Dedicating Lanes for Priority or Exclusive Use by Connected and Automated Vehicles (2018)

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.

2018 N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 891 Dedicating Lanes for Priority or Exclusive Use by Connected and Automated Vehicles Booz Allen HAmilton Washington, DC WSP Washington, DC a n d neW JerSey inStitute of tecHnology Newark, NJ Subscriber Categories Highways • Data and Information Technology • Operations and Traffic Management Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide inter- est to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- tiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com- mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer- sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the National Academies is an insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special- ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and transportation departments, by committees of AASHTO, and by the Federal Highway Administration. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO Special Committee on Research and Innovation (R&I), and each year R&I’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Direc- tors and the National Academies. Research projects to address these topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Academies and TRB. The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate, other highway research programs. Published research reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet by going to http://www.national-academies.org and then searching for TRB Printed in the United States of America NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 891 Project 20-102(08) ISSN 2572-3766 (Print) ISSN 2572-3774 (Online) ISBN 978-0-309-48005-5 Library of Congress Control Number 2018965374 © 2018 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 891 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Lawrence D. Goldstein, Senior Program Officer Anthony P. Avery, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications Sharon Lamberton, Editor NCHRP PROJECT 20-102(08) PANEL Field of Special Projects—Area of Special Projects Noah J. Goodall, Virginia DOT, Charlottesville, VA (Chair) Brian Burkhard, Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., Oakland, CA Yeganeh M. Hayeri, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ Virginia R. Lingham, Virginia DOT, Richmond, VA David McDonald, Jr., Hanson Professional Services, Inc., Oak Brook, IL Michael Shulman, Ford Motor Company, Ann Arbor, MI Asfand Y. Siddiqui, California DOT, Sacramento, CA Randel R. Van Portfliet, Van Portfliet, Inc., Escanaba, MI Stephen W. Weller, CH2M, Herndon, VA Robert Ferlis, FHWA Liaison Richard A. Cunard, TRB Liaison AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The principal investigators for this project were Balaji Yelchuru for the first half of the project and Raj Kamalanathsharma for the second half of the project. Contributing authors were Raj Kamalanathsharma, Boon Teck Ong, and Balaji Yelchuru, Booz Allen Hamilton, Washington DC; Steve Kuciemba, WSP USA, Baltimore MD; Steve Shladover, Independent Consultant, San Francisco CA; Joyoung Lee and Zijia (Gary) Zhong, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark NJ; Andrea Vann-Easton, Booz Allen Hamilton, Washington DC. Additional contributors were Somaye Fakharian, WSP USA, Miami FL; Karlina Wu, WSP USA, San Francisco CA; Matthew Hill, WSP USA, Detroit MI; and Richard “Trey” Baker, WSP USA, Austin TX.

NCHRP Report 891: Dedicating Lanes for Priority or Exclusive Use by Connected and Automated Vehicles concentrates on identifying and evaluating opportunities, constraints, and guiding principles for implementing dedicated lanes for connected and automated vehicles. It identifies and describes conditions amenable to dedicating lanes for users of these vehicles and the necessary guidance to deploy them in a safe and efficient manner. The analysis, which relied on application of virtual, computer-based models, helps identify potential impacts associated with various conditions affecting lane dedication, market penetration, evolving technology, and changing demand. This report will be of immediate interest to transportation planners responsible for examining opportunities for integrating connected and, eventually, automated vehicles into the highway network. Connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) are quickly expanding in the automobile and transportation industry, and their use is expected to become far more widespread during the coming decade. One of the policy catalysts that may incentivize greater market penetration of CAVs is dedicating lanes for their priority or exclusive use. To assist agencies that are preparing for this disruptive change, some guidance is needed related to (1) the intended benefits when dedicating lanes to CAVs in terms of safety, mobility, and environmental and societal considerations; (2) conditions amenable to dedicating lanes for priority and exclusive use by CAVs; and (3) a review of laws and regulations regarding dedicating lanes. This report, developed by Booz Allen Hamilton with support from WSP USA, the New Jersey Institute of Technology, and Dr. Steve Shladover, aims to provide that guidance. It also describes the project team’s approach to developing the guidance. The research began with a detailed literature review to identify categories of benefits and disbenefits when dedicating lanes to a special category of vehicles. The literature review also identified the types of stakeholders who benefit (or do not benefit) from dedicating lanes to CAVs, factors influencing these benefits, and the potential performance measures in four categories: mobility, safety, environmental considerations, and societal equity. Building on that review, the team used an analytical process that applied virtual, computer- based models to identify variables and measures sensitive to dedicating lanes to connected and automated vehicle users and formulated a simulation-based analysis of two CAV appli- cations, Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC) and Dynamic Speed Harmonization (DSH). State-of-the-art analytical models and algorithms were evaluated for use in modeling these applications based on their applicability to dedicating lanes, suitability to the CAV environment, and adaptability to simulation models. Potential sites for the virtual case studies were evaluated based on their overall characteristics (e.g., geography, operational conditions, modes, and presence of managed lanes); their managed lane characteristics F O R E W O R D By Lawrence D. Goldstein Staff Officer Transportation Research Board

(e.g., geometry, allowed users, operating rules, access point configurations); and the feasi- bility of modeling CAV applications. Based on these criteria, the project team selected and developed simulation models for two case study sites: I-66 in Northern Virginia and US-101 in San Mateo, California. The modeling and simulation activity helped the project team identify parameters that are sensitive to dedicating lanes to CAV users and identify expected impacts under various conditions of lane dedication, market penetration, demand condi- tions, combined deployment of applications, and so forth. The project team also reviewed laws and regulations that should be considered when dedicating lanes to CAVs. Based on the findings, the project team developed specific guidance for agencies on operational characteristics and impacts, including regulatory and policy guidance for states and local agencies on conditions amenable to dedicating lanes to CAVs.

1 Summary 5 Chapter 1 Introduction 5 1.1 Project Objective 6 1.2 Background 8 1.3 Report Overview 10 Chapter 2 Categories of Benefits and Disbenefits to Stakeholders 10 2.1 Types of Stakeholders 10 2.2 Factors Influencing Benefits and Disbenefits 14 2.3 Performance Measures 20 Chapter 3 Connected and Automated Vehicle Applications 20 3.1 Selection of CAV Applications 22 3.2 CACC Application 42 3.3 DSH Application 46 Chapter 4 Case Study Site Selection 46 4.1 Initial List of Candidate Sites 59 4.2 Evaluation Criteria 66 4.3 Selected Case Study Sites 71 Chapter 5 Analysis and Evaluation Approach 71 5.1 Develop Baseline Models 80 5.2 Integrate CAV Application Models 85 5.3 Develop Scenarios for Assessment 86 5.4 Measure Performance of CAV Applications 89 5.5 Analysis Assumptions 91 Chapter 6 Evaluation Results 91 6.1 Priority Versus Exclusive Access 94 6.2 Impact of Market Penetration 97 6.3 Combinations of Applications 99 6.4 Impact of Demand 103 6.5 Impact of Access Restrictions 104 6.6 Hypothetical Scenarios 108 6.7 Impact on US-101 Corridor 110 6.8 Analysis of VTTS 112 Chapter 7 Review of Laws and Regulations Regarding Dedicating Lanes 112 7.1 DL-Specific Policies and Scenarios 116 7.2 CAV-Specific Regulatory and Legislative Affairs C O N T E N T S

122 Chapter 8 Guidance on Operational Characteristics and Impacts 122 8.1 Shared and Exclusive DLs 123 8.2 Expected Benefits and Disbenefits from Dedicating Lanes to CAV Users 127 8.3 Guidance on Access Restrictions 127 8.4 Guidance on Lane Separation Barriers 128 8.5 Findings on Economic Equity 128 8.6 Regulatory and Policy Guidance 130 8.7 Guidance Regarding Updating Laws and Regulations 132 Chapter 9 Future Research Directions 132 9.1 Granular Energy and Environmental Impact Assessment 132 9.2 Expansion for More Test Scenarios 132 9.3 Dedicating Lanes for CAVs on Arterials 133 9.4 Dedicating Lanes to Connected and Automated Trucks 133 9.5 Modeling Higher Levels of Automation 134 9.6 Unified Definitions for CAV and Related Terminology 135 Chapter 10 Conclusions 138 Abbreviations 140 References