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%
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
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 -
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
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%
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
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%
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
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)
A1: Major Truck Corridors
$ 694 $ 327 $ 89,400
A2: Service to Deliveries
$ 614 $ 372 $ 101,000
A3: Regional TOT Network
$ 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
Application of Screening Criteria
(2)
Screening Criterion 4: High truck-related crashesScreening 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.
35
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
(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
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.