**TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD**

**HOV SYSTEMS COMMITTEE (AHB35)**

**Supporting Documentation for Committee Triennial Review**

*Proposal*: To revise the scope of the committee to reflect the
evolution of HOV systems, and to submit the new scope in the Committee's
Triennial Review, due March 1, 2008.

**Existing Committee Scope:**

This committee is concerned with priority measures for high-occupancy
vehicle (HOVs), including guidelines for planning, designing, operating,
and evaluating HOV priority facilities and the development, validation,
and dissemination of theoretical, experimental and applied research
related to HOV priority facilities. The objectives of the committee
include assisting in enhancing the performance, safety, and efficiency
of the priority HOV facilities and establishing preferential HOV
improvements as an integral element of the urban transportation system.

**Proposed Committee Scope:**

This committee is concerned with managed lanes and supporting systems,
including guidelines for planning, designing, operating, and evaluating
managed lane facilities and the development, validation, and
dissemination of theoretical, experimental and applied research related
to managed lanes facilities. Many different users (bus transit,
carpools/vanpools, single-occupant vehicles, motorcycles, hybrids and
low emission vehicles, commercial vehicles) may utilize managed lanes.
As a result, the Committee activities have broadened to look at ways to
more actively support existing and planned priority lane treatments. The
objectives of the committee include assisting in enhancing the
development, performance, safety, and efficiency of managed lanes and
establishing managed lanes as an integral element of the urban
transportation system. The Committee seeks to reflect differing
perspectives on potential user groups and preserve the intent of managed
lanes and HOV lanes in response to different practitioner needs. In many
managed lane applications, priority treatments for transit and
carpool/vanpool movements will continue to be a primary objective.

[Proposed Managed Lane Definition for Our Committee]{.underline}

> Preferential lanes or roadways and supporting facilities and programs
> that optimize efficiency, performance and throughput by offering
> travel time savings and reliability through the application of
> management strategies including vehicle eligibility, pricing, and
> access control.

**Proposed Committee Name:** Managed Lanes Systems Committee

**Background**

The HOV Systems Committee was created with the mission of addressing
priority lane treatments and related measures for high-occupancy
vehicles (HOVs) which typically include transit buses, vanpools and
carpools. Based on prevailing federal, state and local policies and
management tools available at the time, person throughput was and is in
many settings considered the highest and best means of addressing
roadway efficiency. Committee objectives have included addressing
guidelines for planning, designing, operating, marketing, and evaluating
HOV priority facilities. The Committee suggests experimental and applied
research topics related to HOV priority facilities and provides
expertise to validate and disseminate the research findings. Objectives
also include assisting in enhancing performance, safety and efficiency
of priority HOV facilities and establishing HOV preferential
improvements as an integral element of the urban transportation system.

In the past two decades, priority HOV lanes and systems have been
implemented in many cities worldwide and particularly in North America.
As congestion management tools have improved and urban transportation
needs have become more widespread and diverse, the need to consider
priority lanes for other trip needs and uses has emerged. The advent and
adoption of electronic pricing has given agencies and practitioners
greater flexibility in how dedicated lanes and roadways can be more
effectively managed.

The success of HOV lanes in many regions has created a situation where
existing HOV lanes are filling up and becoming less efficient. The
available options include adding more HOV lanes or increasing the
vehicle occupancy requirements. Each of these options presents technical
and policy challenges. Regional goals in many locales now seek more
efficiency from HOV lane investments by fully utilizing the available
lane capacity. A broader managed lane context could provide an
opportunity to maintain the HOV objectives of moving more people while
maximizing the utilization and efficiency of the dedicated lanes. This
broader context must accommodate differing perspectives toward HOV and
managed lane practice. Following are two illustrative perspectives the
committee must recognize moving forward:

*Perspective emphasizing HOV person movement:*

> Our committee should continue to focus on efficient movement of
> persons while recognizing the legitimacy of other user groups. There
> are numerous other committees whose focus is the movement of vehicles.
> Our committee mission should not be so broad as to examine the overall
> vehicular efficiency of a highway. That could best be achieved through
> intelligent transportation systems, active traffic management,
> aggressive ramp metering or congestion pricing strategies (covered by
> other committees). Our committee is one of the few that brings
> together not only the traffic engineers but other societal interests
> and activities such as the environment, transit, demand management,
> public involvement, marketing and related fields. That is why some
> practitioners may believe that a "managed lane" committee will focus
> more on efficient vehicle flows (including trucks) and potentially
> revenue generation through pricing, and compromise or otherwise
> relegates the original intent of dedicated lanes to serving mass
> transit and ridesharing, where the greatest mobility benefits are
> truly gained.

*Perspective on addressing other users:*

> Mobility is becoming a commodity which can be preserved and maintained
> in accordance to goals that are set at regional levels. Whereas HOV
> lanes provide for a degree of mobility, and certainly foster
> successful ideals of person throughput, the paradigm of "managed
> lanes" incorporates the HOV concept as only one of several tools that
> can be used to efficiently preserve mobility. While many practitioners
> are currently unable to further provide for pure capacity improvements
> in overly congested arterials and expressways, to preserve and
> actually guarantee mobility is achievable through managed lanes
> strategies and technology. The Committee must acknowledge the
> nationwide paradigm shift from just focusing on person-throughput, to
> the more significant vision of sustainable mobility preservation.
>
> The goal of carpooling or other pure HOV techniques does not fit all
> settings. Public sector practitioners are recognizing this nationwide.
> There are bigger issues than exclusively promoting carpools. Even some
> HOV facilities are exceeding capacity, requiring other strategies be
> considered to regain lost benefits. Increasing occupancy requirements
> is much too cumbersome politically and operationally to truly be
> proactive and manage an HOV facility. Public capital needs to be spent
> with some degree of assurance that mobility can be maintained while
> dedicated lanes are most efficiently utilized. Practitioners need to
> be able to tell the public that they are going to manage the
> additional lane capacity added so as to preserve the flow. Managed
> lanes represent that option that brings together sustainable
> principles of mobility-based public sector transportation objectives
> with market-based forces that attract private sector innovation and
> capital investment. The HOV committee must evolve to stay relevant,
> and it stands to further not only successful HOV-based ideals, but
> also lead the way in fostering excellence in all managed lane systems.

Many different users (transit, carpool/vanpools, single-occupant
vehicles, motorcycles, hybrids and low emission vehicles, commercial
vehicles) may seek to utilize managed lanes. As a result, the Committee
activities have broadened to look at ways to more actively manage
existing and planned priority lane treatments. The Committee's role will
be to provide perspectives on how to most effectively manage these
dedicated facilities to ensure that the efficient movement of people is
maintained while recognizing the potential benefits to other user
groups. Based on the different perspectives presented, the committee
will need to incorporate subcommittee functions that reflect these
perspectives and preserve the intent of managed lanes and HOV lanes in
response to different practitioner needs. In many managed lane
applications, priority treatments for transit and carpool/vanpool
movements will continue to be a primary objective. The committee's
definition should primarily address preferential lanes as part of a
larger roadway environment.

With this change in definition, the wider application of preferential
roadway facilities is embodied in the Committee's scope, mission and
objectives.

**Forward Looking Vision**

The role of this Committee (AHB35) is closely linked to other TRB
Committees including Freeway Operations (AHB20), Intelligent
Transportation Systems (AHB15), Bus Transit Systems (AP050), Congestion
Pricing (ABE25), Public Involvement in Transportation (ADA60),
Transportation Demand Management (ABE50), Vehicle-Highway Automation
(AHB30) and others. Additional management tools affecting managed lanes
will continue to emerge, with others taking a primary role in
coordination with this Committee (AHB35). Two examples: (1) active
traffic management concepts being applied to managed lanes is emerging,
and this Committee will seek to partner with the Freeway Operations, ITS
Committees and others in addressing a forum for this concept's
applications in managed lanes; (2) truck-only toll lanes as an emerging
concept, with this Committee seeking partnership with related freight
committees.

*Prepared December, 2007 with input from the following individuals:*

Bill Finger

Matthew Fowler

Chuck Fuhs

Ginger Goodin

Greg Jones

Beverly Kuhn

Carlos Lopez

Don Samdahl

Dave Schumacher

Joann Stevens

Myron Swisher

Darryl Van Meter

Patrick Watson

Heather Werdick