Transcript The Role of Preferential Treatment for Carpools in Managed

(0-5286-P2)
Presentation Structure
•
•
•
•
Research Objectives
Research Process
Findings
Next Steps
2
Overview of Topics
•
State-of-the-Practice
–
–
•
Survey Results
–
–
–
–
•
Case study of 91 Express Lanes, CA (slide 31)
Impact Analysis
–
–
•
•
•
Personal travel patterns (slides 18. 19, 20, 21)
Managed Lane opinions (slides 23, 24)
Stated preference on mode choice (slides 26, 27, 28)
Survey findings (slides 29, 30)
Empirical Analysis
–
•
Carpool preference policy alternatives (slide 6)
Factors considered in setting policies (slide 7)
Hypothetical Case Study (slide 32)
Analysis of alternative carpool preference policies (slide 33)
• Operations (slide 34)
• Person Throughput (slide 35)
• Revenue (slide 37)
• Emissions – CO2 (slide 39)
Comparison of Alternative HOV Policy Scenarios (slide 40)
Overall Findings (slide 41)
Policy Considerations (slide 42)
3
Research Objective:
Evaluate the tradeoffs associated with carpool
preferences in Managed Lanes
• Explore causal relationship between HOV
pricing incentives and the propensity to carpool
• Document state-of-the-practice in carpool
preferences
• Identify tradeoffs associated with preferential
treatment
4
Research Process
Survey
PMC+ Input
State-of-Practice Review
Impact Analysis Tool
Survey
Results
Observational Conclusions
Implementation
Products:
•
•
•
Decision Framework
Webinar
PowerPoint and Brochure
5
HOV 3+
Carpool
Preference
Combinations
Free 24/7
Free Peak
Period Only,
Pay All
Other Times
Discount
24/7
Discount
Peak Period
Only, Pay All
Other Times
Pay 24/7
HOV-to-HOT
Free 24/7
I-15 CA
I-394 MN
I-25 CO
I-15 UT
SR 167 WA
Free Peak
Period Only,
Pay All Other
Times
HOV2
I-10
Houston
Expansion
Discount
24/7
Discount
Peak Period
Only,
Pay All Other
Times
Pay 24/7
DFW Policy
SR-91 CA*,
I-495 VA,
I-95/395 VA
ETL
Express
6
Toll Lanes
State-of-the-Practice Results
• Limited information about carpool incentives in
priced Managed Lanes
• Current facilities provide free access to HOV3+,
many offer HOV2+ free
• Factors considered in setting policy:
– Enforcement of carpools vehicles
– Maximizing vehicular throughput
– Uniformity and equity considerations
• Apparent disconnect between regional carpool
program objectives and ML policies
7
Survey
• May to July 2006
• Houston and Dallas
– Toll and HOV facilities
– Primarily web-based
• Questions Regarding
–
–
–
–
Personal travel patterns
Managed Lane opinions
Stated preference on mode choice
Demographic information
8
Data Collection
• Primarily collected on-line
• English and Spanish
• Widely advertised and many
organizations provided web
links
• Resulted in over 4000 valid
responses, but too few from
minority and low income
respondents
9
Data Collection
Learned of Survey
From:
Dallas
Houston
News Article
4.4
36.8
TV News Report
0.1
2.6
Tollbooth Card
2.4
0.6
Bus / Train Card
0.1
0.1
Employer Email
7.8
5.7
Website Link
50.6
35.0
Family / Friend
5.1
8.3
Other / No Answer
29.5
10.7
10
Data Collection
• Additional responses from selected community
centers and DPS offices
• Required both paper and laptop options
11
Data Collection
Survey Type
Dallas
Houston
Total
1,852
2,405
4,257
Electronic – On-site
49
85
134
Paper – On-site
135
85
220
2,036
2,575
4,611
Electronic - Web Based
Total
12
Ethnicity
Dallas
Ethnicity
Caucasian
Survey
Houston
Census
Survey
Census
78.0
53.6
75.0
45.3
African-American
8.1
15.7
7.2
17.3
Hispanic
6.9
24.4
10.6
30.4
Asian
2.9
4.4
3.8
5.3
Native American
1.3
0.4
0.8
0.2
Others
2.8
1.5
2.6
1.4
13
Income
Dallas
Income
Survey
Houston
Census
Survey
Census
Less than $25,000
7.0%
22.0%
6.2%
26.1%
$25,000 to $50,000
15.3%
28.7%
16.0%
28.7%
$50,000 to $100,000
36.3%
31.8%
38.3%
29.6%
$100,000 to $200,000
34.4%
13.7%
33.3%
12.5%
More than $200,000
7.0%
3.8%
6.2%
3.1%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
14
The Bottom Line…
• Our sample:
– Under-represented minority and low-income travelers
– Over-represented toll road users
• Weighted our results to better represent Houston
and Dallas traveler characteristics by:
– 4 income groups
– 4 ethnic groups
– Toll versus non-toll road travelers
15
Weighting Factors for Dallas Respondents Who
Used Toll Roads
AfricanAmerican
Income
Caucasian
Hispanic Others
Less than
$24,999
1.388
0.814
1.372
1.185
$25,000 to
$49,999
0.513
0.636
1.023
1.650
$50,000 to
$99,999
0.268
0.541
0.972
0.622
$100,000 or
more
0.183
0.261
0.272
0.206
16
Reasons for Mode Choice
• Why Do People Carpool?
• Why Don’t People Carpool?
• Why Do People Use Transit?
17
Reasons for Carpooling
Factor
Number of
Respondents
Mean Score*
Relaxation while traveling
120
3.76
Access to HOV Lanes
783
3.66
Help environment and society
762
3.48
Enjoy travel with others
779
3.47
Sharing vehicle expenses
802
3.29
Travel time savings
775
3.23
Reliability of arrival time
711
3.12
Drop off kids at school/day care
753
2.65
Get work done while traveling
124
2.63
Splitting tolls on toll roads
105
2.63
Carpool partner matching program
762
2.34
Encouraged by program at work
761
2.25
Preferred parking at work
770
2.21
Other
112
3.23
* 5 = very important to 1 = not at all important
18
Reasons for Not Carpooling
Factor
Percentage of
Respondents
Location/schedule limitation
55
Travel flexibility
45
Need a vehicle during the day
35
Need to make other stops during the trip
28
Appreciate alone time
20
No program (to encourage carpooling)
14
Like my specific radio station/music
7
Potential carpool partners have disagreeable traits
6
Other
8
19
Types of Carpools
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
HOV2
HOV3+
5.6 minutes average formation time
20
Reasons for Using Transit
Reason
Percentage
Selected
Cost savings
18
Convenience
49
No waiting / short headways
7
Travel time (quicker than car)
6
No car available
9
Other
11
21
Interest in Managed Lanes
With Managed Lanes a freeway would have two types of lanes
as shown below.
•There would be toll free lanes - but they may be congested.
•There would also be new Managed Lanes added to the
freeway where a toll would be charged but those lanes would
not be congested. The toll would be collected electronically so
there would be no toll booths. There might also be toll discounts
or free travel in the Managed Lanes for carpools and buses.
Would you be interested in using Managed Lanes?
22
Data Analysis
Category
Percent Interested
in using MLs
Toll Road Travelers
73.4
Non-Toll Road Travelers
67.9
Caucasians
71.9
African-Americans
69.5
Hispanic
70.9
Others
55.6
Less than $25,000
67.0
$25,000 to $50,000
68.0
$50,000 to $100,000
68.0
More than $100,000
78.3
Travelers with different trip
purposes and modes also
showed strong interest in
the ML concept. The lowest
level was transit riders with
60% interest in MLs.
23
Data Analysis
What reasons do travelers give for preferring or not
preferring MLs?
• Top ranked reasons why respondents would use
the MLs:
1. Able to travel faster than GPLs
2. Travel time reliability
• Top ranked reasons why respondents would not
use the MLs:
1. Other
2. Do not want to pay the toll
• Other was dominated by one theme – “My taxes
already pay for the roads”
24
Stated Preference Questions
• Respondents selected between MLs and GPLs
• Different
– Occupancy levels (SOV, HOV2, HOV3+)
– Tolls
– Travel times
• Resulted in the models Ginger will be discussing
25
Replicate Weights
Characteristic
Choose ML (%)
p-value
< 35,000
64.0
0.24
35,000 to 49,999
64.9
0.29
50,000 to 74,999
67.8
0.93
75,000 to 99,999
70.0
0.52
> 100,000
74.7
0.00
0 to 3
64.6
0.78
4 to 9
66.1
0.82
10 to 20
68.3
0.51
66.3
0.76
Income ($)
Trip Length (miles)
> 21
26
Replicate Weights
Characteristic
Choose ML (%)
p-value
Commute
68.1
0.44
Recreational
67.5
0.79
Work Related
61.1
0.21
School
73.4
0.52
Other
50.3
0.01
16 to 24
76.7
0.07
35 to 44
67.6
0.78
45 to 54
61.7
0.22
55 to 64
61.1
0.33
65 and older
45.1
0.01
Trip Purpose
Age
27
Replicate Weights
Characteristic
Choose ML (%)
p-value
Caucasian
71.1
0.05
African-American
64.5
0.71
Hispanic
62.3
0.40
Other
62.7
0.35
SOV
67.0
0.84
HOV2
71.7
0.45
HOV3+
67.2
0.99
Vanpool, Train, Bus or Motorcycle
64.6
0.33
Ethnicity
Mode
28
Survey Results
• With the planned ML in Texas, providing
preferential treatment to HOVs is a significant
issue.
• The web survey provided a cost-effective survey
method, but required follow up for some groups.
• Overall, a lot of interest in MLs (approximately
70%).
29
Survey Results
• Little difference in ML interest by city or trip
purpose
• Interest jumped as income >$100,000
• Current toll road users were more likely to be
interested in using MLs
• Travel time savings and reliability were highest
rated reasons for ML use
• Tolls and “roads already paid by my taxes” were
the main negative aspects
30
Empirical Results
• Case study of SR 91 Express Lanes
– One of the only facilities where effects of price change
on carpooling can be measured
• Findings
– Overall percentage of vehicles in traffic stream
decreased by small amount when HOV3+ charged
– However, this amount represented a significant portion
of HOV3+
– True for both scenarios, where preference suspended
and resumed
– Elimination of preferential treatment decreased use of
HOV3+ while increasing revenue
31
Impact Analysis - Modeling
• Purpose
– Develop quantitative values for various measures of
effectiveness
• Modeling tool
– UTA’s Toll Pricing Model (TPM) 3.1
• Driver decisions
– Stated preference survey data used to develop model
for predicting mode choice in priced lanes
• Corridor analyzed
– IH-30 under high volumes
– Peak hour analysis, no trucks
32
HOV Policy Scenarios
Example
HOV Policy
Express Toll Lanes (base case)
All HOVs pay
91 Express Lanes CA (private op)
HOV3+ 50%, HOV2 pay
DFW policy
HOV2+ pay 50%
I-10 Houston, 91 Express (public op)
HOV3+ free, HOV2 pay
(No example)
HOV3+ free, HOV2 pay 50%
Typical HOV-to-HOT
All HOVs free
4 SOV price scenarios
• Low: $0.10/mile
• Medium: $0.25/mile
• High: $0.50/mile
• Optimized for 60 mph in MLs: $0.37 - $0.45 per mile
33
Model Results - Operations
General Purpose Lane Average Speed (mph)
60
50
40
$0.10/mile
30
$0.25/mile
20
$0.50/mile
10
$0.37-$0.45/mile
0
ETL All
Pay
(Base
Case)
HOV3+ All HOV HOV 3+
50%
50% Toll
Free
HOV2
HOV2
Pay
Pay
HOV3+
Free
HOV2
50%
All HOV
Free
Managed Lanes Average Speed (mph)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
$0.10/mile
$0.25/mile
$0.50/mile
$0.37-$0.45/mile
ETL All
Pay
(Base
Case)
HOV3+ All HOV
50%
50% Toll
HOV2
Pay
HOV 3+
Free
HOV2
Pay
HOV3+
Free
HOV2
50%
All HOV
Free
34
Model Results – Person Throughput
Percent Increase in Person Throughput
250%
200%
Toll Rate
150%
$0.10/mile
$0.25/mile
100%
$0.50/mile
50%
$0.37-$0.45/mile
0%
ETL All Pay HOV3+
All HOV
(Base
50% HOV2 50% Toll
Case)
Pay
HOV 3+
HOV3+
Free HOV2 Free HOV2
Pay
50%
All HOV
Free
35
Person Movement Values for Optimized
Toll Rate
HOV
Scenario
ML
Vehicles
ML
People
Δ
People
(ETL)
ETL
3258
4281
-
HOV3+ 50%
HOV2 pay
3247
4665
384
All HOV pay
50%
3251
4878
597
HOV3+ free
HOV2 pay
3233
5679
1398
HOV3+ free
HOV2 pay
50%
3233
5933
1652
All HOVs
free
3231
6403
2122
36
Model Results – Revenue Impacts
Revenue as a Percentage of Base Case (ETL)
140%
120%
100%
Toll Rate
80%
$0.10/mile
$0.25/mile
60%
$0.50/mile
$0.37-$0.45/mile
40%
20%
0%
ETL All Pay HOV3+
All HOV
HOV 3+
HOV3+
(Base
50% HOV2 50% Toll Free HOV2 Free HOV2
Case)
Pay
Pay
50%
All HOV
Free
37
Model Results - Emissions
Percent Decrease in VOC Emissions Over
Base Case (ETL)
Percent Increase in NOx Emissions Over Base
Case (ETL)
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
-2%
-4%
-6%
$0.10/mile
$0.25/mile
$0.50/mile
ETL All
Pay
(Base
Case)
HOV3+ All HOV HOV 3+
50% 50% Toll
Free
HOV2
HOV2
Pay
Pay
HOV3+
Free
HOV2
50%
All HOV
Free
$0.37-$0.45/mile
$0.10/mile
$0.25/mile
Percent Decrease in CO Emissions Over Base
Case (ETL)
$0.50/mile
ETL All
Pay
(Base
Case)
HOV3+ All HOV HOV 3+
50%
50% Toll
Free
HOV2
HOV2
Pay
Pay
HOV3+
Free
HOV2
50%
All HOV
Free
$0.37-$0.45/mile
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
-1%
-2%
$0.10/mile
$0.25/mile
$0.50/mile
ETL All
Pay
(Base
Case)
HOV3+ All HOV HOV 3+
50% 50% Toll Free
HOV2
HOV2
Pay
Pay
HOV3+
Free
HOV2
50%
All HOV
Free
$0.37-$0.45/mile
38
Model Results - Emissions
Percent Decrease in CO2 Emissions Over Base
Case (ETL)
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Toll Rate
$0.10/mile
$0.25/mile
$0.50/mile
ETL All
Pay
(Base
Case)
HOV3+ All HOV HOV 3+
50% 50% Toll Free
HOV2
HOV2
Pay
Pay
HOV3+ All HOV
Free
Free
HOV2
50%
$0.37-$0.45/mile
39
HOV Policy Scenarios
40
Overall Findings
• HOV preferences in Managed Lanes can influence carpooling
behavior
• Family member carpools make up the vast majority of
carpools
– HOV access rates high in “fampool” responses
• Support for Managed Lanes is high in Texas cities that
currently have both toll roads and HOV lanes, and “faster
travel” and “travel time reliability” were the most important
reasons for support
• There may be more to gain in person-moving capacity with
policies that emphasize HOV preference
• The determination of the appropriate HOV policy in Managed
Lanes depends upon individual project objectives
41
HOV Policy Considerations
• Existing HOV policies
• Regional ridesharing objectives
• Facility performance objectives
42