1991). Address: Division of Environmental Studies, University of California at Davis, Davis, California 95616. A Report by the CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION 27 Paul P. Jovanis, Kambiz Bashar, and Ali Haahani, "Effect of 49th-50th Street Bus and Taxiway on Traffic Congestion in Manhattan," Transportation Research Record 1256. Jon Kessler and Will Schroeer, "Meeting Mobility and Air Quality Goals: Strategies That Work," forthcoming in Transportation: An International Journal, 1994. Chester R. Kropidlowski, Chicago Contraflow and Concurrent Flow Bus Lane Experience, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1988 Compendium of Technical Papers. Christopher K. Leman, "Does HOV Lane Construction Really Clean the Air?" HOV System Notes, Transportation Research Board (September 1992).. Herbert S. Levinson et a], Bus Use of Highways: State of the Art, Report no. 143, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board (then the Highway Research Board) (1973). Herbert S. Levinson et al, Bus Use of Highways: Planning and Design Guidelines, Report no. 155, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board (1975). Tim Lomax and Charles A. Fuhs, "Nationwide Overview of HOV Projects," in 1988 HOV Facilities Conference (Transportation Research Board, 1990). Massachusetts Highway Department, Interstate I-95/128 to the Charles River Crossing (December 1992). Dick Nelson and Don Shakow, Applying Least Cost Planning to Puget Sound Regional Transportation: Phase One Report (Seattle: Institute for Transportation and the Environment, 1994). Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy, Cities and Automobile Dependence: An International Sourcebook (Gower, Aldershot, 1989). [available through the Institute of Transportation Engineers or the American Planning Association] Orange County Transportation Authority, Orange County High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes: Hours of Operation Study, 1991. Parsons-Brinckerhoff et al, Take-a-Lane Study, for Regional Transit Project, Metro Transit, Seattle (1992). Alan Pisarski, New Perspectives in Committing (U.S. Department of Transportation, 1992).. Richard H. Pratt, "Travel Demand Management and HOV Systems," in Fifth National HOV Facilities Conference TRB Circular 884, pp. 111-1 88, Dec. 1991. Michael Replogle, Transportation Conformity and Demand Management: Vital Strategies for Clean Air Attainment (draft, 1993), Environmental Defense Fund. John Roberts (TEST), presentation to 2nd Auto-Free Cities Conference, Toronto, 1991. San Diego Association of Governments, Transportation Control Measures for the Air Quality Plan (1991). Preston L. Schiller, Making Transit Work, University of Washington Institute for Public Policy and Management (forthcoming). Preston L. Schiller, "Toronto's Good Transit and Good Planning-Are They Enough?" Transportation Bulletin (Institute for Transportation and the Environment, Spring 1994). Edward W. Sheets and Richard H. Watson, "Least Cost Transportation Planning: Lessons from the Northwest Power Planning Council," (October 1993). Southern California Rapid Transit District, Diamond Lane Survey (April 1976). Ruth L. Steiner, "Least Cost Planning for Transportation: What we Can Learn about Transportation Demand Management from Utility Demand-side Management" (forthcoming from the Transportation Research Board). Joseph R. Stowers, "HOV Lessons from the Dulles Toll Road," TR News 170 (January-February 1994). Toronto Department of Public Works and the Environment, "The Bay Street Urban Clearway: Six Month Preliminary Evaluation Report" (May 6, 1991). Katherine F. Turnbull and James W. Hanks, A Description of High-Occupancy Vehicle Facilities in North America, Technology Sharing Program, U.S. Department of Transportation no. DOT-T-91-05 (July 1990). Katharine F. Turnbull, Russell H. Henk, and Dennis L. Christiansen, Suggested Procedures for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Freeway HOV Facilities, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M (1991). Shawn M. Turner, "High Occupancy Vehicle Treatments on Arterial Streets," ITE Journal (November 1993). Cy Ulberg et a], I-5 North High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane 2+ Occupancy Requirement Demonstration Evaluation, prepared by the Washington State Transportation Center and the Texas Transportation Institute for the Washington State Department of Transportation (1992). Cy Ulberg (research engineer) and Kern Jacobson (technical monitor), An Evaluation of the Cost Effectiveness of HOV Lanes, Washington State Department of Transportation (July 1987). U.S. Department of Transportation, Statewide Planning; Metropolitan Planning; Rule. 23 CFR Part 450. Federal Register, October 28, 1993. Vukan R. Vuchic, Urban Public Transportation: Systems and Technology (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1981). Vukan Vuchic et al, The Bus Transit System: Its Potential Implementation and Obstacles. Report to the Federal Transit Administration (1994). Vukan Vuchic et al, "Negative Impacts of HOV Facilities on Transit," paper presented at the 7th National Conference on High Occupancy Vehicle Systems (Transportation Research Board, 1994). 28 ReThinking HOV ClickHERE for graphic.
