Synergies of Bus Rapid Transit and High-Occupancy Toll Lanes: Simulation of Bus Rapid Transit in Congested Corridor with Roadway Value Pricing

Abstract

The costs and benefits of integrating two major areas of urban transportation enhancement—high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes and bus rapid transit (BRT)—are explored. The goal is to assess a synergistic strategy of providing premium public transit services in conjunction with roadway pricing strategies. The use of BRT is specifically addressed in the context of a congested urban travel corridor with roadway value pricing. A simple simulation is used to determine those circumstances in which BRT might be an effective element of a multimodal value-pricing corridor strategy. The model used is a variation of SMITE (Spreadsheet Model for Induced Travel Estimation) extended to include managed lanes developed previously by DeCorla-Souza at FHWA. The analysis simulated some alternatives differing from those included in the original DeCorla-Souza assessment of options for the Capital Beltway in Northern Virginia. This is currently a 14-mi-long, 8-lane freeway with no restricted lanes. Seven alternatives are examined. Six of the alternatives place an additional lane in each direction, for a total of 10 lanes. The seventh alternative takes a lane in each direction to provide a special-purpose lane in each direction. The findings suggest that both roadway pricing and BRT compare favorably with toll-free facilities and conventional transit. Taking a lane for a combined HOT facility with BRT might be particularly cost-effective in select locations.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Schrank

, and Lomax

. The 2002 Urban Mobility Report. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, June 2002.

Vickery

W. S.

Pricing in Transportation and Public Utilities: Some Implications of Marginal Cost Pricing for Public Utilities. American Economic Review, Vol. 45, 1955, pp. 605–620.

Poole

R. W.

Jr. , and Orski

C. K.

HOTNetworks: A New Plan for Congestion Relief and Better Transit. Policy Study 305, Reason Foundation, Los Angeles, Calif., Feb. 2003.

Peirce

Congestion Insurance: "Hot" Lanes' Amazing Promise. www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/peir0303.htm

FHWA

U.S.

Department of Transportation, Chapter 7, Current HOT Lane Experience, A Guide for HOT Lane Development March 2003. www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/hot/chapter_7.htm

DeCorla-Souza

Evaluation of Toll Options Using Quick-Response Analysis Tools: A Case Study of the Capital Beltway. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1839, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 65–73.

Fisher

Report on the Suitability of High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Transport 2000 BC, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, May 1997.

NCHRP Report 414: HOV Systems Manual. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., Feb. 1998.

Stockton

W. R.

, Daniels

, Skowronek

D. A.

, and Fenno

D. W.

. The ABC's of HOV Texas Experience. Report 1353-1, Project Number 0-1353, Evaluation of High-Occupancy Vehicle Projects in Texas. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, Sept. 1999.

10.

Transit Benefits 2000 Working Papers, Accessed March 2003. www.fta.dot.gov/library/policy/tb2/index.html

11.

Dahlgren

High-Occupancy Vehicle/Toll Lanes: How Do They Operate and Where Do They Make Sense? Intellimotion, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1999, pp. 1–3, 10–11.

12.

Schofer

J. L.

, and Czepiel

E. J.

. High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities of the Chicago Metropolitan Area: A Review of National Experience, Success Factors and Decision Issues. Prepared for Metropolitan Planning Council and Regional Transportation Authority, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill., May 1999.

13.

Elbaum

2002 California HOV Summit Proceedings. In Transportation Research CircularE-C045, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., Sept. 2002, p. 27.

14.

Christiansen

D. L.

High-Occupancy Vehicle System Development in the United States, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, Dec. 1990.

15.

TransPrice—Final Summary Report, Accessed March 2003. www.cordis.lu/transport/src/transpricerep.htm#4

16.

Yan

, Small

, and Sullivan

E. C.

. Choice Models of Route, Occupancy, and Time of Day with Value-Priced Tolls. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1812, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 69–77.

17.

Sullivan

Continuation Study to Evaluate the Impacts of the SR 91 Value-Priced Express Lanes Final Report. California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, Dec. 2000.

18.

Litman

Using Road Pricing Revenue: Economic Efficiency and Equity Consideration. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, Nov. 29, 1999.

19.

Hickling Lewis Brod Decision Economics. Transit Benefits 2000 Working Papers, Appendices: Six Strategic Transit Corridor Case Studies, prepared for Office of Policy Development, FTA, 2000. www.fta.dot.gov/library/policy/tb3/index.html

20.

Rubin

T. A.

A Critique of the Hickling Lewis Brod Decision Economics, Inc., Analysis of Congestion Management Benefits of Light Rail, Technical Appendix A: Exaggerating Benefits. Prepared for Texas Public Policy Foundation, Sept. 27, 2000. www.tppf.org/transit/trolley/appendix.html

21.

DeCorla-Souza

Evaluating the Trade-Offs Between Mobility and Air Quality. ITE Journal on the Web, Feb. 2000. www.ite.org/itejournal/webarticles.asp

22.

Procedures for Estimating Highway Capacity—Appendix N. www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hpmsmanl/appnl.htm