![](media/image1.png){width="1.0277777777777777in"
height="1.1465277777777778in"}

Effects of Changing HOV Lane Occupancy Requirements:

**El Monte Busway Case Study**

![](media/image2.wmf){width="4.0465277777777775in"
height="9.236111111111112e-2in"}

![](media/image3.wmf){width="4.0465277777777775in"
height="9.236111111111112e-2in"}

![](media/image4.png){width="3.7465277777777777in"
height="2.4923611111111112in"}

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Notice**                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| **This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the          |
| Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. |
| The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or |
| use thereof.**                                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Technical Report Documentation Page**

+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 1\. Report No.        | 2\.       |           | 3\.       |           |
|                       | G         |           | Rec       |           |
| FHWA-OP-03-002        | overnment |           | ipient\'s |           |
|                       | Accession |           | Catalog   |           |
|                       | No.       |           | No.       |           |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 4\. Title and         |           |           | 5\.       |           |
| Subtitle              |           |           | Report    |           |
|                       |           |           | Date      |           |
| Affects of Changing   |           |           |           |           |
| HOV Lane Occupancy    |           |           | June 2002 |           |
| Requirements: El      |           |           |           |           |
| Monte Busway Case     |           |           |           |           |
| Study                 |           |           |           |           |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|                       |           |           | 6\.       |           |
|                       |           |           | P         |           |
|                       |           |           | erforming |           |
|                       |           |           | Org       |           |
|                       |           |           | anization |           |
|                       |           |           | Code      |           |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 7\. Author(s)         |           |           | 8\.       |           |
|                       |           |           | P         |           |
| Katherine F. Turnbull |           |           | erforming |           |
|                       |           |           | Org       |           |
|                       |           |           | anization |           |
|                       |           |           | Report    |           |
|                       |           |           | No.       |           |
|                       |           |           |           |           |
|                       |           |           | Report    |           |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 9\. Performing        |           |           | 10\. Work |           |
| Organization Name and |           |           | Unit No.  |           |
| Address               |           |           | (TRAIS)   |           |
|                       |           |           |           |           |
| Texas Transportation  |           |           |           |           |
| Institute             |           |           |           |           |
|                       |           |           |           |           |
| The Texas A&M         |           |           |           |           |
| University System     |           |           |           |           |
|                       |           |           |           |           |
| College Station,      |           |           |           |           |
| Texas 77843-3135      |           |           |           |           |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|                       |           |           | 11\.      |           |
|                       |           |           | Contract  |           |
|                       |           |           | or Grant  |           |
|                       |           |           | No        |           |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 12\. Sponsoring       |           |           | 13\. Type |           |
| Agency Name and       |           |           | of Report |           |
| Address               |           |           | and       |           |
|                       |           |           | Period    |           |
| Operations Office of  |           |           | Covered   |           |
| Travel Management     |           |           |           |           |
|                       |           |           | Research: |           |
| Federal Highway       |           |           |           |           |
| Administration        |           |           |           |           |
|                       |           |           |           |           |
| Room 3404, HOTM, 400  |           |           |           |           |
| Seventh Street, S.W.  |           |           |           |           |
|                       |           |           |           |           |
| Washington, D.C.      |           |           |           |           |
| 20590                 |           |           |           |           |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
|                       |           |           | 14\.      |           |
|                       |           |           | S         |           |
|                       |           |           | ponsoring |           |
|                       |           |           | Agency    |           |
|                       |           |           | Code      |           |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 15\. Supplementary    |           |           |           |           |
| Notes                 |           |           |           |           |
|                       |           |           |           |           |
| Jon Obenberger, FHWA  |           |           |           |           |
| Operations Office of  |           |           |           |           |
| Traffic Management,   |           |           |           |           |
| Contracting Officers  |           |           |           |           |
| Technical             |           |           |           |           |
| Representative (COTR) |           |           |           |           |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 16\. Abstract         |           |           |           |           |
|                       |           |           |           |           |
| In 1999, the          |           |           |           |           |
| California            |           |           |           |           |
| Legislature passed    |           |           |           |           |
| Senate Bill (SB) 63,  |           |           |           |           |
| which lowered the     |           |           |           |           |
| vehicle-occupancy     |           |           |           |           |
| requirement on the El |           |           |           |           |
| Monte Busway on the   |           |           |           |           |
| San Bernardino (I-10) |           |           |           |           |
| Freeway from three    |           |           |           |           |
| persons per vehicle   |           |           |           |           |
| (3+) to two persons   |           |           |           |           |
| per vehicle (2+) full |           |           |           |           |
| time. The California  |           |           |           |           |
| Department of         |           |           |           |           |
| Transportation        |           |           |           |           |
| (Caltrans) was        |           |           |           |           |
| directed to implement |           |           |           |           |
| this change on        |           |           |           |           |
| January 1, 2000 and   |           |           |           |           |
| to monitor and        |           |           |           |           |
| evaluate the effects  |           |           |           |           |
| of the 2+ requirement |           |           |           |           |
| on the operation of   |           |           |           |           |
| the Busway and the    |           |           |           |           |
| freeway. Based on the |           |           |           |           |
| operational effects   |           |           |           |           |
| that resulted from    |           |           |           |           |
| this change, new      |           |           |           |           |
| legislation was       |           |           |           |           |
| approved increasing   |           |           |           |           |
| the vehicle-occupancy |           |           |           |           |
| requirement back to   |           |           |           |           |
| 3+ during the morning |           |           |           |           |
| and afternoon         |           |           |           |           |
| peak-periods          |           |           |           |           |
| effective July 24,    |           |           |           |           |
| 2000.                 |           |           |           |           |
|                       |           |           |           |           |
| This report           |           |           |           |           |
| represents            |           |           |           |           |
| information on the    |           |           |           |           |
| effect the change in  |           |           |           |           |
| the vehicle-occupancy |           |           |           |           |
| requirement had on    |           |           |           |           |
| the operation of the  |           |           |           |           |
| Busway and freeway,   |           |           |           |           |
| public transit        |           |           |           |           |
| services, violation   |           |           |           |           |
| rates, accidents,     |           |           |           |           |
| local and feeder      |           |           |           |           |
| roadways, and public  |           |           |           |           |
| response. The         |           |           |           |           |
| assessment is based   |           |           |           |           |
| on available          |           |           |           |           |
| information from      |           |           |           |           |
| Caltrans, Foothill    |           |           |           |           |
| Transit, the Los      |           |           |           |           |
| Angeles County        |           |           |           |           |
| Metropolitan          |           |           |           |           |
| Transportation        |           |           |           |           |
| Authority, the        |           |           |           |           |
| California Highway    |           |           |           |           |
| Patrol, and other     |           |           |           |           |
| local agencies.       |           |           |           |           |
|                       |           |           |           |           |
| Lowering the          |           |           |           |           |
| vehicle-occupancy     |           |           |           |           |
| requirement from 3+   |           |           |           |           |
| to 2+ full time had a |           |           |           |           |
| detrimental effect on |           |           |           |           |
| the Busway. At the    |           |           |           |           |
| same time,            |           |           |           |           |
| significant           |           |           |           |           |
| improvements were not |           |           |           |           |
| realized in the       |           |           |           |           |
| general-purpose       |           |           |           |           |
| freeway lanes.        |           |           |           |           |
| Morning peak-period   |           |           |           |           |
| travel speeds in the  |           |           |           |           |
| Busway were reduced   |           |           |           |           |
| from 65 mph to 20     |           |           |           |           |
| mph, while travel     |           |           |           |           |
| speeds in the         |           |           |           |           |
| general-purpose lanes |           |           |           |           |
| decreased from 25 mph |           |           |           |           |
| to 23 mph for most of |           |           |           |           |
| the demonstration.    |           |           |           |           |
| Hourly Busway vehicle |           |           |           |           |
| volumes during the    |           |           |           |           |
| morning peak-period   |           |           |           |           |
| increased from 1,100  |           |           |           |           |
| to 1,600 with the 2+  |           |           |           |           |
| designation, but the  |           |           |           |           |
| number of persons     |           |           |           |           |
| carried declined from |           |           |           |           |
| 5,900 to 5,200. The   |           |           |           |           |
| freeway lane vehicle  |           |           |           |           |
| volumes and           |           |           |           |           |
| passengers per lane   |           |           |           |           |
| per hour remained     |           |           |           |           |
| relatively similar.   |           |           |           |           |
| Peak-period travel    |           |           |           |           |
| times on the Busway   |           |           |           |           |
| increased by 20- to   |           |           |           |           |
| 30-minutes. Bus       |           |           |           |           |
| schedule adherence    |           |           |           |           |
| and on-time           |           |           |           |           |
| performance declined  |           |           |           |           |
| significantly and     |           |           |           |           |
| passengers reported   |           |           |           |           |
| delays.               |           |           |           |           |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 17\. Key Words        |           | 18\.      |           |           |
|                       |           | Dis       |           |           |
| High-Occupancy        |           | tribution |           |           |
| Vehicle Lanes, HOV    |           | Statement |           |           |
| Lanes, Concurrent     |           |           |           |           |
| Flow Lanes            |           | No        |           |           |
|                       |           | rest      |           |           |
|                       |           | rictions. |           |           |
|                       |           | This      |           |           |
|                       |           | document  |           |           |
|                       |           | is        |           |           |
|                       |           | available |           |           |
|                       |           | to the    |           |           |
|                       |           | public    |           |           |
|                       |           | through   |           |           |
|                       |           | NTIS:     |           |           |
|                       |           |           |           |           |
|                       |           | National  |           |           |
|                       |           | Technical |           |           |
|                       |           | In        |           |           |
|                       |           | formation |           |           |
|                       |           | Service   |           |           |
|                       |           |           |           |           |
|                       |           | 5285 Port |           |           |
|                       |           | Royal     |           |           |
|                       |           | Road      |           |           |
|                       |           |           |           |           |
|                       |           | Spr       |           |           |
|                       |           | ingfield, |           |           |
|                       |           | Virginia  |           |           |
|                       |           | 22161     |           |           |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 19\. Security         | 20\.      |           | 21\. No.  | 22\.      |
| Classif.(of this      | Security  |           | of Pages  | Price     |
| report)               | Cl        |           |           |           |
|                       | assif.(of |           | 64        |           |
| Unclassified          | this      |           |           |           |
|                       | page)     |           |           |           |
|                       |           |           |           |           |
|                       | Unc       |           |           |           |
|                       | lassified |           |           |           |
+-----------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

**Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized**

**Effects of Changing HOV Lane Occupancy Requirements:**

**El Monte Busway Case Study**

**Katherine F. Turnbull**

**Texas Transportation Institute**

**The Texas A&M University System**

**College Station, Texas**

**June 2002**

# ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was conducted in cooperation with staff from the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), and other agencies. Jon Obenberger, FHWA
Office of Traffic Management and ITS Applications, served as the project
director. Robert Cady, FHWA B California Division, and Antonette Clark
and Dawn Helou, Caltrans, provided guidance and information throughout
the study. In addition, Bonnie Duke, TTI, was responsible for word
processing on the report and Gary Lobaugh provided editorial review. The
assistance of these individuals is both recognized and appreciated.

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

Page

**CHAPTER ONECINTRODUCTION** 1

> Case Study Objectives 1
>
> Background 1
>
> Activities Conducted 2
>
> Organization of Report 2

**CHAPTER TWOCOVERVIEW OF EL MONTE BUSWAY** 3

> Physical Description of the Busway 3
>
> Operation of the Busway 4
>
> Utilization of the Busway 10

**CHAPTER THREECEFFECTS OF VEHICLE-OCCUPANCY CHANGE** 13

> Operation of Busway and Freeway 14
>
> Public Transit Services 21
>
> Enforcement and Vehicle-Occupancy Violations 24
>
> Accidents 25
>
> Local and Feeder Roadways 31
>
> Public Response 31

**CHAPTER FOURCISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH OPERATIONAL CHANGES** 33

> Management and Operation of HOV Facilities 33
>
> Examples of Operational Changes 38
>
> Process and Stakeholder Involvement 39
>
> Issues to be Considered 43
>
> Experience in Other Areas 44
>
> Federal Interest in Operational Changes 49

**CHAPTER FIVECCONCLUSIONS** 51

**REFERENCES** 55

**LIST OF TABLES**

Page

1.  Morning Peak Hour Utilization of the El Monte Busway 10

2.  Vehicle-Occupancy Level Violation Rates 24

3.  Recorded Accident Summary for Three Time Periods 27

4.  Accident Rate Summary B Six Months Before 2+ Requirement Implemented

> (3+ Requirement in Effect) 28

5.  Accident Rate Summary B Six Months When 2+ Requirement was in Effect
    29

6.  Accident Rate Summary B Twelve Months When 3+ Peak/2+ Off-Peak

> Requirement was in Effect 30

**LIST OF FIGURES**

1.  Location of El Monte Busway in Los Angeles County 5

2.  Major Elements of El Monte Busway 6

3.  El Monte Busway Buffer Separated Section 7

4.  El Monte Busway Separated Section 7

5.  Major Milestones in Operation of the El Monte Busway 8

6.  Congestion in El Monte Busway with 2+ Requirement 16

7.  Changes in Morning Peak Hour Travel Speeds 17

8.  Changes in Afternoon Peak Hour Travel Speeds 17

9.  Changes in Hourly Vehicle Volumes During the Morning Peak-Period 18

10. Changes in Hourly Vehicle Volumes During the Afternoon Peak-Period
    18

11. Changes in Morning Peak Hour Persons Per Hour Per Lane 19

12. Changes in Afternoon Peak Hour Persons Per Hour Per Lane 19

13. Changes in Hourly Total Vehicle and Person Volumes for the Freeway

> Lanes and the Busway During the Morning Peak-Period 20

14. Changes in Total Vehicle and Person Volumes for the Freeway

> Lanes and the Busway During the Afternoon Peak-Period 20

15. Vehicle Illegally Exiting Busway 23

16. Process for Assessing, Implementing, and Monitoring Changes in

> HOV Operations 42

**CHAPTER ONECINTRODUCTION**

**Case Study Objectives**

Opening in 1973, the El Monte Busway on the San Bernardino (I-10)
Freeway is the oldest high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) facility in the Los
Angeles area. In 1999, the California Legislature approved Senate Bill
63 (SB 63), lowering the vehicle-occupancy requirement on the El Monte
Busway from three persons per vehicle (3+) to two persons per vehicle
(2+) full time. The legislation directed the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) to make this change on January 1, 2000 as part
of a temporary demonstration project, which was to extend until June 30,
2001. The legislation also required Caltrans to monitor and analyze the
effect of this change on the operation of the freeway and the Busway
(1). Based on the operational effects of the change, as documented in
the Caltrans operational study (2), new legislation was passed
increasing the vehicle-occupancy requirement back to 3+ during the
morning and afternoon peak periods and maintaining the 2+ requirement at
all other times, effective July 24, 2000 (3).

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sponsored this study examining
the effects of lowering the vehicle-occupancy requirement. The analysis
conducted by Caltrans focused primarily on the operational impacts of
changing the vehicle-occupancy requirement. This FHWA-sponsored study
builds on and expands upon the Caltrans effort. The primary objective of
this project was to examine and present additional information on the
effects the change in vehicle-occupancy requirements had on public
transportation services, violation rates, accidents, local roadways, and
public responses. A second study objective was to explore the issues,
factors, and impacts associated with making operating changes on HOV
facilities that agencies should consider.

This report contains the technical analysis of the affects changing the
vehicle-occupancy requirement from 3+ to 2+ had on the operation of the
Busway and freeway, public transit services, violation rates, accidents,
local and feeder roadways, and public response. Issues associated with
operational changes are also examined. This report is intended for
agency staff and consultants who may be involved with or responsible for
studies, decisions, or actions that may influence the operation of HOV
facilities. A separate Executive Report is targeted toward policy makers
and administrators.

**Background**

High-occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities represent one approach used in
metropolitan areas throughout the country to help improve the
people-moving capacity rather than vehicle-moving capacity of congested
freeway corridors. The travel time savings and improved trip time
reliability offered by HOV facilities provide incentives for individuals
to change from driving alone to carpooling, vanpooling, or riding the
bus.

The development and operation of HOV facilities have evolved over the
past 30 years. The opening of the bus-only lane on the Shirley Highway
(I-395) in Northern Virginia/Washington, D.C. in 1969 and the contraflow
bus lane on the approach to New York-New Jersey=s Lincoln Tunnel in 1970
represent the first freeway HOV applications in the country. Today there
are some 130 HOV freeway projects in 23 metropolitan areas in North
America (4).

The El Monte Busway on the San Bernardino (I-10) freeway in Los Angeles
County represents one of the longest operating HOV projects in the
country. The Busway was opened in 1973 and 1974 from El Monte to the
edge of downtown Los Angeles. A one-mile extension into the downtown
area was completed in 1989. The 11-mile Busway includes two design
treatments. Part of the Busway is separated from the adjacent freeway
lanes by a painted buffer and the other segment is physically separated
from the freeway.

Only buses were allowed to use the facility when it opened in 1973.
Carpools with three or more persons (3+) were allowed to use the Busway
for three months in 1974 due to a strike by bus operators. The Busway
was opened to 3+ carpools in 1976 as part of the mixed-mode operation.
The 3+ vehicle-occupancy requirement was in effect from 1976 until the
legislative directed change in 2000. More information is provided in
Chapter Two on the design and operation of the Busway.

**Activities Conducted**

A number of activities were completed as part of this study. First, the
operations assessment conducted by Caltrans, and reports and documents
provided by Caltrans and other agency staff were examined. Second, a
review was conducted of available reports and other literature using
traditional information sources and on-line search engines. Third,
additional information was obtained through telephone calls, E-mails,
and meetings with representatives from Caltrans, Foothill Transit, the
California Highway Patrol (CHP), the Los Angeles Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA), and other agencies. The information
obtained through these activities was reviewed and analyzed. The results
of this assessment are presented in this report.

**Organization of Report**

This report is divided into four chapters following this introduction.
Chapter Two provides an overview of the history and recent operation of
the El Monte Busway. Chapter Three summarizes the affect of the change
in vehicle-occupancy levels on the operation of the Busway and the
freeway, public transit services, enforcement and vehicle-occupancy
violations, accidents, local and feeder roadways, and public responses.
Chapter Four examines issues associated with making operational changes
on HOV facilities. The report concludes with a summary of the main
points examined in the study and possible areas of further research.

**CHAPTER TWOCOVERVIEW OF EL MONTE BUSWAY**

**Physical Description of the Busway**

The El Monte Busway on the San Bernardino (I-10) Freeway is located in
eastern Los Angeles County, stretching from El Monte to downtown Los
Angeles. The Busway was opened in 1973 and 1974, making it one of the
earliest HOV facilities in the country. A one-mile extension into the
downtown area was opened in 1989, providing a link to the Los Angeles
Union Passenger Terminal. Figure 1 shows the location of the El Monte
Busway and other freeways and HOV lanes in Los Angeles County.

The two-way HOV facility includes two design treatments. From El Monte
to I-710, the Busway is located in the center of the I-10 Freeway,
separated from the general-purpose lanes by a 10.5-foot painted striped
buffer. From I-710 to downtown Los Angeles, the Busway is located
adjacent to, but separated from, the I-10 Freeway. Figure 2 highlights
the major elements of the Busway and the limited access points. Figure 3
shows the buffer separated section of the Busway and Figure 4
illustrates the section separated from the freeway. Adding concurrent
flow HOV lanes to the east of the current Busway termination point at El
Monte are in various stages of planning and design.

Three bus stations are located along the Transitway at El Monte, the
California State University at Los Angeles (University Station), and the
Los Angeles County University of Southern California Medial Center
(Hospital Station). A direct HOV connector access ramp is located at Del
Mar Avenue and a direct connector for buses is provided at the El Monte
Bus Station. A total of 15 park-and-ride lots in the corridor are
oriented toward the Busway, providing some 5,100 parking spaces to
travelers. The El Monte Station park-and-ride is the largest, containing
2,100 spaces. Additional lots serve the Metrolink rail system, which
also operates in the corridor.

The San Bernardino Freeway is located on the east side of Los Angeles,
stretching from the Nevada border to downtown Los Angeles. It was one of
the earliest freeways constructed in the area and served as the major
east/west travel corridor until the completion of I-210 to the north.
State Route 60 to the south also serves east/west traffic. These three
freeways serve as the major east/west travel corridors in eastern Los
Angeles County.

During the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s concurrent flow HOV lanes have been
added to numerous freeways in the area. These HOV lanes operate with a
2+ vehicle occupancy requirement mostly full time. As of 2000, some 377
lane-miles of freeway HOV facilities were in operation in Los Angeles
County. Concurrent flow HOV lanes are in operation on I-210 to the north
of the San Bernardino Freeway and I-605, a north/south freeway that
crosses the San Bernardino Freeway to the east of the current start of
the El Monte Busway. Like other freeways in the area, Caltrans has added
a number of elements over the years to help manage traffic on the
facility. These elements include metering the freeway entrance ramps,
providing HOV ramp meter bypasses at selected ramps, and operating a
Freeway Service Patrol.

The San Bernardino Freeway links communities in eastern Los Angeles
County and San Bernardino County with downtown Los Angeles and other
destinations. The peak direction of travel is westbound in the morning,
into downtown Los Angeles, and eastbound in the afternoon. The freeway
is congested during the morning and afternoon peak-periods and at other
times throughout the day.

**Operation of the Busway**

The construction, financing, and operation of the Busway has been guided
by a 1971 agreement and a series of amendments between the Southern
California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD), now known as the Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), and the State of
California Department of Public Works, now Caltrans. The state was
responsible for designing, constructing, operating and maintaining the
Busway, and the District was responsible for designing, constructing,
operating, and maintaining the bus stations and other bus elements of
the projects. A number of federal, state, and local sources were used to
fund the various elements of the project. Caltrans continues to be
responsible for operating and maintaining the Busway and the freeway.

The operation of the Busway, the eligible vehicles, and the
vehicle-occupancy requirements have been modified slightly over the
almost 30-year life of the facility. Figure 5 highlights the major
milestones in the history of the project. The 1971 agreement established
a five-year experimental period. During phase one of the experimental
period, which was to last two years, the Busway was to be reserved
exclusively for buses, unless otherwise agreed to by both parties. The
second phase, which encompassed the remaining three years, was to
include at least one year with mixed bus and carpool use. The agreement
also stated that if SCRTD was unable to conduct its operations for any
reason, such as substantial service curtailment due to labor disputes,
the state could elect to permit other vehicles to use the Busway (5).

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="7.50625in" height="5.792361111111111in"}

# Figure 1. Location of El Monte Busway in Los Angeles County

![](media/image7.png){width="7.816666666666666in" height="5.65625in"}

# Figure 2. Major Elements of the El Monte Busway

![](media/image8.png){width="4.0in" height="2.6625in"}

# Figure 3. El Monte Busway Buffer Separated Section

![](media/image9.png){width="4.0in" height="2.6625in"}

# Figure 4. El Monte Busway Separated Section

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# Figure 5. Major Milestones in Operation of the El Monte Busway

The facility was opened to buses in January 1973. Operating hours were
weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Three-person carpools and vanpools were allowed to use the Busway in
August 1974 in response to an SCRTD bus operators strike. Bus-only
operations were resumed in October 1974 when the strike was settled.

Amendments to the agreement were signed in 1976 and 1981. The 1976
amendment formally opened the Busway to mixed-mode operation, allowing
3+ carpools during the morning and afternoon weekday peak periods. The
amendment also requires the metering of carpools at ingress points if
bus travel times are degraded due to high volumes of carpools (6). The
peak-period operating hours were extended to weekends in 1977.

The 1981 amendment extended the hours of operation for buses and
carpools to 24 hours a day, seven days a week (24/7). It also
established a critical value for determining if the Busway is becoming
too congested and identified possible actions that may be taken to
alleviate these conditions. The critical value is based on an equivalent
vehicle volume, which is computed by adding the hourly volume of
carpools and the hourly volume of buses multiplied by a factor of 1.6.
When the critical value of equivalent vehicle volume approaches 1,300
vehicles per hour, Caltrans will initiate studies to determine
appropriate actions to ensure that the critical value is not exceeded.
The amendment identifies possible steps to include, but not be limited
to, metering carpools on the Busway and redefining the carpool occupancy
requirement from 3+ to 4+. The amendment allows the parties to modify
the critical value as mutually agreed upon (7).

The initial agreement outlined a data collection, monitoring, and
evaluation program to be conducted during the five year demonstration.
These activities were completed and a series of reports were prepared
documenting the various stages of the project, with the final report
covering the mixed-mode operations (8). None of the agreements address
the potential need to lower the vehicle-occupancy requirement from 3+ if
the facility is not utilized. The initial agreement provided that if at
the conclusion of the test period it was determined that the bus/carpool
operation should cease, the facility would revert to general highway
use, with preferential treatment, to the extent justified, always
provided to buses (5).

An extensive data collection and evaluation program was conducted during
the five-year demonstration from 1973 to 1978. Data on vehicle counts,
ridership counts, and travel speeds were collected and analyzed over the
course of the demonstration. Surveys of bus riders, carpoolers, and
households in the corridor were also conducted as part of the
demonstration. This extensive data collection and monitoring program was
not continued after 1978, although Caltrans did track vehicle volumes
and other data as part of the regular monitoring program. More recently,
Caltrans District 7 has completed an annual report on HOV facilities in
Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Operating characteristics, including
vehicle and person volumes, violation rates, and average daily traffic
(ADT) are included in these reports. Due to funding limitations there
are no major public and policy maker outreach efforts highlighting the
performance and benefits of the El Monte Busway and other HOV lanes in
the area.

In 2000, the MTA, in cooperation with Caltrans and other local agencies
initiated a comprehensive assessment of HOV facilities in Los Angeles
County. The HOV Performance Program included a number of elements. A
performance monitoring and evaluation plan was developed, which included
objectives, measures of effectiveness, and data needs and data
collection methods. Data on vehicle volumes, occupancy levels, travel
speeds and travel times, violation rates, and accidents were collected
and analyzed. Focus group meetings, executive interviews, and surveys of
bus riders, motorists, and the general public were conducted. The
various elements of the project are documented in technical memoranda
and a final report (9).

A Project Management Team (PAT) comprised of representatives from the
MTA, Caltrans, California Highway Patrol (CHP), Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), and other agencies provided guidance
and oversight to the MTA-sponsored HOV Performance Program. The PAT met
on a regular basis throughout the study. There is currently no
multi-agency group that coordinates management and operation of the El
Monte Busway or other HOV lanes in the area, although personnel from the
various agencies meet as needed to address issues and opportunities.

As noted previously, the El Monte Busway was the first mainline HOV
facility in the Los Angeles area. The 3+ vehicle-occupancy requirement
used on the Busway reflects both federal guidance and the
state-of-the-practice during the 1970s and early 1980s. In the
mid-to-late 1990s, HOV lanes were added to a number of freeways in the
area as part of Caltrans= efforts to address congestion and mobility in
the region. Reflecting new federal guidance and current trends in
carpooling, a 2+ vehicle-occupancy requirement was used with these
facilities. With two exceptions, these lanes operate with a 2+
requirement on a 24/7 basis. The two exceptions are the El Monte Busway
and State Route (SR) 14, which uses a 2+ requirement, but operates only
during the morning and afternoon peak periods as a demonstration
project.

**Utilization of the Busway**

Use of the El Monte Busway has grown over time. Tracking this growth is
somewhat difficult due to the different time periods used over the years
to collect and present vehicle and passenger volumes. Table 1 highlights
morning peak hour use levels from points over the 30-year life of the
facility. Peak hour use of the lane has increased over the life of the
facility, as has total daily use.

# Table 1. Morning Peak Hour Utilization of the El Monte Busway

+-------+--------+----------+--------+----------+----------+----------+
| **Y   | *      | **Pass   | **C    | **Pass   | *        | *        |
| ear** | *Bus** | engers** | arpool | engers** | *Total** | *Total** |
|       |        |          | s/Vanp |          |          |          |
|       |        |          | ools** |          | **Ve     | **Pass   |
|       |        |          |        |          | hicles** | engers** |
+-------+--------+----------+--------+----------+----------+----------+
| 1973  | 21     | 766      | B      | B        | 21       | 766      |
| (Ma   |        |          |        |          |          |          |
| y)^1^ |        |          |        |          |          |          |
+-------+--------+----------+--------+----------+----------+----------+
| 1973  | 67     | 1,526    | B      | B        | 67       | 1,526    |
| (Oc   |        |          |        |          |          |          |
| t)^1^ |        |          |        |          |          |          |
+-------+--------+----------+--------+----------+----------+----------+
| 1976  | 64     | 3,044    | B      | B        | 64       | 3,044    |
+-------+--------+----------+--------+----------+----------+----------+
| 1988  | 70     | 3,190    | 765    | 2,610    | 835      | 5,800    |
+-------+--------+----------+--------+----------+----------+----------+
| 1990  | 71     | 2,750    | 1,374  | 4,352    | 1,445    | 7,102    |
+-------+--------+----------+--------+----------+----------+----------+
| 2000  | 84     | 2,980    | 944    | 2,887    | 1,028    | 5,867    |
+-------+--------+----------+--------+----------+----------+----------+

^1^Estimates based on 2 hour peak-period figures.

(8, 10, 11, 12)

The number of buses using the lane and rider levels increased
significantly during the first three years of the facility. The number
of buses using the lane in the morning peak-hour, peak-direction of
travel increased from 21 to 64, with a corresponding increase in
passengers from 766 to 3,044 from the opening of the lane in 1973 to
1976. Daily bus ridership levels increased from 1,000 to 14,500
passengers during the three-year bus-only operations phase from 1973 to
1976. Allowing 3+ carpools on the facility in October 1976 did not cause
a noticeable change in bus ridership levels. Overall daily utilization
levels increased from approximately 14,420 bus riders, carpoolers, and
vanpoolers in October 1976 to 20,440 in April 1978 (8).

Overall, levels on the Busway continued to grow during the 1980s and
1990s, with peak hour volumes averaging between 835 to 1,500 vehicles
and 5,800 to 7,100 passengers. Bus ridership and carpooling over the two
decades was influenced by a variety of factors including the status of
the local economy, the oil crisis and the Arab oil embargo, the cost of
gasoline and parking, and changes in employment locations and levels.
The El Monte Busway continues to be one of the most efficient HOV
facilities in North America. With approximately 80 peak hour buses it
also has one of the highest levels of bus use. Outside of the bus-only
lanes, peak hour bus volumes on the El Monte Busway are third behind the
Shirley Highway approaching Washington, D.C. and I-80 on the San
Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in the San Francisco area.

Like all freeways in the Los Angeles area, traffic volumes on I-10 are
very heavy, especially during the peak-periods. The I-10 general-purpose
freeway lanes are congested during the morning and afternoon peak
periods. Volumes of 1,600 to 1,700 vehicles per lane and travel speeds
of 20 to 25 mph were typically experienced on the freeway in the late
1990s and early 2000s. These conditions reflect a facility operating in
a saturated condition.

In addition to monitoring general conditions on the HOV lanes on an
annual basis, Caltrans has conducted periodic studies on different
issues related to the operation of the El Monte Busway, HOV lanes in the
Los Angeles area, and HOV facilities throughout the state. These studies
have been undertaken for a variety of reasons, including legislative
interest. For example, in 1999 Caltrans District 7 examined the
feasibility and effectiveness of opening HOV lanes to general traffic on
weekends and holidays. The study recommended maintaining the current
24/7 HOV designation for the following reasons:

-   the HOV lanes are currently being utilized effectively on weekends,

-   opening the HOV lanes to general traffic would provide only minor
    improvements to overall traffic conditions,

-   opening the lanes on weekends to general traffic would compromise
    the trip reliability of weekend carpoolers,

-   opening the lanes on weekends to general traffic is not consistent
    with the objectives of the HOV program or current signing and
    striping of the facilities (13).

Caltrans and the MTA also examined the potential effects of opening the
El Monte Busway to 2+ carpools. The analysis conducted by Caltrans in
1996 (14) and by the MTA in 1999 (15) concluded that allowing 2+
carpools would result in congestion on the Busway and disruption of bus
travel time and trip reliability.

**CHAPTER THREEBEFFECTS OF VEHICLE OCCUPANCY CHANGE**

Caltrans District 7 was responsible for implementing the 2+ occupancy
requirement change directed in SB 63 and for monitoring the effects of
the legislation. Caltrans established the SB 63 Implementation
Committee, comprised of representatives from appropriate agencies, to
help support and coordinate the change. The Implementation Committee was
comprised of representatives from the following agencies and Caltrans
divisions:

-   Caltrans Headquarters;

-   Caltrans District 7 Maintenance, Signs & Delineation, and HOV
    Operations;

-   Caltrans District 7 Traffic Investigations;

-   Caltrans District 7 Traffic Management;

-   Caltrans District 7 HOV Operations;

-   Caltrans District 7 Public Affairs;

-   Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority;

-   Southern California Association of Governments;

-   Foothill Transit;

-   California Highway Patrol;

-   Toll Operators; and

-   Federal Highway Administration.

The SB 63 Implementation Committee met on a regular basis starting in
August 1999 shortly after SB 63 was signed by the governor. The
committee helped coordinate implementation, operation, and monitoring of
the vehicle occupancy change. The responsibilities and activities of the
various agencies and departments were identified and documented during
the initial meetings.

The Implementation Committee continued to meet throughout the
demonstration. Representatives from the various agencies assisted with
monitoring different aspects of the demonstration. The committee also
helped coordinate the change back to 3+ peak period operation based on
AB 769.

Caltrans monitored the affects of SB 63 on the operation of the Busway
and the freeway. The results of the monitoring effort were summarized in
regularly issued fact sheets and presented in an Executive Summary. The
Caltrans monitoring effort focused primarily on vehicle volumes, person
movement, travel speeds, and occupancy violation rates. A separate
traffic safety analysis was also conducted by Caltrans. This assessment
was completed in March 2002. Foothill Transit monitored the affects of
the 2+ demonstration on bus operating speeds, bus travel-times, on-time
performance, service overtime, safety incidents, and customer
complaints.

Prior to completion of the AB 769 demonstration project, Caltrans
representatives met with the Implementation Committee to discuss ongoing
operations of the El Monte Busway. Based on input from all stakeholders,
an operational report and request was submitted to FHWA for
consideration since the 3+ peak/2+ off-peak operation was identified as
a significant change from the original operation of the Busway. FHWA
approval was granted and the permanent dual 3+/2+ occupancy requirement
continues to be in place.

**Operation of Busway and Freeway**

The Caltrans monitoring program tracked travel speeds, vehicle volumes,
and person movement on both the Busway and the general-purpose freeway
lanes. Conditions prior to implementation of SB 63, during the 2+
demonstration, and after the change to the 3+ peak/2+ off- peak
requirements were monitored by Caltrans. The results of this assessment
are summarized in this section. Additional data available from the Los
Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) HOV Performance
Program was also examined to provide a more recent picture of operating
trends (9).

The Caltrans assessment focused on the morning and afternoon peak
periods, when demands on the freeway system are greatest and traffic
volumes are highest. The peak periods are from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.
and from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. In general, the morning peak hour is
6:45 a.m. to 7:45 a.m. and the afternoon peak hour is 4:30 p.m. to 5:30
p.m. Further, the analysis focused on the peak direction of travel
during these time periods. The peak direction of travel is westbound
into downtown Los Angeles in the morning and eastbound out of the
downtown area in the afternoon. Data collection efforts focused on the
peak periods, although some information, such as bus volumes are
examined for the peak hour. Off-peak conditions were not examined as
traffic in the Busway and the general-purpose lanes usually reflects
freeflow or relatively free flowing conditions.

Traffic conditions in the morning and afternoon peak periods are
generally similar, with some variations. Slightly higher volumes are
experienced in Busway in the morning peak period than in the afternoon
peak period. The freeway general-purpose lanes experience the opposite
trend, with vehicle volumes slighter higher in the afternoon peak
periods.

> **Travel Speeds**. Figure 6 illustrates the congested conditions
> experienced during the peak hours in the Busway with the 2+
> requirement. As highlighted in Figures 7 and 8, peak hour travel
> speeds in the Busway were negatively effected during the 2+
> demonstration. Travel speeds in the Busway declined from freeflow
> conditions at 65 mph to approximately 20 mph in the morning westbound
> direction. In the afternoon eastbound direction, travel speeds on the
> Busway decreased from 65 mph to 27 mph during the first month of the
> demonstration and then increased to 40 mph for the duration of the
> test.
>
> A significant corresponding increase in travel speeds did not occur in
> the general-purpose lanes. Travel speeds on the freeway lanes averaged
> 25 mph in the morning westbound peak hour and 32 mph in the afternoon
> eastbound peak hour before the demonstration. Travel speeds in the
> morning westbound direction increased to 37 mph on the freeway lanes
> during the first month of the 2+ demonstration, but decreased to 23
> mph for the remainder of the operation. In the afternoon, eastbound
> peak hour freeway travel speeds increased to 40 mph during the
> demonstration.
>
> Travel speeds on both the Busway and the freeway lanes returned to
> close to pre-demonstration levels with the implementation of emergency
> legislation, AB 769, and the return to the 3+ occupancy requirement
> during weekday peak-periods. Travel speeds on the Busway increased to
> 45 mph in the morning and 55 mph in the afternoon peak hours. Although
> lower than the pre-demonstration 65 mph, both of these speeds
> represent generally freeflow conditions. Travel speeds in the
> general-purpose lanes were slightly lower than the pre-demonstration
> speeds at 20 mph and 28 mph for the morning and afternoon peak hours,
> respectively (2). Travel speed data from the MTA HOV Performance
> Monitoring Program recorded approximately a month after the
> implementation of AB 769 indicated slightly higher peak hour speeds in
> both the HOV and the freeway lanes (9).
>
> **Vehicle Volume and Persons Per Hour Per Lane**. Figures 9 and 10
> highlight the changes in hourly volumes during the peak-periods over
> the three time periods, Figures 11 and 12 show the changes in person
> per hour per lane (pphpl), and Figures 13 and 14 illustrate the total
> vehicle and person volumes for the freeway lanes and the Busway.
> Examining these two measures together is important, as vehicle volumes
> may increase as the result of a change in the vehicle-occupancy
> requirement, but the total number of people being carried may decline
> or may increase at a much lower rate.
>
> This trend did occur on the Busway in the morning peak-period. The
> number of vehicles on the Busway in the morning peak hour increased
> from 1,100 to 1,600 during the 2+ demonstration, but the number of
> persons carried declined from 5,900 to 5,200. Thus, more vehicles
> carrying fewer people were on the Busway. Trends in the afternoon
> peak-period were different with hourly vehicle volumes increasing from
> 990 to 1,500 and person volumes increasing from 5,100 to 5,600 (2).
>
> Vehicle volumes in the general-purpose lanes increased slightly or
> remained relatively constant over the three time periods, as did the
> number of persons per hour per lane. Thus, lowering the
> vehicle-occupancy rate on the Busway, and the subsequent increase in
> 2+ carpools on the Busway, did not have a corresponding affect of
> lowering vehicle volumes in the freeway lanes. The increase in
> vehicles may have resulted from latent demand in the corridor, with
> commuters diverting from other routes.
>
> Figures 13 and 14 show the total vehicles and the total persons
> carried in the peak period on the facility B the four freeway
> general-purpose lanes and the one-lane Busway. These figures provide
> an indication of the total vehicle and person throughput for the
> freeway corridor. In the morning peak period, total vehicle volumes
> increased by 15 percent with the change to the 2+ operating
> requirement, but total person volumes increased by less than one
> percent. Similar trends were experienced in the afternoon peak hours,
> with total vehicle volumes increasing by nine percent and total person
> volumes increasing by less than one percent.

![](media/image10.png){width="3.995138888888889in"
height="2.688888888888889in"}

![](media/image11.png){width="3.997916666666667in"
height="2.582638888888889in"}

Figure 6. Congestion in El Monte Busway with 2+ Requirement

**(Credits B Top photo - Caltrans, bottom photo - Foothill Transit)**

![](media/image12.jpeg){width="6.106944444444444in"
height="2.229861111111111in"}

# Figure 7. Changes in Morning Peak Hour Travel Speeds

**(2)**

![](media/image13.jpeg){width="6.473611111111111in"
height="2.229861111111111in"}

# Figure 8. Changes in Afternoon Peak Hour Travel Speeds

**(2)**

![](media/image14.jpeg){width="6.423611111111111in"
height="2.2263888888888888in"}

# Figure 9. Changes in Hourly Vehicle Volumes During the Morning Peak-Period

**(2)**

![](media/image15.jpeg){width="6.423611111111111in"
height="2.229861111111111in"}

# 

# Figure 10. Changes in Hourly Vehicle Volumes During the Afternoon Peak-Period

**(2)**

![](media/image16.jpeg){width="6.009722222222222in"
height="2.2263888888888888in"}

**Figure 11. Changes in Morning Peak Hour Persons Per Hour Per Lane
(pphpl)**

**(2)**

![](media/image17.jpeg){width="6.263194444444444in"
height="2.229861111111111in"}

**Figure 12. Changes in Afternoon Peak Hour Persons Per Hour Per Lane**
**(pphpl)**

**(2)**

![](media/image18.jpeg){width="6.170138888888889in"
height="2.209722222222222in"}

Figure 13. Changes in Hourly Total Vehicle and Person Volumes for the
Freeway Lanes and the Busway During the Morning Peak-Period

![](media/image19.jpeg){width="6.2965277777777775in"
height="2.1798611111111112in"}

**Figure 14. Changes in Hourly Total Vehicle and Person Volumes for the
Freeway Lanes and the Busway During the Afternoon Peak-Period**

> **Travel Rate Index**. The travel rate index (TRI) is one of the
> measures used in TTI=s annual mobility study (16). The TRI shows the
> amount of additional time required to make a trip due to congested
> conditions on a roadway. A TRI of 1.00 indicates freeflow travel
> conditions. For example, a TRI of 1.30 indicates that it takes 30
> percent more time to make a trip due to congestion. The TRI was
> calculated for the morning peak periods before, during, and after the
> 2+ demonstration using the speed and person volume data presented
> previously.
>
> The Busway had a TRI of 1.00 prior to the 2+ demonstration, reflecting
> the freeflow condition described above. The Busway TRI increased to
> 3.00 during the 2+ test, indicating that trips on the Busway took 300
> percent longer. The TRI declined to 1.30 during the initial phase of
> the 3+/2+ operating period and may have declined more since then if
> speeds increased above 45 mph after the targeted enforcement efforts
> reduced the number of illegal 2+ carpools in the lanes.
>
> The TRI for the general-purpose lanes was 2.40 prior to the 2+
> demonstration, reflecting significant levels of congestion. Due to the
> increase in vehicle volumes and the reduction in speeds, the
> general-purpose lanes TRI increased to 2.61 during the 2+
> demonstration, and increased to 3.00 immediately after the test. These
> figures indicate that conditions in the general-purpose lanes did not
> improve during the test and, in fact may have become worse both during
> and after the demonstration.

**Public Transit Services**

As discussed in Chapter Two, buses have always been a key element of the
El Monte Busway. The number of routes and buses, as well as the service
providers, have changed over the years. Prior to the enactment of SB 63,
approximately 80 buses operated on the Busway during the morning peak
hour. This figure is one of the highest hourly bus volumes on exclusive
or concurrent flow HOV facilities in the country.

Foothill Transit operates the majority of buses on the Busway, with the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) providing some service. Both
express routes and local/express routes operate on the Busway. Overall,
Foothill Transit buses make 500 trips per day on the Busway carrying
some 18,000 passengers.

Foothill Transit monitored the effect of the change in the
vehicle-occupancy requirement on its operations. Information regarding
bus on-time performance, service overtime and operating costs, safety,
and customer complaints was collected over the course of the
demonstration. Periodic fact sheets were published highlighting this
information and a video was produced documenting some of the effects.
Passenger complaints, including letters and other correspondence, were
recorded.

Lowering the vehicle-occupancy requirement to 2+ had a significant
effect on bus operations. The increase in the number of two-person
carpools, which caused congestion on the Busway, resulted in lower bus
operating speeds, longer bus travel times and reduced on-time
performance, increased service overtime and operating costs, increases
in safety incidents, and increases in customer complaints.

-   **Bus Operating Speeds, Bus Travel-Times, and On-Time Performance**.
    Bus operating speeds slowed during the 2+ demonstration affecting
    overall bus travel times and on-time performance. Historically,
    buses operating on the Busway experienced freeflow speeds, averaging
    65 mph prior to the 2+ demonstration. As noted previously, during
    the 2+ period, travel speeds for all vehicles in the Busway declined
    to 20 mph in the westbound direction during the morning peak period.
    In the eastbound direction, afternoon peak-period travel speeds
    initially decreased to 27 mph and then stabilized at around 40 mph
    (2).

> The slower operating speeds resulted in longer bus travel times and
> reduced on-time performance. Bus travel times from the eastern end of
> the Busway into downtown Los Angeles were 20 to 30 minutes longer
> during the morning peak-period. Schedule adherence and on-time
> performance dropped from an average of 88 percent in the fall of 1999
> to 48 percent in May 2000. The consistent 20-minute travel time
> savings provided to bus passengers over vehicles in the
> general-purpose lanes was lost during the 2+ demonstration (17).

-   **Service Overtime and Operating Costs**. The slower bus operating
    speeds, longer travel times, and reduced on-time performance also
    caused declines in service productivity. Bus operators finishing
    their runs late were frequently not able to return for a second trip
    in the corridor. To fill these voids and to maintain schedules,
    extra buses and operators had to be dispatched when available.

> At some points during the demonstration, as many as 10 extra buses and
> operators were staged in the downtown area to help ensure that trips
> were not missed and schedules were maintained. Foothill Transit
> estimated that the personnel and fuel costs associated with providing
> these extra buses were approximately \$1,250 per weekday. Over the
> course of the demonstration, Foothill Transit estimated spending close
> to \$150,000 for the extra buses and operators. If the 2+ requirement
> had been continued, the annual cost of providing the additional buses
> would have been approximately \$325,000 (17, 18, 19).

-   **Safety Incidents**. Foothill Transit operators record safety
    incidents as part of their daily reporting. During 1999 an average
    of 13 safety incidents a day were reported by operators on the El
    Monte Busway. During the 2+ demonstration the number of recorded
    safety incidents increased substantially. For example, on January
    27, 140 safety incidents were reported by Foothill Transit
    operators.

> The most frequently cited problems were rapid deceleration of cars in
> front of buses, cars illegally crossing the double-lines, and improper
> merging of cars into and out of the Busway. Figure 15 shows an example
> of a carpooler illegally exiting the Busway to avoid congestion in the
> lane. Approximately 60 percent of the incidents occurred in the buffer
> separated section of the Busway (17). Although these incidents are not
> crashes, they represent the potential degradation of safety along the
> Busway. The incidents posed safety hazards to bus operators,
> passengers, and motorists.

-   **Customer Complaints**. Foothill Transit received approximately 900
    telephone calls, E-mails, letters, and faxes from riders complaining
    about the degradation of bus service during the 2+ demonstration.
    Caltrans and the MTA also received letters from bus riders and
    carpoolers. Passengers reported regular delays of 20- to 30- minutes
    on the Busway, causing them to miss connections with other buses and
    trains, to be late to work, to be late to pick up children at day
    care facilities, and to miss appointments. A few examples of the
    affects reported by passengers are noted below:

**Figure 15. Vehicle Illegally Exiting
Busway**![](media/image20.png){width="3.995138888888889in"
height="2.6958333333333333in"}

**(Photo Credit B Foothill Transit)**

-   AI live in Covina. What used to be a two-hour round trip is now a
    three-hour round trip. Please, this is so inconvenient. I have
    family I need to get home to.@

-   AThe 2+ defeats the purpose of the carpool lane. It takes an
    additional 15-25 minutes to get to or from work.@

-   ASince January 3^rd^, I have been late to work every day. I am a
    single mother and I need my job, but my kids need me too. Instead of
    reaching work in 20 minutes, it is taking over 40 minutes. The
    commute home is no better and I can no longer pick my daughter up
    from school in the evenings, because I cannot afford \$5.00 for
    every minute late. I have to spend more money on babysitting than
    before and had to find someone to take care of my children now that
    I can=t be there.@

-   AI am a single, working parent whose livelihood relies heavily on
    keeping a specific schedule. I have been late to work on an average
    of 10-15 minutes since this new bill affected my route January
    1^st^. Fortunately, I have been arriving at day care only moments
    before the 6:30 p.m. closing time. I do not own a vehicle, but I
    have regularly utilized public transportation as a means to get to
    work.@

-   AEvery day I travel by bus (Foothill Transit) on the bus lane from
    El Monte Station to Union Station. Ever since the passage of Senate
    Bill 63, what used to take 8-10 minutes in the bus lane now takes
    30-40 minutes.@

-   AI commute 24 miles each way to downtown Los Angeles. Normally the
    commute is about one hour. Now it has increased each way by at least
    20 minutes.@

**Enforcement and Vehicle-Occupancy Violations**

The changes in vehicle-occupancy levels significantly affected the
violation rates on the Busway. The peak-period occupancy violation rates
for four time periods B before the 2+ demonstration, during the 2+
demonstration, early in the 3+/2+ operation, and 16 months after the
start of the 3+/2+ operation B are presented in Table 2.

**Table 2. Vehicle-Occupancy Level Violation Rates**

  ------------------------------- ------------------- --------------------
  **Time Period**                 **Busway**          

                                  **AM Peak-Period**  **PM Peak-Period**

  Before January 2000             7%                  2%

  January 1 - July 24, 2000       1%                  1%

  Immediately after July 24, 2000 41%                 56%

  December 2001                   4%                  9%
  ------------------------------- ------------------- --------------------

\(20\)

The violation rates declined during the 2+ demonstration, as 2+ person
carpools which would previously have been cited became authorized users.
The violation rates increased significantly during the early phase of
the 3+/2+ operations. Extra enforcement and more visible enforcement was
not provided during the initial 3+/2+ operation. As a result, it appears
that many 2+ carpools continued to use the lane during the 3+
peak-period. In response to concerns over these high violation rates,
CHP undertook an aggressive enforcement program in January 2001.
Elements of the program including briefings for all CHP shifts, press
releases and radio broadcasts highlighting the correct occupancy
requirements, announcing increased enforcement of the rules, and four
weeks of enforcement saturation with extra offices assigned to the
Busway. These efforts resulted in the violation rates returning to
levels similar to those before the 2+ demonstration.

Field observations, reports from Foothill Transit operators, and
interviews with CHP officers indicated that the number of buffer
violations increased significantly during the 2+ demonstration. In most
cases, these violations were due to carpools exiting the Busway
illegally to avoid the congestion and slow travel speeds in the lane.

**Accidents**

The Caltrans District 7 Office of Freeway Operations in the Division of
Operations conducted a safety study of the effects of SB 63 and AB 769
on the El Monte Busway (21). The study examined accident records for the
following three time periods:

-   six-months before the 2+ vehicle-occupancy requirement became
    operational (July 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999),

-   six-months when the 2+ vehicle-occupancy requirement was in effect
    (January 1, 2000 to July 24, 2000), and

-   12-months when the 3+ peak-period and 2+ off-peak vehicle-occupancy
    requirement was in effect (July 25, 2000 to June 30, 2001).

In addition, the Busway was divided into two sections for the safety
assessment to coincide with the different geometrics. The first segment
included the section from Alameda Street to Route 710, which is
physically separated from the freeway main lanes. The second section
included the segment from the Route 710 interchange to the eastern
terminus at Baldwin Avenue. The HOV lanes are separated from the
general-purpose lanes by a painted buffer in this segment.

Data from the Caltrans District 7 Traffic Accident Surveillance and
Analysis System (TASAS) were examined for each segment for the three
time periods. TASAS is a sophisticated electronic data processing record
system that includes an accident database linked to a highway database.
Table 3 presents a summary of the recorded accidents from the three
different operating periods by segments. Tables 4 through 6 present the
accident rates (accidents per million vehicle miles ) by segments for
the three periods. Fatal accidents (FAT), fatal plus injury accidents
(FAT +1), and total accidents are presented, along with the average or
expected rates. The major findings from the Caltrans assessment are
highlighted below (21):

-   The overall conclusion from the assessment was that no definite
    conclusion could be drawn indicating there were significant
    differences in accident rates or accident types during the three
    study periods.

-   No accidents were recorded in the HOV lane during the six-months
    prior to the enactment of SB 63. Five accidents were recorded in the
    HOV lane during the six-months at the 2+ vehicle-occupancy
    requirement and eight accidents were recorded during the 12 months
    of 3+ peak/2+ off-peak operations. The number of accidents increased
    from the 3+ operations, but the differences are not statistically
    significant. There were also no apparent significant differences in
    the number of accidents by section during these time periods. The
    accident rates for all three periods are lower than the average or
    expected rate.

-   Although the total number of accidents in the general-purpose lanes
    increased during the 2+ and the 3+/2+ operating periods, these
    differences were not found to be significant. A significant
    difference was found in the number of accidents in the two study
    sections across all three time periods, with more accidents
    occurring in Section II. This section is longer than Section I and
    the entire segment experiences higher levels of congestion, while
    recurrent congestion is experienced in only limited parts of
    Section I. Rear-end and side-swipe accidents, which are normally
    associated with congested conditions, accounted for some 80 percent
    of the recorded accidents in Section II, compared to 70 percent in
    Section I. The accident rates from fatal and fatal plus injury
    crashes on the freeway lanes over all time periods are lower or
    close to the average expected rates. The total rates, however, are
    higher than average across all three time periods for the study
    sections, with the exception of eastbound Section I, which are
    lower. This trend was attributed to the high levels of congestion,
    especially in Section II.

**Table 3. Recorded Accident Summary** **for Three Time Periods**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="4"><p>6 Months Before 2+ Requirement</p>
<p>(3+ Requirement in Effect)</p>
<p>July 1, 1999</p>
<p>to</p>
<p>December 31, 1999</p></td>
<td colspan="4"><p>6+ Months 2+ Requirement was in Effect</p>
<p>January 1, 2000</p>
<p>to</p>
<p>July 24, 2000</p></td>
<td colspan="4"><p>12 Months 3+ Peak/2+ Off-Peak Requirement was in
Effect</p>
<p>July 25, 2000</p>
<p>to</p>
<p>June 20, 2001</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">Route 10 HOV Lane</td>
<td colspan="2">Route 10 Mainline (mixed flow)</td>
<td colspan="2">Route 10 HOV Lane</td>
<td colspan="2">Route 10 Mainline (mixed flow)</td>
<td colspan="2">Route 10 HOV Lane</td>
<td colspan="2">Route 10 Mainline (mixed flow)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Section I</td>
<td>Section II</td>
<td>Section I</td>
<td>Section II</td>
<td>Section I</td>
<td>Section II</td>
<td>Section 1</td>
<td>Section II</td>
<td>Section 1</td>
<td>Section II</td>
<td>Section I</td>
<td>Section II</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>East</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>66</td>
<td>322</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>303</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>129</td>
<td>586</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>West</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>75</td>
<td>245</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>262</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>152</td>
<td>423</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Subtotal</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>141</td>
<td>567</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>166</td>
<td>565</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>281</td>
<td>1009</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Total</td>
<td colspan="2">0</td>
<td colspan="2">708</td>
<td colspan="2">5</td>
<td colspan="2">731</td>
<td colspan="2">8</td>
<td colspan="2">1290</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

> Note: Section I from Alameda Street to Route 710

Section II from Route 710 to Baldwin Avenue

\(21\)

**Table 4. Accident Rate Summary**

**Six Months Before 2+ Requirement Implemented (3+ Requirement in
Effect)**

**(July 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999)**

+----------+-------+---------+-----+----+-------+-----+----+-------+
|          |       |         | *   |    |       |     |    |       |
|          |       |         | *AC |    |       |     |    |       |
|          |       |         | CID |    |       |     |    |       |
|          |       |         | ENT |    |       |     |    |       |
|          |       |         | R   |    |       |     |    |       |
|          |       |         | ATE |    |       |     |    |       |
|          |       |         | (AC |    |       |     |    |       |
|          |       |         | CS/ |    |       |     |    |       |
|          |       |         | MVM |    |       |     |    |       |
|          |       |         | )** |    |       |     |    |       |
+----------+-------+---------+-----+----+-------+-----+----+-------+
|          |       |         | *   |    |       | **  |    |       |
|          |       |         | *AC |    |       | AVE |    |       |
|          |       |         | TUA |    |       | RAG |    |       |
|          |       |         | L** |    |       | E** |    |       |
|          |       |         |     |    |       |     |    |       |
|          |       |         |     |    |       | **  |    |       |
|          |       |         |     |    |       | (EX |    |       |
|          |       |         |     |    |       | PEC |    |       |
|          |       |         |     |    |       | TED |    |       |
|          |       |         |     |    |       | )** |    |       |
+----------+-------+---------+-----+----+-------+-----+----+-------+
| **Route  | *     | **Dire  | *   | *  | **TO  | *   | *  | **TO  |
| 10**     | *Sect | ction** | *FA | *F | TAL** | *FA | *F | TAL** |
|          | ion** |         | T** | +I |       | T** | AT |       |
|          |       |         |     | ** |       |     | ** |       |
+----------+-------+---------+-----+----+-------+-----+----+-------+
| HOV      | I     | EAST    | 0.  | 0. | 0.00  | 0.  | 0. | 0.54  |
|          |       |         | 000 | 00 |       | 006 | 20 |       |
+----------+-------+---------+-----+----+-------+-----+----+-------+
|          |       | WEST    | 0.  | 0. | 0.00  | 0.  | 0. | 0.54  |
|          |       |         | 000 | 00 |       | 006 | 20 |       |
+----------+-------+---------+-----+----+-------+-----+----+-------+
| HOV      | II    | EAST    | 0.  | 0. | 0.00  | 0.  | 0. | 0.55  |
|          |       |         | 000 | 00 |       | 006 | 20 |       |
+----------+-------+---------+-----+----+-------+-----+----+-------+
|          |       | WEST    | 0.  | 0. | 0.00  | 0.  | 0. | 0.55  |
|          |       |         | 000 | 00 |       | 006 | 20 |       |
+----------+-------+---------+-----+----+-------+-----+----+-------+
| Mainline | I     | EAST    | 0.  | 0. | 0.94  | 0.  | 0. | 1.05  |
|          |       |         | 014 | 30 |       | 006 | 33 |       |
| (Mixed   |       |         |     |    |       |     |    |       |
| Flow)    |       |         |     |    |       |     |    |       |
+----------+-------+---------+-----+----+-------+-----+----+-------+
|          |       | WEST    | 0.  | 0. | 1.06  | 0.  | 0. | 1.05  |
|          |       |         | 014 | 31 |       | 006 | 33 |       |
+----------+-------+---------+-----+----+-------+-----+----+-------+
| Mainline | II    | EAST    | 0.  | 0. | 2.15  | 0.  | 0. | 1.07  |
|          |       |         | 000 | 45 |       | 005 | 33 |       |
| (Mixed   |       |         |     |    |       |     |    |       |
| Flow     |       |         |     |    |       |     |    |       |
+----------+-------+---------+-----+----+-------+-----+----+-------+
|          |       | WEST    | 0.  | 0. | 1.64  | 0.  | 0. | 1.07  |
|          |       |         | 000 | 45 |       | 005 | 33 |       |
+----------+-------+---------+-----+----+-------+-----+----+-------+

> Note: Section I from Alameda Street to Route 710

Section II from Route 710 to Baldwin Avenue

\(21\)

# Table 5. Accident Rate Summary

**Six Months When 2+ Requirement was in Effect**

**(January 1, 2000 to July 24, 2000)**

+----------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+-------+
|          |     |      | **   |      |      |      |      |       |
|          |     |      | ACCI |      |      |      |      |       |
|          |     |      | DENT |      |      |      |      |       |
|          |     |      | RATE |      |      |      |      |       |
|          |     |      | (ACC |      |      |      |      |       |
|          |     |      | S/MV |      |      |      |      |       |
|          |     |      | M)** |      |      |      |      |       |
+----------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+-------+
|          |     |      | **   |      |      | **A  |      |       |
|          |     |      | ACTU |      |      | VERA |      |       |
|          |     |      | AL** |      |      | GE** |      |       |
|          |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |       |
|          |     |      |      |      |      | **   |      |       |
|          |     |      |      |      |      | (EXP |      |       |
|          |     |      |      |      |      | ECTE |      |       |
|          |     |      |      |      |      | D)** |      |       |
+----------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+-------+
| **Route  | **  | *    | **F  | **F  | *    | **F  | **F  | **TO  |
| 10**     | Sec | *Dir | AT** | +I** | *TOT | AT** | +I** | TAL** |
|          | tio | ecti |      |      | AL** |      |      |       |
|          | n** | on** |      |      |      |      |      |       |
+----------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+-------+
| HOV      | I   | EAST | 0    | 0.00 | 0.39 | 0    | 0.20 | 0.55  |
|          |     |      | .000 |      |      | .006 |      |       |
+----------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+-------+
|          |     | WEST | 0    | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0    | 0.20 | 0.55  |
|          |     |      | .000 |      |      | .006 |      |       |
+----------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+-------+
| HOV      | II  | EAST | 0    | 0.05 | 0.15 | 0    | 0.21 | 0.56  |
|          |     |      | .000 |      |      | .006 |      |       |
+----------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+-------+
|          |     | WEST | 0    | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0    | 0.21 | 0.56  |
|          |     |      | .000 |      |      | .006 |      |       |
+----------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+-------+
| Mainline | I   | EAST | 0    | 0.22 | 0.90 | 0    | 0.34 | 1.06  |
|          |     |      | .000 |      |      | .006 |      |       |
| (Mixed   |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |       |
| Flow)    |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |       |
+----------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+-------+
|          |     | WEST | 0    | 0.26 | 1.17 | 0    | 0.34 | 1.06  |
|          |     |      | .000 |      |      | .006 |      |       |
+----------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+-------+
| Mainline | II  | EAST | 0    | 0.36 | 1.75 | 0    | 0.34 | 1.09  |
|          |     |      | .000 |      |      | .005 |      |       |
| (Mixed   |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |       |
| Flow     |     |      |      |      |      |      |      |       |
+----------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+-------+
|          |     | WEST | 0    | 0.35 | 1.51 | 0    | 0.34 | 1.09  |
|          |     |      | .000 |      |      | .005 |      |       |
+----------+-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+-------+

> Note: Section I from Alameda Street to Route 710

Section II from Route 710 to Baldwin Avenue

\(21\)

**Table 6. Accident Rate Summary**

**Twelve Months When 3+ Peak/2+ Off-Peak Requirement was in Effect**

**(July 25, 2000 to June 30, 2001)**

+---------+-----+----------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+
|         |     |          | **   |      |      |     |      |      |
|         |     |          | ACCI |      |      |     |      |      |
|         |     |          | DENT |      |      |     |      |      |
|         |     |          | RATE |      |      |     |      |      |
|         |     |          | (ACC |      |      |     |      |      |
|         |     |          | S/MV |      |      |     |      |      |
|         |     |          | M)** |      |      |     |      |      |
+---------+-----+----------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+
|         |     |          | **   |      |      | **  |      |      |
|         |     |          | ACTU |      |      | AVE |      |      |
|         |     |          | AL** |      |      | RAG |      |      |
|         |     |          |      |      |      | E** |      |      |
|         |     |          |      |      |      |     |      |      |
|         |     |          |      |      |      | **  |      |      |
|         |     |          |      |      |      | (EX |      |      |
|         |     |          |      |      |      | PEC |      |      |
|         |     |          |      |      |      | TED |      |      |
|         |     |          |      |      |      | )** |      |      |
+---------+-----+----------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+
| **Route | **  | **Dir    | **F  | **F  | *    | *   | **F  | *    |
| 10**    | Sec | ection** | AT** | +I** | *TOT | *FA | +I** | *TOT |
|         | tio |          |      |      | AL** | T** |      | AL** |
|         | n** |          |      |      |      |     |      |      |
+---------+-----+----------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+
| HOV     | I   | EAST     | 0    | 0.00 | 0.23 | 0.  | 0.20 | 0.55 |
|         |     |          | .000 |      |      | 006 |      |      |
+---------+-----+----------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+
|         |     | WEST     | 0    | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.  | 0.20 | 0.55 |
|         |     |          | .000 |      |      | 006 |      |      |
+---------+-----+----------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+
| HOV     | II  | EAST     | 0    | 0.12 | 0.18 | 0.  | 0.17 | 0.47 |
|         |     |          | .000 |      |      | 005 |      |      |
+---------+-----+----------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+
|         |     | WEST     | 0    | 0.00 | 0.12 | 0.  | 0.17 | 0.47 |
|         |     |          | .000 |      |      | 005 |      |      |
+---------+-----+----------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+
| M       | I   | EAST     | 0    | 0.19 | 0.97 | 0.  | 0.34 | 1.06 |
| ainline |     |          | .000 |      |      | 006 |      |      |
|         |     |          |      |      |      |     |      |      |
| (Mixed  |     |          |      |      |      |     |      |      |
| Flow)   |     |          |      |      |      |     |      |      |
+---------+-----+----------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+
|         |     | WEST     | 0    | 0.32 | 1.15 | 0.  | 0.34 | 1.06 |
|         |     |          | .000 |      |      | 006 |      |      |
+---------+-----+----------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+
| M       | II  | EAST     | 0    | 0.34 | 2.05 | 0.  | 0.34 | 1.09 |
| ainline |     |          | .007 |      |      | 005 |      |      |
|         |     |          |      |      |      |     |      |      |
| (Mixed  |     |          |      |      |      |     |      |      |
| Flow    |     |          |      |      |      |     |      |      |
+---------+-----+----------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+
|         |     | WEST     | 0    | 0.28 | 1.48 | 0.  | 0.34 | 1.09 |
|         |     |          | .003 |      |      | 005 |      |      |
+---------+-----+----------+------+------+------+-----+------+------+

> Note: Section I from Alameda Street to Route 710

Section II from Route 710 to Baldwin Avenue

\(21\)

### Local and Feeder Roadways

The effect the change in the vehicle-occupancy requirement may have had
on freeway access ramps, feeder routes, and local roadways is not known.
Caltrans did not monitor vehicle volumes on access ramps. Los Angeles
County, the City of Los Angeles, and other local communities did not
undertake efforts to examine possible effects on local roadways. Given
the length of the corridor and numerous access points and feeder roads,
it seems logical that the influence of the vehicle-occupancy change was
dispersed throughout the corridor. The downtown Los Angeles access point
may have experienced more congestion, however.

**Public Response**

Caltrans, Foothill Transit, the MTA, and other agencies received
letters, telephone calls, faxes, and E-mails related to the change to
the 2+ occupancy level required by SB 63. The overwhelming majority of
the correspondence and calls were critical of the change, with
individuals complaining about the negative effects it had on their
travel. Caltrans and Foothill Transit received the largest number of
complaints. Although no total official log was maintained, it appears
that at least 1,000 comments were received by the various agencies.
Foothill Transit alone received almost 900 complaints from passengers. A
summary of the comments received is highlighted below.

-   Bus passengers were the most vocal group responding to the effects
    of the 2+ demonstration. As noted previously, Foothill Transit
    received almost 900 complaints from riders. The MTA also received
    complaints from passengers. Bus Riders noted the 20- to 30-minute
    longer travel times with the 2+ requirement. Passengers reported
    missing connections to other buses and rail service, and being late
    for work, school, and daycare pick-ups. Riders reported having to
    adjust their schedules to leave earlier in the morning and to make
    arrangements in the afternoon for children and other
    responsibilities.

-   Individuals in existing 3+ carpools reported longer travel times and
    delays. These individuals indicated they had to adjust their
    schedules to leave earlier in the morning to arrive at work on time.

-   Bus riders, individuals in 3+ carpools and vanpools, as well as
    others complained that the incentive for using these modes and the
    Busway was gone. Many of the individuals suggested the 2+ operations
    represented a step backward and was detrimental to achieving
    environmental, air quality, and energy goals.

-   It does not appear that motorists in the general-purpose freeway
    lanes were vocal in support of the 2+ demonstration. This lack of
    interest may be logical given the fact that the change to the 2+
    requirement did not noticeably improve travel conditions in the
    freeway lanes.

The local print and broadcast media covered the passage of SB 63, the
change in the vehicle-occupancy requirements, the effects of the change,
the passage of AB 769, and the return to a 3+ peak-period occupancy
requirement. Caltrans issued press releases informing the media of the
various changes in occupancy requirements, lane closures to install new
signs, and other changes. Caltrans also provided regular updates on
conditions in the Busway and the freeway general-purpose lanes during
the demonstration.

Articles in the *Los Angeles Times* and the *San Gabriel Tribune*
described the effects of the 2+ occupancy-requirement on the Busway and
the change back to a 3+ requirement during weekday peak periods. During
the demonstration, media coverage focused on the increased congestion
levels in the Busway, the decline in travel speeds, and the increase in
trip times (22, 23, 24, 25). No surveys were conducted of HOV lane
users, motorists in the general-purpose lanes, or the public before,
during, or after the demonstration.

**CHAPTER FOURCISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH OPERATIONAL CHANGES**

HOV facilities are intended to help manage congested travel corridors
and to provide mobility options for travelers. Modifications in the
operation of HOV facilities may be needed over time to help achieve the
desired objectives of projects. This chapter examines management and
operation of HOV facilities and examples of possible operational
changes. It presents a process involving stakeholders for use in
considering and implementing modifications, discusses issues frequently
associated with operational changes, summarizes the experience with
changes on a few HOV facilities, and describes federal interest in
operational changes in HOV facilities. More detailed information and
guidance on the topics addressed in this chapter can be found in the
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) *HOV Systems
Manual* (26).

**Management and Operation of HOV Facilities**

Once an HOV project has been opened, the focus of the responsible agency
or agencies changes from planning, designing, financing, and
constructing to managing and operating the facility. As highlighted in
this section, key elements to be considered in effectively managing and
operating HOV facilities include performance monitoring, incident
management, enforcement, public and policy maker outreach efforts, and
ongoing consideration of enhancements. Real-time monitoring of freeways
and HOV lanes, through closed-circuit television cameras (CCTV) and
other technologies, is an important component of proactive management
and operation of the transportation system in many metropolitan areas.

Many areas use multi-agency teams to coordinate the management and
operation of freeway HOV facilities. These teams are usually comprised
of representatives from the state department of transportation, the
regional transit agency, the state highway patrol, the metropolitan
planning organization, local communities, and FHWA and the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA). Depending on the institutional structure
in an area, other possible groups to involve include local police
departments, the regional rideshare agency, transit operators, emergency
management services (EMS), and air quality or environmental agencies.
The exact agencies and groups included on management and operation teams
should be matched to the roles, responsibilities, and institutional
structures of a specific area. Further, if an area has an advanced
transportation management system (ATMS), representatives from the state
department of transportation, transit agency, state patrol, and other
agencies may be located in the operations center or many interact and
share information on a regular basis.

Multi-agency management and operation teams provide numerous benefits
for helping ensure the efficient operation of HOV facilities.
Multi-agency teams provide an ongoing mechanism for communication,
cooperation, and coordination among agencies. They provide a regular
forum for the discussion of issues and opportunities, and allow agencies
to better coordinate projects and activities.

-   **Performance Monitoring**. Monitoring conditions on freeways and
    freeway HOV facilities is a key element of successful proactive
    management and operational efforts. Many major metropolitan areas
    use a variety of advanced technologies to monitor the freeway and
    HOV system. ATMS provides real-time monitoring, incident detection,
    and rapid response capabilities. In addition, many areas conduct
    ongoing monitoring and performance evaluations of HOV facilities.
    These efforts combine to enhance the day-to-day operation of HOV and
    freeway facilities and to provide the information needed for ongoing
    operational changes.

> Ongoing performance monitoring programs help identify the benefits
> accrued from a project, determine if the goals and objectives are
> being met, and identify operating problems or issues that may need to
> be addressed. Evaluations provide an opportunity to ascertain the
> degree to which the desired results are, in fact, occurring.
> Performance monitoring programs provide an official database for a
> project. This information can help ensure that all groups are
> utilizing the same data, assisting to clarify any possible
> disagreements over the impact of a project.
>
> The information collected as part of an ongoing performance monitoring
> program has value for operating decisions relating to the HOV
> facility. Information on usage, violation rates, and accidents are
> critical for ensuring the efficient and safe operation of a facility.
> Monitoring these and other aspects of the HOV lane as part of a
> performance process will help identify problems that may need to be
> addressed. For example, changes in operating hours, vehicle-occupancy
> requirements, bus service levels, and access points may be necessary.
> Longitudinal data on the use of a facility serves a critical
> operations function. This information can also be used to evaluate the
> marketing and public information programs associated with a facility,
> as well as helping to identify if additional marketing is needed.
>
> The results of performance monitoring programs are also beneficial in
> future planning efforts. The information generated can be used to
> calibrate planning and simulation models for future use. Calibrating
> models with the results of local evaluations will ensure that they
> accurately reflect actual experience, provide a valuable check on the
> modeling process, and improve the future capabilities of the models.
> In addition, the results from a monitoring program, along with the
> experience gained from a project, can enhance the decision-making
> process on future projects.
>
> Performance monitoring programs may also be needed to meet federal or
> state requirements. Different funding sources and programs may require
> ongoing evaluations or other documents of project results. Even when
> not a requirement, evaluations of HOV projects can be useful to help
> justify future funding for similar facilities in an area.
>
> It is important that performance monitoring programs cover all
> elements of an HOV facility. Depending on the specific project, these
> might include HOV lanes, direct access connections, park-and-ride and
> park-and-pool lots, transit stations, new or enhanced transit
> services, and the general-purpose freeway lanes. In some instances it
> may be difficult to separate the impact of the various components. The
> performance monitoring program should be designed to examine the
> individual components and the full HOV system.
>
> Major elements in a performance monitoring program include
> articulating project goals and objectives, identifying measures of
> effectiveness, identifying data needs and data collection methods,
> collecting and analyzing the data, and presenting the results. Common
> data collection efforts focus on vehicle volumes, passenger volumes,
> travel speeds, trip times, accident rates, and violation rates. The
> NCHRP *HOV Systems Manual* contains a chapter that describes the
> elements of a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation program.

-   **Incident Management**. Managing accidents and incidents on HOV
    lanes and freeways is a key part of management and operation.
    Elements of an incident management program include detecting a
    problem, responding appropriately, clearing the incident and
    returning the facility to normal operations, and communicating
    necessary information to motorists to help manage the situation.
    These four elements B detecting, responding, clearing, and
    communicating B form the basis of an incident management program.

> An accident or incident must be reported for a response to be
> initiated. Detection refers to the ability to identify that an
> incident has occurred, and to obtain accurate information on the
> location, nature, and scope of the problem. The sooner an incident can
> be identified, and the proper responses initiated, the faster the
> problem can be cleared and the facility returned to normal. A wide
> variety of methods and technologies can be used to help detect an
> incident on an HOV facility. Approaches include visual detection by
> enforcement and operation personnel, calls from motorists using
> cellular telephones, roadside telephone call boxes, commercial radio
> and television traffic reports, loop detectors, closed-circuit
> television cameras (CCTV), advanced transportation management systems
> and centers, and other intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and
> advanced technologies.
>
> Once an accident or incident has been identified, the proper response
> can be initiated. A variety of approaches can be used, depending on
> the nature, severity, and scope of the problem. The general types of
> response vehicles and personnel include Highway Helper or Courtesy
> Patrols, dedicated agency tow trucks, commercial towing services,
> police, EMS, fire, and specialized response teams.
>
> The clearing process involves removing the disabled vehicle or
> clearing the incident scene and returning the HOV facility to normal
> operations. Tow trucks will be needed to remove disabled vehicles,
> while a Highway Helper Patrol may be able to assist with a vehicle
> that has run out of gas. Traffic control and site management are also
> important elements of this process. The roles and responsibilities of
> personnel from the various agencies should be established to allow for
> the safe, efficient, and coordinated management of an accident or an
> incident site.
>
> The final element of incident management focuses on communicating
> information on the status of the HOV and freeway facilities to other
> agencies and the motoring public. A variety of techniques and
> technologies can be used to provide current or real-time information
> to HOV lane users, motorists in the general-purpose lanes, and other
> agencies. Possible approaches include commercial radio and televison
> stations, highway advisory radio (HAR), variable message signs, and
> other technologies. This step is important to provide commuters and
> travelers with information on major problems and significant delays on
> a facility, as well as alternative routes that they may wish to take.

-   **Enforcement**. Enforcement of vehicle-occupancy requirements and
    other policies are critical to the successful operation of HOV
    facilities. HOV enforcement programs help ensure that operating
    requirements, including vehicle-occupancy levels, are maintained to
    protect HOV travel time savings, to discourage unauthorized
    vehicles, and to maintain a safe operating environment. Visible and
    effective enforcement promotes fairness and maintains the integrity
    of the HOV facility to help gain acceptance of the project among
    users and non-users.

> Enforcement policies and programs perform a number of important roles.
> First, the development of enforcement policies and programs will help
> ensure that all of the appropriate agencies are involved in the
> process and that all groups have a common understanding of the project
> and the need for enforcement. Thus, the participation of
> representatives from enforcement agencies, the courts and legal
> system, the state department of transportation, the transit agency,
> and other groups throughout the development and implementation of
> enforcement policies and programs is critical.
>
> Second, this same information can be provided to the public,
> especially travelers in the corridor to help introduce the HOV
> facilities and to communicate the guidelines for use of the lanes.
> Third, the enforcement policies and programs should be followed to
> maintain the integrity of the facility by deterring possible violators
> and to promote the safe and efficient use of the lane.
>
> Effective enforcement usually includes a number of components. The six
> general elements that should be considered in developing and
> conducting an enforcement program include the legal authority to
> enforce a facility, the nature of citations for violations and the
> level of fines, the general enforcement strategies, the specific
> enforcement techniques, funding, and communicating the program
> elements to users, non-users, and the public.
>
> Enforcement strategies for HOV facilities can generally be categorized
> into four basic approaches. These are routine enforcement, special
> enforcement, selective enforcement and self-enforcement. All of these
> strategies may be appropriate for consideration with the various types
> of HOV projects. The most effective approaches and techniques will
> vary somewhat for different facilities. For example, enforcement of
> barrier-separated facilities is easier than for buffer-separated
> facilities.
>
> A variety of enforcement techniques can be used to monitor HOV
> facilities. These techniques focus on providing surveillance of the
> lanes, detecting and apprehending violators, and issuing citations or
> warnings to violators. Examples of approaches include stationary
> patrols, roving patrols, team patrols, multipurpose patrols,
> electronic monitoring, citations or warning by mail. Most areas use a
> combination of enforcement techniques.

-   **Public and Policy Maker Outreach Activities**. Ongoing outreach
    efforts should focus on communicating the use of HOV facilities to
    the public and policy makers. The results from the performance
    monitoring program should be communicated to the public and policy
    makers on a regular basis. In addition, ongoing education and
    marketing programs explaining the use of the HOV lanes and promoting
    carpooling, vanpooling, and transit are needed.

> A variety of methods and techniques can be used to communicate
> information about HOV facilities to the public and policy makers.
> Providing clear, accurate, and timely information on a regular basis
> is important. Examples of possible communication methods are
> newsletters, brochures, Internet sites, news releases, videos, and
> individual meetings with key stakeholders.
>
> Experience indicates that ongoing outreach efforts with the public and
> policy makers are needed even with effective HOV facilities. Given the
> turnover in elected and appointed officials, the numerous demands on
> these individuals, and the multitude of projects and programs vying
> for the attention of officials and the public, regular updates on the
> use, effectiveness, and benefits of HOV facilities are needed.

-   **Ongoing Consideration of Enhancements**. A key part of the
    management and operations philosophy is continually looking for
    opportunities to enhance the performance of HOV and freeway
    facilities. Information from performance monitoring programs can be
    used to help identify possible areas for improvements or changes.
    Examples of possible enhancements include new or expanded bus
    services, innovative rideshare programs and public outreach
    activities, motorists service patrols, ramp metering and HOV bypass
    lanes, and special treatments for HOVs at major destinations. The
    use of new technologies, techniques, and strategies should also be
    considered on an ongoing basis. These approaches may include
    advanced transportation management systems, variable message signs,
    advanced traveler information systems, and other techniques.

**Examples of Operational Change**

A number of operational changes may be considered with HOV facilities.
These operational issues are similar to those examined during the
planning phase of a project. Changes in eligible vehicle groups,
vehicle-occupancy requirements, hours of operation, and access controls
represent the most common types of changes that may be considered.

-   **Eligible Vehicle Groups**. Changes may be considered in the types
    of vehicles allowed to use an HOV facility. The following types of
    vehicles may be considered for use of a new or an existing HOV lane.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Buses

-   Vanpools

-   Carpools

-   Motorcycles

-   Taxis

-   Airport shuttles and other special services

-   Emergency vehicles

> Other vehicle groups may be included if consideration is being given
> to expanding the use of an HOV lane based on factors other than
> vehicle-occupancy, such as value pricing programs, high-occupancy toll
> (HOT) lanes, and other pricing-based approaches. Possible vehicle
> groups in the cases might include tolled vehicles, stickered vehicles,
> and low-emission vehicles.

-   **Vehicle-Occupancy Requirements**. Changes in vehicle-occupancy
    levels may be considered in response to under use and over use of an
    HOV facility. For example, an underutilized HOV lane with a 3+
    occupancy requirement may be considered for a change to a 2+ level.
    On the other hand, a facility with a 2+ designation that may be at
    or reaching capacity may be examined for increasing the occupancy
    requirement to 3+. Varying occupancy requirements by time-of-day is
    another possible alternative.

-   **Hours of Operation**. The hours of operation may be adjusted over
    the life of a project. HOV facilities may be operated on a 24-hour
    basis during major portions of a day, or only during the
    peak-periods. During non-HOV use times a lane may be open to
    general-purpose traffic, closed to all traffic, used as a shoulder,
    or used for some other purpose.

-   **Access Controls**. Consideration may also be given to the ingress
    and egress provided along an existing HOV lane. Approaches that may
    be examined include adding access points, removing access points,
    and metering carpools at access points.

**Process and Stakeholder Involvement**

The appropriate agencies, groups, and individuals should be involved in
the consideration of changes in the operation of an HOV facility. Many
areas use multi-agency teams to help coordinate planning, designing, and
operating HOV facilities. These groups provide the logical forum for the
discussion of possible operating changes. If a multi-agency team does
not exist, one could be formed to consider specific operating issues.
Another option would be to hold meetings with representatives from the
appropriate agencies. In addition, ongoing communication with elected
officials, other policy makers, and the media should occur.

The exact agencies and groups to involve in discussions and decisions on
changes in HOV operations may vary by area. Factors that may influence
the groups to involve include the institutional arrangements in an area,
the type of HOV facility, and the nature of the change being considered.
Examples of the groups frequently participating in HOV operational
efforts and their roles are highlighted next.

> **State Department of Transportation**. The state department of
> transportation or the state highway department is usually the lead
> agency with HOV facilities on freeways. As such, state transportation
> agencies are responsible for operating freeway HOV lanes and making
> decisions related to changes in operations. State departments of
> transportation frequently organize and staff multi-agency operations
> teams. State transportation agencies also usually take a lead road in
> communicating with members of the legislature, elected officials,
> policy makers, and the media.
>
> **Transit Agencies and Bus Operators**. Representatives from transit
> agencies and bus operators are usually key members of multi-agency HOV
> operations teams. As highlighted in the El Monte case study, changes
> in HOV operating requirements can have significant effects on bus
> services and bus riders. Representatives from transit agencies should
> be involved in discussions and decisions relating to HOV operational
> changes.
>
> **State Police**. Experience indicates that involving the appropriate
> state, local, and transit police throughout all aspects of planning,
> designing, implementing, and operating HOV facilities is important to
> the success of a project. These groups are responsible for enforcing
> vehicle-occupancy requirements and other regulations. They should play
> a key role in the discussion of possible changes in HOV operations.
> The affect on enforcement and the need for extra enforcement should be
> examined when changes in operations are being considered. The El Monte
> case study points out the importance of providing extra enforcement in
> conjunction with changes in vehicle-occupancy requirements.
>
> **Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)**. MPOs do not have
> responsibilities relating to the operation of the transportation
> system. MPOs do have specific responsibilities associated with
> transportation planning, policy development, project selection, and
> public participation. Representatives from MPOs are usually involved
> in multi-agency HOV planning efforts and frequently participate in HOV
> operations groups. Given their planning and policy making roles, MPO
> representatives are often included in discussions related to possible
> HOV operational changes.
>
> **Rideshare Agency**. In many metropolitan areas, the transit agency
> operates not only the bus service but also provides ridematching
> services, vanpool programs, and other ridesharing services. In some
> areas, however, these activities are the responsibility of a separate
> agency or organization. In these cases, the rideshare agency is
> usually included in multi-agency teams and should be involved in
> discussions of HOV operational changes, especially those associated
> with changes in vehicle-occupancy requirements.
>
> **Federal Agencies**. Representatives from FHWA and FTA are often
> involved in planning studies for HOV facilities and may be members of
> multi-agency teams. As noted in the next section, FHWA has issued
> specific guidance on HOV operational changes. As a result,
> consideration of changes in HOV operations should be coordinated with
> the appropriate FHWA offices.
>
> **Local Municipalities**. Representatives from local municipalities
> may be involved in HOV multi-agency teams. The exact nature and extent
> of involvement by local municipalities in HOV operational changes may
> depend on the potential effect of these changes on the local
> transportation system. Representatives from municipalities should be
> consulted on changes that may affect local roadways.
>
> **Policy Makers**. Elected and appointed officials should be kept
> informed on the use of HOV facilities. Briefings, newsletters,
> E-mails, and other techniques may be used to provide ongoing updates
> on vehicle volumes and passenger levels, as well as any potential
> issues associated with HOV lanes. Since elected officials, especially
> members of the state legislature, are often the driving force behind
> HOV operational changes, it is important to keep these individuals
> informed on bus, carpool, and vanpool use of HOV facilities.
>
> **Media**. The broadcast and print media represent an important
> constituency group for HOV facilities. The media has a significant
> influence on public perceptions and opinions, and represents an
> important method of getting information out to commuters, the public,
> and policy makers. Providing representatives from the media with
> accurate and timely information on HOV operational changes will help
> ensure that commuters and the public are aware of the changes,
> understand the reasons why changes are made, and comply with new
> requirements.
>
> **Commuters and General Public**. Commuters, especially HOV users, and
> the general public represent the constituents of HOV projects.
> Obtaining input from these groups through surveys, focus groups, and
> other market research techniques may be appropriate in assessing
> different HOV operational changes. Communicating new requirements to
> these groups is also critical.

The process for assessing possible HOV operating strategies should be
similar to the one used to plan a project and should be coordinated with
ongoing monitoring and evaluation efforts. Ideally, the need for
possible modifications in HOV operations should emerge from an
established monitoring program. Information on vehicle and passenger
volumes, travel speeds, travel-time savings, violation rates, and
accidents should form the basis of an on-going monitoring and evaluation
program. This information can be used to identify possible problems and
potential changes.

The key elements of the process for assessing, implementing, and
monitoring possible changes in HOV operations are shown in Figure 16 and
highlighted below. The exact steps may vary depending on the local
situation.

-   **Identify Possible Operating Problems**. Information from the
    on-going monitoring program should be used to identify potential
    operating problems, such as facilities reaching capacity or high
    violation rates. A good database on vehicle and passenger volumes,
    travel speeds, travel time savings, violation rates, and accidents
    should alert agency personnel to possible problems. Regular visual
    monitoring of a facility, such as personnel driving the corridor or
    surveillance through Advance Transportation Management Systems
    (ATMS) can also help identity potential problems.

-   **Identify and Evaluate Alternatives**. Possible approaches to
    addressing the issues are identified and evaluated in this step. As
    an example, possible alternatives that may be considered when an HOV
    lane is reaching capacity include increasing the vehicle-occupancy
    requirement, pricing strategies, sticker programs, restricting some
    user groups, eliminating access points, and metering some user
    groups. The identified options can be evaluated using available data
    and various planning models and methods.

The analysis methods, data needs, and level of effort should be matched
to the types of operational changes being considered. For example,
consideration of extending or reducing operating hours on a part-time
HOV lane should include examination of vehicle and person volumes,
travel speeds, and trip time reliability on the HOV and general-purpose
lanes during the specified time period. The possible effects of an
operational change on other HOV lanes in the area should also be
examined.

![](media/image21.jpeg){width="3.63125in" height="3.2895833333333333in"}

**Figure 16. Process for Assessing, Implementing, and Monitoring**

**Changes in HOV Operations**

-   **Review Alternatives with Stakeholders**. In this step the results
    of the evaluation are discussed with key stakeholder groups. As
    discussed previously, stakeholders usually include other agency
    personnel, policy makers, and commuters in the corridor. The groups
    and individuals involved should be matched to the nature of the
    problems being examined and the solutions being considered.

-   **Select and Implement Preferred Alternative**. In this step the
    preferred alternative is selected and implemented. Input from
    technical staff, policy makers, and commuters may be used in
    identifying the preferred alternative. A plan for implementing the
    operating change should be developed and followed. Key elements of a
    successful implementation effort include public information and
    outreach activities, necessary changes in signing, and other
    possible modifications. Ensuring that HOV user groups and commuters
    are informed of the change and that adequate enforcement is provided
    represent two key elements associated with implementing HOV
    operational changes.

-   **Monitor HOV Operating Changes**. The monitoring program should
    continue to track the affects of the changes made in the operation
    of an HOV facility. The information collected through the ongoing
    monitoring efforts should be used to evaluate the change and to
    provide a feedback loop to continue to identify possible operating
    problems.

**Issues to be Considered**

A number of issues should be examined in considering operational changes
to an existing HOV facility. The exact issues will depend on the
problems being experienced with a project. Examples of some of the
issues that may need to be explored include the goals and objectives of
the facility, coordination with other facilities, the type of facility,
design or operational limitations, affects on current user groups,
safety concerns, public understanding, and affects on the
general-purpose freeway lanes.

-   **Goals, Policies, and Objectives of an HOV Facility**. The
    examination of possible operating changes should consider the
    established goals, policies, and objectives for the facilities. Any
    change should be consistent with, and supportive of state, regional,
    and local transportation goals and specific policies and objectives
    related to HOV facilities.

-   **Coordination with Other HOV Facilities**. The effect making an
    operational change on one HOV lane will have on other HOV facilities
    in an area should be considered. For example, changing the operating
    hours or the vehicle-occupancy requirement on one HOV lane may have
    a significant effect on a connecting facility.

-   **Type of Facility**. The type of HOV facility may influence the
    range of operational changes that can be considered. For example,
    adding access points to a barrier separated facility may be both
    difficult and costly.

-   **Design and Operational Limitations**. Related to the previous
    point, some HOV lanes may have design or operational limitations
    that prohibit consideration of some types of changes. For example,
    the design of some barrier separated lanes with limited direct
    access treatments may greatly reduce, if not eliminate,
    consideration of truck use.

-   **Affects on Other User Groups**. The effect a possible change in
    operations may have on current user groups should be considered. The
    El Monte Busway case study highlights the negative affect lowering
    the vehicle-occupancy requirement had on bus operations and bus
    riders.

-   **Safety Concerns**. Consideration should be given to the safety
    effects of possible changes in HOV operation. Ensuring that an HOV
    facility and the freeway lanes operate in a safe manner is critical.

-   **Public Understanding**. Consideration should be given to the
    ability to communicate the HOV operating requirements to the
    traveling public. Requirements that are too complex may be difficult
    to communicate through signs and other methods, and may be hard for
    the public to understand. Enforcing complex operating rules may also
    be more difficult.

-   **Effects on the General-Purpose Freeway Lanes**. Operational
    changes on an HOV facility should not adversely affect the operation
    of the general-purpose freeway lanes. For example, adding ingress
    and egress points to a limited access concurrent flow HOV lane may
    affect the operation of the adjacent freeway lanes.

**Experience in Other Areas**

Changes in operating requirements have been made on some HOV facilities
over the years. A few recent examples of changes in vehicle-occupancy
levels and implementing value pricing programs are highlighted in this
section.

> **Change in Vehicle Occupancy Requirements B I-5 North, Seattle**. The
> I-5 North concurrent flow HOV lanes are located north of downtown
> Seattle and the University of Washington. The lanes are approximately
> 7 miles in length in the southbound direction and 6 miles in the
> northbound direction. The HOV lanes were opened in 1983 and operate on
> a 24-hour basis. From 1983 to July 1991, a 3+ vehicle-occupancy
> requirement was used on the facility. In response to legislative
> interest, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
> initiated a six-month demonstration in 1991 lowering the
> vehicle-occupancy requirement on I-5 to 2+. An evaluation was
> completed after this period, and the 2+ level has been maintained on
> the facility.
>
> The morning peak hour vehicle volumes on the I-5 HOV lane increased
> from an average of 400 to 500 at the 3+ level to 1,200 to 1,400 at the
> 2+ level. The corresponding morning peak-hour person volumes increased
> from the 3,700 to 4,000 range, to between 5,000 and 5,600. The
> percentage of 2+ carpools on the freeway and HOV lane in the morning
> peak period increased initially from 10.5 percent to 16.5 percent, but
> later returned to pre-demonstration levels, while the percentage of 3+
> carpools dropped from about four to one percent. No related changes
> were noted in vehicle volumes on the general-purpose freeway lanes or
> in transit ridership (27).
>
> Since 1992, the vehicle volumes in the I-5 North HOV lanes have
> remained relatively constant. Approximately 1,300 to 1,500 vehicles
> use the lanes in the morning peak hour. On average, afternoon
> peak-hour volumes are slighter higher. Volumes in the general-purpose
> lanes increased over the six-year time period from 1992 to 1998 (28).
>
> **Change in Vehicle Occupancy Requirements B I-66, Northern
> Virginia**. I-66 was open from I-495 (Capital Beltway) into the
> District of Columbia in December 1982. The lengthy and often
> controversial planning process for the facility, which started in
> 1959, resulted in the freeway being restricted to HOVs only from 6:30
> a.m. to 9:00 a.m. in the eastbound direction and from 3:30 to 6:30
> p.m. in the westbound direction. A 4+ vehicle-occupancy requirement
> was used on the facility until a congressional mandate changed it to
> 3+ in 1986. In addition, the Metrorail Orange Line operates in the
> median of I-66 with four stations located in the section.
>
> In 1994, Congress authorized the Commonwealth of Virginia to conduct a
> one-year demonstration using a 2+ occupancy requirement for the
> section of I-66 inside the Beltway. A 2+ requirement is in use on the
> concurrent flow HOV lanes on I-66 beyond the Beltway. The Virginia
> Department of Transportation (VDOT) in conjunction with other agencies
> and an advisory committee, evaluated this test. Data collection took
> place in the fall of 1994, before the occupancy-requirement was
> lowered to 2+, and again in November of 1995, approximately one year
> after the change.
>
> Information on changes in vehicle volumes, passenger volumes, average
> vehicle occupancy (AVO), and transit ridership was examined by VDOT.
> Total vehicle volume increased by 62 percent in the morning peak-hour
> and by 51 percent in the morning peak period. Total vehicle person
> movement rose by 50 percent in the peak hour and 35 percent in the
> peak-period. Automobile volumes and person movement total increased
> roughly the same percentages given the small number of other vehicles.
> Total HOV volumes increased by 178 percent in the peak hour and 133
> percent in the peak period. The large increase in HOV volumes was a
> result of the reduction in 2+ violations (29).
>
> The reclassification of 2+ carpools from violators to HOVs was a major
> factor in the reduction in violation rates. A decline in
> single-occupancy vehicle violations also occurred, however. After the
> change to 2+, the number of single-occupant vehicles decreased by 51
> and 22 percent for the peak hour and the peak period, respectively.
> The all-vehicle AVO declined from 2.49 to 2.30 in the peak hour and
> 2.38 to 2.13 in the peak period, but was more than counterbalanced in
> total facility carrying capacity by the increase in overall vehicle
> flow.
>
> The demonstration and monitoring activities continued in 1996 and
> 1997. Data collected in the spring and fall of 1996, and the spring of
> 1997 showed little change from the trends noted previously. Vehicle
> volumes, passenger volumes, and AVO fluctuated slightly, but no major
> changes were reported (28, 30).
>
> **Vehicle-Occupancy Changes and Value Pricing B Katy (I-10 West) HOV
> Lane, Houston**. The Katy HOV lane, located on the I-10 Freeway on the
> west side of Houston, is 13 miles in length. It is a one-lane,
> barrier-separated, reversible HOV lane located in the freeway median.
> The vehicle eligibility and the vehicle-occupancy requirements on the
> Katy HOV lane have been changed a number of times since the facility
> opened in 1984. Some of these changes were based on the lack of
> previous experience with HOV lanes, while others were due to the
> success of the lane.
>
> The Katy HOV lanes were first opened to buses and authorized vanpools
> only. The authorization process included insurance requirements,
> driver training, and vehicle inspection. Approximately 50 vehicles
> used the lane during the morning peak-hour with this requirement. Due
> to this low level of use, the lanes were opened to authorized 4+
> carpools after six months of operation. This change added only about
> 10 vehicles to the morning peak- hour volume on the lane.
>
> Six months later, the requirements were lowered to 3+ authorized
> carpools, which added some 100 vehicles to the morning peak hour
> traffic stream. In April 1986 the vehicle-occupancy level was lowered
> to 2+ carpools and the authorization requirement was discontinued. The
> morning peak hour volumes increased to approximately 1,200 vehicles
> very quickly after this change (31).
>
> Carpool volumes in the HOV lane, as well as vehicle volumes in the
> general-purpose freeway lanes, increased over the next year, primarily
> due to the economic recovery occurring in the Houston area. Within a
> year, morning peak hour vehicle volumes on the HOV lane were regularly
> reaching or exceeding 1,500. The congestion resulting from these
> volumes and the design of the facility reduced the travel time savings
> and travel time reliability bus riders and carpoolers had come to
> expect. In response to lower travel speeds in the HOV lane and
> complaints from bus passengers, the vehicle-occupancy requirement was
> increased from 2+ to 3+ during the period from 6:45 to 8:15 a.m. in
> October 1983. At all other times, including the afternoon peak hour,
> the 2+ occupancy requirement was maintained.
>
> The morning peak hour total vehicle volume dropped from approximately
> 1,400 to 510 immediately after the change was made, representing a 64
> percent reduction in vehicle volumes. A corresponding drop of 33
> percent in person volume also occurred. Utilization levels during the
> morning peak hour increased over the next year, reaching 660 in March
> of 1989, but declining to 611 in December of 1989. Although the
> vehicle and passenger volumes declined during the morning peak hour,
> the AVO increased. The AVO was 3.1 prior to the change, 4.7 in March
> 1989, and 4.5 in December 1989 (31).
>
> The trends in the morning peak period highlight other impacts of the
> occupancy change. Total vehicle volumes declined from some 8,780
> before the change to 7,523 in December of 1989, representing a 14
> percent decline. The major shift was in 2+ carpools, which declined by
> some 41 percent, while 3+ carpools increased by 68 percent, bus
> ridership by 8 percent, and vanpool passengers by 2 percent. The
> results of surveys and enforcement data indicate that some 2+ carpools
> shifted to earlier time periods. Some of these vehicles enter the lane
> before the restricted period and thus are on the facility when the 3+
> requirement takes effect. Further, survey results indicated that some
> 2+ carpools changed their travel routes to use the newly opened
> Northwest HOV lane, which had a 2+ requirement (31).
>
> The vehicle-occupancy requirements on the Katy HOV lane have been
> modified further since the change to the morning 3+ peak hour
> requirement. In May 1990, the 3+ restricted period was modified
> slightly to 6:45 - 8:00 a.m. The 3+ requirement was added to the
> afternoon peak hour, from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m., in September 1991.
>
> Further, in 1989 a demonstration project, called *QuickRide*, was
> implemented allowing 2+ carpools to use the HOV lane for a fee during
> the 3+ period. The demonstration, which uses an electronic toll
> collection system, charges for two-person carpools to use the lane. An
> initial group of 300 individuals were provided with toll tags on a
> first-come, first-serve basis.
>
> As of June 1998, there were 390 active accounts for the *QuickRide*
> project and 521 active transponders. Daily use in 1998 averaged in the
> range of 125 to 150 two-person carpools. Use during June has been
> lower, in the 90 to 120 range. This drop may be related to the summer
> school break (32).
>
> **Sticker Program B Southeast Expressway, Boston**. The I-93 Southeast
> Expressway HOV lane was opened in November 1995. The six-mile
> contraflow HOV lane, which is located on the southeast side of Boston,
> uses a moveable barrier system to create and remove the contraflow
> lane during the morning and afternoon peak periods. The Massachusetts
> Highway Department (MassHighway) is responsible for the design and
> operation of the facility.
>
> The project was opened with a 3+ vehicle-occupancy designation.
> Concerns by some commuters that the facility was under-utilized at the
> 3+ level resulted in support by state elected officials to reduce the
> vehicle-occupancy requirements. Working with the legislature,
> MassHighway developed a compromise approach, which was signed into law
> by the governor in 1996. The resulting sticker program was implemented
> in September 1996.
>
> Analysis conducted by MassHighway estimated that an additional 2,000
> vehicles a day could use the HOV lane without degrading the level of
> service. Rather than issuing just 2,000 stickers, the agency developed
> a program to issue 4,000 stickers and to control the use of the lane
> by the color of the sticker.

After an extensive education and outreach program, stickers were issued
to residents free on a first-come, first-served basis. A total of 2,000
individuals with license plates ending in odd numbers received blue
stickers and red stickers were distributed to 2,000 individuals with
license plates ending in even numbers. Travelers with blue stickers and
two people in a vehicle could use the HOV lane on odd numbered days,
while travelers with red stickers were able to use the lane on even
numbered days.

MassHighway conducted an extensive monitoring and evaluation effort of
the sticker program. The volume of vehicles in the HOV lanes increased
steadily when the program was implemented. For example, in December
1995, an average of 2,080 three-person vehicles used the lane on a daily
basis. In December 1996, 2,392 3+ and 2+ carpools used the lane, a 15
percent increase in vehicle volumes. By March 1997, some 2,724 carpools
were using the lane, representing a 35 percent increase over the 1995
levels, and by June 1997, 3,284 carpools were using the lane (33). The
occupancy requirement was subsequently lowered to 2+, partially as a
result of the experience with the sticker program.

> **I-15 HOV Lane *ExpressPass* and *FasTrack* Demonstration, San
> Diego**. The two-lane exclusive HOV facility on I-15 is approximately
> 8 miles in length and is located on the northeast side of San Diego.
> There is one entrance and one exit. The facility was opened in 1988
> with a 2+ per-vehicle occupancy requirement. The lanes are open in the
> southbound direction from 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and in the northbound
> direction from 3:00 to 6:30 p.m. and are closed at other times.
>
> The I-15 Freeway HOV Pricing project was one of the congesting pricing
> demonstrations funded as a result of the ISTEA of 1991. The project
> included two phases to test allowing single-occupant vehicles to use
> the I-15 HOV lanes for a fee. The objectives of the demonstration
> included testing value pricing as a method of managing congestion on
> the freeways lanes, managing demand on the HOV lanes, expanding
> transit and ridesharing services in the corridor, and enhancing air
> quality in the region (34).
>
> During the Interim Operations phase of the demonstration, called
> *ExpressPass*, a limited number of monthly permits were sold to
> motorists on a first-come, first-serve basis. Drivers with permits
> could use the HOV lanes without meeting the vehicle-occupancy
> requirement, while carpools and vanpools with 2 or more persons
> continued to use the lanes for free. The monthly fee was first set at
> \$50 in December 1996 and 500 permits were sold. In 1997, the number
> of permits issued and the monthly fee were increased to 700 and \$70,
> respectively. By the end of the Interim Operations Phase in March
> 1998, 1,000 passes were available.
>
> The full Implementation phase, called *FasTrak*, started on March 30,
> 1998. Electronic toll collection and variable fees for single-occupant
> vehicle use of the HOV lanes were tested in this phase. Currently, the
> fees range from \$0.50 to \$4.00, depending on the congestion level in
> the general-purpose lanes. In April 1998, 3,500 transponders had been
> distributed to 2,500 customers (35).
>
> The preliminary assessment of the *ExpressPass* portion of the project
> indicated that the percentage of HOVs using the I-15 HOV lanes
> increased from 85 percent to 89 percent of the total traffic. The
> percentage of the single-occupant vehicles illegally using the
> facility declined from a high of 15 percent before the start of the
> test to 3 percent during February and March 1997. Overall, total
> vehicle volumes in the HOV lane increased by 12 percent (34). The
> value pricing project is continuing on the I-15 HOV lanes, with use
> levels increasing.

### Federal Interest in Operational Changes

FHWA has periodically issued guidance on HOV facilities. The most recent
*Program Guidance on HOV Operations* was issued on March 28, 2001 (36).
The Program Guidance identifies the circumstances under which federal
action is required to initiate changes in the operation of an HOV
facility, and the federal review process and requirements to be used in
these situations. The Program Guidance is available on the FHWA Internet
site at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/

directives/policy/index.htm.

Federal action is required when significant changes are proposed to
existing HOV facilities constructed with federal funds. Significant
changes include major alterations in operating hours and converting an
HOV lane to general purpose use. Minor modifications in operating hours
and changing from different multi-person occupancy levels (from 3+ to
2+, for example) do not require federal approval. Coordination and
consultation with FHWA is appropriate even when an operational change is
only being considered or discussed, however, as a basis to determine
what may be needed for actual changes to occur.

The Program Guidance identifies the information to be included as part
of a federal review. Examples of needed information include original
studies and plans for the HOV facility, project agreements, commitments
made in the environmental process, operational assessments, analysis of
future conditions, examination of alternative operating scenarios, and
possible impacts on air quality levels and plans. The Program Guidance
further outlines the federal review requirements related to air quality
conformity, the state implementation plan, the congestion management
system, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, and other
issues.

The Program Guidance and other available documents support the need to
examine HOV systems on a regional, not just individual project, basis.
Elements in this approach include a multi-year regional HOV system
strategic plan, which is integrated into the metropolitan area
long-range plan, and a multi-agency program to manage implementation of
the system plan and to support day-to-day operation of HOV facilities
and supporting services. This approach allows for the long-term regional
commitment for infrastructure improvements, the careful phasing of
operating segments, and coordinating the development and operation of
supporting services, facilities, and policies.

**CHAPTER FIVECCONCLUSIONS**

This report documents the effects of lowering the vehicle-occupancy
requirement on the El Monte Busway from 3+ to 2+ full time. Information
from Caltrans, Foothill Transit, and other agencies is presented on the
effect the change had on the operation of the Busway and freeway, public
transit services, violation rates, accidents, and public response. The
change back to a 3+ peak-period occupancy requirement is described. The
report also examines issues frequently associated with managing and
operating HOV facilities and presents a process for considering
operational changes.

Overall, lowering the vehicle-occupancy requirement from 3+ to 2+ full
time had a detrimental affect on the Busway. At the same time,
significant improvements were not realized in the general-purpose
freeway lanes. The major negative effects on the Busway and the neutral
effects on the general-purpose lanes are highlighted below.

-   Morning peak-period travel speeds in the Busway were reduced from 65
    mph to 20 mph in the morning eastbound direction, while travel
    speeds in the general-purpose lanes decreased from 25 mph to 23 mph
    for most of the demonstration.

-   Hourly Busway vehicle volumes during the morning peak-period
    increased from 1,100 to 1,600 with the 2+ designation, but the
    number of persons carried declined from 5,900 to 5,200. The freeway
    lane vehicle volumes and passengers per lane per hour remained
    relatively similar.

-   Peak-period travel times increased on the Busway during the 2+
    demonstration. Morning peak-period travel times from the eastern end
    of the corridor increased by 20 to 30 minutes.

-   Bus schedule adherence and on-time performance declined
    significantly. Bus speeds declined from 65 mph to 20 mph during the
    morning peak-period. The consistent 20-minute travel time savings
    over vehicles in the general-purpose lanes was lost during the
    demonstration.

-   Foothill Transit experienced declines in service productivity. Extra
    buses and operators had to be added to maintain service since many
    bus operators were not able to return for a second trip due to the
    delays experienced in the lane. As many as 10 extra buses and
    operators were staged in downtown Los Angeles to help ensure that
    trips were not missed. The cost of providing these extra buses and
    operators was approximately \$1,250 per day or \$150,000 over the
    course of the demonstration.

-   There was no statistically significant increase in accident rates
    during the 2+ demonstration. An increase in safety incidents,
    including stop-and-go traffic, cars illegally crossing the
    double-lines, and improper merging of vehicles into and out of the
    Busway was reported.

-   Bus riders reported significant delays and increased trip times.
    These delays caused riders to miss connections to other buses and
    trains, and to be late to work and daycare pick-ups.

-   Violation rates declined during the 2+ demonstration. Violation
    rates increased significantly immediately after the return to the 3+
    occupancy requirement during the peak periods. The violation rates
    declined to a lower pre-demonstration level after a period of
    heightened enforcement.

For the most part, conditions on the Busway returned to those
experienced prior to the 2+ demonstration with the implementation of the
3+ peak and 2+ off-peak requirements. As noted previously, enforcement
problems were initially encountered with the operation of the 3+ peak
and 2+ off-peak occupancy requirements. The lack of additional
enforcement immediately after the change to the variable occupancy
requirement appears to have contributed to 2+ carpools continuing to use
the Busway during the 3+ restricted period. The extra enforcement
conducted by CHP addressed this problem, with violation rates returning
to pre-demonstration levels. Bus operations also returned to
pre-demonstration conditions with the variable occupancy requirements.

The review of management and operation practices and the issues
associated with considering operational changes on HOV facilities
provide guidance to agency personnel. The following highlight the key
elements identified in the review of best practices to be considered in
managing and operating HOV facilities and in assessing possible
operational changes.

-   Multi-agency teams should be used to promote communication,
    cooperation, and coordination in the management and operation of HOV
    facilities. These groups should be involved in discussions of
    possible changes in operations.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The real-time monitoring of HOV and freeway facilities is a key
    element of proactive management and operational efforts. Advanced
    transportation management systems and centers are important
    components of many management and operational programs. These
    systems use a wide range of advanced technologies to monitor
    conditions on HOV and freeway facilities, detect incidents, and
    provide rapid response capabilities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Five of the basic elements of managing and operating freeway HOV
    facilities are performance monitoring, incident management,
    enforcement, public and policy maker outreach, and ongoing
    consideration of enhancements.

-   Performance-monitoring programs provide day-to-day management
    capabilities, identify operating issues that may need to be
    addressed, determine if the goals and objectives of a project are
    being met, and provide information on the use of HOV facilities to
    communicate with the public and policy makers.

-   Ongoing communication with elected and appointed officials and the
    public on the effectiveness and benefits of HOV facilities is
    important, even for projects that have been operating effectively
    for many years.

-   A process that involves the key stakeholders should be followed in
    considering operational issues and possible changes in the operation
    of an HOV facility.

-   FHWA must be contacted when significant changes in the operation of
    an HOV facility are being considered. Coordination and consultation
    with FHWA is appropriate when any type of operational change is
    being considered.

**REFERENCES**

1.  California State Legislature. Senate Bill Number 63, July 26, 1999.

2.  California Department of Transportation. *Operational Study Report:
    Executive Summary*, March 8, 2001.

3.  California State Legislature. Assembly Bill Number 769, July 3,
    2000.

4.  Fuhs, Chuck and Jon Obenberger. *HOV Facility Development: A Review
    of National Trends.*. Paper on the 2002 Transportation Research
    Board Annual Meeting CD ROM, January, 2002.

5.  State of California. *Agreement Between the State of California,
    Department of Public Works, and the Southern California Rapid
    Transit District,* September, 1971.

6.  State of California. *Amendment to Agreement Between State of
    California Department of Public Works and Southern California Rapid
    Transit District*, 1976.

7.  State of California. *Amendment to Agreement Between State of
    California Department of Public Works and Southern California Rapid
    Transit District*, 1981

8.  Crain & Associates. *San Bernardino Expressway Bus Evaluation of
    Mixed-Mode Operations*. Southern California Association of
    Governments, 1978.

9.  Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, et al. *Draft Final HOV
    Performance Program Evaluation Report*. Prepared for the Los Angeles
    Metropolitan Transit Authority. April 2002.

10. Institute of Transportation Engineers. *The Effectiveness of
    High-Occupancy Vehicle Facilities*. Washington, D.C., 1988.

11. Turnbull, Katherine F. *A Description of High-Occupancy Vehicle
    Facilities in North America*. Texas Transportation Institute, The
    Texas A&M University System, College Station, TX, 1990.

12. California Department of Transportation, District 7. *HOV Count Data
    B HOV Operations on Route 10*. January, 2001.

13. California Department of Transportation, District 7 Office of
    Traffic Management HOV Operations. *Operational Study Report B
    Feasibility of and Effectiveness of Opening High-Occupancy Vehicle
    Lanes to General Traffic on Weekends and Holidays*. June, 1999.

14. California Department of Transportation, District 7 Office of
    Traffic Management HOV Operations. *Summary of Possible Impacts of
    Restriping El Monte Busway to Add 2 Lanes and Allow 2+ Carpools from
    Route 710 to Baldwin Avenue*. January, 1996.

15. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority. *Summary of Allowing 2+
    Occupant Vehicles on El Monte Busway*. March, 1999.

16. Texas Transportation Institute. *Mobility Monitoring Program*.
    http://mobility.tamu.edu/.

17. Foothill Transit. *Foothill Transit SB 63 Fact Sheet*. May 11, 2000.

18. Colaiace, Andre and Julie Austin, Foothill Transit. Interview with
    Author, February 2, 2002.

19. Colaiace, Andre. *E-mail on Operating Costs*. March 2, 2002.

20. California Department of Transportation. Telephone Interview with
    Author, March 13, 2002.

21. California Department of Transportation, District 7. *El Monte
    Busway Traffic Safety Analysis*. March 25, 2002.

22. Los Angeles Times. *Easing of Carpool Rules Backfires as Lanes Jam.*
    January 22, 2000.

23. Los Angeles Times. *Minimum for El Monte Diamond Lane Increases*.
    July 6, 2000.

24. Los Angeles Times. *Lawmakers Void Change in El Monte Busway Rule*.
    July 27, 2000.

25. San Gabriel Tribune*. 3-Person Carpool Lane Restored to 10 Freeway*.
    July 6, 2000.

26. Texas Transportation Institute, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Pacific Rim
    Resources. *HOV Systems Manual, NCHRP Report 414*. Transportation
    Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1998.

27. Ulberg, Cy, et al. *I-5 North High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane 2+
    Occupancy Requirement Demonstration Evaluation*. Washington State
    Transportation Center, Seattle, WA, 1992.

28. Richard H. Pratt, et al. *Traveler Response to Transportation System
    Changes Interim Guidebook*. Transit Cooperative Research Program,
    Washington, D.C., 2000.

29. Virginia Department of Transportation. *I-66 HOV-2 Demonstration
    Project Final Report*. Virginia Department of Transportation,
    Richmond, Virginia, 1996.

30. Virginia Department of Transportation. *I-66 HOV-2 Demonstration
    Project Annual Report*. Virginia Department of Transportation,
    Richmond, Virginia, 1997.

31. Christiansen, Dennis and Danny Morris. *An Evaluation of the Houston
    High-Occupancy Vehicle Lane System*. Texas Transportation Institute,
    The Texas A&M University System, College Station, TX, 1991.

32. Bill Stockton and Loyd Smith. *Implementing a High-Occupancy Toll
    Lane B The Houston Experience*. 68^th^ ITE Annual Meeting, Toronto,
    August 19-21, 1998.

33. Luisa Paiewonsky. *A New Approach to HOV Entry Requirements:
    MassHighway=s 3+/Limited 2+ Sticker Program*. TRB 77^th^ Annual
    Meeting, Washington, D.C., 1998.

34. San Diego Association of Governments. *I-15 Congestion Pricing
    Project*. San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego, CA, 1997.

35. Hultgren, L., Kawanda, K. and Lawrence, S. *San Diego=s Interstate
    15 Value Pricing Project*. 68^th^ ITE Annual Meeting, Toronto,
    August 19-21, 1998.

36. Federal Highway Administration, *Program Guidance on HOV
    Operations*. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2001.

To access an electronic version of this publication

and other Operations related publications visit the

ITS Electronic Document Library (EDL):

www.its.dot.gov/welcome.htm

EDL Document Number 13692

Visit Our Operations Web Site:

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov

Publication No. FHWA-OP-03-002

HOTM/7-00(1M)QE