Guidelines for Implementing Managed Lanes (2016)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

105 Operations and Maintenance General Operations Issues Managed lanes must rely upon a high level of operations that integrate managed lane design, policy, and technol- ogy. The operations documentation for the managed lanes describes and implements the desired characteristics, com- ponents, and requirements for the long-term function of the system and, by nature, will change over the life of the proj- ect. As such, the elements highlighted here are intended to be revisited throughout the project development. Concept of Operations The concept of operations (also referred to as “Con Ops”) is a formal document that establishes the framework for defining the characteristics of managed lane facilities, accom- plishing necessary institutional arrangements, facilitating consistency in the development of operating policies and procedures, and measuring system performance. The concept of operations effectively establishes the rules for implement- ing and operating managed lanes, from individual facilities to regional networks, and assists agencies in guiding policies over time. The systems engineering approach to project develop- ment, which was initially used in the 1950s by the military, has evolved for the purpose of developing a managed lane concept of operations. Systems engineering provides the framework for an interdisciplinary process that addresses customer and stakeholder needs to achieve the highest qual- ity and most cost-effective outcome (109). The systems engineering process has been adapted by the U.S. DOT for use with all ITS projects following the enact- ment of FHWA Rule/Federal Transit Administration Policy on January 8, 2001, which specifies under Section 940.11 that all ITS projects funded with the Federal Highway Trust Fund are to be based on a systems engineering analysis to ensure appropriate integration with regional ITS architec- ture, identify the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, and adequately evaluate alternative system configurations and procurement options [23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 940.11]. Figure 88 in Chapter 5 illustrates the systems engineering V diagram, which is representative of the proj- ect development process following the systems engineering approach. It clearly indicates the concept of operations as a fundamental element of the process to be implemented early in the project development timeline, thereby providing a foundation for subsequent analysis and design (103). Building upon the synergy between ITS and managed lane projects (particularly managed lane projects integrating pric- ing or active traffic management), elements of the systems engineering approach are increasingly followed during proj- ect development, including the development of a concept of operations. A Guide for HOT Lane Development (78) initially identified many elements of the concept of operations as part of the organizational framework for HOT lane projects. The Priced Managed Lane Guide (2) formalized the recommenda- tion to develop a concept of operations as part of the planning and design of managed lane facilities. Figure 89 illustrates the concept of operations process for managed lane projects. Purpose of the Concept of Operations The concept of operations defines various design elements and operating parameters for managed lanes building upon previously defined goals and objectives, and informs subse- quent policy and business rule development. The concept of operations is one of the first documents to be produced as a result of conceptual planning—either for a managed lane facil- ity or regional system—since the concept of operations dis- cusses all components, including intended partnering, design, procurement, and operations. The process for developing the concept of operations requires the engagement of decision makers and stakeholders in an interactive process to achieve concurrence on specific C h a p t e r 6

106 issues and actions affecting managed lane design and opera- tions. Furthermore, to encapsulate new information as man- aged lanes are planned, designed, constructed, operated, and maintained, the concept of operations is typically developed to be a living document so that the underlying framework can continually be revised and enhanced to improve the effectiveness of the facility. Recent managed lanes provide an example of this coor- dination and ongoing revision. The Florida Department of Transportation prepared a facility-based concept of opera- tions for the I-95 Express Lanes in South Florida. The initial document was developed prior to deployment of the I-95 Express Lanes in 2009. After a revision to bring the concept of operations in line with the express lanes operations manual, the concept of operations was utilized as a base-case scenario for the development of the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale Regional Concept of Operations. Consequently, the regional docu- ment includes various policies, design options, and other alternatives that are appropriate for individual corridors; however, it maintains consistency throughout the entire net- work. As new facilities come online or existing facilities have a revision to their operations or policies, the regional con- cept of operations will adapt and change. In turn, the regional concept of operations provides base guidance, planning, and design criteria for new corridors so that the planning process is efficient and effective. The purpose of the concept of operations is to clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities of various stakehold- ers involved in the planning, design, construction, operations, and maintenance of managed lanes. According to U.S. DOT, an effective concept of operations addresses the who, what, where, when, why, and how questions about the project by responding to the following questions (23 CFR 940.11): • Who—Who are the stakeholders involved with and users of the system? • What—What are the elements and the high-level capabili- ties of the system? • Where—What is the geographic and physical extent of the system? • When—What is the sequence of activities that will be performed? SEMP = Systems Engineering Management Plan Source: California Division, FHWA (110). Figure 89. Concept of operations process.

107 • Why—What is the problem or opportunity addressed by the system? • How—How will the system be developed, operated, and maintained? A concept of operations can be adapted to address individ- ual facilities, interconnected corridors, or regional networks of managed lanes. Furthermore, the concept of operations process should be iterative to apply regional guidance dur- ing the initial development of specific managed lane facilities; establish preliminary guidance during planning and design phases of project development; and confirm final parameters for business rules, operations, and maintenance. Regional Network Concept of Operations A regional concept of operations addresses policy and opera- tional concepts for regional managed lane systems rather than focusing on a specific facility or corridor. As such, a regional concept of operations can be used to establish broad parameters that guide the subsequent development of specific managed lane facilities on an integrated regional network. A regional concept of operations can also be utilized to help prioritize managed lane projects based on conceptual estimates of avail- able funding. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission—the MPO for the San Francisco Bay Area—was the first agency to develop a comprehensive regional concept of operations for the managed lanes in the San Francisco Bay Area. Completed in 2010, and since revised, the document has served as the basis for the deployment of the I-680 Express Lanes in Alameda County in 2010 and the SR 237/I-880 Express Lanes in Santa Clara County in 2012 (111). In 2014, as mentioned previously, the Florida DOT com- pleted the South Florida Regional Concept for Transportation Operations addressing the proposed managed lanes network in South Florida (112). In 2013, the Southern California Association of Governments initiated the Regional Express Lane Network Pre-implementation Assistance Study, which resulted in the 2015 Regional Express Lanes Concept of Opera- tions for Southern California (113). Review of these documents reveals that a regional concept of operations typically formalizes and documents the follow- ing topics, while continuing to provide flexibility for changes within the design and development stages: • Regional vision and network planning. • Regional project funding prioritization and procurement strategy. • Operations, design, and policy guidance for regional consistency. • Regional partnerships and agency cooperation. Corridor/Facility Concept of Operations The process for developing a concept of operations for a managed lanes facility should ideally be completed in two parts, with the development of an initial preliminary concept of operations and a final concept of operations. The preliminary concept of operations should be completed early in the managed lanes facility planning process to establish preliminary guidance during the conceptual design phase of project development. In contrast, the final concept of opera- tions should be completed near the end of the design process to apply the lessons learned and to confirm the parameters that will serve as the basis for the development of business rules, as well as the subsequent operations and maintenance of the facility. Preliminary Concept of Operations A preliminary concept of operations provides the opportu- nity to inventory all known institutional requirements to imple- ment the facility, such as authorizing legislation or interagency agreements, ensuring consistency with long-range planning objectives, coordinating with other regional facilities, and high- lighting the necessary actions to be taken by various partner agencies. As indicated in Chapter 2: Planning Considerations, the preliminary concept of operations should also identify the education and outreach program that will need to be imple- mented to gain feedback and support for the managed lane facility, including agency partners, elected officials, and the pub- lic. It identifies the different stakeholders that will be involved in implementing and operating the managed lanes and defines the anticipated roles that each will be expected to play, including maintenance, enforcement, and incident response. It also pro- vides the opportunity to consolidate existing and future forecast conditions data related to the project corridor, and to establish the initial design and operational policy concept for the facility as the basis for completing the necessary environmental clear- ance and detailed design tasks. Finally, a preliminary concept of operations will provide a user perspective on the use of the managed lanes in order to clarify how system-level decisions translate into day-to-day use by potential customers (2). The development of the preliminary concept of operations provides the initial forum to engage all of the stakeholders that will have a potential role in the development of the man- aged lanes facility. If the full array of potential stakeholders is engaged, then the various stakeholders can achieve concur- rence on the goals of the project and the roles each of the stakeholders will play. Traffic and Revenue Forecasting If a revenue stream derivative from tolls generated by the managed lanes is required to fund the project, then traffic and

108 revenue forecasting is an essential and core component of the concept of operations for the project. Chapter 2: Planning Con- siderations provides a more detailed examination of the traffic and revenue forecasting for managed lanes; however, this sec- tion describes its usefulness for operations considerations. Chapter 2 defined the various levels of traffic and revenue studies, which indicate increasing levels of rigor and expertise required. Conceptual traffic and revenue forecasts, known as Level 1 studies, should be developed in conjunction with the regional concept of operations as the basis for determining potential funding availability and project prioritization. A Level 1 study can be conducted as an adjunct to planning activi- ties, but more reliable outcomes result from specific expertise in conducting traffic and revenue studies. Preliminary traf- fic and revenue forecasts for a specific facility or corridor—a Level 2 study—should be developed during the preparation of the preliminary concept of operations to test policy and design concept options based on the best information avail- able at the time. As the design for the managed lanes facility proceeds and policy actions are accomplished, final traffic and revenue forecasts should be prepared to better define the anticipated outcomes of the proposed project as the basis for establishing and managing stakeholder and public expecta- tions, and to support the development of final tolling policy (such as minimum and maximum toll rates, etc.). These final forecasts may simply be a Level 2 study but can also be a part of a Level 3 study. For projects utilizing multiple project financing options, including private concessions, federal loans, or private activ- ity bonds, a complete investment-grade traffic and revenue study (a Level 3 study) will be required by investors as the basis for assessing potential funding risk. Ideally, the investment- grade traffic and revenue forecasts will be completed during the final stages (or following completion) of the project design to ensure that design features and operating policies are accu- rately reflected in assumptions and, likewise, necessary rev- enue functions are incorporated within the operations plans. A Level 3 study can only be completed by those who have the confidence of potential investors, and as such, is limited to only a few entities. Final Facility Concept of Operations The final concept of operations for a managed lanes facility builds upon the prior steps in the facility planning process to consolidate the lessons learned and additional available infor- mation, resulting in a revision of the preliminary concept of operations. This document can be considered final documen- tation; however, operations of the managed lanes will change over time, and the concept of operations document should change with it, with revision notations offered as appropri- ate. As such, the final concept of operations should be revised as policy, design, or operations changes are made, effectively making it a living document. The final concept of operations provides the opportunity to confirm the outcomes of the project planning and design process, as constructed, and to provide institutional mem- ory regarding the various elements of the project as the basis for developing business rules that will guide operations and maintenance. This compilation incorporates the outcomes of the various technical evaluation tasks along with the findings of the agency, elected officials, and public outreach activities as reflected in the various policies and design elements agreed upon by the project stakeholders. The completion of the final concept of operations document should represent a critical milestone in the project development process to coincide with attainment of environmental clearance and completion of preliminary and/or final design. Considerations for Toll Operations For managed lanes with a tolling component, the use of pricing to manage traffic demand requires real-time moni- toring and operations because it allows the operator to man- age traffic demand with the sensitivity necessary to routinely maximize vehicular throughput. From optimized vehicular throughput on the managed lane, other objectives adopted by the operator for which traffic management is appropri- ate can be realized. As such, an understanding of the goals, mechanisms, and strategies for applying pricing is critical to the effective operation of managed lanes. Pricing Performance Measures The performance objectives of the pricing program define the operational goals that the facility is trying to achieve. These often include vehicle speed, vehicle throughput, person through- put, and travel time reliability, and may include other param- eters such as carpool use, overall travel time, transit use, and transit operational speed. If revenue generation is a significant objective for the facility, revenue produced is also an appropri- ate operational parameter. It is also possible that facility-specific factors will lead to other performance objectives. Defining and understanding performance objectives for the managed lanes’ pricing program is essential if a cohesive and logical operating plan is to be developed for the facility. Often, these objectives may be linked to the purpose and need for the facility, as decided within the environmental process. Opera- tional parameters, such as the toll charged, may work to achieve one objective, such as maximizing throughput, but may not be optimal for another objective, such as maximizing revenue. If operational parameters are not considered and viewed in a complete manner, achieving the best operation of the corri- dor may not be possible for the simple reason that “best” has

109 not been defined in a holistic manner. Achieving the optimum performance for all operating parameters is rarely possible, and the interplay between desirable performance objectives must be understood to achieve an overall optimum result. Multiple performance objectives can be developed for any facility, and most effects are complementary. For example, a performance objective that emphasizes person throughput will also have the effect of enhancing vehicular throughput. As a result, there are few distinct differences between the possible arrays of performance objectives. However, in limited situa- tions, conflicts will arise and compromises between optimal and acceptable performance will need to be made. Pricing Variability Pricing variability pertains to the mechanism by which express lane toll rates are both set and presented to drivers on managed lane facilities. Since the first adoption of priced man- aged lanes on SR-91 in Orange County, California, in December 1995, the means by which toll rates are varied to both manage demand and ensure performance along the managed lanes has evolved. SR-91 utilizes a fixed schedule of toll rates that varies by the time of day. This toll schedule has changed throughout its years of operation and has maintained acceptable or better performance. In contrast, the I-15 Express Lanes in San Diego, which in 1998 was the first facility to use a dynamically set algo- rithm, sets the prevailing toll rate by existing traffic conditions. As more managed lane facilities have opened, the two systems of pricing have been utilized by various operators with equal levels of success. Additional implementations in the late 2000s involved hybrid toll structures using both fixed-schedule and dynamic pricing algorithms. As of 2015, multiple systems of pricing variability are in use (114). Pricing may serve as the primary means of metering traffic into and out of the managed lanes. Varying toll by prevail- ing willingness to pay is a critical element of pricing, and all priced managed lane operators have implemented some ver- sion of it. However, the research (114, 115) indicates that vari- able pricing by either time of day or real-time traffic works equally well in managing demand, provided the operator is able to set and adjust prices based upon utilization and pre- vailing demand. There are two primary forms of variable pricing in use on U.S. priced managed lanes (114): • Time-of-day pricing (also called fixed variable pricing). Time-of-day pricing involves the establishment of managed lane toll rates based upon a published schedule. This system is actively used in Denver (I-25, US-36, and I-70), Orange and Riverside Counties in California (SR-91), Baltimore (I-95), El Paso (Loop 375), and Houston (I-10, US-59, I-45, and US-290). Although the toll schedule is predetermined based upon traffic conditions as collected and recorded over time, it will change over time to respond to traffic conditions in the lane. The Orange County Transportation Author- ity initially revised the toll schedule twice per year but has found that more frequent revision may be necessary in order to maintain performance. Furthermore, a time-of-day pric- ing schedule must anticipate days where traffic demand is higher than the average and set a toll accordingly. This leads to a stair-stepped pricing schedule that sits higher than the demand-set pricing. Furthermore, time-of-day pricing involves lower operations and maintenance costs because the system of pricing is not dependent upon real-time traf- fic measurement. Finally, toll rates need to be revisited on a regular basis and adjusted if they are not managing traffic flows as desired. • Dynamic pricing. As compared to time-of-day variable pricing, dynamic pricing involves changing the toll rate in response to real-time traffic demand for the managed lane facility, as informed by vehicle detection technology embed- ded in the roadway. The dynamic pricing algorithm, which sets the toll rates, may include metrics from the adjacent general- purpose lanes, but the primary measure contributing to the establishment of the toll rates is performance within the man- aged lanes directly. Dynamic pricing is more commonly used on managed lanes today, including San Diego (I-15), Miami (I-95), Minneapolis (I-35W and I-394), Atlanta (I-85), and Virginia (I-495), among others. Many characteristics can affect the pros and cons of each strategy (see Table 11). Sponsoring agencies in the Dallas–Ft. Worth region tried to reflect these different pros and cons by implementing a hybrid solution. The hybrid solution involved opening a facility with time-of-day pricing for traveler famil- iarity and then moving to dynamic pricing when traffic con- ditions warranted. In 2015, 15 managed lane projects in the United States operated under some form of dynamic pricing: 12 projects used time-of-day pricing, and 3 projects used a hybrid solution, as shown in Figure 90. Since 2015, more proj- ects with dynamic pricing are evident as the means for apply- ing variable pricing to manage traffic flow versus time-of-day pricing; however, both schemes continue to be adopted (114). Pricing Basis Facility pricing can be performed based on many different factors, such as follows: • Toll per mile. • Toll per interval (e.g., every interchange). • Toll per segment of the facility. • One toll to access an entire facility. Note that the pricing basis does not necessarily coincide with how information about the current price is passed to the driver.

110 Pricing Pros Cons Dynamic • Traffic responsive (responds to real- time traffic) • Ability to handle traffic spikes under special events (e.g., sports activities) • Automatic toll rate setting (no regular toll rate adjustment) • Unpredictability • Not easy to understand for customers • Highly dependent on traffic detector systems • CMS required (must be functional) • Black box in tolling algorithms (typically proprietary property of a vendor) • Higher level of capital cost • Higher level of toll operation cost Time of Day • Predictability • Easy to understand (for customers) • Not dependent on traffic detector systems • CMS not necessarily required • Toll schedule crystal clear to operators (no black box) • Lower level of capital cost • Lower level of toll operation cost • Not real-time traffic responsive (toll rates based on historical traffic conditions) • Not able to handle traffic spikes under special events • Regular toll rate adjustment required (not automatic) Source: FHWA (114). Table 11. Pros and cons of pricing variability options. Source: WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff. Figure 90. Operational managed lane facilities by pricing scheme.

111 For example, while the facility may be priced at a moment in time at $0.21 per mile, providing the driver with a total for a given length of the road may be a clearer message. Therefore, for a 5-mi segment, $0.21 per mile may be related as a $1.05 toll to the driver. Furthermore, the pricing basis does not inherently contain any surcharges or additional fees that may be levied on the user. For example, Colorado, Florida, and Texas permit trucks to use some of their managed lanes for an additional charge. Likewise, Washington, Colorado, and Texas charge additional fees for vehicles using a license plate invoicing mechanism of payment. The basis for pricing can have a significant impact on how well the operations can manage traffic demand on the facility. Usually, the more refined the unit pricing basis, the better the ability to manage demand. While segment pricing can some- times appear to the driver to be virtually identical to per-mile pricing or interval pricing, if the segment includes several entry and exit points, it may not be as sensitive to demand as a pricing mechanism that calculates the toll exactly between exit points. As the scale broadens to an entire facility, differences in demand on various segments of the facility cannot be taken into account in the pricing mechanism, and, to maintain flow on the facil- ity, the toll will need to be set based on the area of maximum demand within the facility. This means that flow will likely be less than optimal on many facility segments, exacerbated by managed lane networks. For areas with a network of priced facilities, attempting to manage demand using pricing on the overall network becomes problematic. Establishing and under- standing the pricing mechanism and its ability to manage facil- ity demand is therefore necessary for facility operation. Options, along with their pros and cons, are shown in Table 12. Pricing Differentiation Managed lanes incorporate many different operational concepts for levying fees, ranging from lanes that require all users to pay a toll to lanes that allow discounted or toll- free travel for vehicles meeting occupancy or other eligibility requirements. How this is established impacts the operation of the lane. The ability of various types of vehicles to access the lane at discounted or toll-free rates has a significant impact on mul- tiple issues associated with lane operation and financing. The greater the number of vehicles that are granted some type of pricing exemption, the lower the revenue produced by the lane, and the fewer vehicles that can be price managed to maintain operational goals for the facility. This has substan- tial impact in two areas. First, if managed lane revenues are needed for operational or capital funding, it is possible that the number of exempt vehicles could reduce revenues below acceptable levels. Second, a large number of vehicles using the lane but paying no tolls reduces the ability of the lane to meet operational goals. Depending on the number of toll-exempt vehicles, it is possible that too few vehicles will be affected by pricing, and operational goals may not be met. Finally, lane enforcement is much more difficult if both toll collection and occupancy and/or vehicle type must be determined. Toll enforcement using readily available equip- ment can be performed without any in-lane enforcement. However, with current technology, occupancy enforcement requires in-lane personnel. Options for pricing differentiation include the following: • Requiring all vehicles to pay a toll. • Requiring all vehicles except public and commercial tran- sit vehicles to pay a toll. It should be noted that the FAST Act requires consistency of toll application for public and commercial buses. • Requiring all vehicles using the lane to utilize a transpon- der, but offering discounted tolls to exempt vehicles (such as HOVs, low- and zero-emission vehicles). • Allowing exempt vehicles to access the lane without toll payment and not requiring a transponder for those vehicles. Pricing Mechanism Pros Cons Per-mile pricing • Greatest ability to provide travel demand management • Most equitable assessment of use versus toll charged • Better oriented for continuous-access design • Complicated to convey to the driver • Requires the highest level of vehicle tracking for toll assessment, which may affect public acceptance based upon privacy concerns Per- segment pricing • Good ability to provide travel demand management • Reasonably equitable assessment of use versus toll charged • Relatively easy to convey to the driver • Some reduction in ability to provide travel demand management • Difficulty in communicating where segments start and end, especially difficult with continuous-access design Facility pricing • Easy to convey to the driver • Relatively easy to assess tolls for each vehicle • Limited ability to provide travel demand management Table 12. Pros and cons of pricing basis.

112 The pros and cons of each of these options are shown in Table 13. Pricing Changes Levels of transportation demand are constantly changing, typically increasing; however, decreases can occur. For this reason, to maintain the operational goals established for the facility, pricing rates and mechanisms need to be periodically reviewed, revised, and adopted by the appropriate decision- making process. Triggers for pricing review can be as simple as a periodic schedule for review or may involve a review of facility operation, with an eye toward degradation of any project objec- tives. Without project review, the operation of the facility may degrade, and the existing pricing structure may not be sufficient to restore the facility to the desired operation. If pricing is not reviewed or revised over a long period of time, it is possible, if not probable, that the impacts of inflation and increasing traffic demand will result in a significant degradation of service. Pricing reviews can be triggered by a change in facility opera- tional parameters, such as a change in occupancy requirements for discounted tolls; a change in actual facility operation, such as a decrease in operating speed or throughput; or simply the pas- sage of time. It should be noted that a review of facility pricing does not automatically indicate the need for a change in pricing schedule or methodology. For a time-of-day-based operation, pricing revisions will be made to the pre-published schedule of toll pricing for the facil- ity. It is reasonable for a review to be undertaken periodically, with 3-month intervals recommended based upon current practice. In the review, traffic speed and throughput for various times of day should be compared with optimum values. Where there is a significant difference between the observed value and the optimum value, consideration should be given to revis- ing the pricing schedule to bring actual operation into closer alignment with optimal operation. Changes in traffic demand in response to pricing changes can take time to develop; for this reason, there should be some type of reasonable delay between the implementation of a revised pricing schedule and further changes to the pricing schedule. This length of time will vary by facility but should consider indicators of how quickly traffic stabilizes after a pricing change and any other impacts that may occur to the facility during this time, such as seasonal variations. For dynamically priced facilities, there are other factors that need to be considered. A review should always consider any maximum pricing criteria that are placed on the algorithm. If operational parameters are consistently below optimal conditions even when the largest toll allowed is used, con- sideration should be given to raising the maximum allowable toll. In addition, unlike time-of-day pricing, the speed with which an algorithm reacts to changing conditions should also be evaluated. Failing conditions during times when a high Access Mechanism Pros Cons All vehicles pay • Revenue is maximized • Enforcement is simplified • Ability to manage traffic through pricing is maximized • Increases cost to transit vehicles • No incentive for carpooling • Requiring toll payment for emergency and service vehicles may produce political or public backlash • For conversions from HOV facilities, tolling of HOVs may not be allowed All vehicles pay except public/ commercial transit • Revenue is near maximum • Ability to manage traffic through pricing remains strong • Transit vehicles are easily identified in the back office, so enforcement remains simple • Cost to transit vehicles is reduced • No incentive for carpooling • For conversions from HOV facilities, tolling of HOVs may not be allowed Differential pricing but all vehicles must have transponder • HOVs and other groups are incentivized with discounted tolls • Enforcement is easier when transponders are required for all vehicles • Likely will meet criteria for HOV conversion • Potentially creates a burden for HOV vehicles to obtain a transponder • Does not allow formation of spontaneous carpools without transponders • Enforcement is complicated • Ability to manage traffic flow through pricing is significantly reduced Some vehicles allowed to access the lane without toll payment or transponder • HOVs of all types and other exempt vehicles are incentivized • No change in operating requirements for HOVs compared to HOV-only operation • Enforcement is complicated • Ability to manage traffic flow through pricing is significantly reduced • Likely to have the highest violation rate of all means Table 13. Pros and cons of pricing differentiation.

113 toll is applied may indicate that the algorithm is not react- ing quickly enough to changing conditions or is improperly balanced by its variables. In this case, the toll charge may be appropriate; however, the rate change should have been in place more quickly. Likewise, if a facility experiences low vol- ume after tolls begin to be reduced, the algorithm may not be responding quickly enough to reductions in demand. This means that the review should consider both the amount of the toll and the rate of change in the toll compared to the rate of change in traffic demand. Pros and cons of review triggers are listed in Table 14. Technology Options Toll collection technology and processes are rapidly chang- ing, and this rapid change is likely to continue for the foresee- able future as mobile technology evolves. The rapid pace of development and replacement of technology represents chal- lenges and benefits for managed lane operators. The prob- lem is that technology chosen for a particular project may be quickly surpassed or, in the worst case, made obsolete. For example, one managed lane operator utilizes a toll col- lection protocol that, at the time of installation, was cutting- edge technology, but today it is relatively orphaned and unused by the rest of the toll and managed lane operating commu- nity. As such, despite its current full functionality for the operator, this protocol offers the operator no benefit for toll interoperability or long-term sustainability. In 2015, the operator replaced this protocol with one used more broadly in the industry and generally regarded as a primary protocol for national interoperability. Although changing technolo- gies can yield such unfortunate scenarios, the primary benefit to managed lane operators is that more efficient ways of col- lecting and processing the information necessary for toll col- lection are constantly being developed. Additionally, national interoperability requirements (established in U.S. federal law by MAP-21 and confirmed by the FAST Act) will require all toll operators to adhere to standards as they are developed, adopted, and enforced. As another example, one of the main issues that an opera- tor will need to address is whether to use a closed, proprietary standard or an open standard. While proprietary standards have been extensively used in the tolling industry, open stan- dards such as the ISO 18000-6C transponder protocol (more commonly known as 6C) gained traction with deployment in Colorado, Georgia, Utah, Minnesota, and Washington and future deployment in California and Florida, as of 2015. This approach has the capability of increasing competition, which in turn has demonstrated a reduction in costs. In 2015, the largest 6C deployment agency has procured transponders for less than $1 per unit, which is a significant drop in price over the past few years. With deployment in California and Florida, costs are expected to decline further due to the larger installment base. Over time, additional technologies not currently engaged in toll collection could become common. For example, con- nected vehicle applications, specifically those involving vehi- cle to infrastructure, may include toll collection as standards are developed. For the development of a managed lane project, regard- less of how technology develops, operators are well advised to select the best available technology at the latest time the decision can be made without disrupting project progress. This, along with selecting technology and platforms that are upgradeable, will likely result in the development of a good technology strategy for managed lane implementation. As many roadside systems require replacement within a 10- to 15-year time frame, the agency sponsor should monitor and evaluate new technological options for deployment when sys- tem replacement becomes necessary. HOV Eligibility Considerations Vehicle eligibility provides for the restriction of facility use to specific users or vehicle classifications. HOV lanes, one form of managed lane, generally require two or more occu- pants per vehicle (HOV2+), although a few require three or more (HOV3+), operate permit buses only, or (if on signal- ized roadways) allow turning movement vehicles. Over time, the vehicle eligibility requirements to use the lane may change to reflect regional and corridor demand or to better reflect the performance objectives of the managed lane facility. Some HOV lanes needed to change their occupancy requirements over time as demand for HOV2+ facilities grew to HOV3+ in a few cases. Conversely, lane management for heavy trucks has been revised in certain areas as overall truck volume has increased. In all cases, the operation of the man- aged lane will change to permit other vehicles, as policy and operations require. Review Trigger Pros Cons Change in operations • Is sensitive to actual conditions on the facility • Symptoms may not manifest until the problem is well developed Passage of time • Ensures a periodic schedule review of facility operation • Problem may go untreated in between review intervals Table 14. Pros and cons of reviewing pricing changes.

114 Operations pertaining to HOV eligibility have been addressed in NCHRP Report 414: HOV Systems Manual, which continues to serve as the primary guidance for such vehicle eli- gibility (3). Ongoing Operations Managed lanes are implemented to maintain traffic flows and the levels of performance desired on the facility. These strategies require attention to day-to-day operations in order to best extract performance from the lanes directly. Toll col- lection systems remain of particular interest to priced man- aged lanes. Toll Collection System Operations Toll collection systems include all software and hardware necessary to identify toll-paying vehicles, assess the correct toll, and enforce the facility to minimize toll violations. Beyond these basic elements, systems may also identify vehi- cle weight, number of axles, or other factors an agency wishes to identify for toll assessment. Elements of a toll collection system often include the following: • Transponders (for use in vehicles). • Antennas to read the transponder. • Readers to decode the information from antennas. • Cameras for input to an optical character recognition system. • Lane controllers to assimilate data from the readers and cameras. • Protection from lightning and other weather-related events. • Communications equipment and mechanisms to allow information from lane controllers to be forwarded to a back office. • Back-office systems to allow proper billing for tolls as well as violation enforcement. • Software for operating in-lane and back-office hardware. Other equipment that may also be necessary for proper toll evaluation includes the following: • Treadles. • Lasers to determine vehicle type and size. • Loop detectors or other presence-detecting devices such as cameras or microwave devices. • Other cameras, including infrared cameras, to assist in toll collection, vehicle identification, or lane enforcement. • Light sources, including visible light and infrared to assist in camera use. • Enforcement provision, including parking and protection, for manual observation. • Beacons to signal the successful completion of a transaction. Maintenance and replacement of toll collection hardware and software will be dependent on the type of equipment involved, as well as the pace of equipment and system improvement, which has historically been rapid. This rapid improvement in equip- ment and systems can also affect the initial decision about what systems and equipment to deploy. Maintenance and replace- ment cycles for the tolling equipment and software should also be fully explored with equipment vendors, with replacement cycles often ranging from 7 to 10 years based on current prac- tice. This allows life-cycle costs to be evaluated in the hardware and software selection process. Proper equipment selection and proper maintenance and replacement schedules are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the toll collection system. This can be critical to revenue collections, facility enforcement, financial forecasting, and overall customer satisfaction. Customer Service Customer service is a necessary and vital function for toll collection. Managed lanes, like any other business that pro- vides services, have customers. Interaction between the agency and the customer will occur often. For priced managed lanes, most interactions will be routine, such as paying tolls, open- ing an account, or maintaining the account. However, there will also be disputes of tolling charges and issues associated with violations. For non-priced managed lanes, customer ser- vice pertains more to assistance in forming carpools, obtain- ing requisite vehicle eligibility information, or other such services. Often, these functions are provided by third parties, such as transportation management associations or rideshare programs. The ability of the agency to interact with its customers in a positive way and meet the needs of those customers will be a key factor in the overall acceptability of a managed lane. Providing an easy-to-use mechanism to interact with the agency is a key element in developing customer satisfaction. This interaction should also include outreach and market- ing so that customers understand facility operation. In this way, the benefit of the facility to its various customers is maximized. Options for direct public interaction include the following: • Walk-in facilities include storefronts that allow face-to- face customer service. These facilities are often co-located with other sponsor agency functions, including municipal services, tolling back-office services, or rideshare services, in order to most efficiently use staff and office space. If priced, all services including toll payment, account acti-

115 vation and maintenance, transponder sales, and viola- tion payment should be available at the walk-in facility. It should be noted that not all managed lane facilities provide a walk-in option. • Phone operation should be available for all managed lane facilities. The ability for the public to directly speak to a representative that is knowledgeable in facility operations, managed lane use, and account management issues is criti- cal for proper public service. As with the walk-in facility, all services should be available via phone. • Internet sites have become the primary and most effective method of customer interaction for business and govern- ment alike. Again, all services available from other means should also be available online. • A growing trend in toll facilities is to use retail-based ven- dors for customer service—particularly transponder sales and account management. This allows customers to obtain their transponder easily, often as part of a shopping trip to a grocery store. Customers are then able to activate their transponders and create an account through any of the methods previously discussed. The pros and cons of the mechanisms for direct public interaction are given in Table 15. Startup/Opening Guidelines Facility Marketing Branding and marketing allow a managed lane to develop a sense of identity with the public while providing appropri- ate information to the public. Various functions for public outreach and marketing are addressed in Chapter 2: Planning Considerations and Chapter 5: Implementation and Deploy- ment. Although the context of the marketing guidance in the previous chapters pertains to the conceptualization and development of managed lanes, the need for marketing and outreach is ongoing. New customers will continue to require guidance on how to use the managed lanes, and under what context. The FHWA HOV Marketing Manual (116) provides helpful guidance for sponsor agencies, whereas the FHWA Priced Managed Lane Guide (2) provides guidance for priced managed lane facilities. Eligibility Validation Vehicle eligibility is a key component of managed lanes, as is validating customers’ eligibility. Vehicle eligibility is discussed in Chapter 2: Planning Considerations. For the purposes of man- aged lane operations, the primary challenges include articula- tion of current eligibility requirements to motorists and adequate enforcement to maintain vehicle eligibility as a system control. Managed lane facilities may provide preferential access to vehicles that meet certain qualifications. Motorcycles, zero- emission vehicles, alternative fuel vehicles, vanpools, and buses have all been identified in federal law, state authorization, and sponsor agency business rules as eligible for preferential access. For example, federal law regarding managed lanes (gener- ally codified under 23 U.S.C. 129 and 23 U.S.C. 166) allows for preferential access consideration of transit, paratran- sit, motorcycles, toll-paying SOVs, and designated hybrids on managed lanes operated on roadways constructed with federal funds. Furthermore, performance requirements for Interaction Mechanism Pros Cons Walk-in facility • Usually the best method for fully addressing a customer’s needs • Usually the best method for addressing complex issues • Transponders can be directly provided to the customer • Usually the most expensive method of customer interaction • Usually able to provide one or at best a limited number of facilities Phone operation • Maintains the connection with a real person • Works well in addressing complex issues • Usually less expensive than maintaining walk-in facilities • Location of the facility is not an issue • Somewhat less effective than face-to- face communication • An alternative method for the physical delivery of transponders must be provided Internet site • Usually less expensive than walk-in or phone mechanisms • Usually available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, which allows the customer to interact on his or her schedule • Complex issues may prove difficult to resolve • An alternative method for the physical delivery of transponders must be provided Retail- based vendor • Provides a very convenient source for transponder sales • Interaction is usually limited to transponder sales only Table 15. Pros and cons of the mechanisms for direct public interaction.

116 managed lanes authorized under 23 U.S.C. 166 require spon- sor agencies to change the managed lane operation policies, including minimum occupancy, hours of operation, pricing, and exceptions, for any managed lanes that degrade beyond defined performance minimums. It is under the performance requirements that vehicle eligibility may be altered. Managed lanes authorized under 23 U.S.C. 129 have different require- ments and do not provide for HOV benefits by right. On most managed lanes, vehicle occupancy is the primary vehicle eligibility requirement. As such, validating occupancy is a key enforcement challenge. Without credible eligibility declaration and validation, the desired operation of the facility is jeopardized. In extreme instances, violation rates of greater than 50% are known to have occurred. At high violation rates, the managed lane in essence reverts to a general-purpose lane and is not capable of providing the operational benefits it is designed to provide. Occupancy enforcement remains a primarily manual process. While gantry lights and/or mobile readers for optical character recognition can be used to identify which vehicles have declared themselves to be HOVs on priced managed lanes, occupancy detection, whether automated or visually performed by an officer in the field, still requires a traf- fic stop to verify that occupancy requirements are not met on priced and non-priced managed lanes alike. Children in car seats, occupants in the backseat, or even reclined passengers require that validation of occupancy prior to issuance of a cita- tion must include a traffic stop. Automated systems of occupancy validation are showing promise; however, they do not yet meet the requirements for enforcing occupancy violations based on automated detection. Instead, many sponsor agencies have expressed interest in using automated validation systems as a support role for manual enforcement—either for identifying repeat likely violators, signaling downstream officers of potential violators, or simply aiding in occupancy counts for performance monitoring. In a priced managed lane with discounted tolls for HOVs, the willful violation of occupancy eligibility constitutes a rev- enue loss, as well. On managed lanes that allow some vehicles to obtain a discounted toll trip, determination of eligibility to receive these benefits creates additional complexity in the toll collection and enforcement process. Particularly for occupancy determination, eligibility validation remains a process that is predominantly manual. This includes both a vehicle’s decla- ration of eligibility as well as enforcement of eligibility. Options for declaration of HOV status include switchable transponders, account status declaration, and declaration lanes. As the name implies, switchable transponders allow users to declare the mode in which their vehicle is currently oper- ating. Depending on facility requirements, this transponder can switch between HOV and non-HOV; switch between non-HOV, HOV2+, and HOV3+; or, for facilities where HOVs are not required to use a transponder, simply include an on-off switch. The first facilities to undertake this type of declaration provided patrons with a special radio wave block- ing bag that prevented transponders from being read by the toll facility. Current form factors include two or three switch settings and are compatible with common transponder proto- cols. Recent best practices in Colorado and Washington have led to a switchable transponder that displays a different color on both sides of the transponder device to signal the current switch setting. The different color panels allow enforcement personnel to validate the number of persons in a vehicle with- out needing to look away from the windshield. Switchable transponders are in use in California, Colorado, Virginia, and Washington. Account status declaration allows drivers to use common, non-switchable transponders yet still declare their occupancy status. A driver that is changing status from HOV to SOV or vice versa logs into his or her account and makes the appropri- ate status change. The status change can be permanent until changed again in the account or can expire after a certain period of time. Smartphone apps have also been developed to allow this change to be made. Drivers are cautioned to not change their status while the vehicle is in motion. Also, advance notice is required to allow information on the account status to be downloaded to the lane controllers. It should be noted that only accounts for which the status has changed need to be downloaded at any given time. However, facilities usually perform a complete download of the status of all accounts on a daily basis. This download is often done during periods of very low traffic. Account status declaration is in use in Atlanta and Dallas–Ft. Worth. For example, in Atlanta, enforcement officials are provided with an audible or visual alert if a license plate matches the database of registered HOV3+ users to prompt a visual inspection for vehicle occupancy compliance. Officers upload a list of occupancy violations written during a shift to the express lane back-office system. A declaration lane is a lane segment within the toll zone of a managed facility that allows toll customers to enter one lane and declare themselves, and allows exempt vehicles (such as HOVs) to use another lane to declare themselves as toll- free eligible. The lanes are usually side-by-side on a facility and only extend long enough to allow the drivers to safely diverge and merge. Declaration lanes are in use in California and Houston. Since on-site enforcement is a part of eligibility validation, the facility design should accommodate the anticipated traf- fic stops and account for the safety of both the officer and the vehicle occupants. The best way to allow for this need is to design and designate specific enforcement areas that provide a safe pull-off from the in-lane traffic. Additionally, providing sufficient space and protection for vehicle parking should be considered in the toll zone and/or enforcement area design, as is practiced in the Dallas–Ft. Worth region. In California,

117 current practice has yielded the development of an enforce- ment monitoring template that can be incorporated within various toll system designs. More details on enforcement area design can be found in Chapter 3. The pros and cons of various eligibility declaration mecha- nisms are described in Table 16. Traffic Monitoring and Control Traffic monitoring and control pertain to the mechanisms, systems, and operations strategies in place to ensure safe and efficient operation of the managed lanes. Modern urban transportation systems are often operated at capacity during peak periods of travel, which places demand on transporta- tion agencies to obtain more out of the existing systems. Since the early 1960s, there has been a recognition that active moni- toring and control of traffic on the highway network would improve the throughput of the system and make the network safer and more reliable. Systems used to monitor traffic include closed-circuit television (CCTV), detection, and reports from staff patrolling the system. Increasingly, third-party traffic data from probe metrics are being used. Active monitoring is typically centrally managed through traffic management centers with operators and systems that can monitor traffic at corridor, region, state, or multistate levels. Traffic control systems include traffic signals, ramp meters, changeable message signs, gates, pavement markings, barri- ers, and lane designations. Managed lanes are another form of traffic control, utilizing pricing, occupancy requirements, vehicle class restrictions, and/or time-of-day restrictions to actively control traffic using the facility. Mechanisms for monitoring managed lanes include the systems used to moni- tor traditional facilities but also need to include enforcement mechanisms and active monitoring of individual lane users to ensure that each user meets the requirements for use of the managed lane facility. Monitoring and control of the managed lanes are critical elements of success. The key difference between a managed lane and a general-purpose lane is that the managed lane has an expected level of performance. This means that when per- formance does not meet expectations, operational or design changes for the managed lane are required. General-purpose lanes have no such requirement. Meeting the performance goal of a managed lane facility requires that the system be actively monitored and controlled so any events or disruptions can be quickly cleared. Addi- tionally, the amount of traffic using the facility needs to be monitored and controlled to ensure that the capacity of the managed lane is not exceeded. Traffic control options include active control (pricing), access control, and occupancy con- trol (HOV requirements). A wide variety of technologies and strategies are available to provide traffic monitoring and control (see Table 17). Effec- tive technologies provide the facility operator with the ability to see and track conditions. It is common to have a mix of strategies. For many managed lane facilities, the systems that monitor the managed lane are also used to monitor the adja- cent general-purpose lanes. The best options provide video surveillance and a sensor network that can be monitored by facility operators to give real-time information about the sta- tus of the entire facility and its connections. The systems used for monitoring and control should archive information so that system performance can be tracked and reported. For additional information on traffic controls and signage, see Chapter 4. Physical control of the traffic using the facility is provided by the access management strategy for the facility. Access control is discussed in the following section. Options for enforcement of managed lane requirements are covered in the enforcement section under the section on managed lane system operations. Access Control Access control pertains to methods used to manage a vehi- cle’s access into or out of a managed lane. The design of man- aged lane access is defined by operational goals, geometric Declaration Mechanism Pros Cons Switchable transponder • Does not require communication with the agency to change status • Relatively simple to use • Requires a costlier transponder • Transponder can inadvertently be left in the wrong mode • Changing the transponder status can be distracting to the driver Account status declaration • Allows the use of a very simple and inexpensive transponder • Declaration must be made in advance of facility use • Accounts can inadvertently be left in the wrong mode • Driver may change account status while moving despite warnings to the contrary Declaration lane • Simple for the driver • Requires development of additional lanes on portions of the facility, which may require right-of-way and have a significant cost Table 16. Pros and cons of various eligibility declaration mechanisms.

118 constraints, and capital budgets, with more detailed informa- tion available in Chapter 3. How access is managed is one of the more critical elements affecting the performance and public acceptance of a managed lane. The access strategy must have design mechanisms, control systems, and operations strate- gies in place to ensure safe and efficient operation of the managed lanes. In most implementations of managed lanes, access is controlled at designated locations. Access control creates a need to determine the best locations for ingress and egress into the managed lane based on factors for safety, traf- fic volumes, and performance. Details on access control are provided in Chapter 3. The design and management of access is critical to the overall performance of the managed lane. The access must strike a balance between allowing safe ingress and egress points and having enough access to maximize use and performance of the lane. The access design is often determined first by a function of cost of implementation. Barrier-separated access provides the best managed lane performance potential but is also the costliest to implement. Access point locations will influence the number and type of trips that can use the managed lane. Controlling access, by definition, places controls on which trips can use the managed lane. All trips in a corridor cannot have access to the managed lane, so the developer must deter- mine which trips are the target market for the facility and design access accordingly. In designs with at-grade access, the developer should locate access so that trips have sufficient distance to safely maneuver across general-purpose lanes of traffic and avoid providing access where such movements would create new bottlenecks. Four main options exist for controlling access and are defined by how they separate traffic between the managed lane and the general-purpose lanes. The four options are bar- rier separation, buffer separation, pylon separation, and open access. These four systems of separation are also discussed in Chapter 3. Business Rules for Managed Lanes Business Rule Development Business rules for managed lanes describe how the concept of operations will be implemented. Business rules cover all elements of facility operation, including day-to-day opera- tion and operations under unusual or emergency conditions, and describe how these operations will be carried out. As such, they are more detailed than the concept of operations. Business rules are needed to ensure fair and consistent performance in dealing with the facility’s customers as well as other entities that are involved with the operation of the facility including interoperable agencies. While business rules should provide stable guidance for facility operation, they should be routinely reviewed and updated as needed. Business rules should be developed with input from all affected agencies and stakeholders. This ensures that the business rules will be practical and fully functional inter- nally to the agency operating the facility and as well as externally in interactions with other stakeholders including interop- erable toll agencies. Cooperation between agencies in the industry is common, and using business rules from other agencies provides a reasonable starting point for develop- ment of business rules for a new agency/facility. Use of busi- ness rules from interoperable agencies may be particularly appropriate. Typical topics addressed in business rules include the following: • Definitions and Acronyms. Providing definitive state- ments of terms can help alleviate discrepancies and other System Purpose Monitoring Video Traffic management center operators can monitor performance and dispatch resources to incidents. Video is used as a key source of traveler information for users. Vehicle detection Detection is necessary to actively manage the number of vehicles in a managed lane and is a key source of information for performance monitoring and reporting. Field reports Derived from agency and enforcement staff, or from the public via 911 or reporting systems, field reports provide an active form of detecting incidents that affect managed lane operations. Control Toll systems Pricing acts as a market-based control mechanism for how many vehicles use the facility. Regulatory signing and pavement marking Regulation determines who is eligible to use the facility and where access occurs. Barrier and gate access control Physical barriers control ingress and egress from the facility. Enforcement Active enforcement occurs through patrols, video, and/or license plate recognition systems, and ensures compliance with the facility operations. Table 17. Traffic monitoring and control options used in managed lanes.

119 problems when the business rules are applied by agency personnel. • Violation Processing. The collection of tolls is a funda- mental, mission-critical activity for managed lane opera- tors. Enforcement of unpaid tolls is also mission critical. Because the collection of tolls is expensive and time con- suming, agencies have opted to levy fines, administrative fees, and other penalties associated with collecting these debts. Having such fines and fees articulated clearly and explicitly in the business rules will provide clarity to cus- tomers, stakeholders, and the media before they become headline inducing. Additional fines or fees may be necessary for other aspects of managed lane enforcement. • Traffic Violation Enforcement. In addition to toll collection, the business rules will identify the responsible agencies for enforcing traffic rules throughout the managed lanes facility. This often necessitates interagency agreements. • Back-Office Procedures. The tolling back office will artic- ulate various interactions with customers. From the estab- lishment of accounts and any special provisions—such as discount programs, multiple vehicle accounts, nonrevenue accounts, or other special considerations—to accounting and auditing procedures, the back-office policies will be articulated in the business rules. Often, requirements for data security will be clearly stated here. • Interoperability. Increasingly, the requirements for toll collection systems to be interoperable with other agencies have informed the development of refined business rules. Interoperability will affect data and transponder proto- col acceptance, interagency collection and payment pro- cedures, account management, violation processing, and methods for resolving disputes. • Customer Contact. Ensuring customer satisfaction and repeat use is a mission-critical function for managed lane operators. The business rules will articulate the requirements for interfacing with customers, including customer service venues, systems, and methods for resolving disputes. • Equipment and Software Protocols. Besides the specific specifications for deployed toll collection systems, the busi- ness rules will state the performance and maintenance requirements, including replacement and rehabilitation. • Incident Response. The business rules will articulate the law enforcement procedures, agreements, and responsibil- ities for responding to incidents, inclement weather, emer- gencies, and other hazards in the managed lanes facility. This may include responses to toll collection, including toll suspension and/or facility closure. Procurement/Contracting The terms “project delivery” and “procurement” are synon- ymous and refer to the process of awarding and implement- ing contracts to design, construct, and operate transportation improvements. The range of procurement options used to implement priced managed lane projects is the same as for any transportation improvement, from the traditional design– bid–build approach that involves letting separate contracts for design and construction to those involving greater private- sector involvement and responsibility. These other options transfer increasing amounts of risk from the public to the pri- vate sector and include design–build, design–build–operate– maintain, and design–build–finance–operate–maintain. While smaller projects are normally delivered using DBB contracts, larger, more complex projects may benefit from DB or DBOM strategies, and those with revenue streams may be addition- ally suited to DBFOM procurement. Options for procurement and contracting are described in detail in Chapter 5. Managed Lane System Operations Enforcement Systems Managed lane enforcement can include all of the normal enforcement activities for any limited-access highway, such as speeding, reckless driving, driving under the influence, etc. However, managed lane enforcement extends beyond those and includes expanded enforcement needs such as toll collection, vehicle occupancy, and/or vehicle type. Since enforcement for routine types of violations is very similar to enforcement for those violations on general-purpose lanes, enforcement of toll collection, vehicle occupancy, and vehicle type will be emphasized here. In certain applications, commer- cial vehicles (such as taxis, freight, or delivery vehicles), buses, and other allowable users of the managed lanes—based upon the prevailing business rules—may have their own enforce- ment requirements. The principles for enforcing vehicle eligi- bility rules for these vehicles are the same as articulated below for toll-paying and exempt HOV users; however, additional consideration should be given to address differential speed and safety issues when managing access for these vehicles. More information on the design of facilities to accommo- date these vehicles is provided in Chapter 3. As discussed earlier in the eligibility validation section, HOV lane enforcement has always been a significant issue with imple- mentation of such lanes. Determination of occupancy at high- way speeds is often difficult, and even when occupancy can be determined, providing areas in which enforcement stops can be made is often difficult, particularly in situations where the HOV enforcement must be done in areas with reduced shoulders or the requirement to traverse managed lane separation. In addition to HOV enforcement on non-priced man- aged lanes, priced managed lanes must also deal with occu- pancy violations in an environment that permits SOVs (or HOV2s). Under existing operating procedures, this requires

120 enforcement of occupancy violations to be performed manu- ally in the managed lane itself, often under conditions that are less than ideal for the officer and the driver. Controls are placed on managed lane use so that perfor- mance objectives are met. These usually include toll payment, occupancy requirements, and/or vehicle type requirements. Enforcement ensures that the operational parameters needed to meet the performance objectives are actually occurring in the field. Without enforcement, willful violation of the require- ments can occur, and this can have a consequential impact upon not only facility performance but also revenue targets. Regarding the enforcement of HOVs and other potentially discounted users of the managed lanes, there are multiple options for managed lane enforcement: • Requirement for all users to carry a transponder and/or pay a toll. As the name implies, it is possible to operate a man- aged lane that allows only toll-paying vehicles on the facil- ity. HOVs are still allowed; however, they must pay a toll, no different from all other vehicles. In this case, the system pro- vides enforcement of the collection of tolls—either a toll is collected or it is not. There are no other differentiation requirements. Electronic video enforcement systems have become a mature technology for enforcing the collection of tolls in the field, with no in-lane police presence nec- essary. It should be noted that even in an all-vehicles-pay scenario, it is possible to allow certain vehicles to access the facility at no or a reduced charge. Transit vehicles, emer- gency response vehicles, or other vehicles that should be allowed access to the facility without having to pay a toll are provided with a nonrevenue transponder. In this case, the transponder is read and processed at the toll zone as any other transponder-equipped vehicle; however, its account indicates that no payment is collected by the back office. Further, vehicles of this type are usually easily identified in enforcement photos. Therefore, even if the nonrevenue transponder is not provided, it is a relatively simple matter for these vehicles to not be targeted as a toll violator. • Declaration of occupancy with in-lane observation. Toll zone declaration of occupancy with enforcement personnel stationed at a point that vehicle occupancy can be observed, and enforcement carried out when necessary, is a common mechanism for HOV occupancy enforcement. There are three variations on this strategy, as described previously in the eligibility validation section: (a) declaration lanes, (b) switchable transponders, or (c) absence of a transpon- der. Regardless of the method used, a beacon is typically illu- minated on top of or to the side of the gantry containing toll collection equipment (depending on the number of lanes). The beacon can be set to illuminate when the vehicle has paid a toll, or it can be set to illuminate when the vehicle has not paid a toll. When the non-toll-paying vehicle has been identified, the officer observes the vehicle to determine if the HOV occupancy requirement has been met. If the require- ment appears not to have been met, a traffic stop ensues. There are many circumstances that may lead an officer to believe a violation has occurred when in fact it has not. Pas- sengers being in the back seat of a vehicle are a common cause. If the officer verifies that the occupancy requirements for HOV were not met, a citation is issued. This method remains the most common method for HOV enforcement on managed lanes; however, it requires persistent police presence to be effective at deterring willful violations. • Reading of mobile or fixed vehicular license plate and tran- sponder. In Minnesota and Georgia, patrol vehicles have been equipped with readers and cameras that either allow transponders to be read by an officer in the patrol vehicle or allow license plates to be photographed and then iden- tified through optical character recognition. The facility database is then queried to determine whether the vehicle is declared to be an HOV. For vehicles that have declared HOV status, the officer visually verifies that the HOV occu- pancy requirement has been met. If it does not appear to have been met, the officer proceeds with a traffic stop, and if the HOV occupancy requirement was not met, a citation is issued. The pros and cons of various enforcement mechanisms are shown in Table 18. Incident Management A traffic incident is defined as any unplanned or planned event that has an impact on the optimal flow of traffic within a facility, ranging from disabled vehicles on a highway shoul- der to major vehicle collisions, emergency maintenance, severe weather events, special events, and any other unplanned occur- rence that can disrupt traffic flow. Traffic disruption caused by incidents results in travel time delays, losses in economic pro- ductivity, increases in vehicle fuel emissions, and overall reduc- tions in safety. Various events and emergencies may emerge where the transportation system on whole must be managed to a greater level than typical operations would permit. The nature of emergencies will differ from one community to another. For example, a few inches of snow in a state like Georgia can cre- ate an emergency condition, whereas such snowfall is almost a daily condition in Minnesota or Colorado and does not yield an emergency condition. However, both require their own response conditioned by local driver equipment and famil- iarity with snow driving. Regardless of the specific nature of the incident, collaboration and communication are vital to managing extraordinary events. Comprehensive guidance for handling such system-wide emergencies can be found in

121 NCHRP Report 777: A Guide to Regional Transportation Plan- ning for Disasters, Emergencies, and Significant Events (117). Although these system-wide events will inevitably affect the operation of managed lanes in the context of overall system management, such large-scale events are outside the scope of incident management for managed lanes in this guidance doc- ument. Instead, this guidance pertains to incidents within the managed lanes directly or within the roadway envelope in which the managed lanes reside. Without adequate response, incidents that affect managed lane operations can negatively affect public perception, system performance, or revenue collection. Traffic incident management (TIM) is defined as the sys- tematic, planned, and coordinated use of human, institutional, mechanical, and technical resources to reduce the duration of incidents and improve overall safety. An optimal TIM program is a highly specialized and coordinated approach to manag- ing highway incidents involving a wide range of agencies and stakeholders. Success of a TIM program stems from a reduc- tion in incident duration, a result of reducing incident detection and verification time, initiating an immediate and appropriate response, and clearing the incident as quickly as possible. An effective TIM program has been shown to increase safety, reduce delay, and improve the public perception of agency operations. TIM is not a new concept to most regions. However, due to the operational complexity of managed lanes, an enhanced or dedicated TIM program is often warranted to ensure safe and efficient operations (118). Managed lane facilities are promised to operate at a higher level of service than adjacent general-purpose lanes. This is especially true of priced facilities. An effective TIM program is an essential piece in maintaining the reliability of managed lanes. Supporting agencies must be able to efficiently and effectively address incidents while preserving the integrity of the operation, revenue collection (if applicable), and a posi- tive public perception (12). However, the configurations of many managed lanes can complicate TIM. Responders typi- cally operate with limited space because many facilities do not have standard emergency breakdown shoulders and are often barrier separated from adjacent lanes. In addition, managed lane TIM resources, especially for managed lanes operated by state DOTs, may be embedded within overall freeway opera- tions, without dedicated services or incident response perfor- mance different from any other travel lane (53). Furthermore, managed lane operators have indicated that emergency responders, including police, fire, and ambulatory representatives, should be engaged very early in the design process—especially at points where decisions regarding sepa- ration and access treatment are discussed. Depending upon the emergency response and preferred handling, these repre- sentatives offer a different perspective on not only the inter- face with the facility but also how the design decisions may impact TIM events. Traffic resulting from special events may resemble that of incidents; however, special events by nature are scheduled and known in advance. As a result, TIM actions and resources may be better allocated for these situations. Furthermore, the functionality of the managed lane facility may change based on the special event’s traffic plan. For example, one facility under construction on I-75 in Atlanta, Georgia, has been designed to address special-event-related demand. Depend- ing on the special event plan and its needs from the corri- dor, the managed lane may operate in a flood condition, in Enforcement Mechanisms Pros Cons Toll-paying vehicles only • Greatly simplifies enforcement • Revenues are maximized • Enforcement is constant • No system-based incentive is given for HOV use • May not be allowed if an HOV conversion is involved Declaration of occupancy with in-lane observation • Common practice with mature technology • Depending on design, may not require tolling back-office enforcement procedures (all violators would be treated as occupancy violators) • Enforcement in the travel lane is required • Enforcement will be periodic or costly • Occupancy identification at highway speed is difficult • Enforcement locations will become well known to regular drivers and can therefore potentially be avoided in installations that do not use barrier separation Mobile license plate and transponder reading • Enforcement can occur anywhere on the facility • Officer in the moving vehicle has more time to perform occupancy identification, resulting in fewer unneeded stops • Can work well without barrier separation • Enforcement in the travel lane is required • Enforcement will be periodic or costly Table 18. Pros and cons of enforcement mechanisms.

122 concert with the general-purpose lanes, and be operated to maximize throughput across all lanes of travel. For corridors or facilities where such events may be likely to occur, consid- eration in the concept of operations is critical. Solutions and Strategies A successful TIM program is a coordinated process con- sisting of multiple phases (118): • Detection—The process that brings an incident to the atten- tion of the agencies responsible for maintaining traffic flow. Technology utilized for detection typically includes CCTV cameras and incident detection algorithms optimized with real-time traffic surveillance data. • Verification—The confirmation that an incident has occurred, determining exact location, direction of travel, and incident nature and scope. CCTV video feeds and computer-aided dispatch linkages should be shared with responding agencies to provide instant notification and real-time information to help tailor responses. • Response—Deployment of appropriate personnel, equip- ment, motorist information, and traffic management. Best practices recommend use of emergency response callout lists including agency roles and contacts, freeway service patrols of congested areas to quickly detect and respond to inci- dents on the ground, interdisciplinary incident response teams dedicated to incident response and removal, strate- gically pre-positioned TIM equipment, and formal staging guidelines and training for responders. For priced facilities, collected revenues can be used to fund dedicated managed lane incident response teams. • Site Management—Assessing the incident, establishing priorities, coordinating with appropriate agencies, and following protocols of the National Incident Management System to safely secure site and progress toward clearance. • Clearance and Removal—Efficient removal of vehicles, wreckage, debris, spilled material, and other items from roadway to return facility to pre-incident capacity. • Traveler Information—Dissemination of traveler informa- tion from operations center to motorists. Typical strategies include CMSs operated by the traffic management center to notify upstream drivers of the incident and possible lane closures, highway advisory radio services, 511 telephone ser- vices, and timely provision of information to media outlets. • Traffic Management—Establishing traffic control at scene, managing roadway space, deploying appropriate person- nel, and in the case of managed lanes, determining whether to route general-purpose traffic into or out of the facility to restore traffic flow. • Planning and Evaluation—Establishing, planning, and con- tinually evaluating the formal TIM program, which should include and confirm the identification and participation of all agencies and stakeholders, clarification of goals and objec- tives, development of alternative solutions and strategies, securing funding, and deployment and evaluation protocols. An effective TIM program facilitates close coordination between agencies and dictates specific roles and responsibili- ties. Typical TIM agencies and roles include the following: • Law Enforcement—Typically, first responders that assist with detection and provide first aid, emergency traffic con- trol, and incident command. • Fire, Rescue, and Emergency Medical Services—Responsible for emergency medical care, fire suppression, extrication, and hazardous materials response. • Transportation Agency—Assist with detection and verifi- cation, and provide traffic management, emergency traf- fic control, and dissemination of traveler information. Typically organize and maintain TIM program, and act as owner/operator of managed lane. • Towing Service—Critical partner responsible for removal of disabled vehicles and debris. • Media—Private entity that assists in disseminating inci- dent information to motorists. The San Diego Association of Government’s I-15 Man- aged Lanes Traffic Incident Management (TIM) Plan (118) included information gleaned from a best practices review pertaining to TIM. This best practices review identified traf- fic management practices and protocols related to dedicated resources and the use of managed lane facilities for incident traffic routing, the pros and cons of which are as follows: • Dedicated Resources. Can ensure greater level of service and reliability within managed lanes, although uncommon due to added costs. However, managed lane strategies can include allocation of a portion of revenues toward dedi- cated resources. • Managed Lane Use for Incident Traffic Routing. Allows for reduced traffic delay and can support a positive public perception, but detracts from the higher level of service intended for managed lane facilities. Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Performance monitoring refers to the ongoing, structured process of compiling performance data for managed lane facili- ties. The need for ongoing performance monitoring and the role it plays in formulating and informing adopted design practice has been frequently expressed by managed lane prac- titioners. Even after design decisions have been made, and this

123 guide reflects the decisions that managed lane operators have implemented as current practice, the need for performance monitoring to inform future design decisions and refinements is critical during the planning and conceptualization process. Such a program of regular, recurring performance monitoring will help effect changes in the planning, design, and opera- tions stages. Furthermore, these changes and refinements will continue for the life of the facility. Finally, particular attention should be placed upon continual monitoring and evaluation immediately after opening of a managed lane facil- ity, and through the first few years of operation. Public and stakeholder attention to the facility will be more acute, with answers desired for the following questions, among others: • How many people are using the managed lanes? • Have the managed lanes improved traffic in the general- purpose lanes? • If priced, what is the highest toll price? • What is the effect on carpools? • How much is the average toll? • How often do account holders use the lanes? Performance data may be collected using real-time detection equipment, regularly scheduled counts or surveys, and one- time surveys. The metrics used to track project performance should also align with the overall goals of the project as well as the level of funding available to support performance monitor- ing activities. Performance data should be collected prior to the opening of new managed lane facilities, with baseline data covering a 1-year period prior to opening, thereby enabling the project sponsor to document normal seasonal trends. An optimal set of metrics will enable the project sponsor to have a clear understanding of how well the managed lane project is performing and to what extent it is meeting its various goals and objectives. Performance data should be designed, collected, and analyzed so that the project sponsor, users, and stakeholders can understand if the facility is work- ing as planned. Performance data allow the operator to deter- mine if changes are needed in how the system is designed or operated in order to achieve system objectives. Given that each managed lane project is unique, perfor- mance monitoring programs should be tailored to reflect the local concerns, legislative requirements, institutional rela- tionships, and performance monitoring precedents. The pri- mary resource on how to conduct and evaluate performance measurement for managed lanes is NCHRP Report 694 (31). Rather than prescribing particular metrics for each situation, this report provides a framework to help project sponsors identify which performance measures are likely to meet their particular needs. Performance measurement for congestion pricing projects accomplishes four interrelated purposes: • To ensure that the projects are functioning as efficiently as possible and to enable adjustments to operational policies if they are not. • To quantify and validate the different benefits these facili- ties deliver. • To document the application of congestion pricing as a meter on traffic demand. • To ensure that the projects are in compliance with opera- tional requirements placed on the facility. Performance measures for managed lanes can be grouped into the following evaluation areas: • Traffic performance measures describe the ability of a road- way to provide mobility. Traffic performance is the most influential measure among the five evaluation areas and is measured using traffic engineering metrics including vehicle volumes, speeds, mode share, LOS, travel times, travel time savings, travel time reliability, number of tolled and un-tolled trips, average vehicle occupancy, person throughput, and safety measures. These data are usually collected using data from automated ETC and ITS systems, as well as regularly scheduled traffic counts. • Public perception performance measures document general awareness of the existence and intent of the priced managed lanes, as well as satisfaction with the service they provide. Commonly used public perception performance measures include satisfaction, perceived value, facility awareness, reli- ability, perceived time savings, and perceived safety. Because of the nature of these metrics, this information is collected through surveys of facility users and the general public. • Facility user metrics refer to the characteristics of trip-makers who use priced managed lanes as well as the nature of the trips they make on them. Metrics could include home zip code, frequency of use, trip origin and destination, num- ber of transponders issued, user types (transit, SOV, HOV, exempt vehicles), and demographic and socioeconomic data. • System operations metrics provide information on the oper- ational aspects of priced managed lanes, including system function, customer service, safety, enforcement, and finance. Common system operations performance measures include revenue, toll rates, number of violations, operating and main- tenance expenditures, number of toll transactions, incidents, incident response time, and system equipment availability. • Transit metrics describe attributes of transit services oper- ating on priced managed lane facilities. The most frequently applied transit performance measures are travel time, on- time performance, excess wait time, and ridership. Managed lane facilities have many performance metrics but are often developed with the overarching performance goal of the facility providing a highly reliable trip for users. As required by U.S. federal law (23 U.S.C. 166), this goal is measured by

124 travel speeds with the target speed being 45 mph or greater 90% of the time in the managed lane. Achieving this reliability target is what attracts users to a managed lane and serves as a reason to pay a toll, form a carpool, or utilize transit in the facility. Maintenance of Managed Lanes While generally no different from the maintenance require- ments of general freeway or HOV lane maintenance, managed lanes do require advanced maintenance of some components to sustain performance. These components comprise toll col- lection, intelligent transportation systems, lane separation, power, and communication infrastructure, all of which are vital for meeting operational objectives. Disruptions and failures of equipment, procedures, and functions can have a detrimental impact on safety, system capacity, and throughput, which may eliminate, negate, or compromise the benefits of the managed lanes. Managed lane systems involve highly interdependent com- ponents and subsystems—one malfunction can impact the ability of the system to perform. In addition, many compo- nents may be difficult to access without lane closures, especially if there is a lack of shoulder space and/or worker-accessible gantry structures. Accordingly, built-in redundancy of hyper- critical systems is needed in order to reduce maintenance events. Prior to installation and after opening, operators must continually analyze equipment durability, identify system design redundancies, and conduct routine preventive mainte- nance in order to minimize personnel exposure to traffic and frequency of maintenance activities. Managed Lane Maintenance There are three primary components to managed lane maintenance: • Managed lane roadway components. • Tolling and enforcement systems. • Traffic control systems. Managed Lane Roadway Components Managed lane operators will be challenged to provide a high level of maintenance for in-lane roadway systems. Although a managed lane operator, either public or private, may be responsible for maintenance across the entire footprint of the corridor, whether the operator or the DOT has mainte- nance responsibility is delineated by which lane system the component is a part of. This delineation of responsibility is shown in Table 19. Tolling and Enforcement Systems The tolling and related enforcement systems maintenance requires specialized attention, which may be specific in nature to the technology deployed by the tolling integrator and could be located outside the managed lanes facility. For example, tolling algorithms require a significant amount of detec- tor data across multiple lanes of traffic (managed lanes and general-purpose lanes) in order to operate effectively. Given the inability to provide maintenance during active opera- tions, problems that emerge in the tolling detection infra- structure could result in a failure to collect tolls or to give customers sufficient information about toll prices, resulting in a loss of revenue. Generally, the managed lanes operator will handle perfor- mance or contracting responsibilities associated with main- taining managed lane tolling, enforcement, power, and field communication systems. Dedicated staff or contractor(s) will be assigned responsibility for maintaining the tolling systems and infrastructure. In most contemporary situations, tolling and enforcement systems may be maintained by the tolling integrator, especially to the extent that any loss in equipment or procedural availability will have an impact on performance. As a result, the integrator has every interest in performing adequate preventive maintenance in order to avoid demand– response maintenance. After ramp-up, depending upon the level of risk incurred by the operator, this role may or may not be the same as the tolling integrator because a separate func- Component Primary Responsible Party Managed Lanes Buffer/Barrier General-Purpose Lanes Structures Operator/DOT Operator DOT Structural pavement Operator/DOT Operator/DOT DOT Pavement repairs Operator Operator DOT Pavement markings Operator Operator DOT Barrier Operator/DOT Operator/DOT DOT Signage (static) Operator Operator/DOT DOT Lighting Operator Operator/DOT DOT Clearing and grubbing Operator Operator DOT Sweeping/debris removal Operator Operator DOT Table 19. Primary maintenance responsibilities for lane systems.

125 tional group or third party may offer better performance. This delineation of responsibility is shown in Table 20. Traffic Control / In-Field ITS In addition to the tolling and enforcement systems, man- aged lanes feature virtually continuous installation of ITS technologies, including sensor loops and independent CCTV systems for traffic/incident monitoring (which may be con- nected to ramp metering and other traffic control systems). Of note, real-time peer-to-peer exchange of incident and traffic sensor data between regional traffic management cen- ters, incident managers, and tolling integrators may be main- tained by the operator. Otherwise, the state DOT typically maintains non-tolling-related ITS installations along the managed lane corridors. Maintenance Program Management Maintenance is a complex assessment of present-day impacts and future-day risk management. Maintenance and operations activities must be coordinated such that the risks of the impacts from either one or the other can be quantified. Performance Criteria Managed lanes maintenance goals should be articulated in terms of operational levels. Standard performance metrics include mean time between failures (a dual function of design life and preventive maintenance forestalling failure), mean time to repair (expressed as number of hours), average cost to repair, design life, and salvage value. For managed lanes, the key metrics are downtime in operational hours (critical timing during peak periods, with relaxed timing in evenings and other times of day when the project is less used), failure rates for critical components, and timeliness of response for maintenance. As detailed metrics are defined, the mainte- nance operator must be able to define criteria for minimum standard performance metrics. Meeting the managed lane requirements could be costly—for example, 24/7 operations may require a full-time equivalent position across the 24-hour spectrum held by multiple employees. Thus, the managed lane operator may establish critical times of response (peak periods and directions), standard times of response (day- time off-peak periods and directions), and relaxed times of response (evenings/times of low corridor volumes). Different responses can be adjusted accordingly. Public-sector options may not be well suited to handling these different staffing requirements for response, whereas private-sector arrange- ments may be articulated contractually. Training The maintenance program will include specialized train- ing, such as on procedures for individual devices, operation and calibration of test equipment and technologies, and practices for repairing essential components of the system. This training will require refresher courses in addition to new staff training as certain components become operationally obsolete, new procedures are established, and replacement equipment installed. As a result, the toll system integrator will inevitably be involved in training staff and have a per- formance mandate to ensure that the system is maintainable after installation. Table 20. Primary tolling/enforcement maintenance responsibilities for managed lane systems. Component Primary Responsible Party Managed Lanes Buffer General-Purpose Lanes Signage—structure Operator/DOT n/a DOT Signage—LED panels Operator n/a Operator Pavement—enforcement zones Operator/DOT n/a DOT Lighting—toll zone Operator n/a n/a Sensors/antenna Operator Operator Operator CCTV—toll zone Operator Operator Operator Utility box Operator n/a Operator Power/telecommunications Operator Operator Operator Gantry/post Operator n/a Operator Enforcement cameras/lighting Operator Operator n/a