feasibility of a metropolitan truck-only toll lane network: the case of atlanta, georgia

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

2

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.)

3

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.)

SteeringCommittee

4

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

5

The Opportunity

& aChallenge

Most HOVcorridors

have excesscapacity

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

6

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.

TOTAssumptions

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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.

11

Alternative 1

• Voluntary TOT

– I-75 N

– I-85 N

– I-285

– I-75 S

• HOV network

– Entire region

• Voluntary TOT

– I-75 N

– I-85 N

– I-285

– I-75 S

• HOV network

– Entire region

North-South

East-West

12

Alternative 2

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

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

13

Alternative 3

•Voluntary TOT

– Outside I-285

– On I-285

•HOV network

– Inside I-285 only

•TOT replaces HOV outside and on I-285

•Voluntary TOT

– Outside I-285

– On I-285

•HOV network

– Inside I-285 only

•TOT replaces HOV outside and on I-285

Truck ProductivityTOT Scenarios

15

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

16

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

17

Truck Trip Performance

Percent of North-south Trip at Given Condition

during PM Peak Hour

2030 Scenario

FreeFlow

(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

18

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+ Base159,787 - 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%


159,692 -0.1% 5,843 -4.8%

* Regional measures include all vehicle types on all arterials, collectors, and limited access facilities.

Network Performance

19

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+ Base159,787 - 6,139 -


160,108 0.2% 5,742 -6.5%


160,138 0.2% 5,747 -6.5%


159,692 -0.1% 5,843 -4.8%

* Regional measures include all vehicle types on all arterials, collectors, and limited access facilities.

Network Performance

20

Performance of GP Lanes

PM Peak Hour

Percent GP Lanes Operating at Given Condition during

PM Peak Hour

2030 Scenario

FreeFlow

Near Capacity

At Capacity/Congested

HOV 2+ Base 40% 31% 29%


46% 32% 22%


48% 28% 24%

17 to 24% reduction in

congested general purpose

directional miles

21

Change in PM Truck Volume

TOT Alternative 3

22

Performance of Arterials

and Collectors

Percent Arterials and Collectors Operating at Given Condition during

PM Peak Hour

2030 Scenario

FreeFlow

Near Capacity

At Capacity/Congested

HOV 2+ Base 66% 16% 18%


69% 16% 15%


68% 16% 16%

A 10-15% reduction of

congested arterial and collector miles

23

• 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)

Air Quality and Safety

24

2030 Projected

Annual Revenue

2030 TOT Scenario

Weekday Revenue per TOT

Lane Mile

Total Weekday Revenue

(000s)

Projected Annual

Revenue (000s)


$ 694 $ 327 $ 89,400


$ 614 $ 372 $ 101,000


$ 554 $ 724 $ 198,000

25

• 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

What We Learned

About TOT Lanes

26

Comparative Results of Regional Managed Lane

Strategies

2030 HOV, HOT and TOT Scenarios

27

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 RevenueOver Op. Cost - $ 26 $ 18 $ 157

1. Capital costs are assumed to be sunk costs with 30 year bonds at 5% interest. Values may not sum due to rounding error.

2. Operating costs include administration, enforcement and maintenance.

28

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.

29

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

30

• 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

Implementa-tion

31

• 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 ….

Lessons Learned

32

Some Extensions Since the Study Was Done

http://www.TOT_Final_Report_July2005

33

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

34


(2)

Screening Criterion 4: High truck-related crashesScreening Criterion 3: Daily truck percentage


35


(3)

Potential TOT corridors – Combine screening criteria


Screening Criteria 5: 90% cost saving threshold

Planning Guidance

(2) Identify Potential TOT Corridors and Their Extents

(3) Determine the Placement of TOT lanes

(6) Determine a Mandatory or Voluntary Policy

(4) Determine the Location of Access Points

(5) Determine Vehicle Eligibility

(7) Determine the Pricing Strategy

(8) Determine the Financing Mechanism

(1) Define Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures

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


feasibility of a metropolitan truck-only toll lane network: the case of atlanta, georgia

Documents