# Presentation: 573005

## Feasibility of a Metropolitan Truck-only Toll Lane Network: The Case of Atlanta, Georgia 

**Michael D. Meyer, P.E., Professor**
**School of Civil and Environmental Engineering**
**Georgia Institute of Technology**

##  TOT Study

- High level proof-of-concept analysis
- Not an exhaustive list of options
- Analysis based upon...
- Available regional truck travel data
- HOT lane study analysis methods
- Assumed facilities (engineering feasibility not examined.)

## HOT/TOT Steering Committee

- Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC)
- Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
- Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT)
- Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA)
- State Road and Tollway Authority (SRTA)
- Georgia Motor Trucking Association
- American Transportation Research Institute
- Industry representatives (United Parcel Service, Lithonia Lighting, Drug Transport, Inc.)

**Steering****Committee**

## Congestion in 2030 Afternoon Peak (PM)

| Map Legend: Projected GP Congestion Levels in 2030 |  |
| --- | --- |
|  |      Highway GP lanes at 
     capacity/congested  |
|  |      Highway GP lanes  
     near capacity |
|  |      Highway GP lanes with  
     capacity available |

## The Opportunity & aChallenge

**Most HOV**
**corridors **
**have excess**
**capacity**

**But some **
**HOV corridors **
**will be**
**congested **

| Map Legend: Projected HOV Congestion Levels in 2030 PM Peak |  |
| --- | --- |
|  |   HOV lanes at
  capacity/congested  |
|  |   HOV lanes near
  capacity |
|  |   HOV lanes with capacity   
  available |

**Notes:**
There are some HOV lanes that are congested (red) 
There are some HOV lanes that are free-flowing (Green)
Managed lanes could help both.
Green areas could sell the extra HOV lane space to toll-paying SOVs.
Orange and red areas could toll HOV 2 or even HOV 3 to ease the congestion on the lane.
2030 PM Peak Hour congestion on HOV lanes without toll

## HOT and TOT Study Primary Assumptions

- 2030 target analysis year
- Managed lanes  network on all limited access facilities
- One lane in each direction inside I-285
- Two lanes in each direction on and outside of  I-285
- Scenarios evolved based on expected performance levels and ability to handle demand at reasonable levels of service.

**TOT****Assumptions**

## TOT Lane Objectives

**“****MANAGE**” the new lanes...Building to achieve ---
- Free flow conditions for managed lane users
- Free flow conditions for the region’s planned BRT network
- Maximum use of the highway capacity

## Why Interested?

- Trucks constitute significant portion of highway flows
- Trucks take up a lot of space (capacity)
- Logistics industry in Atlanta region is significant and likely to grow
- Growth in national economy suggests tremendous growth in through truck trips
- Truck/auto crashes

## TOT Assumptions

- Voluntary use of TOT lanes
- Value of time:
- $35/hr for heavy trucks (over 8,000 lbs.)
- $18/hr for light trucks
- Fees charged when needed and in the amount needed to manage performance of TOT lanes
- Conservative passenger car equivalents used    (1 truck = 2 cars)
- Truck lane interchanges provided at HOV interchanges for initial assessment
- Buses can use TOT lanes as well

## Three Alternatives Evaluated

***Alternative 1***: TOT lanes are established ***along side of*** planned HOV lanes.
***Alternative 2***: Same as above, PLUS in midday hours (10am-3pm) light service trucks can use HOV lanes inside I-285.
***Alternative 3***: TOT lanes are established ***in place of*** planned HOV lanes along I-285 and outside of I-285.

## Alternative 1

-  Voluntary TOT
- I-75 N
- I-85 N
- I-285
- I-75 S
-  HOV network
- Entire region

## Alternative 2

-  Current HOV lanes
-    inside I-285 restricted
-    to light duty trucks in
-    midday

## Alternative 3

- Voluntary TOT
- Outside I-285
- On I-285
- HOV network
- Inside I-285 only
- TOT replaces HOV outside and on I-285

##  Truck Productivity

- TOT Scenarios

## TOT Alt 3:North-South corridor travel time

**TOT Alt 3:****North-South corridor travel time**

-  2030 PM Peak Period
-  Through trip in TOT lanes
-   saves **70 minutes** in TOT
-   lanes compared to travel
-   time in GP lanes

**Alternative 3 North-South Truck Trip**

**N**

## Alternative 3 East-West Truck Trip

**Alternative 3 East-West Truck Trip**

-  2030 PM Peak Period
-  Through trip in TOT lanes
-   saves **80 minutes** in TOT
-   lanes compared to travel
-   time in GP lanes

**N**

## Truck Trip Performance

|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|   | Percent of North-south Trip 
at Given Condition 
during PM Peak Hour |  |  |  |  |
| 2030 Scenario | Free
Flow
(LOS A-C) | Near 
Capacity
(LOS D) |  | At Capacity/
Congested
(LOS E-F) |  |
| HOV 2+ Base* | 14% | 48% |  | 38% |  |
| A1/A2: Major
 Truck Corridors | 84% | 16% |  | 0% |  |
| A3: Regional
 TOT Network | 92% | 8% |  | 0% |  |
| *TOT base scenario |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |

## Change in Weekday Vehicle Hours and Vehicle Miles, 2030

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| TOT Alternative Scenario | Weekday VMT (000s) | Change in Weekday VMT from Base (000s)  | Weekday VHT (000s) | Change in Weekday VHT (from Base (000s) |
| HOV 2+ Base | 159,787 | - | 6,139 | - |
| A1: Major Truck Corridors | 160,108 | 0.2% | 5,742 | -6.5%  |
| A2: Service to Deliveries | 160,138 | 0.2% | 5,747 | -6.5%  |
| A3: Regional TOT Network | 159,692 | -0.1% | 5,843 | -4.8%  |
| * Regional measures include all vehicle types on all arterials, collectors, and limited access facilities. |  |  |  |  |

**Network Performance**

**Notes:**
 The regional VMT under the TOT scenarios represent a range of difference from an increase of 0.22% over the base scenario VMT under alternative 2 to a 0.0006% decrease in regional VMT under alternative 3.  These relatively low differences suggest that the concept of TOT lanes on the region’s highway network does not threaten the attainment of air quality standards in the Atlanta region due to VMT. 
The change in VHT ranges from a decrease of 6% to 7% over the base scenario regional VHT.  This suggests a slight improvement across the region. 

## Change in Weekday Vehicle Hours and Vehicle Miles, 2030

|  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| TOT Alternative Scenario | Weekday VMT (000s) | Change in Weekday VMT from Base (000s)  | Weekday VHT (000s) | Change in Weekday VHT (from Base (000s) |
| HOV 2+ Base | 159,787 | - | 6,139 | - |
| A1: Major Truck Corridors | 160,108 | 0.2% | 5,742 | -6.5%  |
| A2: Service to Deliveries | 160,138 | 0.2% | 5,747 | -6.5%  |
| A3: Regional TOT Network | 159,692 | -0.1% | 5,843 | -4.8%  |
| * Regional measures include all vehicle types on all arterials, collectors, and limited access facilities. |  |  |  |  |

**Network Performance**

**Notes:**
 The regional VMT under the TOT scenarios represent a range of difference from an increase of 0.22% over the base scenario VMT under alternative 2 to a 0.0006% decrease in regional VMT under alternative 3.  These relatively low differences suggest that the concept of TOT lanes on the region’s highway network does not threaten the attainment of air quality standards in the Atlanta region due to VMT. 
The change in VHT ranges from a decrease of 6% to 7% over the base scenario regional VHT.  This suggests a slight improvement across the region. 

## Performance of GP Lanes PM Peak Hour

|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|   | Percent GP Lanes 
Operating at Given Condition during PM Peak Hour |  |  |  |  |
| 2030 Scenario | Free
Flow | Near 
Capacity |  | At Capacity/
Congested |  |
| HOV 2+ Base | 40% | 31% |  | 29% |  |
| A1/A2: Major
 Truck Corridors | 46% | 32% |  | 22% |  |
| A3: Regional
 TOT Network | 48% | 28% |  | 24% |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |

**17 to 24% reduction in congested general purpose directional miles**

## Change in PM Truck Volume TOT Alternative 3

## Performance of Arterials  and Collectors

|  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|   | Percent Arterials and Collectors Operating at Given Condition during PM Peak Hour |  |  |  |  |
| 2030 Scenario | Free
Flow | Near 
Capacity |  | At Capacity/
Congested |  |
| HOV 2+ Base | 66% | 16% |  | 18% |  |
| A1/A2: Major
 Truck Corridors | 69% | 16% |  | 15% |  |
| A3: Regional
 TOT Network | 68% | 16% |  | 16% |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |

**A 10-15% reduction of congested arterial and collector miles**

## ARC modeled air quality impact and found little change in expected emissions, however....
Safety benefits are potentially huge ($3 million per fatality, not to mention delay costs)

- Safety benefits are potentially huge ($3 million per fatality, not to mention delay costs)

**Air Quality and Safety**

**Notes:**
Issues include impacts on carpooling, engineering feasibility, trucking industry coordination, public acceptance of taking HOV lanes

What is needed?
Investment grade analysis
Data—especially in the short term 
Willingness to pay of customers
Regional transportation plan
Flexibil9ity in design

## 2030 Projected Annual Revenue

| 2030 TOT Scenario | Weekday Revenue per TOT Lane Mile | Total Weekday Revenue (000s) | Projected Annual Revenue (000s) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| A1: Major Truck Corridors |  $ 694  |  $ 327  |  $ 89,400  |
| A2: Service to Deliveries |  $ 614  |  $ 372  |  $ 101,000  |
| A3: Regional TOT Network |  $ 554  |  $ 724  |  $ 198,000  |
|  |  |  |  |

**Notes:**
Clearly, A3 with more lane miles of TOT will generate more revenue – twice as much as A1
Rev per TOT lane mile suggests that major truck corridors were well-selected 
Suggests that further study on corridor-by-corridor basis may add high-demand corridors to the A1 system

## Improved freight and passenger movement 
Regional travel time saving (for all, except HOV users) 
More reliable travel conditions
Safer travel conditions (we believe)
Efficient 
Truck operators save time, increase productivity 
Regionally, similar vehicle miles traveled in fewer hours
Potentially cost effective
Opportunity to offer substantial benefits, earn revenue

- Regional travel time saving (for all, except HOV users)
- More reliable travel conditions
- Safer travel conditions (we believe)
**Efficient **
- Truck operators save time, increase productivity
- Regionally, similar vehicle miles traveled in fewer hours
**Potentially cost effective**
- Opportunity to offer substantial benefits, earn revenue

**What We Learned About TOT Lanes**

**Notes:**
Not a thorough cost-benefit analysis but in general
Cost effectiveness through comparing (revenues generated and) value of time saved by commercial vehicles versus capital and operating costs 

## Comparative Results of Regional  Managed Lane Strategies2030 HOV, HOT and TOT Scenarios 

**Notes:**
Explain that HOT scenario was run with TOT refinements in order to perform fair comparison of scenarios.

## System-wide Annualized Capital & Operating Costs (M)

|  | HOV 2 | HOT 3+ | TOT A3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Capital Cost1 | $  578 | $ 591 | $ 589 |
| Operating Cost2 | $     26  | $  72 | $   41 |
| Total Cost | $  604 | $ 662 | $ 630 |
|  |  |  |  |
| Fee Revenue | $     0 | $  90 | $ 198 |
| Net RevenueOver Op. Cost | - $ 26 | $  18 | $ 157 |
| Capital costs are assumed to be sunk costs with 30 year bonds at  5% interest.  Values may not sum due to rounding error.
Operating costs include administration, enforcement and maintenance. |  |  |  |

## Regional Value of Annual Time Savings* Estimates ($M)

| Regional value of time (VHT) saved versus HOV 2 base ($M) | HOT 3+ | TOT A3 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Light Trucks
@ $18/hr | $ 22 | $ 492 |
| Heavy Trucks
@ $35/hr. | $ 13 | $ 367 |
| 2+ Occupant Autos
@ $15/hr | - $ 101 | - $ 260 |
| Single Occupant Autos
@ $15/hr. | $ 379 | $ 905 |
| Total** | $ 313 | $ 1,504 |
| * Savings is change from TOT analysis HOV base alternative; HOT 3+ scenario incorporates TOT model refinements.
** Values may not sum due to rounding error. |  |  |

## PM Peak Hour Level of Service General Purpose Lanes

|  | Free Flow(LOS A-C) | Near Capacity (LOS D) | At Capacity / Congested (LOS E-F) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| HOV 2+ Base | 40 % | 31 % | 29 % |
| HOT 3+ | 40 % | 32 % | 28 % |
| TOT A3 | 48 % | 28 % | 24 % |

**20% increase in free flow performance**

## Range of responsibilities for TOT planning, development, operation, maintenance, and enforcement
Common visions and principles
Determine pricing strategy early on
Regional vs. corridor-level issues
Consistency with RTP
TOT alternative in corridor studies
Potential for PPP
Use of revenues
Public outreach
Consistency with region’s fee collection strategy

**Common visions and principles**
**Determine pricing strategy early on**
**Regional vs. corridor-level issues**
**Consistency with RTP**
**TOT alternative in corridor studies**
**Potential for PPP**
**Use of revenues**
**Public outreach**
**Consistency with region’s fee collection strategy**

**Implementa-****tion**

**Notes:**
Not a thorough cost-benefit analysis but in general
Cost effectiveness through comparing (revenues generated and) value of time saved by commercial vehicles versus capital and operating costs 

## Travel demand model can be used for an analysis-driven debate
Confluence of technical analysis and political advocacy
Trucking representatives
Strategy tied to BRT
Voluntary use of lane
Corridor-level studies with freight component
Trade-off between HOV and ....

**Confluence of technical analysis and political advocacy**
**Trucking representatives**
**Strategy tied to BRT**
**Voluntary use of lane**
**Corridor-level studies with freight component**
**Trade-off between HOV and ....**

**Lessons Learned**

**Notes:**
Not a thorough cost-benefit analysis but in general
Cost effectiveness through comparing (revenues generated and) value of time saved by commercial vehicles versus capital and operating costs 

## Some Extensions Since the Study Was Done

**http://www.TOT_Final_Report_July2005**

## Application of Screening Criteria (1)

**Screening Criterion 2: Daily truck volume**

**Source: Hsing-Chung Chu, *****Implementing Truck-Only Toll Lanes at the State, Regional, and Corridor Levels:**** ****Development of a Planning Methodology*****, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2007.**

**Screening Criterion 1: PM level of service**

## Application of Screening Criteria (2)

**Screening Criterion 4: High truck-related crashes**

**Screening Criterion 3:** **Daily truck percentage**

**Source: Hsing-Chung Chu*****, Implementing Truck-Only Toll Lanes at the State, Regional, and Corridor Levels:**** ****Development of a Planning Methodology*****, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2007.**

## Application of Screening Criteria (3)

**Potential TOT corridors – Combine screening criteria**

**Source: Hsing-Chung Chu, *****Implementing Truck-Only Toll Lanes at the State, Regional, and Corridor Levels:**** ****Development of a Planning Methodology*****, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2007.**

**Screening Criteria 5: 90% cost saving threshold**

## Planning Guidance 

- Planning Guidance** **

**Implementation Steps for TOT Lanes**** **

- Public-private partnerships

- Connect freight generators

- Trucking industry support

- Screening Process

- Efficiency, Safety,
- Freight productivity,
- Self-financing, Environment

- Through truck traffic

- Excess capacity – medium trucks

- Variable pricing / Optimum toll rates

**Source: Hsing-Chung Chu, *****Implementing Truck-Only Toll Lanes at the State, Regional, and Corridor Levels:**** ****Development of a Planning Methodology,***** unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2007.**