HOV System Plan HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report Submitted by: The Parsons Team October 2003 Texas Transportation Institute HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report For the Georgia Department of Transportation October 2003 Prepared by The Parsons Team Parsons Jordan, Jones and Goulding HNTB Texas Transportation Institute McGee Partners, Street Smarts, U.S. Infrastructure, Hoffman and Company, The IRGroup HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report Table of Contents October 2003 1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Determining Limits In 21-County Study Area ........................................................... 3 2.1 Task Description................................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Technical Review Process ................................................................................................................. 3 2.3 Planning Review................................................................................................................................. 3 3.0 HOV Rating Criteria.................................................................................................. 5 3.1 HOV System Screening Process Planning Evaluation Criteria....................................................... 5 3.2 Planning Criteria Ratings Methodology ............................................................................................... 6 3.2.1 Congestion: HOV Volume Threshold 20,000 Annual Average Daily Volume (AADT) per Lane ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 3.2.2 Travel Time Savings per Mile during the Peak Hour .................................................................. 7 3.2.3 Connectivity ................................................................................................................................. 8 3.2.4 Transit/Express Bus..................................................................................................................... 9 3.2.5 Potential HOV Lane Reliability..................................................................................................... 9 3.3 Methodology to Determine Constructability Criteria Ratings............................................................ 13 3.4 Methodology for Developing Preliminary Cost Estimates ................................................................ 17 3.5 Methodology for Determining Total Project Ratings......................................................................... 19 4.0 Access..................................................................................................................... 23 4.1 HOV Access Planning Evaluation .................................................................................................... 23 4.1.1 HOV Access Design Types ....................................................................................................... 23 4.1.2 Selecting Access Locations ....................................................................................................... 24 4.1.3 HOV Phase II Access Criteria.................................................................................................... 26 4.1.4 Review Process ......................................................................................................................... 27 4.2 System-to-System Interchange Recommendations......................................................................... 31 5.0 Park and Ride......................................................................................................... 35 5.1 HOV Park and Ride Consideration................................................................................................... 35 i HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report 5.1.1 HOV Phase II Park and Ride Rating Criteria............................................................................. 35 5.1.2 Park and Ride Lot Siting and Development Issues ................................................................... 36 6.0 Improvements to Existing HOV System ................................................................. 38 7.0 Financial Plan......................................................................................................... 40 7.1 Traditional Approach to Highway Financing...................................................................................... 40 7.1.1 General Limitations of Traditional Financing ............................................................................. 40 7.1.2 Limitations on HOV Strategic Implementation Plan, 2003-2025 (Tiers 1-4).............................. 42 7.1.3 Extension of the HOV Program to Year 2030............................................................................. 44 7.1.4 Prospects for Increased Federal Funding ................................................................................. 48 7.2 Leveraging Federal Participation....................................................................................................... 49 7.2.1 Accelerated Use of Traditional Federal Sources GARVEES .................................................. 50 7.2.2 Credit Assistance and Loans - TIFIA .......................................................................................... 51 7.3 Augmenting Traditional State and Local Resources ........................................................................ 52 7.3.1 Increasing Statewide Traditional Sources .................................................................................. 52 7.3.2 Increasing Local Traditional Sources.......................................................................................... 54 7.3.3 Public/Private Partnerships........................................................................................................ 55 7.4 New Dedicated Funding Sources..................................................................................................... 59 7.4.1 Roadway Use Fees .................................................................................................................... 60 7.4.2 Area-Specific Motor Fuel Taxes ................................................................................................. 68 7.4.3 Area-Specific Increase in Vehicle Registration Fees................................................................. 70 7.5 Recommendations............................................................................................................................ 72 8.0 Air Quality Analysis ................................................................................................ 75 8.1 Overview........................................................................................................................................... 75 8.2 Year 2025 Alternatives Modeled ...................................................................................................... 75 8.3 Forecasts of VMT for Year 2025 ...................................................................................................... 76 8.4 Comparison of VMT by Year 2025 System Alternative.................................................................... 76 9.0 Next Steps.............................................................................................................. 80 ii HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report 9.1 Establishing a Sustainable HOV System Process .......................................................................... 80 9.1.1 Pre- and Post- Testing of HOV Facilities................................................................................... 81 9.1.2 Data Collection.......................................................................................................................... 81 9.2 Planning Toolkit for Implementation ................................................................................................. 82 9.3 Design Toolkit for Implementation.................................................................................................... 84 List of Tables 2.1 HOV Study Area Limits Blue Corridors 4 3.1 Comparision of Planning Criteria for HOV Study 6 3.2 Meets 20,000 ADT per Lane by Criteria Year 7 3.3 Time Savings per Mile 8 3.4 Connectivity to Transportation Network 9 3.5 Existence of Transit/Express Bus Service 9 3.6 Potential Reliability for HOV Lanes versus General Purpose Lanes 10 3.7 Planning Ratings 11 3.8 Summary of Constructability Criteria 13 3.9 Constructability Ratings 15 3.10 Total Ratings 20 3.11 Project Prioritization Tiers 21 4.1 Proposed HOV Access Locations 28 4.2 System-to-System Interchange Recommendations 32 6.1 Existing HOV Corridors 37 6.2 Alternative Improvements on Existing Corridors 38 7.1 Summary of Estimated Transportation Revenues and Expenditures for 42 Georgia, 2001-2025 7.2 Estimated Traditional Source (State and Federal) Funding for the HOV 43 System Plan, 2003-2025 7.3 Funding Schedule for Tier 1-4 HOV System 2003-2025 44 iii HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report 7.4 Funding Schedule for Tier 1-4 HOV System 2003-2030 7.5 Annual HOV Funds from Extension of Revenues from 2025 to 2030 October 2003 45 46 7.6 Roadway Cost Responsibility per vehicle-mile 53 7.7 Projected Vehicle Registrations 71 7.8 Funding Schedule for Tier 1-4 HOV System (2003-2030) 73 7.9 Summary of Financial Alternatives Considered 74 8.1 Year 2025 ARC Model Output: VMT by Speed Range and Facility Type 76 for HOV System Build Alternative 8.2 Year 2025 ARC Model Output: VMT by Speed Range and Facility Type 77 for ARC Base Alternative 8.3 Year 2025 ARC Model Output: VMT Differentials Comparing HOV 78 System Build with Base Alternative 9.1 Measures of Effectiveness Matrix 81 List of Figures 3.1 HOV Planning Ratings 12 3.2 HOV Constructability Ratings 16 3.3 HOV Prioritization Tiers 22 4.1 I-75 at Northside Drive, Atlanta, GA 23 4.2 I-75, Atlanta, GA 24 4.3 HOV System to System Interchange Recommendations 32 7.1 Estimated Traditional Funds vs. HOV Plan Expenditures 2003-2025 43 7.2 Estimated Annual Traditional Funds vs. HOV Plan Expenditures 2003- 46 2030 7.3 Cumulative Expenditures vs. Revenues 47 7.4 Transportation Finance Corporation Proposal 49 7.5 Standard Traffic Assumptions for 4 directional mainline lanes 63 iv HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report 7.6 Typical Operational Characteristics for 4 directional mainline lanes 7.7 Speeds and Revenues vs ADT/ lane for 4 directional mainline lanes October 2003 64 65 7.8 Estimated Annual HOV Funding with Dedicated Increase in Motor Fuel 70 Taxes 7.9 Estimated Vehicle Registration Revenue from 21-County Area 72 Appendices Appendix A Public Involvement Appendix B Blue Criteria Memo Appendix C Bridge Clearance Analysis Appendix D Cost Estimates Appendix E Access Locations Maps and Typical Section Drawings Appendix F Transit Provider Meeting Summary Appendix G Park and Ride Lot Inventory Appendix H Financial Plan Review of Toured Cities Appendix I Planning Criteria Rating Methodology v HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report 1.0 Introduction October 2003 In September 2001, the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) initiated a contract to develop a High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region. This implementation plan builds on the early HOV planning efforts of the Atlanta Regional Commission's (ARC) 2025 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The purpose of this plan is to provide GDOT and its regional planning partners with a strategy for building HOV lanes now and in the future. Because HOV lanes are just a piece of the transportation network puzzle, this study was coordinated with other modal planning efforts in the region. The methodology and recommendations take into account all transportation modes for all of the study corridors. A successful HOV system depends on a compatible transit system, system connectivity, strategically placed park and ride lots, etc. This plan will serve as a guide for building a total HOV system for the next several years. This plan is an aggressive undertaking to assure that maximum value will be attained from existing and future HOV lanes within the Atlanta region. Phase I, the first six months of the study, consisted of a detailed analysis of HOV corridors identified in the ARC's 2025 RTP. Critical corridors that rated high in constructability, meaning that these projects are easier and less costly to construct based on current conditions, were presented in an Interim Implementation Prioritization List after the first 90 days of study. The highest-ranking projects from that list were presented to GDOT in November 2001 to commence work on these key projects. The following 90 days of the study expanded the evaluation of the 2025 RTP for both planning and constructability factors developed from new and updated data. An updated 180-day list was developed at this stage and did not vary much from the 90-day interim list, reaffirming the earlier findings. Phase II, the final phase of the study, evaluated potential extensions of the HOV system within the 21county Atlanta study area. The methodologies used in the previous phases were confirmed and refined for the purpose of this evaluation. Using the refined methodology, recommendations were proposed for the existing HOV network and for the proposed system extensions. The findings from this evaluation were presented at ten final public meetings held throughout the month of October 2002. These meetings offered draft recommendations, including project prioritization. Comments gathered at these meetings contributed to the recommendations of this final report. (Appendix A) Several additional tasks were performed in Phase II including: an air quality analysis of the HOV system, development of an enforcement plan for the HOV system and an initial evaluation of financial strategies. Reports for each of these tasks are included in the appendices. 1 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report This report presents Phase II of the HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region. It documents the steps taken to get to the final priorities and recommendations. The principal addition to this phase is the evaluation of corridors outside the 2025 RTP boundaries, referred to as the "blue corridors." This expands the HOV study area to the future non-attainment 21-county region. Analyses of these corridors are linked to the previous corridor analyses to form a complete Atlanta regional system- wide HOV plan. It includes the processes of developing guidelines for the blue corridors, presentation of the additional data considered in this analysis and a review of the final evaluation of all factors to complete the prioritization of HOV projects in the region, including how these projects were categorized into a tier system. This report concludes the final phase of the study scope and provides GDOT the appropriate information to move forward in expanding the HOV system and begin the process of implementation. 2 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report 2.0 Determining Limits In 21-County Study Area October 2003 2.1 Task Description The HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region study area includes major limited access facilities in the following 21 counties: Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, Dawson, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding, and Walton. Though the first phase of the HOV study focused on facilities within the ten-county ARC region1, Phase II examined the long-range implementation needs for HOV facilities over the entire 21-County area. The study area extended to the borders of the outer counties, each corridor type was given a color designation; red 2025 RTP projects, green existing HOV and blue projects beyond the 2025 RTP. The purpose of this task was to establish the logical termini of the blue corridors for the design year 2025. Through a technical and planning review, the study area was refined. 2.2 Technical Review Process The modeling team developed an effectiveness rating to evaluate the viability of HOV lanes in 2025 within the 21-County study area corridors. This rating compared estimated person trips carried by HOV lanes versus capacity of the general-purpose lanes. A preliminary analysis of the proposed additions to the system was completed to assess their potential for supporting an effective HOV facility. This evaluation did not include location-specific factors addressed in Phase I, such as constructability and access. Future volumes for the 2025 were projected based on 1990-2000 trends for those links not included in the ARC model link. This methodology accounted for capacity constraints on growth, nationwide trends in aggregate traffic growth, and the outward movement of development patterns. The volumes projected using this methodology were compared with data for outer links of the ARC model for 2025 and appear to be conservative as the ARC data is somewhat higher than the volumes used for this evaluation. The potential effectiveness of HOV lanes on each segment was estimated using a formula based on both distance and projected ADT/lane. An effectiveness rating of 1.0 or more indicated HOV lanes would be viable for a given segment of the system. (For more detailed description, please see Appendix B). 2.3 Planning Review The results of the technical analysis were reviewed in a workshop format, considering planning factors such as the impact of current local development trends and future land uses on the operation of the 1 The ten-county Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) region: Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, and Rockdale. 3 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report highway system. The final determination of logical termini for the revised HOV study area was recommended based on both the effectiveness rating and planning factors. Table 2.1 summarizes the HOV blue corridor study area limits determined for study in Phase II. The final study phase combined the new limits of the blue corridors with the existing 2025 RTP corridors and existing HOV network to develop a complete system (See Appendix I). Table 2.1 HOV Study Area Limits Blue corridors Facility I-75 North I-575 I-85 North I-675 I-985/U.S. 23 SR 400 I-20 East SR 316 SR 154/166 I-285 SR 141 I-85 South I-75 South I-20 West Original Study Limits from SR 16 to SR 53 from I-75 to SR 108 from SR 54 to SR 53 from I-75 to I-285 from I-85 to SR 384 from I-85 to SR 60 from SR 100 to SR 83 from I-85 to U.S. 78 from I-285 to I-75/85 From 20 E to 20 W from I-285 to SR 140 from SR 74 to SR 54 from SR 155 to SR 16 from McKoy Rd to SR 100 Revised Study Limits from SR 16 to SR 20 from I-75 to J. E. Brown Memorial/SR 5 Bus. from SR 14 to SR 211 Unchanged from I-85 to SR 11 from I-85 to SR 306 from SR 100 to SR 142 Unchanged Unchanged Unchanged Unchanged from SR 74 to US 29 Unchanged Unchanged 4 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report 3.0 HOV Rating Criteria October 2003 3.1 HOV System Screening Process Planning Evaluation Criteria The purpose of the screening process of planning factors was to conduct a comparative analysis between the proposed HOV projects and to establish a logical implementation sequence. A review of the original HOV system guidelines that best met the established goals for the Atlanta Region were: Reduce and manage traffic congestion Maximize the use of carpools, vanpools and transit Ensure integration with transit Plan for a complete HOV system that is integral and critical to the entire transportation network Provide reliable travel time savings Increase person throughput Implement HOV only when congestion is persistent Through each phase of the HOV study, similar evaluation criteria2 from the guidelines were used so that facilities were measured in a consistent manner. For Phase I, the following general evaluation criteria topics were used: congestion, travel time, connectivity, and transit. In the final phase, two additional criteria were added: safety and reliability. Though essentially the same criteria were reviewed for each phase, the data requirements and planning horizon varied. The following table summarizes the criteria used for each prioritization analysis of the HOV study as well as the primary data sources. 2 Resource for the evaluation criteria Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) 5 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report Table 3.1 Comparison of Planning Evaluation Criteria for HOV Study October 2003 Congestion Travel Time Connectivity Transit Safety/ Reliability 90 Day Prioritization of ARC RTP projects AADT per lane mile (Data: GDOT 2000 AADT) Time savings per mile for each project (Data: 1998 Skycomp Report) Connectivity to existing system and activity centers Proximity to current or planned Express Bus and complementary facilities 180 Day Prioritization of ARC RTP projects Peak Hour Volume per lane mile (Data: 2005 ARC Model Peak Hour volumes) Time savings per mile and total time savings (Data: 2005 ARC Model Peak Hour volumes) Connectivity to existing system and activity centers Proximity to current or planned Express Bus and complementary facilities 21 County Needs analysis AADT per lane surpassing congestion threshold (Data: 2025 ADT traffic forecast) Time savings per mile and total time savings (Data: 2025 ADT traffic forecast) Connectivity to existing system, activity centers, and system significance Proximity to current, planned or proposed transit service and complementary facilities Accident rate correlation to existing system configuration and ADT volume (Data: GDOT accident rates 1995-1997) 3.2 Planning Criteria Ratings Methodology The initial report, The 90 Day Interim Prioritization Report, briefly considered the planning criteria elements to ensure that higher priority projects reflect a potential for high utilization. The criteria ratings primarily focused on constructability issues in this report due to preliminary rankings of the projects. The planning criteria ratings were revisited in the Six Month Report with a more comprehensive review. The Six Month Report planning criteria served as measures of effectiveness for HOV construction within the surrounding transportation network. The key planning criteria focused on traffic congestion-related elements, access, landuse, park and ride lots and system connectivity. These two interim reports established the planning criteria permitted evaluation of the potential need for HOV within greater Atlanta. For the final prioritization process, the key planning elements focus on traffic congestion-related criteria, complementary network facilities, system connectivity and reliability. The planning horizon for Phase II was year 2025. The methodology for evaluating the entire Atlanta 21-county study area is summarized below. 3.2.1 Congestion: HOV Volume Threshold 20,000 Annual Average Daily Volume (AADT) per Lane Traffic volumes were forecasted to year 2025 for the Atlanta 21-county region using GDOT ten-year historical AADT. The traffic volume forecasts were completed in five-year increments up to year 2025. Using the forecasts, the corridors were evaluated based on annual average daily traffic per lane. A methodology comparing the forecasted volumes to a HOV volume threshold provided a timeline as to when the corridor meets the congestion criteria. The Texas Transportation Institute set a threshold of 6 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report 35,000 vehicles per lane per day as an indicator for successful HOV. However, for a long-term evaluation, a threshold of 20,000 to 25,000 vehicles per lane was used to indicate such time when HOV becomes viable. This recommendation is based upon a review of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) HOV corridors examined during Phase I. In Atlanta's existing HOV system, average daily volumes of 20,000 to 25,000 per lane carry levels of congestion that are sufficient to justify reasonable HOV demand. In addition, 25,000 vehicles per day per lane would equate to a volume of between 2,000 and 2,500 vehicles per lane per hour assuming a peak hour or "K" factor of approximately 8% to 10%, respectively. These peak hour volumes are considered very near or, in some cases, beyond capacity of a basic freeway lane, depending on the level of urbanization of an area. (Drivers in more suburban and rural areas typically have less tolerance for congestion than in highly urbanized areas. Thus, freeway lane capacities are somewhat less in these areas.) If a location meets an assumed congestion threshold, it does not automatically mean that HOV is an appropriate transportation treatment for that location. Daily, predictable congestion is just one screen for HOV. It is also important that users can gain benefit from the HOV because services are in place to complement HOV and that a given section of highway corridor enhances the operation of the system overall. Planning criteria ratings for congestion were assigned as follows: Table 3.2 - Meets 20,000 ADT per Lane by Critical Year Rating 2 4 6 8 Definition Meets Threshold by 2005. Meets Threshold by 2015. Meets Threshold by 2025. Does Not Meet Threshold or Does So Beyond 2025. 3.2.2 Travel Time Savings per Mile during the Peak Hour Travel time savings benefit HOV users when they choose to carpool, vanpool or take transit. On a congested facility, a typical "LOS C" HOV lane generally provides a shorter and more reliable trip time than a single occupant vehicle (SOV) lanes. Travel time savings accrued by HOV lane users is a measure of effectiveness generally used to validate HOV effectiveness versus SOV on a general-purpose system. However, estimating travel time savings for the study area based on future travel demand provides another way to evaluate HOV potential in a corridor. 7 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report To estimate travel time savings, the 2025 traffic volume projections were used to estimate a peak hour volume. Based on observed and collected traffic volumes from the HOV system, an eight percent peak hour factor and a sixty/forty directional split during the peak hour were assumed. As in the first study phase, an average free flow speed of 70 mph in the HOV lanes is assumed. Speeds in the general- purpose lanes are correlated to the level-of-service or densities consistent with the GDOT Skycomp Report data and findings. The 1998 Skycomp Report conducted a series of aerial photo-surveys of highway traffic quality in the metropolitan Atlanta planning region. The purpose was to obtain level of service and traffic data to support regional planning activities. This study used this data for level of service and congestion analysis. Travel time savings were estimated by calculating the difference between an average free flow speed at 70 mph3 in an HOV lane and the estimated reduced speed in the congested SOV lanes. The total time saved in minutes was divided by the section length in miles, resulting in a time savings per mile. The relative rating system assigned to corridors is shown in Table 3.3: Table 3.3 - Time Savings per Mile Rating 2 4 6 8 Definition Equal to or greater than 1 minute per mile time savings and/or greatly exceeding 5 minutes total travel time savings. Equal to or greater than 0.75 but less than 1 minute per mile time savings and/or exceeding 5 minutes total travel time savings. Equal to or greater than 0.5 but less than 0.75 minute per mile time savings. Less than 0.5 minute per mile time savings. 3.2.3 Connectivity This planning element summarizes the utility of the corridor in terms of connectivity to the existing system, major activity centers, and/or transit. The connectivity issues in the final planning evaluation are similar to the initial HOV screening process. However, during this phase of the study the focus was placed on how the greater Atlanta area corridors will phase into the plan for the existing system and planned RTP corridors. Not only is connectivity to the existing system and activity centers important, but system significance was identified, i.e., does this addition to the system provide value and better connectivity overall. Though the connectivity rating is subjective, it tries to answer, "How does this corridor addition to the HOV system enhance the overall HOV system and the transportation network?" The rating definitions are shown in Table 3.4. 3 Defined by Skycomp, Inc., Traffic Quality on the Atlanta Regional Highway System, Final Report, Fall 1998. 8 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report Table 3.4 - Connectivity to Transportation Network October 2003 Rating 2 4 6 8 Definition The corridor section directly extends and connects to the existing system. The corridor section provides direct connectivity to the existing or future RTP system and has a high level of utility or value. The corridor section has independent utility, and/or connects to sub-regional population or employment centers including towns. The corridor section requires one or more project sections to be implemented to become fully operational. 3.2.4 Transit/Express Bus Transit usage in an HOV system is critical to meet the facility's purpose, moving more people per lane than on a general-purpose lane. HOV lanes support Express Bus service by providing competitive travel times versus SOVs in congested conditions on the general-purpose lanes. In addition, direct access to and from the local roadway network can provide additional travel time savings and ease of operation. The HOV study team coordinated with existing transit providers for the Atlanta region in the development of recommendations for the HOV system including: MARTA, Cobb Community Transit, Gwinnett County Transit and Clayton C-Tran Transit. In addition, the team coordinated with the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) as they developed the Regional Transit Action Plan (RTAP). In consultation with GRTA and the regional transit providers, the transit ratings used in Phase I were revised to reflect current plans for Express Bus service throughout the Atlanta Metropolitan area. The transit ratings used in Phase II are shown in Table 3.5: Table 3.5 - Existence of Transit / Express Bus Service Rating 4 8 Definition The corridor currently has in operation or has programmed Express Bus service including park and ride facilities. There is no Express Bus service currently in service or planned. 3.2.5 Potential HOV Lane Reliability Providing a safe and reliable system is an important guideline for developing additional HOV lanes. Accident rates are related to HOV reliability because, as all highway users are aware, any accident, from minor rear-end collision to a traffic fatality incident in the general-purpose lanes may contribute to travel delay. The severity of the delay is not as important as the fact that the delay occurs. By building barrierseparated HOV lanes, the HOV user can avoid delay caused either by congestion or traffic incidents in the general-purpose lanes. A barrier separated system has been recommended for implementation, 9 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report where feasible, based on guidelines established during the first 90 days of the study. Guidelines for the implementation of the HOV system may be found in Technical Report Four, HOV Policy Guidelines. Incorporating safety and reliability into the list of planning evaluation criteria presented some data and information hurdles. Having collected traffic accident, injury and fatality rate information for the study area, the question of how the data could be transformed into meaningful information was considered. It was determined that safety data correlate to reliability of the system based on the existing system configuration and traffic volume. Consequently, the frequency of accidents in any given corridor may be related to the prevailing geometric access and traffic conditions in each corridor. Variations in the Atlanta region's freeway corridors include: A total number of lanes from 4 to 16 total lanes Varying frequency (i.e., spacing) of interchanges Different number of interchanges in any given section of highway Varying degrees of traffic congestion The relationship between the number of lanes, the number of interchanges, the average spacing of those interchanges, and traffic volume were examined to determine if the rate of accidents within a defined highway section correlated. The analyses showed that a correlation did exist between traffic volumes, interchange spacing, and increased accident rates. By using the historical accident data aggregated by corridor section, a pattern was found that could be used to rate the HOV corridors for reliability. The reliability rating puts a premium on rating more unreliable, higher accident facilities over lower accident facilities since it is assumed that a barrier-separated HOV facilities would provide more travel reliability and less delay. Table 3.6 Potential Reliability For HOV Lanes versus General-purpose Lanes Rating 2 4 6 8 Definition The facility has a high average daily volume, closely spaced interchanges, and a high annual accident rate. The facility has two of the following: a high average daily volume, closely spaced interchanges, and/or a high annual accident rate. The facility has one of the following: a high average daily volume, closely spaced interchanges, and/or a high annual accident rate. None does not meet the conditions. 10 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Table 3.7 - Planning Ratings Corridor From Description To Length AADT (Miles) per Lane YR 2000 Planning Rating Congestion Planning Factors Travel Time Connectivity Transit Safety/ Reliability I-20 East Columbia Drive Evans Mill Drive 8.0 22,700 2 2 2 2 4 2 I-20 East Evans Mill Drive SR 162/Salem Road 9.6 15,400 5 4 4 6 4 6 I-20 East SR 162/Salem Road SR 12/Clark Street (Exit 90) 6.2 10,700 6 6 8 4 8 6 I-20 East SR 12/Clark Street (Exit 90) SR 142 3.8 7,200 7 8 8 6 8 6 I-20 West I-20 West I-20 West I-20 West I-20 West I-20 West I-20 West I-75/85 SR 280/Holmes Rd SR 6/Thornton Road SR 5/Bill Arp Road Liberty Road SR 113 SR 1/US 27 SR 280/Holmes Rd SR 6/Thornton Road SR 5/Bill Arp Road Liberty Road SR 113 SR 1/US 27 SR 100 5.1 21,100 3 2 2 4 4 2 8.1 23,700 3 2 2 6 4 2 9.9 17,100 4 4 2 6 4 6 8.1 17,000 6 4 2 8 8 6 7.4 14,200 6 4 4 8 8 6 7.7 10,900 8 8 8 8 8 6 6.4 9,600 8 8 8 8 8 6 I-285 (N) I-285 (N) I-285 (N) I-285 (S) I-285 (S) I-285 (S) I-285 (S) I-285 (S) I-75 North I-20 East I-20 West I-20 East I-675 I-75 South I-85 South I-85 South I-85 North I-85 North I-75 North I-675 I-75 South I-85 South I-85 South I-20 West 13.1 24,500 2 2 2 2 4 2 13.0 22,700 3 2 2 6 4 2 9.6 18,400 3 2 2 6 4 2 6.1 16,500 5 4 6 6 4 6 5.8 16,700 5 4 2 8 4 6 4.0 16,400 6 4 4 8 8 4 1.3 12,100 7 6 8 8 8 4 10.5 17,000 4 4 2 6 4 4 I-575 I-575 Sixes Road SR 20 SR 20 SR 5 Bus/JE Brown 7.5 10,900 6 6 8 8 4 6 2.1 5,800 8 8 8 8 8 6 SR 141 I-285 SR 140 3.6 21,700 4 2 2 4 4 6 I-75 South Aviation Blvd SR 54 6.4 20,800 2 2 2 2 4 2 I-75 South SR 54 Eagles Landing Pkwy 8.2 14,400 4 4 2 6 4 6 I-75 South Eagles Landing Pkwy SR 155 7.8 18,800 4 2 2 6 4 6 I-75 South SR 155 Bill Gardner Parkway 4.6 15,600 5 4 2 6 8 6 I-75 South Bill Gardner Parkway SR 16 6.6 14,700 5 4 2 6 8 6 I-75 North Wade Green Road SR 92/Alabama Road 4.7 17,300 4 4 2 4 4 6 I-75 North SR 92/Alabama Road Old Allatoona Road 6.6 17,100 5 4 2 6 8 6 I-75 North Old Allatoona Road SR 20/Canton Highway 6.7 11,400 7 6 8 6 8 6 I-85 North SR 316 I-85 North Hamilton Mill Road Hamilton Mill Road SR 211 13.8 15,400 4 4 4 2 4 6 6.3 11,000 6 6 8 4 8 6 I-85 South I-75/I-85 S. of Riverdale Road 6.3 19,750 2 2 2 2 4 2 I-85 South S. of Riverdale Road S. of I-285 4.2 16,200 3 4 2 4 4 2 I-85 South S. of I-285 SR 74 6.4 13,700 6 4 8 6 4 6 I-85 South SR 74 SR 154 10.0 12,100 6 6 8 6 4 8 I-85 South SR 154 US 29/SR 14 10.2 8,600 7 8 8 8 4 8 I-675 I-75 I-285 10.0 12,100 7 6 6 8 8 6 SR 316 I-85 SR 20 7.5 13,800 4 4 6 2 4 4 SR 316 SR 20 Drowning Creek Road 7.5 13,700 6 4 6 6 8 4 SR 316 Drowning Creek Road SR 11 8.5 8,500 8 8 8 6 8 8 SR 316 SR 11 US 78 12.6 6,300 8 8 8 6 8 8 SR 400 I-85 Lenox Road/BH Loop 2.4 19,600 4 2 2 6 8 4 SR 400 Lenox Road/BH Loop I-285 4.3 18,200 4 4 2 4 8 4 SR 400 I-285 Holcomb Bridge Rd 8.1 24,900 3 2 2 4 4 4 SR 400 Holcomb Bridge Rd McFarland Road 8.9 22,500 4 2 2 6 4 4 SR 400 McFarland Road SR 141/Bethelview Rd 4.2 15,300 4 4 2 4 4 6 SR 400 SR 141/Bethelview Rd Bald Ridge Marina Rd 4.7 14,000 4 4 2 6 4 6 SR 400 Bald Ridge Marina Rd Keith Bridge Road 3.6 10,400 6 6 8 8 4 6 SR 154 I-75/I-85 I-285 5.8 13,500 5 4 6 8 4 2 I-985 I-85 SR 20/Buford Drive 3.6 14,200 4 4 2 4 4 6 I-985 SR 20/Buford Drive SR 347/Friendship Rd 4.4 11,400 7 6 8 6 8 6 I-985 SR 347/Friendship Rd Mundy Mill Road 7.7 10,200 7 8 8 6 8 6 I-985 Mundy Mill Road SR 369/JJ Parkway 8.2 7,800 7 8 8 6 8 6 US 78 US 78 I-285 East Park Place East Park Place SR 84 8.9 15,500 5 4 4 8 4 4 7.5 10,500 6 6 6 8 4 4 Figure 3.1 - HOV Planning Ratings Existing Under Development 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report 3.3 Methodology to Determine Constructability Criteria Ratings October 2003 Constructability ratings used for Phase II were the same as those used in Phase I. Engineering/design staff from the project team utilized the information gathered from bridge surveys, field surveys, aerial photography, knowledge of planned/programmed projects, and general knowledge of the project corridors to determine constructability criteria ratings for each project corridor. The criteria ratings for constructability were based upon a scale from 1 to 10, with one being the easiest to construct and 10 being the most difficult to construct. Four constructability factors were assigned ratings by consensus from the senior engineers and designers in an open forum setting. Representatives from GDOT and the FHWA participated in this assessment. The four factors are as follows: Available Right-of-Way (R/W) - Factor associated with the amount of land needed to construct HOV facility. Typical Section - Factor associated with construction cost and overall difficulty of constructing the HOV facility. Bridge Replacements - Factor associated with the number of bridges to be replaced, the construction costs, difficulty in maintaining traffic, and impacts to approach roadways. Environmental - Factor associated with potential environmental impacts (e.g. 4(f) properties, large wetlands, environmental justice issues), and project development time. Table 3.8 - Summary of Constructability Criteria 1 (Best) 10 (Worst) Affects Available Abundant R/W Right-of-Way (R/W) No R/W Available Required R/W, Ability to Build Desirable Typical Section, Retaining Walls Required, Project Development Time Typical Section Bridge Replacements Relatively low cost per mile Relatively high cost per mile Construction Cost Flat, Little Grade Change Very Rough, 2:1 or Greater Earthwork, Retaining Wall Heights, Side Barrier or Across X-Section Slopes from Road Guardrail Required Excessive Clear Zone,Little Clear Zone, MostlyQuantity of Side Barrier, Guardrail, or Retaining Few Barriers Barriers Walls Very Rural, Little TrafficVery Urban, Heavy TrafficDifficulty of Maintenance of Traffic, Noise Walls Congestion Congestion Required, Neighborhood Concerns Long Interchange Spacing,Short Interchange Spacing,Number of Bridges, Difficulty of Maintenance of Few Cross-Roads Many Cross-Roads Traffic Replace No Bridges Replace Several Bridges Bridge Costs, Construction Time, Maintenance of Traffic, Required R/W on Cross Street Environmental No EnvironmentallyExtensive EnvironmentallyPotential Environmental Impacts, Project Sensitive Areas Sensitive Areas Development Time 13 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report The rating criteria for bridge replacements was based upon horizontal bridge clearance data gathered during the field surveys (see Appendix C). Specifically, an analysis was performed comparing the existing horizontal bridge clearance data to the required minimum and desirable horizontal clearances for the selected HOV facility type for each project. The design team then identified those bridges to be replaced as part of each HOV project. Some existing bridges that would provide less than desirable horizontal clearance were identified to remain. Bridges were not proposed for reconstruction in cases where design exceptions were acceptable. Once the number of bridge replacements was determined, a rating for each corridor was established. Note that the bridge replacement rating does not represent the actual number required, but rather a qualitative priority rating value between 1 and 10 that corresponds to the number of bridges to be reconstructed, as compared to the other corridors. Table 3.9 shows the constructability ratings and factors for each of the HOV projects, along with their estimated construction cost. Figure 3.2 graphically illustrates the constructability ratings for each of the HOV projects. 14 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Table 3.9 - Constructability Ratings Corridor From Description To Length (Miles) Study Cost Estimate $ Million Constructability Rating Constructability Factors Available R/W Typical Section Bridge Environ- Replacements mental I-20 East Columbia Drive Evans Mill Drive 8.0 $ 140.9 5 I-20 East Evans Mill Drive SR 162/Salem Road 9.6 $ 145.0 4 I-20 East SR 162/Salem Road SR 12/Clark Street (Exit 90) 6.2 $ 108.7 4 I-20 East SR 12/Clark Street (Exit 90) SR 142 3.8 $ 48.2 4 I-20 West I-20 West I-20 West I-20 West I-20 West I-20 West I-20 West I-75/85 SR 280/Holmes Rd SR 6/Thornton Road SR 5/Bill Arp Road Liberty Road SR 113 SR 1/US 27 SR 280/Holmes Rd SR 6/Thornton Road SR 5/Bill Arp Road Liberty Road SR 113 SR 1/US 27 SR 100 5.1 $ 343.4 8 8.1 $ 117.3 3 9.9 $ 136.1 2 8.1 $ 90.5 2 7.4 $ 82.8 2 7.7 $ 85.1 2 6.4 $ 65.4 2 I-285 (N) I-285 (N) I-285 (N) I-285 (S) I-285 (S) I-285 (S) I-285 (S) I-285 (S) I-75 North I-20 East I-20 West I-20 East I-675 I-75 South I-85 South I-85 South I-85 North I-85 North I-75 North I-675 I-75 South I-85 South I-85 South I-20 West 13.1 $1,078.5 7 13.0 $ 764.9 7 9.6 $ 418.7 6 6.1 $ 287.9 5 5.8 $ 102.9 5 4.0 $ 114.0 6 1.3 $ 15.0 6 10.5 $ 406.9 6 I-575 I-575 Sixes Road SR 20 SR 20 SR 5 Bus/JE Brown 7.5 $ 115.4 2 2.1 $ 29.0 3 SR 141 I-285 SR 140 3.6 $ 56.3 6 I-75 South I-75 South I-75 South I-75 South I-75 South Aviation Blvd SR 54 Eagles Landing Pkwy SR 155 Bill Gardner Parkway SR 54 Eagles Landing Pkwy SR 155 Bill Gardner Parkway SR 16 6.4 $ 103.4 5 8.2 $ 167.8 3 7.8 $ 119.3 3 4.6 $ 50.8 3 6.6 $ 78.8 3 I-75 North Wade Green Road I-75 North SR 92/Alabama Road I-75 North Old Allatoona Road SR 92/Alabama Road Old Allatoona Road SR 20/Canton Highway 4.7 $ 62.0 3 6.6 $ 88.9 3 6.7 $ 81.3 3 I-85 North SR 316 I-85 North Hamilton Mill Road Hamilton Mill Road SR 211 13.8 $ 235.8 3 6.3 $ 65.8 2 I-85 South I-85 South I-85 South I-85 South I-85 South I-75/I-85 S. of Riverdale Road S. of I-285 SR 74 SR 154 S. of Riverdale Road S. of I-285 SR 74 SR 154 US 29/SR 14 6.3 $ 176.8 7 4.2 $ 89.4 7 6.4 $ 61.2 3 10.0 $ 104.7 3 10.2 $ 111.8 3 I-675 I-75 I-285 10.0 $ 116.7 2 SR 316 SR 316 SR 316 SR 316 I-85 SR 20 Drowning Creek Road SR 11 SR 20 Drowning Creek Road SR 11 US 78 7.5 $ 159.1 3 7.5 $ 42.6 3 8.5 $ 47.7 3 12.6 $ 67.2 3 SR 400 SR 400 SR 400 SR 400 SR 400 SR 400 SR 400 I-85 Lenox Road/BH Loop I-285 Holcomb Bridge Rd McFarland Road SR 141/Bethelview Rd Bald Ridge Marina Rd Lenox Road/BH Loop I-285 Holcomb Bridge Rd McFarland Road SR 141/Bethelview Rd Bald Ridge Marina Rd Keith Bridge Road 2.4 $ 112.0 6 4.3 $ 139.0 5 8.1 $ 148.7 4 8.9 $ 135.5 3 4.2 $ 57.4 3 4.7 $ 46.8 3 3.6 $ 40.0 3 SR 154 I-75/I-85 I-285 5.8 $ 425.3 8 I-985 I-985 I-985 I-985 I-85 SR 20/Buford Drive SR 347/Friendship Rd Mundy Mill Road SR 20/Buford Drive SR 347/Friendship Rd Mundy Mill Road SR 369/JJ Parkway 3.6 $ 51.5 3 4.4 $ 44.3 2 7.7 $ 106.0 3 8.2 $ 89.5 3 US 78 US 78 I-285 East Park Place East Park Place SR 84 8.9 $ 137.7 4 7.5 $ 54.3 5 4 4 7 4 7 4 3 2 7 4 3 2 7 4 3 2 8 9 7 8 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 8 8 8 4 7 8 9 4 7 7 7 4 5 6 7 4 6 6 7 2 8 8 5 4 8 8 3 4 5 6 8 4 2 3 1 2 3 5 1 4 8 8 3 4 6 6 6 2 3 4 2 2 3 4 2 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 2 2 3 4 1 4 3 4 1 4 3 4 1 4 2 4 2 2 2 4 2 2 8 7 8 6 8 7 8 6 3 4 3 2 3 4 3 2 3 4 2 2 2 3 1 2 3 3 2 3 5 3 1 3 4 4 1 2 4 4 1 2 8 8 2 4 6 5 2 6 5 4 5 4 3 3 2 2 4 4 1 2 4 4 1 2 4 4 1 2 8 8 8 8 3 4 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 4 2 2 3 4 2 2 3 4 5 5 9 2 1 6 Figure 3.2 - HOV Constructability Ratings Existing Under Development 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report 3.4 Methodology for Developing Preliminary Cost Estimates October 2003 Cost estimates for the recommended typical section of each project were developed and are included in Table 3.9. A rational procedure for producing realistic cost estimates was developed for this study, and this procedure was coded into Microsoft Excel spreadsheets represented by the summary sheets found in Appendix D. Individual spreadsheets were produced for each of the study projects. The spreadsheet format facilitates "what if" analyses by modifying the input data and included provisions for side by side comparisons of different typical section types. Due to the relatively detailed data, the resulting cost estimates are believed to be significantly more accurate than typical planning/programming-level cost estimates, although not as accurate as conceptual cost estimates. The cost estimates for each of the projects were developed by establishing a "Typical Section Cost", then adding costs for bridge replacements required and for planned HOV interchanges, including system-tosystem interchanges. The "Typical Section Cost" portion of the estimate allows inputs for project length, mainline bridge lengths, and existing and proposed typical section items such as: number of lanes by type, lane widths, shoulder widths, median widths, and clear zone widths. Ratings for clear zone and terrain were input for each project and are used by the spreadsheet to estimate guardrail lengths, side barrier lengths and retaining wall lengths and heights. These inputs allowed for detailed estimates for pavement, drainage, walls, barriers, mainline bridge widening, erosion control, signing & marking, ATMS, noise walls, and other items normally associated with the roadway typical section. All typical section unit costs were based on detailed estimate unit costs from projects recently constructed by the Department. Right of Way costs along the typical section were typically not included as it was assumed that the facility could be built in the existing right of way by constructing retaining walls Estimated right of way costs were included for any bridge replacements and HOV interchanges. Each existing bridge over the mainline was evaluated by comparing existing clear opening widths with typical section requirements for the HOV project. A decision was made to retain or replace the existing bridge. This is noted for each bridge on the project cost estimate summary sheets included in Appendix D along with a notation if a design exception is required for those bridges to remain. For those bridges without desirable clearance, the width the bridge is lacking for desirable clearance is included. Should future considerations change the decision to retain or replace a bridge; the cost can be easily added or subtracted as needed as replacement costs were typically included for all bridges. Replacement costs were not included for some bridges where it was anticipated that the bridge would be reconstructed under a separate RTP project prior to construction of the HOV facility. The replacement costs were based on 17 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report estimated bridge dimensions and square foot costs, typical section costs for an appropriate length of the cross street, and estimated right of way costs. A cost estimate for each anticipated HOV access or interchange is included on the summary sheets. These are listed individually for ease of updating the cost estimate as the project concept is adjusted. These cost estimates were developed in the same manner as the bridge replacement cost estimates with the addition of costs for the ramps. Cost estimates were prepared for all potential system-to-system interchange movements. These were based on rough layouts for each movement to estimate length of ramps and bridges, and prepared in a manner similar to the bridge replacements. Each recommended system-to-system movement is itemized in the summary sheet. Summaries of all system-to-system movement cost estimates are included in Appendix D. Some of these include costs for reconstruction of freeway sections with existing HOV lanes to allow for the introduction of the system-to-system ramps into the median. 18 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report 3.5 Methodology for Determining Total Project Ratings October 2003 Total project ratings were based on team consensus review of the planning and constructability elements. A collective decision-making process assessed each project for the following: 1. Planning factor rating 2. Constructability factor rating 3. Impending improvements funded in the Atlanta RTP 4. How the corridor fits into a "system of improvements." The rating process has been redefined through the course of the study; both the 90-day and six-month priority rankings were a comparison of constructability and planning factors. These earlier prioritization lists favored constructability with special consideration towards projects in the 2025 RTP, and reflected the desire for early implementation of segments of the HOV system As the study progressed, it was determined that greater weight should be given to the planning factors for the final rating. This final rating indicated that each project was ranked not only on its individual criteria, but on its relationship to the entire HOV system and the progression of the transportation network as a whole. The final rating applied the planning rating twice and constructability rating once to determine the final average for each project (2 X planning rating + constructability rating/3 = total rating). Once a final rating was assigned to all projects, projects were prioritized and grouped by tier, with each project from a tier having the same priority. Projects would be selected by tier, but in the event of budgetary constraints, a smaller, more affordable project could be chosen from another tier. This tier system allows for more flexibility when GDOT begins to fund projects. Flexibility is needed in order to match projects to the amount of available funding. The recommended tiers range from 1-7. Based on a similar level of funding for HOV projects in the 2025 RTP, tiers 1-4 are recommended for inclusion in the 2030 RTP. Tier 5 would be evaluated on a projectby-project basis for inclusion in the 2030 RTP. Tiers 6 and 7 should be part of the plan's text so that the public is aware of them at this early planning stage. As the RTP is updated, these projects may be evaluated for inclusion. An appropriate level of funding for HOV facilities must be determined for the 2030 RTP to ultimately determine project inclusion into the 2030 RTP update. Detailed information on funding scenarios and sources may be found in section 7.0. 19 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Table 3.10 - Total Ratings Corridor From Description To Length (Miles) Study Cost Estimate $ Million I-20 East I-20 East I-20 East I-20 East Columbia Drive Evans Mill Drive SR 162/Salem Road SR 12/Clark Street (Exit 90) I-20 West I-20 West I-20 West I-20 West I-20 West I-20 West I-20 West I-75/85 SR 280/Holmes Rd SR 6/Thornton Road SR 5/Bill Arp Road Liberty Road SR 113 SR 1/US 27 I-285 (N) I-285 (N) I-285 (N) I-285 (S) I-285 (S) I-285 (S) I-285 (S) I-285 (S) I-75 North I-20 East I-20 West I-20 East I-675 I-75 South I-85 South I-85 South I-575 I-575 Sixes Road SR 20 SR 141 I-285 I-75 South I-75 South I-75 South I-75 South I-75 South Aviation Blvd SR 54 Eagles Landing Pkwy SR 155 Bill Gardner Parkway I-75 North Wade Green Road I-75 North SR 92/Alabama Road I-75 North Old Allatoona Road I-85 North SR 316 I-85 North Hamilton Mill Road I-85 South I-85 South I-85 South I-85 South I-85 South I-75/I-85 S. of Riverdale Road S. of I-285 SR 74 SR 154 I-675 I-75 SR 316 SR 316 SR 316 SR 316 I-85 SR 20 Drowning Creek Road SR 11 SR 400 SR 400 SR 400 SR 400 SR 400 SR 400 SR 400 I-85 Lenox Road/BH Loop I-285 Holcomb Bridge Rd McFarland Road SR 141/Bethelview Rd Bald Ridge Marina Rd SR 154 I-75/I-85 I-985 I-985 I-985 I-985 I-85 SR 20/Buford Drive SR 347/Friendship Rd Mundy Mill Road US 78 US 78 I-285 East Park Place Evans Mill Drive SR 162/Salem Road SR 12/Clark Street (Exit 90) SR 142 SR 280/Holmes Rd SR 6/Thornton Road SR 5/Bill Arp Road Liberty Road SR 113 SR 1/US 27 SR 100 I-85 North I-85 North I-75 North I-675 I-75 South I-85 South I-85 South I-20 West SR 20 SR 5 Bus/JE Brown SR 140 SR 54 Eagles Landing Pkwy SR 155 Bill Gardner Parkway SR 16 SR 92/Alabama Road Old Allatoona Road SR 20/Canton Highway Hamilton Mill Road SR 211 S. of Riverdale Road S. of I-285 SR 74 SR 154 US 29/SR 14 I-285 SR 20 Drowning Creek Road SR 11 US 78 Lenox Road/BH Loop I-285 Holcomb Bridge Rd McFarland Road SR 141/Bethelview Rd Bald Ridge Marina Rd Keith Bridge Road I-285 SR 20/Buford Drive SR 347/Friendship Rd Mundy Mill Road SR 369/JJ Parkway East Park Place SR 84 8.0 $ 140.9 9.6 $ 145.0 6.2 $ 108.7 3.8 $ 48.2 5.1 $ 343.4 8.1 $ 117.3 9.9 $ 136.1 8.1 $ 90.5 7.4 $ 82.8 7.7 $ 85.1 6.4 $ 65.4 13.1 $ 1,078.5 13.0 $ 764.9 9.6 $ 418.7 6.1 $ 287.9 5.8 $ 102.9 4.0 $ 114.0 1.3 $ 15.0 10.5 $ 406.9 7.5 $ 115.4 2.1 $ 29.0 3.6 $ 56.3 6.4 $ 103.4 8.2 $ 167.8 7.8 $ 119.3 4.6 $ 50.8 6.6 $ 78.8 4.7 $ 62.0 6.6 $ 88.9 6.7 $ 81.3 13.8 $ 235.8 6.3 $ 65.8 6.3 $ 176.8 4.2 $ 61.2 6.4 $ 130.9 10.0 $ 104.7 10.2 $ 111.8 10.0 $ 116.7 7.5 $ 159.1 7.5 $ 42.6 8.5 $ 47.7 12.6 $ 67.2 2.4 $ 112.0 4.3 $ 139.0 8.1 $ 148.7 8.9 $ 135.5 4.2 $ 57.4 4.7 $ 46.8 3.6 $ 40.0 5.8 $ 425.3 3.6 $ 51.5 4.4 $ 44.3 7.7 $ 106.0 8.2 $ 89.5 8.9 $ 137.7 7.5 $ 54.3 Total 3.0 4.7 5.3 6.0 4.7 3.0 3.3 4.7 4.7 6.0 6.0 3.7 4.3 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.7 4.7 4.7 6.3 4.7 3.0 3.7 3.7 4.3 4.3 3.7 4.3 5.7 3.7 4.7 3.7 4.3 5.0 5.0 5.7 5.3 3.7 5.0 6.3 6.3 4.7 4.3 3.3 3.7 3.7 3.7 5.0 6.0 3.7 5.3 5.7 5.7 4.7 5.7 Ratings Planning Rating Constructability Rating Other RTP Improvement 2 5 2010-Widen 6 to 8 5 4 6 4 7 4 3 8 3 3 2007-C-D System & Basic 4 2 6 2 6 2 8 2 8 2 2 7 2010-Intrchng Reconstr(4) 3 7 2006-Intrchng Reconstr(1) 3 6 2006-Intrchng Reconstr(6) 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 6 4 6 6 2 8 3 4 6 2 5 2005-Widen, Int Reconstr(2) 4 3 2003-Intrchng Reconstr(2) 4 3 2005-Intrchng Reconstr(2) 5 3 5 3 4 3 5 3 7 3 4 3 2005-Widen, Int Reconstr(1) 6 2 2 7 3 7 6 3 6 3 7 3 7 2 4 3 6 3 2015-Lmtd Access Upgrade 8 3 8 3 4 6 4 5 3 4 2008-C-D, Interchg Recon(1) 4 3 2015-Widen 4-6 4 3 4 3 6 3 5 8 4 3 7 2 7 3 7 3 5 4 6 5.0 2025-Lmtd Access Upgrade HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Table 3.11 - Project Prioritization Tiers Tier Tier 2 Tier 1 Tier 3 Tier 4 Corridor From Description To County Study Length Cost (Miles) Estimate $ Million AADT per Lane YR 2000 I-85 North SR 316 I-20 West I-20 West SR 316 I-85 SR 280/Holmes Rd SR 6/Thornton Road Hamilton Mill Road SR 20 SR 6/Thornton Road SR 5/Bill Arp Road I-20 East Columbia Drive I-75 South Aviation Blvd SR 400 I-285 Evans Mill Drive SR 54 Holcomb Bridge Rd I-285 (N) I-75 North SR 400 Holcomb Bridge Rd I-85 South I-75/I-85 I-75 South Eagles Landing Pkwy I-75 North Wade Green Road SR 400 McFarland Road I-75 South SR 54 I-985 I-85 SR 400 SR 141/Bethelview Rd I-85 North McFarland Road S. of Riverdale Road SR 155 SR 92/Alabama Road SR 141/Bethelview Rd Eagles Landing Pkwy SR 20/Buford Drive Bald Ridge Marina Rd I-285 (N) I-20 West I-285 (N) I-20 East SR 400 Lenox Road/BH Loop I-75 North SR 92/Alabama Road I-85 South S. of Riverdale Road I-75 South SR 155 I-75 South Bill Gardner Parkway I-75 North I-85 North I-285 Old Allatoona Road S. of I-285 Bill Gardner Parkway SR 16 SR 141 I-285 I-20 West I-75/85 SR 400 I-85 I-20 West SR 5/Bill Arp Road I-285 (S) I-85 South US 78 I-285 I-20 East Evans Mill Drive I-20 West Liberty Road I-85 North Hamilton Mill Road I-575 Sixes Road SR 140 SR 280/Holmes Rd Lenox Road/BH Loop Liberty Road I-20 West East Park Place SR 162/Salem Road SR 113 SR 211 SR 20 I-285 (S) I-675 I-285 (S) I-20 East I-85 South S. of I-285 SR 316 SR 20 I-85 South SR 74 SR 400 Bald Ridge Marina Rd I-675 I-75 I-985 SR 20/Buford Drive I-20 East SR 162/Salem Road I-75 South I-675 SR 74 Drowning Creek Road SR 154 Keith Bridge Road I-285 SR 347/Friendship Rd SR 12/Clark Street (Exit 90) I-75 North Old Allatoona Road SR 20/Canton Highway US 78 East Park Place SR 84 I-985 SR 347/Friendship Rd Mundy Mill Road I-85 South SR 154 US 29/SR 14 I-985 Mundy Mill Road SR 369/JJ Parkway I-285 (S) I-75 South I-85 South SR 154 I-75/I-85 I-285 I-20 West SR 113 SR 1/US 27 I-20 West SR 1/US 27 SR 100 I-20 East SR 12/Clark Street (Exit 90) SR 142 SR 316 Drowning Creek Road SR 11 SR 316 SR 11 US 78 I-575 SR 20 SR 5 Bus/JE Brown I-285 (S) I-85 South I-85 South Gwinnett Gwinnett Fulton/Cobb Douglas DeKalb Clayton Fulton Cobb/Fulton/DeKalb Fulton/Forsyth Fulton Henry Cobb Forsyth Clayton/Henry Gwinnett Forsyth Fulton/Cobb DeKalb Fulton Bartow Fulton Henry Henry/Spalding DeKalb/Gwinnett Fulton Fulton Douglas Clayton/Fulton DeKalb DeKalb/Rockdale Douglas/Carroll Gwinnett/Barrow Cherokee DeKalb/Fulton/Clayton DeKalb Fulton Gwinnett Fulton/Coweta Forsyth Henry/DeKalb Gwinnett/Hall Rockdale/Newton Bartow Gwinnett Hall Coweta Hall Clayton Fulton Carroll Carroll/Haralson Newton Gwinnett Gwinnett/Barrow Cherokee Clayton 13.8 $ 235.8 7.5 $ 159.1 8.1 $ 117.3 9.9 $ 136.1 8.0 $ 140.0 6.4 $ 103.4 8.1 $ 148.7 13.1 $ 1,078.5 8.9 $ 135.5 6.3 $ 176.8 7.8 $ 119.3 4.7 $ 62.0 4.2 $ 57.4 8.2 $ 167.8 3.6 $ 51.5 4.7 $ 46.8 9.6 $ 418.7 13.0 $ 764.9 4.3 $ 139.0 6.6 $ 88.9 4.2 $ 61.2 4.6 $ 50.8 6.6 $ 78.8 3.6 $ 56.3 5.1 $ 343.4 2.4 $ 112.0 8.1 $ 90.5 10.5 $ 406.9 8.9 $ 137.7 9.6 $ 145.0 7.4 $ 82.8 6.3 $ 65.8 7.5 $ 115.4 5.8 $ 102.9 6.1 $ 287.9 6.4 $ 130.9 7.5 $ 42.6 10.0 $ 104.7 3.6 $ 40.0 10.0 $ 116.7 4.4 $ 44.3 6.2 $ 108.7 6.7 $ 81.3 7.5 $ 54.3 7.7 $ 106.0 10.2 $ 111.8 8.2 $ 89.5 4.0 $ 114.0 5.8 $ 425.3 7.7 $ 85.1 6.4 $ 65.4 3.8 $ 48.2 8.5 $ 47.7 12.6 $ 67.2 2.1 $ 29.0 1.3 $ 15.0 15,400 13,800 23,700 17,100 22,700 20,800 24,900 24,500 22,500 19,750 18,800 17,300 15,300 14,400 14,200 14,000 18,400 22,700 18,200 17,100 16,200 15,600 14,700 21,700 21,100 19,600 17,000 17,000 15,500 15,400 14,200 11,000 10,900 16,700 16,500 13,700 13,700 12,100 10,400 12,100 11,400 10,700 11,400 10,500 10,200 8,600 7,800 16,400 13,500 10,900 9,600 7,200 8,500 6,300 5,800 12,100 Total 3.7 3.7 3.0 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.7 Ratings Planning Rating Constructability Rating 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 2 2 5 2 5 3 4 2 7 4 3 2 7 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 6 3 7 4 5 5 3 3 7 5 3 5 3 4 6 3 8 4 6 6 2 4 6 5 4 5 4 6 2 6 2 6 2 5 5 5 5 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 7 2 7 2 6 4 7 3 6 5 7 3 7 3 7 3 6 6 5 8 8 2 8 2 7 4 8 3 8 3 8 3 7 6 Tier 5 Tier 6 Tier 7 Figure 3.3 - HOV Prioritization Tiers Existing Under Development Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Tier 6 Tier 7 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report 4.0 Access October 2003 4.1 HOV Access Planning Evaluation The success of Atlanta's expanding HOV system will depend, to some degree, on identifying the most appropriate access locations to enhance the transportation system as a whole. Access to the existing concurrent HOV lanes on Atlanta interstates is restricted because, with few direct access interchanges, HOV's are required to weave through the general-purpose lanes. The guidance provided in this study recommends that a barrier-separated HOV lane facility is the preferred option. Barrier-separated HOV lanes allow for more controlled access while providing a safer and efficient HOV system with fewer potential violators and weaving conflicts. 4.1.1 HOV Access Design Types Overall, there are three basic designs of access to a HOV lane: Direct access between the arterial, local roadway network to the HOV system. Access between the general-purpose freeway lanes and the HOV system High-speed, continuous flow access between HOV facilities Figures of access type typical sections may be found in Appendix E. Direct access includes, drop ramps, half-drop ramps, T-ramps and direct ramps. Drop ramps provide exclusive HOV access to and from the local roadway network. Drop ramps are usually located in the center of the highway from the HOV lane to the roadway overpass. Full drop ramps provide access to and from the HOV system to all directions (either to and from the north and south or to and from the Figure 4.1 - I-75 at Northside Drive, Atlanta, GA west and east). Half-drop ramps are similar to full drop ramps, but half ramps only have access to and from one direction. T-ramps provide exclusive HOV access to and from transit transfer stations and/or park and ride facilities from the HOV system. A T-ramp could also provide access to a local roadway network. T-ramps differ from drop ramps in that they only provide access to one side of the freeway. This access is called a T-ramp because it resembles a "T" intersection. Direct ramps provide exclusive HOV access to and from the local roadway network. Unlike drop ramps or T-ramps, direct 23 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report ramps provide a seamless access to and from the HOV network from the local roadway. Direct access is required on barrier separated HOV facilities where as on concurrent facilities it is an option. There are two basic types of access between HOV lanes and general-purpose lanes at grade: direct merge access and slip ramps. At direct merge access points, there is an opening in the HOV barriers (or skipped striping in a concurrent system) to allow motorists to enter and exit the HOV system. At direct merge access locations, both ingress (entering) and egress (exiting) are permitted. Other types of direct access Figure 4.2 - I-75, Atlanta, GA include slip ramps and terminal slip ramps. Slip ramps are similar to direct merge access in that they provide an at-grade opportunity to enter or exit the HOV system from the general- purpose lanes. The primary difference between direct merge and slip ramp access is that slip ramps provide either ingress or egress. Separate slip ramps to enter the HOV lane from the general-purpose lanes and to exit the HOV lane are required. Terminal slip ramps allow at-grade access either into or out of the HOV system at the beginning or end of the HOV system to or from the general-purpose lanes. System-to-system connections occur when two or more HOV system corridors meet. A system-to-system interchange allows a motorist on a HOV facility in one corridor to move seamlessly to an HOV facility in another corridor. 4.1.2 Selecting Access Locations Through the planning and engineering review, locations for HOV access connections were identified from the local roadway network, between the general-purpose and HOV lanes and system-to-system. A detailed description of the planning evaluation process used for the RTP projects evaluated in Phase I is included in Appendix E of this document. The following section briefly reviews the evaluation process. In evaluating locations for direct access (new connections with the local roadway system) and at-grade access (between general-purpose and HOV lanes), a rating system was derived from the following general criteria: 24 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report Location in advance of severe traffic congestion October 2003 Proximity to candidate HOV and/or Park and Ride system users Access location conditions: site availability, ease of implementation, and site development costs Good site accessibility and visibility (ingress and egress out of the proposed location for motorists as well as transit vehicles) Type and magnitude (existing and future) of the activity center(s) served Impacts on local community and adjacent properties Proximity to express bus services Facility spacing Desirability for the use of HOV and Park & Ride facilities based on work trip length Activity Center parking conditions The Phase II methodology applied to extensions to the HOV system was similar to the evaluation performed in the earlier phase. However, the rating criteria were modified to reflect project requirements. During Phase I, the project's emphasis was on near-term implementation of HOV facilities, with a particular focus on constructability issues. For the final phase, the focus was on long-term implementation of a regional system plan. The general evaluation criteria listed above were distilled into more precise rating criteria. In the earlier phase, rating categories were used to evaluate access locations. As a result, two of the original evaluation criteria were omitted, and three criteria were modified for the final phase. The two criteria omitted were, "Anticipated congestion level along access road," used to evaluate access locations and "Impact on adjacent land uses and community" used to evaluate park and ride lot potential at direct access locations. These changes were made to the rating system because data resources for these criteria are limited outside of the ARC 10-county area. A numerical scale associated with each rating criteria was created to illustrate the relative strengths and weaknesses of each potential location. The scale ranged from two (2) to eight (8), with two intermediate points. Two represented the lowest (least desirable) score. Eight represented the highest (most desirable) score. 2 4 Least Desirable 6 8 Most Desirable 25 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report 4.1.3 HOV Phase II Access Criteria October 2003 Functional Classification (Good Regional or Sub-regional Access for Commuters) 2 Local Street 4 Collector Road 6 Minor Arterial Road 8 Major Arterial Road Potential for Park and Ride Associated with Access Location (Flexibility for Ancillary Transit Staging and SOV Parking) 2 None 4 Possible 6 Adequate 8 Definite Proximity to Town Centers or Activity Centers (Potential or Proposed) (Modified from proximity to major Activity Center in the initial phase) 2 No Direct Access 4 Indirect Access 6 Direct Access within Reasonable Proximity 8 Direct Access to Adjacent Centers Spacing that allows access for capture of potential HOV users. (Modified from appropriate spacing from adjacent SOV and HOV interchanges) 2 None 4 6 8 Low Medium High Future Land Use Compatibility (HOV Origins or Destinations) (Modified from adjacent to nearby land use impacts/sensitivity of access road penetration) 2 None 4 6 8 Low Medium High Potential for HOV Utilization 2 4 6 8 Low downstream congestion and close to Activity Center Minimal downstream congestion and distance to Activity Center Moderate downstream congestion and distance to Activity Center High downstream congestion and greatest distance to Activity Center 26 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report 4.1.4 Review Process October 2003 Following the planning analysis, the proposed access locations underwent a multi-faceted review process to determine if the access locations met the additional criteria from an engineering "constructability" standpoint, as well as local and state transportation and land use needs. As part of the engineering review, direct access locations were refined by physical constraints, operational issues, environmental concerns or cost factors. Internal and external review workshops were conducted to examine and rate each potential HOV access and park and ride facility. Included in the internal review process were Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) and Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) staff members. Coordination meetings with the GRTA Regional Transit Action Plan (RTAP) team to discuss HOV access and transit integration. Special consideration was given to how Express Buses could utilize and function within a HOV facility. Additional access review occurred with local transportation and transit agency staff. Through workshops, the HOV team met with staff from MARTA, Cobb Community Transit (CCT) and Cobb County Transportation Department, Gwinnett Transit and Gwinnett County Transportation Department, C-Tran and Clayton County Transportation Department, and Douglas County Vanpool and Douglas County Transportation Department. Again, the emphasis was on the coordination of transit needs with HOV implementation. (See summary of transit meetings in Appendix F) The public also had the opportunity to review and make comments on the proposed access locations during the public meetings held during the month of October 2002. The proposed access locations presented at these public meetings are summarized in Table 4.1. This list of proposed access locations differs from the interim lists prepared in Phase I because the original list only included projects from the 2025 RTP HOV project list. The overall HOV implementation plan encompasses 21 counties, so that in the final plan, terminal slip ramps, for example, were extended from the termini of the 2025 RTP defined project to the termini of the study area. By extending the study area, some access locations were modified to reflect the long-term implementation approach assumed for Phase II. The evaluation matrix may be found in Appendix E. 27 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report Table 4.1 Proposed HOV Access Locations October 2003 LOCATION ACCESS TYPE Park & COMMENTS Ride ARC RTP# I-20 West (from West to East) SR 61 Direct Merge Access Liberty Rd Direct Merge Access Bright Star Rd Full Drop Ramp Prestley Mill Rd Full Drop Ramp Mt. Vernon Rd Direct Merge Access Factory Shoals Rd Full Drop Ramp Btwn Six Flags Rd/Fulton Direct Merge Access I-285 and I-20 W System-to-System I-20 and I-285 Direct Merge Access Spring St Half Drop Ramp to West I-20 East (from West to East) Martin Street Half Drop Ramp to East I-285 and I-20 E System-to-System Wesley Chapel Direct Merge Access Miller Rd Full Drop Ramp Klondike Rd Full Drop Ramp Plunkett Rd/Iris Rd Full Drop Ramp Btwn West Ave/Sigman Rd Direct Merge Access Salem Rd Direct Merge Access Almon Rd Direct Merge Access I-75 South (from South to North) SR 16 Terminal Slip Ramp Bill Gardner Direct Merge Access SR 20 Connector Full Drop Ramp Eagles Landing Connector Full Drop Ramp I-75 S and I-675 System-to-System Fielder Rd Full Drop Ramp Lynwood Dr Direct Merge Access Bob White Trail Full Drop Ramp Penney Direct Merge Access I-285 and I-75 S System-to-System Aviation Blvd Full Drop Ramp I-85 S and I-75/I-85 Conn System-to-System I-75/85 and SR 154/166 System-to-System I-75 North (from South to North) 14th St (South) Half Drop Ramp 15 th St (North) Half Drop Ramp Mt. Paran Connector T Ramp I-285 and I-75 N System-to-System Hickory Grove Rd Full Drop Ramp Old Alatoona Direct Merge Access Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Planned Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Access east of Liberty Rd at Tyson AR 330D Access west of Bill Arp Rd/SR 5 AR 330D Douglas Cty developing Multimodal at Chapel Hill AR 330C AR 330C Catchment for Paulding Cty/Thornton Rd; Closer to Thornton Rd AR 330B is preferable Access to Fulton Ind/I-285; Consider Wishbone to new C-D roads AR 330B AR 336C Access for MARTA Holmes Station AR 330B Connection to downtown multi-modal a priority AR 330A Access to CBD from East; Express Bus facilitation; Near Capitol Ave East/West mainline constraints Access to/from Wesley Chapel Access to Panola Road Access to Evans Mill Road New connection; Access to P&R at Sigman Access to/from SR 20 Access west near Harvest Grove Lane Access west of Almon AR 354A AR 354A AR 354A AR 354B AR 354B AR 354B AR 354B Entry/endpoint of system Propose new connection mile south of SR 20; Express Bus access from McDonough New connection north of Eagles Landing; P&R at Eagles Landing AR 353C AR 353B Express Bus from Stockbridge SR 138 AR 353B Access from Jonesboro SR 54 AR 353A AR 353A Access to I-285 AR 353A Existing HOV ramp Also look at connection to MARTA AR 353A AR 332A Contingent on access of the I-75/I-575 HOV study AR 336C 28 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report Table 4.1 con't. October 2003 LOCATION ACCESS TYPE East Main St/SR 113 Terminal Slip Ramp I-85 South (from South to North) McCollum Sharpsburg/SR Direct Merge Access 154 Spence Rd Direct Merge Access Jonesboro Rd Connector Full Drop Ramp Flat Shoals Connector Full Drop Ramp Buffington Rd Direct Merge Access I-85 S and I-285 Direct Merge Access Loop Rd T Ramp Willingham Dr Direct Merge Access I-85 North (from South to North) SR 400 and I-85 System-to-System I-285 and I-85 N System-to-System Indian Trail Connector T Ramp Old Norcross Full Drop Ramp I-85 N and SR 316 System-to-System Sugarloaf Pkwy Connector Full Drop Ramp Burnette Rd Full Drop Ramp I-85 N and I-985 System-to-System State Route 20 Direct Merge Access State Route 324 Full Drop Ramp Btwn SR 211 & SR 324 Direct Merge Access SR 211 Terminal Slip Ramp I-575 (from South to North) Old Rope Mill Rd Direct Merge Access Ash St/ Old Canton Rd Full Drop Ramp Hickory Flat Rd Direct Merge Access Marietta Rd Direct Ramp SR 20 North interchange Terminal Slip Ramp S. R. 400 (from South to North) I-285 and SR 400 System-to-System Hammond Dr Direct Merge Access Mt. Vernon Rd Full Drop Ramp Pitts Rd Direct Merge Access Dogwood/Old Alabama Full Drop Ramp Holcomb Bridge Rd Direct Merge Access Maxwell Rd Full Drop Ramp Kimball Bridge Rd Full Drop Ramp Windward/Morris/Westside Full Drop Ramp McFarland Rd SR 141 Connector Pilgrim Mill Rd Direct Merge Access Full Drop Ramp Direct Merge Access Park & COMMENTS Ride ARC RTP# Proposed Proposed Near Senoia Road New Connection approx. 1/2 mile north of Jonesboro Road New connection approx. 1/2 north of Flat Shoals Road Alternative to drop ramp at Flat Shoals Access to Airport via Loop Road and Camp Creek Pkwy AR 332B AR 332B AR 332B AR 332B AR 332A AR 332A AR 332A Proposed Connection to Gwinnett Transit transfer center Proposed New connection; Gwinnett Transit transfer center Access to Lawrenceville-Suwanee Road Proposed SW of 20 Consider merge access at such time when new access occurs Entry/endpoint of system AR 336A AR 355 AR 355 AR 355 AR 355 AR 355 AR 355 AR 355 Connect to planned HOV on 575 Proposed New connection Direct ramp from SR 5 to I-575 Entry/endpoint of system AR 318B AR 318C AR 318C AR 318C Access to I-285; N. Springs Station New connection Proposed Proposed Possible relocation of P&R lot from Mansell to Maxwell Relocate planned P&R from State Bridge to Kimball New connection Morris/Westside; Possible MARTA rail; P&R at Windward Proposed 1/2 mile south of SR 141 South of Pilgrim Mill AR 336A AR 331-a AR 331-a AR 331-a AR 331-a AR 331-b AR 331-b AR 331-b AR 331-b AR 331-b 29 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report Table 4.1 con't. October 2003 LOCATION ACCESS TYPE Park & COMMENTS Ride I-985 (from South to North) Suddeth Rd Full Drop Ramp Mulberry St Full Drop Ramp Atlanta Hwy Full Drop Ramp SR 60 Direct Merge Access S.R. 316 (from West to East) Herrington Rd Full Drop Ramp Sugarloaf Pkwy Direct Merge Access Walther Blvd Full Drop Ramp High Hope Rd Full Drop Ramp Hurricane Trail Direct Merge Access Drowning Creek Rd Direct merge access SR 324/SR 11/SR 53/SR Access Type 81 Undetermined US 78 Terminal Slip Ramp U.S. 78 (from West to East) Brockett Rd Direct Merge Access Idlewood Rd Full Drop Ramp Juliette Road Direct Merge Access Jefferson Davis Dr Terminal Slip Ramp SR 141 (from South to North) I-285 and SR 141 System-to-System Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Proposed Proposed Jimmy Carter Blvd I-285 (Clockwise) Redwine Rd I-285 and SR 154/166 Benjamin E. Mays Dr Bolton Rd Orchard Rd Mt. Wilkinson Pkwy Cumberland Blvd Mt. Vernon Rd Perimeter Ctr Pkwy Shallowford Rd Henderson Rd Midvale I-285 and US 78 N. Decatur Rd Durham Park Rd Redan Rd Glenwood Rd Panthersville Rd I-285 and I-675 Conley Rd Terminal Slip Ramp Full Drop Ramp Proposed System-to-System Full Drop Ramp Proposed Direct Merge Access Full Drop Ramp Half Drop Ramp to South Half Drop Ramp to North Direct Merge Access Full Drop Ramp Full Drop Ramp Proposed Direct Merge Access Direct Merge Access System-to-System Direct Merge Access Half Drop Ramp to North Half Drop Ramp to South Direct Merge Access Full Drop Ramp Proposed System-to-System Full Drop Ramp Proposed Near SR 20 Near Spout Springs 1/2 mile north of SR 53/Mundy Mill Road 1 mile south of SR 60 316 Study 1/2 East Access I-85 N 316 Study 1/2 East 316 Study: HOV West/SOV East Access from SR 8 316 Study: HOV West/SOV East Coordinate with Winder bypass Entry/endpoint of system NE or Brockett Consider Direct Merge Access; explore social impacts Entry/endpoint west of W. Park Place Consider system-to-system opportunity with start at Peachtree Corners Potential entry to system Located South of Bolton Rd. Alternative E/W Connector Access to CCT Transfer Station; Cumberland/Galleria New connection Northbound ARC RTP# AR 356-a AR 356-a AR 356-b AR 356-b AR 356-b AR 356-b GW 124D3-a GW 124D3-a GW 124D3-a GW 124D3-a AR 336C AR 336C AR 336A AR 336A AR 336A AR 336A AR 336B AR 336B AR 336B AR 336B AR 336B AR 336B AR 336B 30 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report 4.2 System-to-System Interchange Recommendations October 2003 The ARC 2025 RTP Travel Demand Model was used to determine projected daily HOV traffic volumes on all potential system-to-system interchange connections. Following coding of the HOV System Alternative and execution of the travel demand model, the forecast daily HOV volumes were reviewed on an individual basis for each of the system-to-system interchanges. Upon review of all the complimentarymovement pairs of volumes from the model (e.g. westbound-to-northbound movement and southboundto-eastbound movement) and the typical commute patterns of the region, recommendations were made as to which connections should be constructed. A volume threshold of 3,000 AADT was set as the criteria to determine the need for a system-to-system interchange. The analysis follows the guideline to construct system-to-system connections only where warranted by demand. These recommendations are illustrated in Figure 4.3. The cost estimates for most of the recommended connections are substantial, warranting a thorough cost-benefit analysis prior to implementation. A list of the system-to-system interchange recommendations is shown in Table 4.2. Cost estimates for the recommended movements are included in the project cost estimates presented in section 3.0 and detailed in Appendix D. 31 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Figure 4.3 - HOV System to System Interchange Recommendations 0,000 Legend Two-Way Ramp Recommended 0,000 Two-Way Ramp Not Recommended 0,000 Existing AADT Volume (One-Way, Highest for Movement Pair) (ND - Indicates Link Was Not Modeled) I-985 4,500 I-85 SR 400 I-285 I-75 I-75 8,300 5,800 7,700 5,200 SR 141 4,800 I-285 6,900 I-85 6,700 1,900 1,900 1,900 8,100 SR 400 1,300 2,400 1,900 I-85 2,800 I-285 I-285 I-75/85 4,700 I-20 3,700 8,000 2,500 6,100 1,600 2,000 3,100 3,500 SR 154 5,200 * 6,500 1,200 I-85 1,600 300 1,600 5,000 I-85 5,200 3,500 15,400 5,000 ** I-20 2,700 1,300 0 14,100 I-285 1,400 3,900 100 2,700 6,000 4,200 5,600 6,400 I-20 4,100 SR 316 6,800 4,000 * Further study required **Recommendation on existing facility I-75 I-675 I-75 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Table 4.2 System-to-Sytem Interchange Recommendations HOV System to System Interchange Recommendations (a) System to System Location / Movement I-285 at I-75 North I-285 Westbound (Out) to I-75 Northbound I-75 Southbound to I-285 Eastbound I-285 Westbound (Out) to I-75 Southbound I-75 Northbound to I-285 Eastbound I-285 Eastbound (In) to I-75 Northbound I-75 Southbound to I-285 Westbound I-285 Eastbound (In) to I-75 Southbound I-75 Northbound to I-285 Westbound I-285 at SR 400 I-285 Westbound (Out) to SR 400 Northbound SR 400 Southbound to I-285 Eastbound I-285 Westbound (Out) to SR 400 Southbound SR 400 Northbound to I-285 Eastbound I-285 Eastbound (In) to SR 400 Northbound SR 400 Southbound to I-285 Westbound I-285 Eastbound (In) to SR 400 Southbound SR 400 Northbound to I-285 Westbound I-285 at SR 141/Peachtree Ind'l I-285 Westbound (Out) to SR 141 Northbound SR 141 Southbound to I-285 Eastbound I-285 Eastbound (In) to SR 141 Northbound SR 141 Southbound to I-285 Westbound I-285 at I-85 North I-285 Westbound (Out) to I-85 Northbound I-85 Southbound to I-285 Eastbound I-285 Westbound (Out) to I-85 Southbound I-85 Northbound to I-285 Eastbound I-285 Eastbound (In) to I-85 Northbound I-85 Southbound to I-285 Westbound I-285 Eastbound (In) to I-85 Southbound I-85 Northbound to I-285 Westbound I-285 at US 78 I-285 Northbound (Out) to US 78 Eastbound US 78 Westbound to I-285 Southbound I-285 Southbound (In) to US 78 Eastbound US 78 Westbound to I-285 Northbound I-285 at I-20 East I-285 Northbound (Out) to I-20 Eastbound I-20 Westbound to I-285 Southbound I-285 Northbound (Out) to I-20 Westbound I-20 Eastbound to I-285 Southbound I-285 Southbound (In) to I-20 Eastbound I-20 Westbound to I-285 Northbound I-285 Southbound (In) to I-20 Westbound I-20 Eastbound to I-285 Northbound I-285 at I-675 I-285 Westbound (In) to I-675 Southbound I-675 Northbound to I-285 Eastbound I-285 Eastbound (Out) to I-675 Southbound I-675 Northbound to I-285 Westbound I-285 at I-75 South I-285 Westbound (In) to I-75 Northbound I-75 Southbound to I-285 Eastbound I-285 Westbound (In) to I-75 Southbound I-75 Northbound to I-285 Eastbound I-285 Eastbound (Out) to I-75 Northbound I-75 Southbound to I-285 Westbound I-285 Eastbound (Out) to I-75 Southbound I-75 Northbound to I-285 Westbound HOV Model 2025 AADT Volume Include Cost Estimate w/Project Note 7,900 8,300 I-285 (N), I-75N to I-85N 1,900 1,500 Not Recommended 6,700 6,400 I-285 (N), I-20W to I-75N (b) 1,500 1,900 Not Recommended 7,700 6,800 1,300 1,200 5,800 5,500 1,900 1,300 I-285 (N), I-75N to I-85N Not Recommended I-285 (N), I-75N to I-85N Not Recommended 2,800 4,800 3,300 5,200 I-285 (N), I-75N to I-85N I-285 (N), I-75N to I-85N 6,000 5,600 2,300 2,800 6,800 6,900 2,400 2,200 I-285 (N), I-20E to I-85N Not Recommended I-285 (N), I-75N to I-85N Not Recommended 4,100 5,600 4,100 4,200 I-285 (N), I-20E to I-85N I-285 (N), I-20E to I-85N 4,100 4,100 0 0 6,000 6,400 1,300 1,300 I-285 (S), I-20E to I-675 Not Recommended I-285 (N), I-20E to I-85N Not Recommended 3,900 3,900 100 0 I-285 (S), I-20E to I-675 Not Recommended 1,400 900 2,700 2,300 200 300 5,200 5,100 Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended I-285 (S), I-75S to I-85S HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Table 4.2 System-to-Sytem Interchange Recommendations HOV System to System Interchange Recommendations (a) System to System Location / Movement I-285 at I-85 South I-285 Southbound (Out) to I-85 Southbound I-85 Northbound to I-285 Northbound I-285 SB/EB (Out) to I-85 Northbound I-85 Southbound to I-285 WB/NB I-285 Westbound (In) to I-85 Southbound I-85 Northbound to I-285 Eastbound I-285 Westbound (In) to I-85 Northbound I-85 Southbound to I-285 Eastbound I-285 at SR 154/166 I-285 Northbound (In) to SR 154/166 Eastbound SR 166/154 Westbound to I-285 Southbound I-285 Southbound (Out) to SR 154/166 Eastbound SR 166/154 Westbound to I-285 Northbound I-285 at I-20 West I-285 Northbound (In) to I-20 Eastbound I-20 Westbound to I-285 Southbound I-285 Northbound (In) to I-20 Westbound I-20 Eastbound to I-285 Southbound I-285 Southbound (Out) to I-20 Eastbound I-20 Westbound to I-285 Northbound I-285 Southbound (Out) to I-20 Westbound I-20 Eastbound to I-285 Northbound I-75/85 at I-75 & I-85 North Split I-75 Southbound to I-85/75 Southbound I-75/85 Northbound to I-75 Northbound I-85 Southbound to I-75/85 Southbound I-75/85 Northbound to I-85 Northbound I-75/85 at I-20 I-75/85 Northbound to I-20 Eastbound I-20 Westbound to I-75/85 Southbound I-75/85 Northbound to I-20 Westbound I-20 Eastbound to I-75/85 Southbound I-75/85 Southbound to I-20 Eastbound I-20 Westbound to I-75/85 Northbound I-75/85 Southbound to I-20 Westbound I-20 Eastbound to I-75/85 Northbound I-75/85 at SR 166/154 I-75/85 Southbound to SR 166/154 Westbound SR 166/154 Eastbound to I-75/85 Northbound I-75/85 Northbound to SR 166/154 Westbound SR 166/154 Eastbound to I-75/85 Southbound I-75/85 at I-85 & I-75 South Split I-75/85 Southbound to I-85 Southbound I-85 Northbound to I-75/85 Northbound I-75/85 Southbound to I-75 Southbound I-75 Northbound to I-75/85 Northbound I-75 at I-675 I-75 Northbound to I-675 Northbound I-675 Southbound to I-75 Southbound I-85 at SR 400 I-85 Northbound to SR 400 Northbound SR 400 Southbound to I-85 Southbound I-85 Southbound to SR 400 Northbound SR 400 Southbound to I-85 Northbound I-85 at SR 316 I-85 Northbound to SR 316 Eastbound SR 316 Westbound to I-85 Southbound I-85 at I-985 I-85 Northbound to I-985 Northbound I-985 Southbound to I-85 Southbound HOV Model 2025 AADT Volume Include Cost Estimate w/Project Note 5,000 4,900 1,200 1,600 3,300 3,500 1,200 1,600 I-285 (S), I-85S to I-20W Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended 900 1,200 3,500 3,300 Not Recommended Not Recommended 1,600 1,500 3,700 3,600 2,500 1,900 4,700 4,100 Not Recommended I-285 (S), I-85S to I-20W Not Recommended I-285 (N), I-20W to I-75N 8,000 6,800 14,600 15,400 Existing Existing 2,700 1,500 2,000 1,700 5,000 4,900 5,700 6,100 Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended 2,600 3,100 5,200 5,200 Not Recommended SR 154, I-75/85 to I-285 5,500 6,500 14,100 12,800 I-85S, I-75/85 to Riverdale Rd. Existing 3,900 4,000 I-75S, SR 54 to Eagles Landing 8,100 6,600 1,300 1,900 SR 400, I-85 to Lenox Road Not Recommended 6,800 6,800 SR 316, I-85 to SR 20 (d) 4,300 4,500 I-85N, SR 316 to Hamilton Mill Notes: (a) Recommended movements always includes the reverse movement (b) Confirm with I-75/I-575 HOV Design Project (d) Confirm with Design Projects to include in I-85N Project or SR 316 Project HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report 5.0 Park and Ride October 2003 5.1 HOV Park and Ride Consideration HOV systems not only benefit from formal transit operations but also from the integration of complementary facilities such as park and ride lots. As part of the HOV access evaluation, it was recommended that park and ride lots be considered in conjunction with HOV direct access. The following describes the consideration of park and ride lots within the HOV context. The first step in reviewing park and ride lots for HOV was to conduct an inventory of the existing and proposed park and ride lots. There were four primary resources for the park and ride inventory. The Georgia Department of Transportation and MARTA operate existing park and ride lots. The Atlanta Regional Commission's 2025 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) catalogues planned park and ride lots, and the GRTA RTAP study proposes the development of additional park and ride lots that are currently not in the RTP. The HOV guidelines recommend providing exclusive HOV access for transit and park and ride facilities and this plan gives preference to this type of access. However, some proposed HOV access points coincide with existing or planned park and ride lot locations, while others are at locations that occur near but not at the existing or planned park and ride lot locations. The evaluation of park and ride lots occurred in conjunction with the HOV access evaluation. Locations with existing or planned park and ride did not need evaluation. In coordinating with RTAP plans, approximately 90% of proposed park and ride facilities match. The planning rating criteria were as follows: 5.1.1 HOV Phase II Park and Ride Rating Criteria Available Developable Property (Adequate Adjacent Property in Close Proximity to HOV Interchange) 2 None Available 4 Minimal 6 Adequate 8 More than Adequate Site Accessibility (For Transit Vehicles and Potential Park and Ride Users) 2 Poor (Difficult to find or to access) 4 Fair Accessibility (Adequate wayfinding and access) 6 Good Accessibility (Easy wayfinding and access) 8 Excellent Accessibility (Direct access to/from major thoroughfares) 35 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report Proximity to Transit Services October 2003 2 Poor (Long distance to transit routes/services) 4 Fair (Transit Service within 1 mile) 6 Good (Transit Service within mile) 8 Excellent (Transit Service within 1/4 mile) The park and ride lot inventory that includes HOV proposed park and ride lot locations is included in Appendix G. 5.1.2 Park and Ride Lot Siting and Development Issues Additional park and ride lot issues were identified during the development of the HOV Implementation. These issues are briefly discussed here. Park and ride lots vary in terms of usage. For instance, casual park and ride lots offer the opportunity for independent carpool and vanpool formation. This is generally a low-impact activity. However, a highly structured multi-modal center with park and ride facilities, formal transit access and other amenities provide great utility and activity. The HOV study does not make any recommendations for specific types of park and ride facilities, though locations providing transit services should achieve greater utilization. A more pressing concern is the coordination of park and ride lot development and implementation. It became apparent, particularly upon coordinating with the GRTA RTAP study team, that the needs and requirements for park and ride lots for the HOV System, express bus and transit programs differ. While the HOV implementation plan is long-range to 2025 and beyond, the RTAP express bus plan focuses on near-term implementation over the next three years. The result is that recommendations for HOV System park and ride lot locations do not meet the immediate needs of near-term express bus implementation. One example is the RTAP recommendation for a park and ride at I-20 East near Panola Road. The HOV study has recommended access at Miller Road, just west of Panola Road, diverting high-occupant vehicle traffic from Panola Road to Miller Road via a direct access HOV interchange. If the HOV system was in place, the express bus system could use the Miller Road park and ride lot as a transfer station. However, it is likely that express bus routes and services will be in place in the Panola Road area prior to the HOV extension as is envisioned in the plan for implementation. In such circumstances, going to a park and ride lot situated at Miller Road would be out of the way. Thus the implementation of express bus services in the I-20 East corridor may influence the future selection and design of access locations and park and ride lots within that corridor. 36 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report The success of HOV depends on transit integration as well as complementary facilities to encourage use of HOV, such as park and ride lots. The reality is that additional coordination must take place amongst GDOT, GRTA, ARC, MARTA and other transit agencies, as well as the applicable local jurisdictions, to determine the logical sequencing of the park and ride lot development to optimize both transit and HOV utilization. Again, the HOV recommendations for park and ride lots are at the planning stage. The recommended locations will require considerable investigation during the design stages of HOV implementation. 37 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report 6.0 Improvements to Existing HOV System October 2003 The corridors which have existing HOV facilities, referred to during the study as "Green Corridors", were studied for possible improvements. Like the Blue Corridors, these projects are not currently listed in the RTP. These corridors were segmented for study purposes are shown in Table 6.1: Table 6.1 Existing HOV Corridors CORRIDOR FROM I-20 East Capitol Avenue I-75 North Northside Drive I-75 South I-85 I-75/I-85 South I-20 I-75/I-85 North I-20 I-75/I-85 North Williams Street I-85 North Peachtree Street I-85 North SR 400 I-85 North I-285 TO Columbia Drive COUNTY Fulton/DeKalb Akers Mill Road Fulton/Cobb Aviation Boulevard Fulton I-85 Fulton Williams Street Fulton Northside Dr/Peachtree St Fulton SR 400 Fulton I-285 Fulton/DeKalb Old Norcross Road DeKalb/Gwinnett LENGTH (miles) 9.3 6.7 3.4 4.1 2.2 2.9/2.3 2.2 8.1 9.6 The existing HOV corridors were evaluated for various alternative improvements, including: barrier separated typical section, improved concurrent typical sections, improved concurrent typical sections with enforcement shoulders, and additional direct access locations. However, general widening of these corridors would typically result in serious constructability problems, major impacts to adjacent infrastructure, and comparatively high right of way and construction costs. Major HOV projects involving widening the typical section are not warranted in the near future, with a few exceptions. Some construction projects should be considered that would provide improved direct access or add a second HOV lane where required. These projects are shown in Table 6.2: 38 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report Table 6.2 Alternative Improvements on Existing Corridors Corridor I-20 East I-20 East I-75/85 South I-75/85 North I-75/85 North I-75/85 North I-75N I-85 N Proposed Project Description From Direct HOV Access to Martin Street (Half Drop to East) Capitol Ave. Direct HOV Access to Pryor Street/Central Avenue Ramps (This project can be combined with the Martin Street Pryor Street Access Project) Provide Two HOV Lanes in each direction, Concurrent with 4' buffer with delineators, no new bridges or major retaining walls, widen roadway 14' where possible to I-20 maintain full outside shoulder, reconfigure ramps, 4.0 miles System Interchange between I-20 East and I-75/85 North Ellis Street (I-75/85) Provide Two HOV Lanes in each direction, Concurrent with 4' buffer with delineators, no new bridges or major retaining walls, widen roadway 14' where possible to maintain full outside shoulder, reconfigure ramps, 1.5 miles Williams Street Direct Access to 14th Street/15th Street (Split Drop Ramp) 10th Street Direct Access to Northside Drive Park & Ride (T-Ramp) Direct Access to Indian Trail Park & Ride (T-Ramp) Chattahoochee River Indian Trail Road October 2003 To Hill Street Hill Street I-85 Cherokee Ave. (I-20) 17th St. 17th St. Northside Parkway Beaver Ruin Road Study Cost Estimate $ Million $ 16.0 $ 64.0 $ 12.0 $ 230.0 Under Consideration by 17th St. Study Under Consideration by 17th St. Study $ 27.0 $ 25.0 During maintenance resurfacing projects, consideration should be given to increasing the width of the HOV buffer to 4' and installing vertical delineator posts where it is practical to reduce the shoulder widths. Additionally, consideration should be given to the design and installation of HOV enforcement areas where feasible. Detailed information on enforcement areas are described in the Enforcement Report completed as part of the study. 39 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report 7.0 Financial Plan October 2003 The financial plan recommends funding approaches for the strategic implementation of HOV facilities in the Atlanta region. The methodology used in developing this plan is: A review of the traditional approach to highway financing and an estimate of a shortfall in its ability to finance the HOV system A review of recent developments in transportation finance and the potential application of those approaches to leverage traditional financing of the HOV system A review of various user fee approaches used by other states and municipalities, including the site visits of HOV systems by the study team An assessment of potential non-traditional revenue sources which might be considered for funding the identified shortfall for the Atlanta regional HOV system The information presented has been organized to focus on the development of recommended alternatives and the assumptions and data that support these conclusions. Attached to this report, as Appendix H is supplemental information on the HOV systems in other metropolitan areas that were reviewed. 7.1 Traditional Approach to Highway Financing The traditional approach to financing transportation infrastructure projects is tax-exempt financing with federal participation through grant funding. The majority of construction funding would be from state motor fuel tax revenues and from tax-exempt bond funds financed from Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) grants. Approximately 99% of the nation's highway transportation infrastructure has been financed by this method. Under this approach the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) could fund the HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region. 7.1.1 General Limitations of Traditional Financing Historically, the grant funding for highway projects has been on the basis of a majority (80%) of the funds coming from federal transportation dollars, principally from the FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Local sources (states, counties, municipalities, and/or specially constituted authorities) were required to "match" the federal funds with the remaining 20%. The public agency usually bore all the risk associated with the costs and completion of the project. Complete public funding allows little opportunity for private investment and ownership, or for sharing of the risk. Nevertheless, the 40 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report availability of `twenty cent dollars' through a federal funding process which was large enough to meet many states' needs made these considerations secondary. In recent years, however, the demand for highway transportation has outstripped the federal resources available. Growing population, higher vehicle use per capita, and deferred maintenance of highway infrastructure have all contributed to a strong growth in demand for funding highway projects. This has been accompanied by a lack of willingness to approve new federal taxes, such as the motor fuels taxes that generate revenue for the Highway Trust Fund. Future levels of federal highway and transit funding may ultimately support no more than a 50% match for state and local funds. Transportation funding is likely to occur in an increasingly politicized arena that will see more competition for federal funds among states and metropolitan areas. This reduction in federal funding places a greater share of the burden of funding transportation infrastructure needs on the local communities. In Georgia's case, the 1995 Statewide Transportation Plan acknowledged, "transportation for the next two decades will require more funding than can presently be identified". It was recognized4 in Georgia's 2001 draft Statewide Transportation Plan that the state's estimated transportation revenues from federal sources, providing a match of almost 64%, would also not be sufficient to meet the planned $51.5 billion (year 2000 dollars) of expenditure for the current transportation program meeting the state's minimum needs for the years 2001-2025. For a proposed $66 billion transportation package planned to address future needs, the 64%-match shortfall would be even more acute, as shown in Table 7.1. 4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Draft Final Report, Georgia Statewide Transportation Plan, June 2001. 41 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report Table 7.1 - Summary of Estimated Transportation Revenues and Expenditures for Georgia, 2001-20255 Total Expenditure (millions of year 2000 dollars) Projected Federal Funds (traditional sources) Balance to Provided by State and Local Funds Projected State Revenues from Current Sources6 Shortfall with Traditional Sources Fraction Funded from Traditional Sources "Meet Current Program" $51,500 $22,770 $28,230 $13,007 $15,723 69.5% "Meet Future Needs" $66,000 $22,770 $43,230 $13,007 $30,223 54.2% 7.1.2 Limitations on HOV Strategic Implementation Plan, 2003-2025 (Tiers 1-4) The smaller `meet current program' package to 2025 contained $3.6 billion for implementation of regional HOV projects. Assuming that allocation of the funding from traditional federal and state sources is evenhanded across all projects in either package, these sources are unlikely to exceed about $1.95 billion (under a `meet future needs' allocation), or $2.5 billion (under a `meet current program' allocation). Although the HOV plan was included in the `meet current program' package, it will likely be subject to further consideration in the context of total future needs as the Atlanta Region's planning process continues. Therefore it appears prudent to assume that no more than $1.95 billion should be expected from traditional sources over the period 2003-2025. Assuming that these revenues occur in proportion to the 2001 draft Statewide Transportation Plan projections, the corresponding annual amounts would be as shown in Table 7.2. 5 Data extracted from Cambridge Systematics' Draft Final Report, Georgia Statewide Transportation Plan. 6 3% sales tax on motor fuel, and 7.5-cent excise tax. 42 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report Table 7.2 - Estimated Traditional-Source (State and Federal) Funding for the HOV System Plan, 2003- 2025 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Funding (Y2000$) $89,848,000 $90,018,000 $89,454,000 $88,901,000 $88,362,000 $87,835,000 $87,320,000 $86,818,000 Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Funding (Y2000$) $86,321,000 $85,826,000 $85,331,000 $84,836,000 $84,341,000 $83,847,000 $83,352,000 $82,857000 Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Total Funding (Y2000$) $82,363,000 $81,870,000 $81,376,000 $80,883,000 $80,391,000 $79,899,000 $79,408,000 $1,951,459,000 Millions of 2000 Dollars If Tiers 1 through 4 of the recommended HOV Strategic Implementation Plan were built over the period 2003-2025, as shown in Table 7.3, the total estimated cost of $4.54 billion would average about $200 million per year, well in excess of the $80 to $90 million available annually. The projected shortfall is shown graphically in Figure 7.1. Over the 2003-2025 timeframe, the total funding shortfall is estimated to be almost $2.59 billion year 2000 dollars, or about 31 percent of the total cost of Tiers 1-4. Figure 7.1 Estimated Traditional Funds vs. HOV Plan Expenditures 2003-2025 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Traditional Funds Unfunded Balance 43 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report Table 7.3 - Funding Schedule for Tier 1-4 HOV System (Year 2000 Dollars) 2003-2025 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 HOV System Tiers I-85 North SR 316 I-20 West - To SR 6 I-20 West - To SR 5 Tier 1 Subtotal Totals (Dollars - Thousands) $236,000 $159,000 $117,000 $136,000 $648,000 Funding Years (2003-2004) 2004 2005 (2005-2006) I-20 East I-75 South SR 400 - to Holcomb Bridge Tier 2 Subtotal $140,000 $103,000 $149,000 $392,000 2006 2007 (2007-2008) I-285 (N) - I-75 North to I-85 North SR 400 - to McFarland I-85 South I-75 South I-75 North SR 400 - to SR 141 I-75 South - to Eagles Landing I-985 - to SR 20 SR 400 - to Bald Ridge Marina Rd Tier 3 Subtotal $1,078,000 $136,000 $177,000 $119,000 $62,000 $57,000 $168,000 $52,000 $47,000 $1,896,000 (2008-2013) (2013-2014) (2014-2015) (2014-2015) (2015-2016) 2016 (2016-2017) 2017 2017 I-285 (N) - I-20 West to I-75 North I-285 (N) - I-20 East to I-85 North SR 400 - to I-285 I-75 North - to Allatoona Rd I-85 South - to south of I-285 I-75 South - to Bill Gardner Pky I-75 south - to SR 16 Tier 4 Subtotal $419,000 $765,000 $139,000 $89,000 $61,000 $51,000 $79,000 $1,603,000 (2017-2019) (2019-2023) (2023-2024) 2024 (2024-2025) 2025 2025 Total of Tier 1 4 $4,539,000 (2003-2025) Tier 4 Traditional Funds Total $1,951,459 (2003-2025) Unfunded Balance $2,587,541 (2003-2025) 7.1.3 Extension of the HOV Program to Year 2030 For completion of Tiers 1-4 in the HOV Plan extending funding from 2025 to 2030 may be considered. Reallocation of the HOV program over an additional five years would reduce its requirements to an average of about $165 million per year within the plan period. Table 7.4 shows the re-scheduled expenditure amounts for this extension. If the same level of traditional funding7 were continued from 2025 7 i.e. if State revenues grew at a rate varying linearly as projected by Cambridge Systematics for 2020-2025, Federal funding grew at a rate equal to the smaller of the Cambridge Systematics rate for 2010-2025 or the State growth rate, and a constant 5.97% of traditional revenues were allocated to the HOV System. 44 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report through 2030, the estimated additional annual funding would be equal to $390 million as listed in Table 7.4 below, and shown in Figure 7.2. Table 7.4 - Funding Schedule for Tier 1-4 HOV System (Year 2000 Dollars) 2003-2030 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 HOV System Tiers I-85 North SR 316 I-20 West - To SR 6 I-20 West - To SR 5 Tier 1 Subtotal Totals (Dollars - Thousands) $236,000 $159,000 $117,000 $136,000 $648,000 Funding Years (2003-2004) (2004-2005) (2005-2006) 2006 I-20 East I-75 South SR 400 - to Holcomb Bridge Tier 2 Subtotal $140,000 $103,000 $149,000 $392,000 2007 (2007-2008) (2008-2009) I-285 (N) - I-75 North to I-85 North SR 400 - to McFarland I-85 South I-75 South I-75 North SR 400 - to SR 141 I-75 South - to Eagles Landing I-985 - to SR 20 SR 400 - to Bald Ridge Marina Rd Tier 3 Subtotal $1,078,000 $136,000 $177,000 $119,000 $62,000 $57,000 $168,000 $52,000 $47,000 $1,896,000 (2009-2016) 2016 2017 2018 (2018-2019) 2019 (2019-2020) 2020 2021 I-285 (N) - I-20 West to I-75 North I-285 (N) - I-20 East to I-85 North SR 400 - to I-285 I-75 North - to Allatoona Rd I-85 South - to south of I-285 I-75 South - to Bill Gardner Pky I-75 south - to SR 16 Tier 4 Subtotal $419,000 $765,000 $139,000 $89,000 $61,000 $51,000 $79,000 $1,603,000 (2021-2023) (2023-2028) (2028-2029) 2029 (2029-2030) 2030 2030 Total of Tier 1 4 $4,539,000 (2003-2030) Tier 4 Traditional Funds Total $1,951,459 (2003-2030) Unfunded Balance $2,587,541 (2003-2030) 45 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report October 2003 Figure 7.2 Estimated Annual Traditional Funds vs. HOV Plan Expenditures 2003-2030 Millions of Year 2000 Dollars $180 $160 $140 $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Traditional Funds Unfunded Balance Table 7.5 - Annual HOV Funds from Extension of Revenues from 2025 to 2030 (Year 2000 Dollars) Year Funding (Y2000$) Total Funding to 2025 (see Table 7.2) $1,951,459,000 2026 $78,918,000 2027 $78,425,000 2028 $77,929,000 2029 $77,429,000 2030 $76,927,000 Total Funding to 2030 $2,341,086,000 46 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report October 2003 Figure 7.3 Cumulative Expenditure vs. Revenues Millions Yr 2000 Dollars $5,000 $4,500 $4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 Cumulative from Traditional Sources Cumulative HOV Program Extending the HOV program to 2030 would allow planned expenditures for Tiers 1-4 to better match estimated traditional revenues during the period. This would leave a shortfall of $2.2 billion in year 2000 dollars to be made up by non-traditional sources between 2003 and 2030. The experience of other U.S. metropolitan areas points towards four broad strategies to make up such shortfalls: Rely on an increase in federal funding; Leverage the expected federal participation to increase the effective resources available to the project; Augment the state and local resources that traditionally match the federal participation; and Create one or more new dedicated sources of funding. Each of these approaches is discussed in a separate section of this chapter, including both examples and an assessment of applicability to the Atlanta region's HOV system. 47 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report 7.1.4 Prospects for Increased Federal Funding October 2003 All states will be impacted by the decreased availability of federal highway funds in the future. Prospects for a significant direct increases in the primary sources of this funding (e.g. federal motor fuels taxes) in the present tax-averse political environment do not appear good. The public's attitude towards increases in taxes is in tension with its desire for improved highway transportation. Highway use, as measured by vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) continues to grow faster than both income and population, but there are no strong signs of a change in public attitude towards federal taxes. This tension was evident in a "Statement of Administration Policy" issued on January 17, 2003 in response to a Senate appropriations bill which would have `level funded' (i.e. provide no increase) in federal highway spending in fiscal 2003 versus spending for fiscal 2002. The statement termed the highway spending provision "an unsustainable level of spending for highways" that would "put the program on a path to an inevitable gas tax increase". Although public support for a federal fuel tax increase may develop in future years, more modest proposals may hold the only prospect of stemming the erosion of federal participation. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) have drafted one such proposal. AASHTO submitted the draft proposal to create a national Transportation Finance Corporation (TFC) to policy makers in the spring of 2002. The TFC would issue long-term bonds, with the interest on the bonds in the form of a tax credit taken by the holders. The federal government would pay the bond interest in the form of annual tax credits to bondholders. The tax expenditures resulting from these annual credits would be spread over the 20-year term of the bonds, in effect, creating a multi-year capital budget for transportation infrastructure. The proceeds from bonds issued by the TFC would be distributed to the states on a formula basis, with each state responsible for providing the necessary remaining matching funds. The proposed distribution of funds is 80% to the Highway Program Fund (via FHWA) and 20% to the Transit Program Fund (via FTA). In addition, a Capital Revolving Fund is proposed to provide credit support for highway and transit projects that might not be able to receive assistance through existing State Infrastructure Banks. The federal budgetary cost of the Tax Credit Program would be paid from indexing federal fuels excise taxes to an inflation index. The estimated federal budgetary cost of the program was $5.6 billion over the first five years and $19.2 billion over the first 10 years. If enacted, these increased funds would enable a higher federal matching level than would otherwise prevail, or could allow more projects to be funded at 48 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report lower matching levels. The program would yield about $34.1 billion in additional federal highway funds over the first five years. As shown in Figure 7.4, GDOT could expect an apportionment of an additional $272 million annually, or $1.36 billion over the five-year period. If the HOV Plan were to receive 5.97%, this would yield $81 million, or about 1.8 percent of the HOV Plan's cost. The initial response to this proposal has been positive, but whether the Congress will make TFC a reality in the coming reauthorization has yet to be determined. Given the relatively small size of this proposal, and the present momentum towards decreasing federal participation, it would not be prudent to assume a level of federal participation higher than that incorporated in the 2001 draft Statewide Transportation Plan. Figure 7.4 - Transportation Finance Corporation Proposal $1.36 Billion $32.7 Billion GDOT Portion Additional Funding * Based on average 1998-2003 Apportionment Estimates - FHWA 7.2 Leveraging Federal Participation New options have been used or proposed to make better use of available federal funds. Although these do not increase the total resources available, they can in some circumstances `stretch' the federal funding. If applied to projects already planned for construction, they could effectively increase the federal resources that might be applied to HOV projects. Two of these programs are discussed below: Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (GARVEEs) and Transportation Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act (TIFIA) loans. An overview of each program is provided and followed by a conclusion as to its applicability to the HOV Strategic Implementation Plan. 49 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report 7.2.1 Accelerated Use of Traditional Federal Sources GARVEES October 2003 GARVEEs can accelerate the construction of a project relative to the traditional pay-as-you-go financing approach. FHWA grants, for example, are typically drawn upon on an "after expenditure" basis, meaning the agency (e.g. GDOT) incurs and funds the eligible expenditure. The receipt of federal funds is then on a "reimbursement basis". Because this process requires the agency to provide the initial capital for the expenditure from its own resources, it often has to borrow funds to "bridge" the time between expenditure and reimbursement. These borrowings are typically of a short-term nature, but do add to the overall costs of the project. The issuance of GARVEE bonds allows for these funds to be borrowed at a lower effective rate to more efficiently fund the initial project costs. The debt is layered with principal and interest payments over a longer period and is repaid primarily from the receipt of federal reimbursements. This has been an effective tool for many agencies, allowing the receipt of funds at the time of expenditure. Candidates for GARVEE financings typically include: Large construction projects under critical time constraints. In these cases, the cost of delaying the project may outweigh the interest cost of the debt financing. Projects with a definable stream of future user fees such as tolls and fares. These projects can structure financings based on the anticipated revenues. Projects which must rely solely on future federal payments to structure the debt service payments for the financings, but whose schedule of expenditures makes a GARVEE preferable to shorter-term financing. Because the individual states issue GARVEE financings, the sponsoring state must have a designated agency for issuing the debt. This is typically the state's Department of Transportation (DOT) or an agency of the DOT that pledges to use the future grant revenues for debt service. The estimated federal share of the $2.34 billion of traditional-source funding for the HOV system over 2003-2030 is 64 percent, or $1.49 billion. If this is effectively leveraged by the use of GARVEE bonds the schedule for HOV construction could be accelerated. Using federal and state traditional-source funding to leverage a GARVEE bond issue could support moving several million dollars of the HOV construction forward in time. This might be attractive if there were substantial benefits to building the outer portions of the HOV system earlier. However, because the need for Tiers 2,3, and 4 will occur later than for Tier 1, for example, the schedule allocating funding requirements evenly over the period 2003-2030 is 50 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report appropriate. Financing with GARVEE bonds would not offer an advantage over short-term financing to bridge the `gap' between expenditures and receipt of federal funds. In Georgia, GARVEE financing appears to face an additional obstacle. The State Road and Tollway Authority (SRTA) is the agency within Georgia given the authority to issue GARVEE bonds. A lawsuit filed in August 2002 has challenged the constitutionality of the SRTA's authority to obligate the State of Georgia by issuing this type of debt. A Superior Court Judge in Fulton County ruled in favor of SRTA and the ruling was appealed to the State Supreme Court. The State Supreme Court supported the Superior Court ruling and held that the State could in fact issue the bonds. Although ruled legal, as a matter of law, the Governor has not embraced this type funding for any of the State's transportation plans. 7.2.2 Credit Assistance and Loans - TIFIA As part of TEA-21, Congress passed the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998. TIFIA, as it is commonly called, established a new federal program under which the U.S. DOT may provide credit assistance to public agencies in the form of direct loans, loan guarantees or lines of credit. Like GARVEEs, the TIFIA program was designed to leverage federal funds by attracting private and institutional investment into transportation infrastructure projects. Much like the FTA's New Starts Program, evaluation criteria are used to determine the "best use" of transportation dollars. Projects compete with each other for the TIFIA loan program through an application process that also includes a preliminary credit rating from one or more of the national credit rating agencies. Projects must secure an "investment grade" rating from the rating agencies and a "Record of Decision" from their governing federal agency before becoming eligible for TIFIA assistance. Eligible total project cost must be at least equal to $100 Million, or to 50% of the state's federal aid highway apportionment, whichever is greater. The advantage of a TIFIA loan is that the repayment schedule can be negotiated based on the needs of the project. The repayment of principal is often deferred to the latter years of the loan period, allowing revenue streams such as user fees to build up to a level that will allow ongoing operating and maintenance expenses to be paid in addition to the loan repayment. In that sense, a TIFIA loan program is more flexible in its ability to structure the repayment to match anticipated revenues. 51 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report A TIFIA loan application is primarily for the purpose of advancing a project where the benefits of earlier completion out-weigh the cost of the borrowing. As for the GARVEE option, this is not appropriate for the HOV system because the schedule of completion is more spread out or less even. 7.3 Augmenting Traditional State and Local Resources New taxes and fees for any purpose are politically unpalatable, however, when a valid public need is articulated, support for such increases can sometimes be obtained. Critical to the success of any such approach is the ability to assure the public that the revenues will in fact be dedicated to the purposes for which they are raised. 7.3.1 Increasing Statewide Traditional Sources Augmenting the traditional sources of state transportation funding would directly address the decrease in federal funding, allowing the traditional process to proceed at a lower federal participation level. Most appropriate for such use would be increases in state taxes and fees associated with highway transportation: e.g. motor fuel taxes, truck road user taxes, sales taxes on motor vehicles, and license and registration fees. As part of the development of the Statewide Transportation Plan8, Cambridge Systematics assessed numerous established and potential sources of state transportation revenue in terms of diversity, flexibility, adjustability, efficiency, ability to support bonding, and achievement of social goals. This process identified three candidate sources: the 7.5-cent motor fuel excise tax, the 3% sales tax on motor fuels, and motor vehicle registration fees. For the purposes of supporting the HOV system, an additional consideration emerges: how closely the source can be related to the HOV. Motor Fuel Taxes As pointed out in the 2001 draft Statewide Transportation Plan, motor fuel taxes are the primary source of state transportation revenue in Georgia. For gasoline priced at $1.50 per gallon, these taxes yield 12 cents per gallon, or about 0.5 to 0.9 cents per VMT for personal motor vehicles, depending on their fuel economy. The draft Statewide Transportation Plan noted that these revenues were the third lowest of the 50 states in 2001, with only Alaska and New Jersey having lower taxes per gallon; the national average was 20.8 cents per gallon. As of July 2003, Georgia has the second lowest motor fuel tax per gallon in the nation, behind only Alaska. Over and above this relative observation, it is almost certain that these 8 Cambridge Systematics, Draft Technical Memorandum Task 8a Revenue Recommendations, Georgia Statewide Transportation Plan and Process, April 2001. 52 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report revenues are well below what it costs Georgia to keep its highways in good repair, let alone add to the system. The 1997 USDOT "Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study"9 included the information in Table 7.6 below, which roughly breaks down cost responsibility by vehicle classification and public expenditures. To the extent Georgia is typical of the nation overall, it is likely that the state will (in the long term) incur roughly 2-2.5 cents in annual expenditures for highway maintenance per VMT, and would realize perhaps 1/3 of this from motor fuel taxes. Table 7.6 - Roadway Cost Responsibility Per Vehicle-Mile (1997 Dollars - USDOT) Vehicle Class VMT (million) Autos 1,818,461 Pickups & Vans 669,198 Single Unit Trucks 83,100 CombinationTrucks 115,688 Buses 7,397 Federal Costs State Costs 0.007 0.020 0.007 0.020 0.038 0.067 0.071 0.095 0.030 0.052 Local Costs 0.009 0.009 0.041 0.035 0.036 Total Costs 0.035 0.037 0.146 0.202 0.118 Ideally, an increase in statewide motor fuel taxes would make it possible to increase the state/local match for highway projects statewide, building the HOV system in the context of either the `meet current program' or `meet future needs' transportation package. In fact, in light of the decreasing federal participation discussed in the previous section, several states with fuel taxes higher than Georgia's have recently approved fuel tax increases. Movements to oppose such increases, or even to reduce state fuel taxes, are also active across the country. As for federal fuel taxes, there is a tension between a demand for more or better highways, and a reluctance to pay higher taxes. The emerging resolutions of this issue in different states are related to the perceived condition of the highway system, the public's perception of future needs, and the track records of state governments in directing fuel tax revenues towards transportation projects. Given the present attitude of the Georgia public to tax increases, a statewide fuel tax increase should not be considered imminent. Allocation of new statewide revenue sources to the HOV system could also be 9 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study Final Report, Federal Highway Administration, USDOT (www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/hcas/final), 1997. 53 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report subject to criticism from taxpayers outside the Atlanta metropolitan area, who might feel that the state's overall transportation program is already heavily weighted towards that region. 7.3.2 Increasing Local Traditional Sources Some transportation projects are so large that grant funding and local funds are not sufficient without impacting other planned projects. For this reason, states and agencies may choose to fund a portion of these projects with municipal debt. Issuing municipal bonds allows immediate capital in the form of bond proceeds to be directly used to construct the project. Local taxes and fees can provide a stream of revenue for servicing the debt and interest payments over the life of the bonds. In Georgia, counties or cities may implement a one percent Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) for specified purposes for a specified number of years, after which the tax expires. These jurisdictions may also choose to institute a general one percent sales tax of unrestricted duration. Use of SPLOSTs or local general sales taxes to fund the Atlanta region HOV system is not recommended because: The HOV system's benefits extend outside a single jurisdiction, to the cities and counties of the nonattainment area, whether that be the 13-county current area or the 21-county potential non-attainment area; the local jurisdictions vary considerably as to whether they employ these taxes, and with respect to their durations and purposes. Achieving a uniform, consistent basis for funding in this framework is impractical. Various mechanisms have been developed to do this in other states, most often through some form of Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The creation of such an authority, however, amounts to creation of a new dedicated revenue source, and falls outside the scope of augmenting traditional sources. There is no logical linkage between transportation and the source of these revenues. Georgia counties and municipalities also raise revenues for local purposes with ad valorem property taxes assessed on a millage basis, i.e. in terms of mills (thousandths of a dollar) per dollar of assessed value10. Within the 21-county study area, county millage rates range between $0.024 and $0.053 per dollar; most jurisdictions apply this to the assessed value of both automobiles and residences. Incremental ad valorem taxes could, in principle, be assessed against vehicles alone for the purposes of 10 Unless otherwise provided, assessed value in Georgia is generally 40 percent of fair market value. 54 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report funding the HOV system. Over the period 2003-2030, an incremental millage rate of $0.008 to $0.01111, net of collection and administration costs, is estimated to cover the $2.2 billion shortfall. A uniform increment in this range, applied across the area, would represent 17 to 44 percent of the present ad valorem tax load on automobiles, depending on the locality. This approach has a number of shortcomings that excluded it from further consideration: Ad valorem taxes on personal motor vehicles provide no incentive either to make shorter trips or to operate more fuel-efficient vehicles; There would be an additional administrative load on counties or cities, which would need to revise collection procedures to reflect a separate tax rate for motor vehicles; and The use of this source to fund expenditures at a regional level is inconsistent with the established dedication of these funds for localities' use. 7.3.3 Public/Private Partnerships Public/private partnerships (PPP) have been advocated as a means of leveraging public expenditures at the federal, state, and local level. Considering the regional scope of the HOV Strategic Implementation Plan, this chapter discusses PPPs as an option at the state/local level. The term PPP has been applied to many different approaches to project finance and construction, including: Private participation in project financing. In effect, this amounts to an analogue of GARVEE or TIFIA financing, with respect to state or local funding commitments to a project. As for the GARVEE and TIFIA programs, the schedule of HOV system funding requirements and the absence of a user fee revenue stream do not indicate a significant advantage for this approach over shorter-term financing. Joint development opportunities, in which the private sector may contribute to the construction costs either to obtain a franchise to operate a for-profit enterprise made feasible by the project, or to realize appreciation on real estate made more valuable by the project. Because the HOV system will be built in segments parallel to existing unpriced limited-access highways, prospects for this type of participation are limited. 11 Estimation of a particular value would require additional research of county property tax data. This range represents a range of average personal motor vehicle values between $5,000 and $7,000 year 2000 dollars. 55 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report Private participation in design and construction of projects. With a "design-build" approach, the state may save time and costs by entering a single contract with private firms for both design and construction, as opposed to the traditional `design-bid-build' approach. Several states, including Georgia, have used design-build on a pilot or experimental basis for highway projects. According to a survey of these states by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in 200212, time savings have been realized, but cost savings are more difficult to substantiate. Georgia and several other states are awaiting more definitive experience and findings before committing more fully to design-build. It is reasonable to presume that if Georgia determines this process to be in its interests, it would be applied to HOV system components. Early design-build experience reported in the SAIC survey suggests that any cost savings would be substantially less than the 48 percent ($2.2 billion) shortfall estimated for the HOV system over the period 2003-2030. Private design, construction, ownership and operation. An extension of the design-build concept into a franchise for almost all aspects of highway development, this approach has been used successfully for toll roads such as SR 125 in California, the Dulles Greenway in Virginia, and the Express Toll Route 407 (ETR-407) in Toronto, Ontario. The nearest analogue for non-toll highways may be Massachusetts' Route 3 widening. These examples warrant further discussion to assess the applicability of this approach to Atlanta's HOV system. SR 125 in California used a combination of many of the innovations used for the funding of other projects to date. SR 125 used a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) sale of the franchise to the JPA in order to qualify for tax-exempt financings, TIFIA credit enhancement, direct equity investment by private partners, designbuild construction, out-sourcing to a private contractor for construction, fixed-price toll collection, and outsourcing to the state DOT for maintenance. In the SR 125 agreements, the private sector negotiated for certain protections and the public agencies agreed to certain responsibilities. The contractor has no tort liability for accidents or damages other than those related to design and construction. The state agreed to accelerate the process of eminent domain and condemnation. The contractor also has the exclusive ability to set and modify tolls based on market conditions without public agency interference. 12 SAIC conducted a survey of State DOTs in Delaware, Washington, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey, Florida, and South Carolina on behalf of Illinois DOT. 56 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report As to the financial arrangements, toll revenues are projected to cover both the debt service requirements and the return to the equity investors. Much of the initial interest expenses will be capitalized in order to allow for adequate cash flow in the early years for operation and maintenance expenses. The fact that all three rating agencies have rated the senior and subordinate debt as at least investment grade is encouraging as a sign that the financial market recognizes the need and value of private investment in public transportation projects. In metropolitan Toronto, Ontario, ETR-407 is a new 66-mile value-priced13 freeway between the province's unpriced freeway system at the Queen Elizabeth Way near Hamilton and Highway 48 in Markham. It is owned by a Crown (public) corporation, the Ontario Transport Capital Corporation (OTCC), which contracted for design, construction, finance, and operation with the Canadian Highways International Corporation (CHIC) consortium. The highway is now operated by 407-ETR International, Inc., a consortium of Cintra Concesiones de Infrastructuras de Transporte, SNC-Lavalin Group, Inc., and Macquarie Infrastructure Group. The Government of Ontario chose this course in 1993, when it determined that the highway would require decades to build using traditional financing; construction was completed in 1998. The Virginia General Assembly authorized the private development of toll roads, including design and construction, in 1988. The fourteen-mile value-priced14 Dulles Greenway between Leesburg and the Dulles International Airport was completed in 1995, six months ahead of schedule. Toll Road Investors Partnership II, owners and developers of the Greenway, consists of: the Bryant/Crane family of Middleburg; AIE, L.L.C, and Kellogg, Brown & Root, Inc. The owners have contracted with Autostrade International of Virginia, O/M, Inc for operation and maintenance of the Greenway. These examples demonstrate that substantial private-sector involvement can be successful when a stable source of toll revenue can be anticipated, resulting in advanced completion of major projects. Provided a sufficient alternative source of revenues can be offered, a similar model can be used for an unpriced roadway. 13 Tolls are set at about 10 cents ($US) per mile in peak periods, about 8 cents per mile off-peak, and about 4 cents per mile at night. 14 Weekend tolls are lower than on weekdays. 57 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report In October 2000, the Massachusetts Highway Department (MassHighway) held a groundbreaking ceremony for the $385 million Route 3 North Project, which will widen 21 miles of freeway between circumferential Route 128 (the equivalent of Atlanta's I-285) and the New Hampshire state line. As reported by the March 2001 issue of FHWA's web-based Innovative Finance Quarterly: This new project delivery approach was authorized by the Massachusetts Legislature in August 1999 through a bill that enabled the creation of a public-private partnership to finance, design, build, operate, and maintain the Route 3 North Project. Through a competitive process, the MassHighway selected Modern Continental as the developer to finance, design, and build the project and then operate and maintain the facility for 30 years upon its completion. The project encompasses a number of innovative features: Through the use of design-build procurement, project delivery is expedited and cost certainty is established early in the project's development. Developer selection was made on a "best value" basis, where the design-build price bid was a significant, but not the sole, criterion for selection...[p]rice is guaranteed and secured by the developer. A special purpose, not-for-profit corporation - or 63-20 corporation - was formed by the MassHighway and the developer to issue $394.5 million in tax-exempt lease revenue bonds to finance the project on the Commonwealth's behalf. The bonds are secured by a 34-year lease of the facility between MassHighway and the 63-20 corporation known as the Route 3 North Transportation Improvements Association ("the Association"). MassHighway's rent payments to cover debt service and the cost of operations and maintenance are subject to an annual appropriation of the Legislature. Three components of the project financing plan have reduced the Route 3 bond size by an estimated $54 million. First, the scheduling of annual lease payment due dates well into the Commonwealth's fiscal year eliminated the need for a liquidity debt service reserve, which would otherwise have been required to address risk associated with potential delays in adoption of the state budget. Second, an up-front payment was made by the project's senior banker (Salomon Smith Barney) to the Association of nearly $9 million in connection with an innovative forward purchase agreement. Third, project risk insurance was purchased, with the developer serving as a co-insurer. This requires the developer to establish a contingency fund to meet unexpected changes in the amount of 58 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report 10 percent of the design-build price, or approximately $38 million. The bonds held underlying ratings of A+ by Fitch and Aa3 by Moody's. The Association's purchase of bond insurance from MBIA resulted in insured ratings of AAA by Fitch, Aaa by Moody's, and AAA by Standard & Poor's. By comparison, the Commonwealth's general obligation bond ratings are rated AA- by Fitch, Aa2 by Moody's, and AA- by Standard & Poor's. The project was thus financed at a lower interest rate than the Commonwealth could obtain on its own general obligation credit. The developer may pursue surface, sub-surface, and air rights development to generate non-project revenues. Planned development includes installation of fiber optic cable during construction with the developer sharing in the sale of fiber optic rights. Other potential plans include construction and sublease of a service plaza, which is estimated to result in non-project revenues of approximately $500,000 per year, and development on land adjacent to the highway and interchanges. The developer has a strong financial incentive to pursue development rights, receiving 40 percent of ancillary development revenues under the negotiated Development Agreement. In this case, joint development opportunities served in lieu of anticipated toll revenues to supplement future payments pledged by a government agency. Absent either an anticipated toll revenue stream or significant joint development opportunities, there does not appear to be a compelling reason to put a form of PPP more substantial than design-build forward for Atlanta's HOV system. 7.4 New Dedicated Funding Sources Even with the modest increase in federal participation that might be funded through AASHTO's TFC proposal, absent an increase in general state revenues for highway transportation there will be a shortfall of funding necessary to build the HOV system. This indicates a need to consider new funding sources that could be dedicated to it. This section presents some of the possibilities. Three alternatives that have a transportation linkage with the HOV system are discussed in this section: Roadway Use Fees Area-Specific Motor Fuel Taxes Area-Specific Vehicle Registration Fees 59 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report 7.4.1 Roadway Use Fees October 2003 Tolls and other forms of roadway user fees or charges are quickly becoming an alternative to pay for transportation projects. Recent research and experience have shown that many highway users are willing to pay to avoid the levels of congestion that they currently experience. With the emergence of modern electronic technology that makes it possible to collect user fees automatically15, and to vary the fees by time of day or level of congestion, interest in tolls and user fees has increased. User fee financing is based on the revenue stream created by user charges from a project once it is operational. Repayment of the principal and interest is structured based on the forecast of user fee revenues. Debt service payments are generally made monthly from user fee revenues prior to any other use of funds for operation and maintenance. Reserve funds are usually established requiring deposits to equal 125-130% of scheduled amounts of debt service. This "over funding" provides bondholders and rating agencies additional assurance that adequate funds will be available to make principal and interest payments on the debt when due. Toll highways in Georgia, like SR 400, have been very successful. Revenues to date have exceeded the required debt service and annual operating and maintenance expenses. SR 400 has demonstrated that Atlanta area commuters will pay a toll of up to eight cents a mile to avoid congestion and improve travel time. A useful distinction can be made among three forms of user fees: Fixed tolls charged to all highway users to defray the cost of building and maintaining a roadway that could not otherwise have been funded, generally in a corridor that has no existing alternative facility in the same functional class. GA 400 is an example of this approach. Congestion pricing, where user charges are imposed on an existing unpriced facility in relation to the degree of congestion, with the aim of inducing travelers to change their behavior, resulting in less congestion. Value pricing, where congestion-related charges are imposed on a new facility built in a corridor where there is already an unpriced facility of the same functional class. Under value pricing, users of a new highway parallel to an existing `free' or `unpriced' highway are charged a variable fee to use it, depending on the extent of time savings versus the unpriced roadway. 15 Automation of collection from personal motor vehicles is routine. Vehicle classification is an emerging technology. Technology to accurately determine vehicle occupancy does not presently exist. 60 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report Congestion pricing is difficult to implement politically, because it imposes a charge on a facility that is already `paid for' from the point of view of most of its users. In the absence of an unpriced alternative, congestion pricing is almost always perceived by the public as a new form of tax. Because the HOV system projects would parallel existing unpriced roadways (except for SR 400), congestion pricing would not be applicable in any case. Fixed tolls and value pricing have both been accepted as means of financing new capacity that would not otherwise be funded. Fixed tolls distribute the charges uniformly to all users in each vehicle class, while congestion pricing recovers at least some portion of the true economic value of the time saved under congested conditions. As shown by SR 400 and toll highways around the world, tolling all traffic on a highway can provide a revenue stream more than adequate to fund its construction and maintenance. General tolls (applicable to all traffic on the HOV system) could possibly fully finance its projected funding shortfall. For the HOV system, however, the imposition of tolls could have the effect of discouraging HOV traffic, particularly where the HOV lanes are parallel to unpriced general-purpose freeways. Half-rate tolls have been recently imposed on HOVs on California's SR 91, and have not been found to discourage HOV traffic. This cannot be taken for granted in Atlanta, however, where daily traffic volumes per freeway lane-mile are still substantially less than in greater Los Angeles. For HOV lanes being added to an existing corridor, value pricing takes the form of high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, under which vehicles with less than the required minimum occupancy (either HOV-2 or HOV-3) are allowed to use the HOV lane(s) for a toll. This concept has proven successful on two different projects in California: On privately financed State Route 91 in Orange County, all traffic pays a variable toll to use new `FasTrak' median lanes, but HOV-3s pay only one half of the toll applicable to SOVs and HOV-2s. On Interstate I-15 in the San Diego area, SOVs are allowed to use the HOV lanes for a toll, while HOV-2s travel free. Results to date from both HOT lanes and new toll roads in other cities indicate a willingness to pay permile costs that will cover long-term roadway maintenance and toll collection costs (4 to 5 cents per personal motor vehicle mile) plus 15 to 25 cents per minute saved versus parallel unpriced freeway lanes. A smaller market segment (such as travelers to and from airports) is willing to pay up to 80 cents a minute for time saved. 61 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report Parsons has examined the feasibility of HOT in Atlanta as it relates to expected traffic density for the following assumptions: The most prevalent limited-access highway configuration (four directional freeway mainline lanes prior to adding HOV lanes); A willingness-to-pay characteristic of the general public using successful HOT and new privatelyfinanced toll highways (such as Toronto's ETR-400): 4 cents per vehicle-mile plus 20 cents per vehicle-minute saved versus unpriced lanes; and Free access to the HOT lanes for HOV-2s and higher occupancy vehicles. Parsons estimated the relationship between total traffic density and HOT use based on these assumptions and a model16 of the tradeoff between traffic congestion and the desirability of traveling by time-of-day, assuming the following proportion of total person travel demand by trip purpose: 30 percent work travel with destination `downstream'; 8 percent work travel with destination `upstream'; 4 percent local social/recreational travel; 34 percent other local home-based travel; and 24 percent non-local `through' travel. These values are intended to represent a wide range of trip purpose `mixes' that would be encountered on the region's limited access highways; the results are not highly sensitive to small changes in these assumptions. 16 Connecticut Department of Transportation, Interstate Route 95: New Haven Harbor Crossing. Technical Report Number One: Screening Report, April 1997. 62 ADT Vehicles Peak Hr or Pk Period Vehicles HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report October 2003 Figure 7.5 - Standard Traffic Assumptions for 4 directional mainline lanes 300,000 35,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 25,000 75,000 125,000 175,000 225,000 Daily Directional Unconstrained ADT (without HOV lanes) 275,000 Constrained ADT General Pk Hr HOT Pk Pd General ADT HOT Pk Hr HOT ADT General Pk Pd Figure 7.5 shows the typical results of the model for various levels of total unconstrained17 average daily traffic (ADT) in terms of total directional (one-way) demand for a freeway facility with four lanes each way and no HOV or HOT lanes. Figure 7.5 indicates that: 1. For relatively low total demand, constrained demand (i.e. as would be projected by the ARC's regional model) is equal to unconstrained demand. 2. As total demand increases, constrained demand decreases relative to total demand; traffic will seek alternative routes, and average vehicle occupancy (persons per vehicle) will increase as congestion increases. 3. HOT traffic becomes a higher proportion of ADT as congestion increases; 4. Growth in non-HOT peak period traffic begins to fall off at about 60,000 unconstrained ADT, as a result of congestion. Growth in peak period (maximum 3 hours) no-HOT traffic begins to fall off at about 80,000 unconstrained ADT; and 17 `Unconstrained' demand represents the underlying demand for travel assuming all highways are always uncongested. ARC's travel demand model (and those of all major metropolitan areas) contains elements that restrict the amount of travel estimated to occur on congested highways. 63 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report 5. Growth in peak hour HOT traffic begins to fall off at about 125,000 unconstrained ADT, as the HOT lanes begin to experience congestion. Vehicles per HOV-2 lane per Peak Period Figure 7.6 - Typical Operational Characteristics (for 4 directional mainline lanes) 7,000 6,000 5,000 HOV lanes will begin to experience congestion above this line 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 HOV lanes may be perceived as underutilized below this line 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 Mainline Constrained Directional ADT per lane, (without HOV) 55,000 60,000 4 ML + 2 HOV Atlanta HOVs 4 ML + 1 HOV Ehov = 1.0 4 ML + 2 HOT Figure 7.6 generalizes the model results on a per-lane basis, in terms of constrained directional ADTs. Results for three-lane and five-lane directional freeway sections would not be dramatically different, for example. This figure also shows comparative results for a single-lane HOV-2 and a two-lane HOV-2 facility in the same corridor. From these data, the following conclusions can be reached: 1. A single-lane HOV facility may be perceived as underutilized below about 27,000 constrained ADT per freeway mainline lane; at this point, the HOV-2 lane would reach an HOV effectiveness of 1.0, where it would carry as many people per lane over the peak period as the general purpose lanes. 2. A single HOV-2 lane will become congested at or about 33,000 constrained ADT per freeway mainline lane. This does not provide much room for growth between the perceptions of `underutilized' and `congested'. 3. A dual HOV-2 lane (two lanes in each direction) will raise the levels of both utilization (to about 36,000 constrained ADT per lane) and congestion (about 40,000 constrained ADT per lane), with a limited `working margin' between them. 64 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report 4. Opening two HOV-2 lanes to SOVs paying a toll (i.e. converting them to HOT lanes) will result in effective utilization at a lower ADT level, but will also move the onset of HOT congestion down to about 34,000 constrained ADT per mainline lane. Figure 7.7 - Speeds and Revenues vs. ADT/lane (for 4 directional mainline lanes) Maximum Net WeekdayTolls per Mile Average Peak Period Speed (mph) $7,000.00 70 $6,000.00 60 $5,000.00 50 $4,000.00 40 $3,000.00 30 $2,000.00 20 $1,000.00 $0.00 10 -$1,000.00 0 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 Constrained ADT per Mainline lane (without HOV/T) Maximum Net Revenue Mainline Average Speed HOT Average Speed Figure 7.7 presents estimates of the revenues and peak period operating characteristics of a typical HOV2 system segment from the HOV Strategic Implementation Plan's Tiers 1-4, averaging 8.4 miles in length. Given the typical spacing of access point, and assuming all SOVs would exit the segment at the `downstream' end before encountering a more congested segment, the average distance traveled by a toll-paying SOV is estimated as 4.4 miles. Figure 7.7 shows the estimated average operating speed over the three peak hours for both the general purpose and HOT lanes. Between about 25,000 and 40,000 constrained ADT per mainline lane (without HOV), HOT lanes have the potential to generate net revenues while avoiding high levels of congestion that might deter HOV use. The net revenue indicated in Figure 7.7 assumes a minimum level of staffing, transaction costs, and financing of toll facilities in addition to already planned HOV facilities; actual costs for specific segments could be higher. Staffing of at least one lane per toll plaza would be required, because there is at present no automated technology to accurately establish vehicle occupancy. 65 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report Under these assumptions, a HOT lane that opened at the 25,000 level and closed at 40,000 would continue in operation for about 30-35 years. This `lifetime' depends on the underlying demand growth rate, ranging from 1.4 percent as estimated by Cambridge Systematics in the 2001 draft Statewide Transportation Plan, to 1.6 percent as is typical for the links included in the interstate system according to the ARC's regional model. Over those 30-35 years, one mile of HOT lanes could generate up to a net present value of $1.35-1.45 million (year 2000 dollars), assuming a 7 percent discount rate. This represents only 4.4-4.7 percent of the average system construction cost of $ 30.6 million per route-mile for Tiers 1 through 4. In effect, then, the maximum share of funding that could likely be borne by HOT tolls under the assumptions made is less than 5 percent. In practical terms, however, the potential is far less than this, chiefly because most of the segments in the planned HOV system would already be operating at or above 40,000 ADT per mainline lane when the HOV lanes are planned to open. Virtually all18 of the other lanes would encounter unacceptable congestion in the HOT lanes well before 30 years of operation; in effect, the best time for implementing HOT (with HOV-2s traveling free) has already passed for most of the segments in the plan. Realistically, the contribution of net HOT revenues towards construction funding would likely be on the order of 1-2 percent. Within the set of assumptions made above (HOV-2, no tolls for HOVs, and HOT priced to be a viable alternative for the general public), system-wide HOT lanes are unlikely to be able to contribute more than 1 percent of the estimated funding shortfall of the regional HOV system. Even this level cannot be assured; corridor-specific analysis would be required to realistically assess the potential for each. Issues of fairness would also emerge if HOT lanes were implemented only in corridors where it would generate the most revenue. Changes in the assumptions made for the analysis might result in a more significant contribution to funding, though each would need to be subjected to further analysis. These possible directions, and some brief observations on them, are as follow: 18 The one notable exception is the 7.5-mile segment of SR 316 included in Tier 1. It is possible that HOT operation could fund as much as 20-25% of the cost of this one segment. 66 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report A general strategy of transforming the HOV-2 system requirement to HOV-3 when congestion in the HOV lanes reaches unacceptable levels. At this point, tolled use by SOVs and HOV-2s could be introduced, similar to California's SR 91. The need to consider HOV-3 will generally occur when demand reaches levels now being experienced on greater Los Angeles freeways. This appears to be contrary to GDOT's vision of HOV-2 as a regional standard. Imposing tolls for HOV use of HOT lanes. This would dilute the incentive for lane use by HOVs, and would make the HOT lanes resemble a general-purpose toll highway. Increasing per-minute-saved tolls to serve only the SOV travel market segments that place the highest value on travel time-savings. Criticism of these HOT lanes as `Lexus lanes' would be more valid at these price levels than for the California HOT lanes implemented to date. Advancing the construction of the HOV system to capture more years in which uncongested HOT operation could be offered to toll-paying HOVs. It is unlikely that the upper limit of 5 percent of system funding could be approached by this method, because most of the HOV plan's segments are already above 25,000 ADT per directional mainline freeway lane. In light of these considerations, it seems reasonable to exclude HOT lanes as a funding source for the HOV system. One other potential source of user charge would be fees assessed to commercial passenger vehicles (buses) making use of the HOV lanes. As demonstrated in Dallas-Fort Worth and other metropolitan areas, bus operations on uncongested HOV lanes can result in considerable operating cost savings for the bus operator. In practice, this potential source has not been used for at least one of the following reasons: The volume of bus traffic would not generate a significant enough income stream to be worth collecting; Most buses using the lanes are operated by the metropolitan area's public transportation provider(s), and the payment of use fees would represent only a transfer of funds from one public `pocket' to another; Similar to tolling HOVs, imposing costs on travelers who are choosing a more environmentallyfriendly form of transportation runs counter to the intention of many HOV projects. 67 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report In Atlanta's case, all three reasons are likely to apply. Assuming that all buses using the HOV lanes could be assessed (and would pay) a charge of 12.5 year 2000 cents19 per vehicle-mile, the total value of these revenues over the period 2003-2030 would likely be no more than 0.1 percent of the HOV system construction costs. Because MARTA or the transit systems of neighboring counties would operate the vast majority of the buses on the HOV lanes, the `funds transfer' issue would apply. If the additional costs were passed through to the passengers, they would amount to one-half to one cent per passenger- mile, enough to have a very small negative impact on transit ridership. 7.4.2 Area-Specific Motor Fuel Taxes Motor fuel taxes have a number of features that make them attractive from an administrative and policy perspective: The collection method is already in place; The user costs are proportional to travel, providing an incentive to reduce trip-making and/or trip length; The user costs are inversely proportional to vehicle fuel economy, encouraging use of more fuel- efficient vehicles. The only effective way to focus this source on the HOV system is geographically, i.e. by creating an overlay district in which an additional tax would be imposed. Although Georgia does not presently have a provision to vary fuel taxes within the state, at least nine states (Alabama, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, Nevada, New York, and Virginia) did so as of January 200320. These additional taxes are usually set within predetermined limits by county, or are imposed on larger sections of the state for specific purposes. Intra-state variations in fuel taxes can create `boundary issues' similar to those that occur near Georgia's borders with other states: motorists from one jurisdiction may buy their gasoline in another because of the tax differential. When differences in total fuel price reach significant levels (e.g. the 15-cent-per gallon differential that recently existed between Minnesota and Wisconsin), changes in fueling behavior can become pronounced enough to affect the viability of businesses in the higher-priced jurisdiction. Under 19 The approximate value of the roadway use in Table 6. Total operating cost savings to the operator would likely be between 2 and 3 times this amount. 20 American Petroleum Institute website. 68 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report such extreme circumstances, spatial graduation21 of these taxes might be considered. However, the differentials that might be necessary to fund the HOV system are unlikely to require such an adjustment. Excise taxes are a more stable source of funds than motor fuel sales taxes, which are influenced by the volatile price of fuel. The extent of excise tax increase required to make up the HOV funding shortfall will depend on the geographic area over which it would apply. The most logical candidates are either the 13county current non-attainment area or the proposed 21-county non-attainment area. Estimated Motor Fuel Excise Tax Increases by Area The expected revenues (in year 2000 dollars) from a 1-cent excise tax increase over the years 2003-2030 on a statewide, 21-county, and 13-county basis is estimated as follows: Statewide 1-cent excise tax would yield $1,442,747,000 21 County 1-cent excise tax would yield $ 579,417,000 13 County 1-cent excise tax would yield $ 479,318,000 The per-gallon excise tax estimated to be able to yield the unfunded balance of the HOV System's Tiers 1 through 4 over the same time period is estimated to be about: 1.5 cents per gallon increase Statewide; 3.8 cents per gallon increase over the 21-county area; or 4.6 cents per gallon increase over the 13-county area. Another way to structure this increase would be to `layer' it so that the 8 outermost non-attainment counties would pay only half the rate of the inner 13. This would have two advantages: 1) it would raise more funds for the more expensive inner portions of the HOV system from those areas; and 2) it would provide a more gradual transition, decreasing the temptation for motorists to cross county lines to buy gasoline. Such a layered tax over the 21 County Non-Attainment Area is estimated to be: 21 Rietveld, Piet. et. al.," Spatial Graduation of Fuel Taxes", Department of Spatial Economics, Free University, Amsterdam, June 1999. 69 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report October 2003 a 2.1 cent per gallon Increase in the 8 Non-Attainment/Non-ARC Counties, plus a further 2.1 cent per gallon Increase (for a total increase of 4.2 cents per gallon) in the 13 ARC Counties Figure 7.8 shows the estimated new revenues by year from a $0.021 increase over the 8 non-attainment counties not included in the ARC, and from a $0.042 increase in the 13-county ARC area plus the estimated traditional-source revenues for the HOV system. Yr. 2000 Dollars (000s) Figure 7.8 Estimated Annual HOV Funding with Dedicated Increase in Motor Fuel Taxes $200,000 $180,000 $160,000 $140,000 $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 Traditional Revenues Outer 8 County Increment ARC (13 County) Increment 7.4.3 Area-Specific Increase in Vehicle Registration Fees As annual fixed fees, vehicle registration revenues do not encourage either reduced travel or fuel efficiency. However, the ability to set fees by class or type of vehicle permits some degree of focus, by allowing vehicle types that would not be permitted to use the HOV lanes (such as heavy trucks) to be exempted. 70 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report These fees can also be focused geographically. Several states allow counties or municipalities to impose registration fees over and above state fees. For personal motor vehicles in Georgia, these fees are uniform statewide, but are collected by counties based on the residential address of the vehicle's owner. The county vehicle registration process also includes the payment of the ad valorem taxes on the vehicle; as discussed in Section 7.3.2, these do vary by county. Estimates of the additional revenue were based on the estimates of future personal motor vehicle registrations shown in Table 7.7. Based on these projections, an increase of $26.90 per year in the registration fee for personal motor vehicles would generate the required funds over the 13-county area, and an increase of $22.28 annually would accomplish this over the 21-county area. Figure 7.9 shows the estimated revenues by year for the $22.28 increase over the 21-county area, in addition to the estimated traditional-source revenues for the HOV system. Table 7.7 Projected Vehicle Registrations County Year 2000 Year 2010 Year 2020 Year 2030 Fulton 415,044 425,688 485,816 544,782 Dekalb 376,667 396,630 457,071 513,394 Cobb 388,934 419,348 446,242 470,788 Gwinnett 397,845 456,178 511,517 562,996 Clayton 187,959 210,959 231,313 249,569 Hall 91,058 145,228 163,421 184,953 Cherokee 93,344 143,945 160,798 179,914 Carroll 51,732 103,086 120,404 139,460 Douglas 54,256 75,860 92,975 111,567 Fayette 64,449 85,819 110,188 136,383 Henry 74,156 81,670 91,709 104,072 Bartow 49,189 88,940 102,373 116,599 Spalding 35,748 51,326 76,724 106,368 Rockdale 42,137 119,094 155,116 190,817 Coweta 53,317 72,793 94,657 119,893 71 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report County Year 2000 Year 2010 October 2003 Year 2020 Year 2030 Forsyth 71,593 76,739 98,826 124,633 Newton 42,372 71,449 105,495 143,780 Paulding 44,556 52,669 73,518 98,197 Walton 39,671 42,323 46,361 50,529 Barrow 32,228 46,383 62,483 81,296 Dawson 12,175 16,216 21,223 26,789 Totals 2,618,430 3,182,343 3,708,230 4,256,779 Dollars - Thousands 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 $200,000 $180,000 $160,000 $140,000 $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 Figure 7.9 Estimated Vehicle Registration Fee Revenue From 21 County Area Traditional Funds Vehicle Registration Fees 7.5 Recommendations Based on the analyses described in this chapter, it is recommended that: Tiers 1-4 of the HOV Plan are placed in the ARC 2030 Aspirations Plan. Those that are selected to be placed on the Fiscally Constrained 2030 Plan would be listed for implementation over the period 2004-2030 based on a continuation of traditional financing methods to cover most of its costs (i.e. using the share of projected traditional revenues established in the draft Statewide Transportation Plan). This is estimated to result in a shortfall in funding of almost $2.2 billion year 2000 dollars over this timeframe. 72 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report The shortfall may be made up by an increase in area-specific motor fuel taxes `layered' $0.021 per gallon tax increase over the 8 non-attainment counties not included in the ARC, and a $0.042 per gallon tax increase in the 13-county ARC area. Alternatively, this amount could be made up by an increase of $26.90 per year in the registration fee for personal motor vehicles registered in the 13- county area, or by an increase of $22.28 annually over the 21-county area. The projected financial results of these recommendations are summarized in Table 7.8. By extending the construction period of Tiers 1-4 to 2030, the `HOV share' of traditional funding would provide $390 million, leaving $2.2 billion to be financed by new sources. Table 7.8 - Funding Schedule for Tier 1-4 HOV System included in the ARC 2030 Aspirations Plan (20032030) (Year 2000 Dollars) HOV System Tiers Totals (Dollars- Thousands) Tier 1 $648,000 Tier 2 $392,000 Tier 3 $1,896,000 Tier 4 $1,603,000 Total of Tier 1 4 $4,539,000 Planned Traditional Sources 2003-2025 Extension of Traditional Sources 2026-2030 New Sources from Non-Attainment Area $1,951,459 $389,627 $2,197,914 Table 7.9 summarizes the financial alternatives discussed in this chapter, and for those that were not recommended, notes the principal factors underlying the recommendation. 73 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report Table 7.9 - Summary of Financial Alternatives Considered October 2003 Financial Alternative Use of expected federal transportation funds from 2026-2030 Increased federal funding Linked to HOV or transportation Yes Yes Leverage federal funds with Yes GARVEE or TIFIA Increased statewide motor Yes fuel taxes Increased local taxes No (SPLOST) Increased local taxes (ad Yes valorem on motor vehicles) Public/private partnerships No Roadway use fees (general Yes tolls or congestion pricing) Roadway use fees (HOT Yes lanes) Roadway use fees (for Yes buses) Area-specific motor fuel tax Yes Area-specific registration Yes fees Likely to yield sufficient revenue No Encourages HOV or Encourages fuel transit use economy Neutral Neutral Unpopular or politically unacceptable No No Yes (if through Yes (if through Yes federal motor fuel federal motor fuel tax) tax) No (funding is No No No evenly spread out) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Slightly Slightly Yes No (need No No No revenue stream) Yes Yes No Yes No Neutral (under Neutral (under No assumptions made) assumptions made) No No No No Yes Yes Yes Somewhat Yes Yes No Somewhat Recommended Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes (as alternative to fuel tax) 74 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report 8.0 Air Quality Analysis October 2003 8.1 Overview An air quality analysis based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was completed for Phase II to determine the impacts of new HOV facilities on regional air quality conditions. The analysis included the identification of any improved vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by speed range for impacts to air quality. Once identified the data were reviewed for potential improvements to air quality as reflected in reduced VMT by speed range. An air quality analysis was not completed per se, but an initial examination of impacts created by the HOV system, (nitrogen oxides, NOx, and volatile organic compounds, VOC, are the problem "smog" pollutants for the Atlanta region). More detailed air quality analysis will be conducted as HOV projects are entered into the 2030 RTP update. For this task VMT was examined as a facsimile for mobile-source emissions, insofar as more VMT equates to more emissions and potentially higher levels of air pollution. The relationship with speed is not so clear-cut, however. In the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "MOBILE5" air quality model, as speeds increase, the NOx emission rate increases at speeds exceeding around 27 mph. As speeds increase, the VOC emission rate however decreases with speeds in excess of around 27 mph. The "ideal" speed under MOBILE5 to hold down overall smog production is where the NOx and VOC curves cross, namely at around 27 mph. But under EPA's newly released "MOBILE6" model, which is replacing MOBILE5, in the "out" years namely 15 or 20 years from today not speed, not even VMT will much affect vehicular emissions of NOx and VOC. This is because the programmed improvements to engines and exhaust systems are such that the engines are becoming so efficient in burning off residues before they are emitted (given the engines run increasingly hot), that in the longer term, relatively little NOx/VOC will be forecast by MOBILE6 to be emitted from mobile sources. 8.2 Year 2025 Alternatives Modeled Two Year 2025 system alternatives were modeled with Atlanta Regional Commission's (ARC) transportation system planning/travel demand analysis suite. One was the "Build" alternative, which incorporated the full, proposed High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) regional system; this system alternative also included the proposed GRTA express bus enhancements. The other alternative modeled for 2025 was the ARC "Base" alternative, based upon the Long Range Plan; this system alternative did not include the proposed GRTA express bus enhancements. Outputs of the modeling for each system alternative included, among many other parameters, VMT by speed range and ARC facility type (VMT were categorized by facility type, not just by speed as called for by the Work Scope). 75 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report 8.3 Forecasts of VMT for Year 2025 October 2003 The VMT forecasts from the system model runs were categorized by speed range and facility type. One facility type is a modeling convention, namely that labeled a "centroid connector". Centroid connectors are synthesized, abstract representations of local/neighborhood roads that motorists use to get to and from the main network of collectors, arterials, expressways and freeways. Centroid connectors are abstracted links for moving between this network of streets and highways, and the actual points of trip origin or destination within traffic analysis "zones". Although presented for completeness in the accompanying charts, discussion of results will exclude the forecast VMT associated with centroid connectors. The key is how vehicle miles are registered on the main roadway network. 8.4 Comparison of VMT by Year 2025 System Alternative Year 2025 model-output VMT are presented in Table 8.1 for the HOV System Build alternative, and in Table 8.2 for the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) Base alternative. Data are displayed by speed range and facility type, for the weekday AM peak period, the weekday PM peak period, the weekday off-peak period, and the weekday summed daily period. The weekday summed daily period, equivalent to the average annual weekday forecast, is the most important in the present context. Viewing the "without centroid connectors" relative shares of weekday summed VMT by facility type, there is little difference between the HOV System Build (Table 8.1) and the ARC Base (Table 8.2) alternatives. On a daily basis, the HOV projects have had little affect on the distribution of VMT by type of facility. And viewing the "without centroid connectors" relative shares of weekday VMT by speed range, there is little difference between the HOV System Build (Table 8.1) and the ARC Base (Table 8.2) alternatives. Here again, on a daily basis, the HOV projects have had little affect on the distribution of VMT by speed category. Table 8.3 shows the VMT differentials by speed category and facility type. A minus value signifies a decrease in going from ARC Base to HOV System Build alternative; conversely, a positive value signifies an increase in going from ARC Base to HOV System Build alternative. Viewing speed distribution impacts of the HOV projects for weekday "without centroid connectors", there has been a decrease in VMT at lower speeds (1 29 mph), a "wash" effect at middling speeds (30 49 mph), and an increase in VMT at higher speeds (50 mph or more), with an overall reduction of about a half million vehicle miles traveled daily. This overall reduction equates to a VMT savings of about 1/3 of a percent for the average weekday. This may seem insignificant, but really it is not: over the course of a year, assuming an annualization factor of 300, 150 million vehicle miles would be saved regionwide. This would equate to an annual savings (reduction) in mobile-source emissions, as well. 76 Table 8.1 - Year 2025 ARC Model Output: VMT by Speed Range and Facility Type for HOV System Build Alternative* Weekday AM Peak Period Speed Centroid Range Connector Freeway Expressway 0 mph 0 0 0 1-19 mph 3,961,459 518,261 5,409 20-29 mph 0 1,611,655 18,935 30-39 mph 0 3,618,481 89,983 40-49 mph 0 3,663,527 245,682 50-59 mph 0 2,130,493 544,684 60-69 mph 0 414,029 137,636 70+ mph 0 198 0 Total VMT 3,961,459 11,956,643 1,042,329 Share 11.7% 35.4% Without Centroid Connectors 3.1% Share 40.1% 3.5% Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) High Speed Low Speed Class I Parkway Ramps Ramps Arterials 0 0 0 0 0 38,382 224,142 423,728 0 126,456 104,256 1,540,060 0 57,633 21,896 1,006,372 0 38,229 0 236,195 45,025 4,802 0 60,562 16,605 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61,631 265,502 350,294 3,266,918 0.2% 0.8% 1.0% 9.7% 0.2% 0.9% 1.2% 11.0% Class II Arterials 10,415 628,066 2,290,212 546,597 0 0 0 0 3,475,289 10.3% 11.7% Class III Arterials 0 774,566 2,893,848 1,373,266 0 0 0 0 5,041,679 14.9% Class I Collectors 0 857,581 2,222,705 1,275,555 0 0 0 0 4,355,841 12.9% With Centroid Connector W/out Centroid Connector Total VMT % Total VMT % 10,415 0.0% 10,415 0.0% 7,431,593 22.0% 3,470,134 11.6% 10,808,125 32.0% 10,808,125 36.2% 7,989,782 23.7% 7,989,782 26.8% 4,183,633 12.4% 4,183,633 14.0% 2,785,567 8.2% 2,785,567 9.3% 568,270 1.7% 568,270 1.9% 198 0.0% 198 0.0% 33,777,584 100.0% 29,816,125 100.0% 100.0% 16.9% 14.6% 100.0% Weekday PM Peak Period Speed Centroid Range Connector Freeway Expressway 0 mph 0 0 0 1-19 mph 5,888,734 1,574,286 113,424 20-29 mph 0 2,779,271 153,737 30-39 mph 0 4,562,047 275,621 40-49 mph 0 2,582,035 377,546 50-59 mph 0 1,685,761 616,021 60-69 mph 0 294,356 146,527 70+ mph 0 0 0 Total VMT 5,888,734 13,477,756 1,682,875 Share 13.4% 30.7% Without Centroid Connectors 3.8% Share 35.5% 4.4% Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) High Speed Low Speed Class I Parkway Ramps Ramps Arterials 0 0 0 0 0 92,651 303,976 1,143,575 0 119,771 115,435 1,878,051 0 73,135 14,782 832,160 29,480 34,162 0 225,975 34,391 4,405 0 58,868 19,599 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83,470 324,125 434,192 4,138,629 0.2% 0.7% 1.0% 9.4% 0.2% 0.9% 1.1% 10.9% Class II Arterials 14,355 1,498,824 2,833,124 341,184 0 0 0 0 4,687,487 10.7% 12.4% Class III Arterials 0 2,061,076 3,708,510 1,136,664 0 0 0 0 6,906,249 15.8% Class I Collectors 0 2,040,284 2,939,677 1,229,268 0 0 0 0 6,209,230 14.2% With Centroid Connector W/out Centroid Connector Total VMT % Total VMT % 14,355 0.0% 14,355 0.0% 14,716,830 33.6% 8,828,095 23.3% 14,527,576 33.1% 14,527,576 38.3% 8,464,862 19.3% 8,464,862 22.3% 3,249,198 7.4% 3,249,198 8.6% 2,399,445 5.5% 2,399,445 6.3% 460,482 1.1% 460,482 1.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 43,832,748 100.0% 37,944,013 100.0% 100.0% 18.2% 16.4% 100.0% Weekday Off Peak Period Speed Centroid Range Connector Freeway Expressway 0 mph 0 0 0 1-19 mph 10,769,963 9,112 0 20-29 mph 0 66,995 0 30-39 mph 0 1,323,167 0 40-49 mph 0 10,358,305 190,065 50-59 mph 0 22,438,507 1,110,700 60-69 mph 0 4,343,342 574,072 70+ mph 0 6,224 0 Total VMT 10,769,963 38,545,651 1,874,836 Share 12.1% 43.3% Without Centroid Connectors 2.1% Share 49.3% 2.4% Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) High Speed Low Speed Class I Parkway Ramps Ramps Arterials 0 0 0 0 0 50,984 471,527 38,268 0 348,721 549,328 1,672,343 0 180,885 135,238 4,891,135 0 92,612 0 550,815 8,000 66,774 0 535,044 117,079 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125,079 739,976 1,156,093 7,687,604 0.1% 0.8% 1.3% 8.6% 0.2% 0.9% 1.5% 9.8% Class II Arterials 33,115 176,811 4,217,599 3,010,474 0 0 0 0 7,437,999 8.4% Class III Arterials 0 140,435 4,663,837 6,194,679 0 0 0 0 10,998,951 12.4% Class I Collectors 0 402,644 4,575,163 4,713,590 0 0 0 0 9,691,396 10.9% With Centroid Connector W/out Centroid Connector Total VMT % Total VMT % 33,115 0.0% 33,115 0.0% 12,059,744 13.5% 1,289,781 1.6% 16,093,986 18.1% 16,093,986 20.6% 20,449,168 23.0% 20,449,168 26.1% 11,191,796 12.6% 11,191,796 14.3% 24,159,024 27.1% 24,159,024 30.9% 5,034,492 5.7% 5,034,492 6.4% 6,224 0.0% 6,224 0.0% 89,027,549 100.0% 78,257,586 100.0% 100.0% 9.5% 14.1% 12.4% 100.0% Weekday Summed Daily Period Speed Centroid Range Connector Freeway Expressway 0 mph 0 0 0 1-19 mph 20,620,156 2,101,659 118,833 20-29 mph 0 4,457,921 172,671 30-39 mph 0 9,503,695 365,604 40-49 mph 0 16,603,866 813,293 50-59 mph 0 26,254,761 2,271,405 60-69 mph 0 5,051,727 858,234 70+ mph 0 6,422 0 Total VMT 20,620,156 63,980,050 4,600,040 Share 12.4% 38.4% Without Centroid Connectors 2.8% Share 43.8% 3.2% Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) High Speed Low Speed Class I Parkway Ramps Ramps Arterials 0 0 0 0 0 182,018 999,645 1,605,571 0 594,949 769,019 5,090,454 0 311,653 171,917 6,729,668 29,480 165,003 0 1,012,985 87,416 75,981 0 654,474 153,283 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 270,180 1,329,603 1,940,580 15,093,150 0.2% 0.8% 1.2% 9.1% Class II Arterials 57,885 2,303,701 9,340,935 3,898,254 0 0 0 0 15,600,776 9.4% Class III Arterials 0 2,976,077 11,266,194 8,704,609 0 0 0 0 22,946,880 13.8% Class I Collectors 0 3,300,509 9,737,545 7,218,413 0 0 0 0 20,256,467 12.2% With Centroid Connector W/out Centroid Connector Total VMT % Total VMT % 57,885 0.0% 57,885 0.0% 34,208,166 20.5% 13,588,011 9.3% 41,429,687 24.9% 41,429,687 28.4% 36,903,812 22.1% 36,903,812 25.3% 18,624,627 11.2% 18,624,627 12.8% 29,344,037 17.6% 29,344,037 20.1% 6,063,244 3.6% 6,063,244 4.2% 6,422 0.0% 6,422 0.0% 166,637,880 100.0% 146,017,724 100.0% 100.0% 0.2% 0.9% 1.3% 10.3% 10.7% 15.7% 13.9% 100.0% *alternative includes GRTA express bus enhancements Table 8.2 - Year 2025 ARC Model Output: VMT by Speed Range and Facility Type for ARC Base Alternative* Weekday AM Peak Period Speed Centroid Range Connector Freeway Expressway 0 mph 0 0 0 1-19 mph 3,983,352 605,047 4,341 20-29 mph 0 1,566,606 44,190 30-39 mph 0 3,664,294 64,189 40-49 mph 0 3,677,789 252,856 50-59 mph 0 2,131,491 477,197 60-69 mph 0 390,977 95,736 70+ mph 0 0 0 Total VMT 3,983,352 12,036,204 938,508 Share 11.7% 35.4% Without Centroid Connectors 2.8% Share 40.2% 3.1% Parkway T High Speed Low Speed Ramps Ramps 0 0 0 0 43,877 227,194 0 126,543 105,751 0 55,606 20,775 0 44,927 16,484 0 61,411 37,679 4,741 0 0 268,445 0 0 0 0 353,720 0.2% 0.8% 1.0% 0.2% 0.9% 1.2% Class I Arterials 0 443,298 1,551,965 1,018,488 220,100 59,820 0 0 3,293,670 9.7% 11.0% Class II Arterials 10,373 648,518 2,321,384 534,708 0 0 0 0 3,514,983 10.4% 11.7% Class III Arterials 0 793,078 2,913,468 1,387,535 0 0 0 0 5,094,082 15.0% Class I Collectors 0 900,935 2,250,280 1,262,768 0 0 0 0 4,413,983 13.0% With Centroid Connector W/out Centroid Connector Total VMT % Total VMT % 10,373 0.0% 10,373 0.0% 7,649,638 22.5% 3,666,286 12.2% 10,880,188 32.0% 10,880,188 36.3% 8,008,362 23.6% 8,008,362 26.7% 4,188,424 12.3% 4,188,424 14.0% 2,718,176 8.0% 2,718,176 9.1% 503,196 1.5% 503,196 1.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 33,958,356 100.0% 29,975,004 100.0% 100.0% 17.0% 14.7% 100.0% Weekday PM Peak Period Speed Centroid Range Connector Freeway Expressway 0 mph 0 0 0 1-19 mph 5,915,473 1,734,019 130,316 20-29 mph 0 2,849,879 146,554 30-39 mph 0 4,455,274 276,663 40-49 mph 0 2,695,751 401,810 50-59 mph 0 1,573,096 442,120 60-69 mph 0 283,560 90,141 70+ mph 0 0 0 Total VMT 5,915,473 13,591,578 1,487,603 Share 13.4% 30.9% Without Centroid Connectors 3.4% Share 35.7% 3.9% Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) High Speed Low Speed Class I Parkway Ramps Ramps Arterials 0 0 0 0 0 103,775 309,167 1,203,526 0 121,426 115,222 1,852,500 0 73,363 15,787 837,647 29,410 28,607 0 225,696 43,570 3,633 0 56,346 10,919 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83,899 330,803 440,176 4,175,715 0.2% 0.8% 1.0% 9.5% 0.2% 0.9% 1.2% 11.0% Class II Arterials 14,301 1,572,441 2,807,503 343,001 0 0 0 0 4,737,244 10.8% 12.4% Class III Arterials 0 2,113,886 3,743,526 1,126,026 0 0 0 0 6,983,437 15.9% Class I Collectors 0 2,094,612 2,961,150 1,235,197 0 0 0 0 6,290,959 14.3% With Centroid Connector W/out Centroid Connector Total VMT % Total VMT % 14,301 0.0% 14,301 0.0% 15,177,213 34.5% 9,261,740 24.3% 14,597,759 33.1% 14,597,759 38.3% 8,362,956 19.0% 8,362,956 21.9% 3,381,273 7.7% 3,381,273 8.9% 2,118,766 4.8% 2,118,766 5.6% 384,620 0.9% 384,620 1.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 44,036,888 100.0% 38,121,415 100.0% 100.0% 18.3% 16.5% 100.0% Weekday Off Peak Period Speed Centroid Range Connector Freeway Expressway 0 mph 0 0 0 1-19 mph 10,801,848 9,186 0 20-29 mph 0 96,899 0 30-39 mph 0 1,282,047 0 40-49 mph 0 10,540,383 167,462 50-59 mph 0 22,399,947 1,099,798 60-69 mph 0 4,327,954 509,812 70+ mph 0 6,269 0 Total VMT 10,801,848 38,662,685 1,777,071 Share 12.1% 43.3% Without Centroid Connectors 2.0% Share 49.3% 2.3% Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) High Speed Low Speed Class I Parkway Ramps Ramps Arterials 0 0 0 0 0 60,352 490,367 34,906 0 348,916 532,216 1,697,187 0 174,932 133,854 4,917,705 0 77,738 0 570,153 7,404 73,009 0 522,488 118,139 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125,544 734,947 1,156,437 7,742,438 0.1% 0.8% 1.3% 8.7% 0.2% 0.9% 1.5% 9.9% Class II Arterials 33,324 165,009 4,212,336 3,051,184 0 0 0 0 7,461,853 8.4% Class III Arterials 0 157,388 4,689,961 6,182,693 0 0 0 0 11,030,042 12.4% Class I Collectors 0 398,606 4,604,050 4,729,016 0 0 0 0 9,731,672 10.9% With Centroid Connector W/out Centroid Connector Total VMT % Total VMT % 33,324 0.0% 33,324 0.0% 12,117,662 13.6% 1,315,814 1.7% 16,181,564 18.1% 16,181,564 20.6% 20,471,430 22.9% 20,471,430 26.1% 11,355,735 12.7% 11,355,735 14.5% 24,102,646 27.0% 24,102,646 30.7% 4,955,905 5.6% 4,955,905 6.3% 6,269 0.0% 6,269 0.0% 89,224,536 100.0% 78,422,688 100.0% 100.0% 9.5% 14.1% 12.4% 100.0% Weekday Summed Daily Period Speed Centroid Range Connector Freeway Expressway 0 mph 0 0 0 1-19 mph 20,700,673 2,348,252 134,656 20-29 mph 0 4,513,384 190,744 30-39 mph 0 9,401,615 340,852 40-49 mph 0 16,913,923 822,127 50-59 mph 0 26,104,535 2,019,115 60-69 mph 0 5,002,491 695,688 70+ mph 0 6,269 0 Total VMT 20,700,673 64,290,467 4,203,182 Share 12.4% 38.4% Without Centroid Connectors 2.5% Share 43.9% 2.9% Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) High Speed Low Speed Class I Parkway Ramps Ramps Arterials 0 0 0 0 0 208,003 1,026,728 1,681,730 0 596,885 753,190 5,101,652 0 303,900 170,416 6,773,839 29,410 144,024 0 1,015,949 95,902 81,383 0 638,653 145,542 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 270,854 1,334,195 1,950,334 15,211,823 0.2% 0.8% 1.2% 9.1% Class II Arterials 57,997 2,385,968 9,341,222 3,928,892 0 0 0 0 15,714,079 9.4% Class III Arterials 0 3,064,352 11,346,955 8,696,254 0 0 0 0 23,107,561 13.8% Class I Collectors 0 3,394,152 9,815,480 7,226,981 0 0 0 0 20,436,613 12.2% With Centroid Connector W/out Centroid Connector Total VMT % Total VMT % 57,997 0.0% 57,997 0.0% 34,944,513 20.9% 14,243,840 9.7% 41,659,511 24.9% 41,659,511 28.4% 36,842,749 22.0% 36,842,749 25.1% 18,925,432 11.3% 18,925,432 12.9% 28,939,588 17.3% 28,939,588 19.8% 5,843,720 3.5% 5,843,720 4.0% 6,269 0.0% 6,269 0.0% 167,219,780 100.0% 146,519,107 100.0% 100.0% 0.2% 0.9% 1.3% 10.4% 10.7% 15.8% 13.9% 100.0% *alternative excludes GRTA express bus enhancements Table 8.3 - Year 2025 ARC Model Output: VMT Differentials Comparing HOV System Build with Base Alternative* Weekday AM Peak Period Speed Centroid Range Connector Freeway Expressway 0 mph 0 0 0 1-19 mph -21,893 -86,786 1,068 20-29 mph 0 45,049 -25,255 30-39 mph 0 -45,813 25,794 40-49 mph 0 -14,262 -7,173 50-59 mph 0 -998 67,487 60-69 mph 0 23,053 41,900 70+ mph 0 198 0 Total VMT -21,893 -79,561 103,821 Share 12.1% 44.0% Without Centroid Connectors -57.4% Share 50.1% -65.3% Difference in Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) High Speed Low Speed Class I Parkway Ramps Ramps Arterials 0 0 0 0 0 -5,494 -3,052 -19,570 0 -88 -1,495 -11,905 0 2,027 1,122 -12,115 0 550 0 16,095 98 62 0 743 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 220 -2,943 -3,426 -26,753 -0.1% 1.6% 1.9% 14.8% -0.1% 1.9% 2.2% 16.8% Class II Arterials 43 -20,452 -31,172 11,889 0 0 0 0 -39,693 22.0% 25.0% Class III Arterials 0 -18,512 -19,621 -14,270 0 0 0 0 -52,402 29.0% Class I Collectors 0 -43,354 -27,575 12,787 0 0 0 0 -58,142 32.2% With Centroid Connector W/out Centroid Connector Total VMT % Total VMT % 43 0.0% 43 0.0% -218,045 120.6% -196,152 123.5% -72,063 39.9% -72,063 45.4% -18,580 10.3% -18,580 11.7% -4,790 2.7% -4,790 3.0% 67,392 -37.3% 67,392 -42.4% 65,074 -36.0% 65,074 -41.0% 198 -0.1% 198 -0.1% -180,772 100.0% -158,879 100.0% 100.0% 33.0% 36.6% 100.0% Weekday PM Peak Period Speed Centroid Range Connector Freeway Expressway 0 mph 0 0 0 1-19 mph -26,739 -159,733 -16,892 20-29 mph 0 -70,608 7,183 30-39 mph 0 106,774 -1,041 40-49 mph 0 -113,716 -24,264 50-59 mph 0 112,665 173,901 60-69 mph 0 10,796 56,386 70+ mph 0 0 0 Total VMT -26,739 -113,823 195,272 Share 13.1% 55.8% Without Centroid Connectors -95.7% Share 64.2% -110.1% Difference in Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) High Speed Low Speed Class I Parkway Ramps Ramps Arterials 0 0 0 0 0 -11,123 -5,191 -59,951 0 -1,655 212 25,551 0 -227 -1,005 -5,487 70 5,555 0 279 -9,179 772 0 2,522 8,680 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -429 -6,678 -5,984 -37,086 0.2% 3.3% 2.9% 18.2% 0.2% 3.8% 3.4% 20.9% Class II Arterials 55 -73,617 25,622 -1,817 0 0 0 0 -49,757 24.4% 28.0% Class III Arterials 0 -52,810 -35,017 10,639 0 0 0 0 -77,188 37.8% Class I Collectors 0 -54,327 -21,473 -5,929 0 0 0 0 -81,729 40.0% With Centroid Connector W/out Centroid Connector Total VMT % Total VMT % 55 0.0% 55 0.0% -460,384 225.5% -433,645 244.4% -70,183 34.4% -70,183 39.6% 101,906 -49.9% 101,906 -57.4% -132,075 64.7% -132,075 74.4% 280,679 -137.5% 280,679 -158.2% 75,862 -37.2% 75,862 -42.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% -204,141 100.0% -177,402 100.0% 100.0% 43.5% 46.1% 100.0% Weekday Off Peak Period Speed Centroid Range Connector Freeway Expressway 0 mph 0 0 0 1-19 mph -31,885 -74 0 20-29 mph 0 -29,904 0 30-39 mph 0 41,120 0 40-49 mph 0 -182,079 22,603 50-59 mph 0 38,560 10,902 60-69 mph 0 15,388 64,260 70+ mph 0 -45 0 Total VMT -31,885 -117,034 97,765 Share 16.2% 59.4% Without Centroid Connectors -49.6% Share 70.9% -59.2% Difference in Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) High Speed Low Speed Class I Parkway Ramps Ramps Arterials 0 0 0 0 0 -9,368 -18,840 3,362 0 -195 17,112 -24,844 0 5,953 1,384 -26,570 0 14,874 0 -19,338 596 -1,060 -6,236 0 0 12,556 0 0 0 -465 0 5,029 0 -344 0 -54,833 0.2% -2.6% 0.2% 27.8% 0.3% -3.0% 0.2% 33.2% Class II Arterials -209 11,802 5,264 -40,710 0 0 0 0 -23,854 12.1% 14.4% Class III Arterials 0 -16,953 -26,124 11,987 0 0 0 0 -31,091 15.8% Class I Collectors 0 4,038 -28,887 -15,427 0 0 0 0 -40,276 20.4% With Centroid Connector W/out Centroid Connector Total VMT % Total VMT % -209 0.1% -209 0.1% -57,918 29.4% -26,033 15.8% -87,579 44.5% -87,579 53.0% -22,262 11.3% -22,262 13.5% -163,939 83.2% -163,939 99.3% 56,378 -28.6% 56,378 -34.1% 78,588 -39.9% 78,588 -47.6% -45 0.0% -45 0.0% -196,987 100.0% -165,102 100.0% 100.0% 18.8% 24.4% 100.0% Weekday Summed Daily Period Speed Centroid Range Connector Freeway Expressway 0 mph 0 0 0 1-19 mph -80,517 -246,593 -15,824 20-29 mph 0 -55,463 -18,073 30-39 mph 0 102,080 24,752 40-49 mph 0 -310,057 -8,834 50-59 mph 0 150,226 252,290 60-69 mph 0 49,237 162,546 70+ mph 0 153 0 Total VMT -80,517 -310,417 396,858 Share 13.8% 53.3% Without Centroid Connectors -68.2% Share 61.9% -79.2% Difference in Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) High Speed Low Speed Class I Parkway Ramps Ramps Arterials 0 0 0 0 0 -25,985 -27,083 -76,159 0 -1,937 15,829 -11,198 0 7,753 1,501 -44,172 70 20,979 0 -2,964 -8,486 -5,402 0 15,820 7,741 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -674 -4,592 -9,754 -118,673 0.1% 0.8% 1.7% 20.4% 0.1% 0.9% 1.9% 23.7% Class II Arterials -112 -82,267 -287 -30,638 0 0 0 0 -113,304 19.5% 22.6% Class III Arterials 0 -88,275 -80,761 8,355 0 0 0 0 -160,681 27.6% Class I Collectors 0 -93,644 -77,935 -8,568 0 0 0 0 -180,146 31.0% With Centroid Connector W/out Centroid Connector Total VMT % Total VMT % -112 0.0% -112 0.0% -736,347 126.5% -655,830 130.8% -229,825 39.5% -229,825 45.8% 61,064 -10.5% 61,064 -12.2% -300,805 51.7% -300,805 60.0% 404,448 -69.5% 404,448 -80.7% 219,524 -37.7% 219,524 -43.8% 153 0.0% 153 0.0% -581,900 100.0% -501,383 100.0% 100.0% 32.0% 35.9% 100.0% *HOV System Build alternative includes, but ARC Base alternative excludes GRTA express bus enhancements HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report 9.0 Next Steps October 2003 9.1 Establishing a Sustainable HOV System Process The nationwide HOV experience suggests public acceptance of HOV systems is necessary for their success. It is necessary to provide both public policy makers and the public at large with information supporting the value of the HOV system to the community. The lack of this support has resulted in the failure of some HOV systems. In locations where HOV facilities have appeared underutilized, there has been public debate about the effectiveness of HOV lanes in the transportation system. A recent example of the public's concern about HOV effectiveness occurred in Minnesota. The Minnesota state legislature and the public called for converting an existing HOV lane to a general-purpose lane due to underutilization. The Minnesota Department of Transportation did not have an ongoing data collection and feedback loop in place to demonstrate whether the HOV lanes were achieving stated goals. Consequently, Minnesota DOT commissioned a special study to test whether it was more beneficial to covert the HOV lanes to general-purpose lanes or leave them as HOV lanes. As the State of Georgia expands its HOV system, an opportunity exists to initiate a system to test measures of effectiveness (MOEs). Implementation of formal data collection and reporting can provide feedback to effectively counteract negative publicity about perceived under-performing HOV lanes. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) in Texas and CalTrans District 7: Los Angeles and Ventura Counties are two examples of organizations that regularly monitor HOV operations and track historical trends of carpool and people movement volumes. Both organizations are able to demonstrate comparisons of HOV versus general-purpose lane usage. To test HOV program policies, measures of effectiveness should be developed that help answer to what extent HOV facilities are achieving established goals. The two primary MOEs adopted for the Atlanta area HOV lanes are achieving greater person throughput and reliable, consistent travel time savings. As with any monitoring program, establishing clear and identifiable goals, objectives, and strategies to measure the program's success is vital. The main concern is how to conduct the measurement in a meaningful manner. The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) has had considerable experience in collecting and analyzing HOV data for DART and other agencies. Generally, TTI employs two basic approaches. The first is to perform pre- and post- trend-line data comparisons for each facility where HOV was developed. The second is to collect the same data in non-HOV facilities and HOV facilities and perform comparative analysis. An example of this locally is the pre- and post- analysis of the I-85 HOV extension beyond I-285. This general process is detailed below. 80 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report 9.1.1 Pre- and Post- Testing of HOV Facilities October 2003 In order to find out how an HOV facility performs over time, it is necessary to compare the before and after impacts of an HOV lane on a freeway facility. After identifying relevant objectives and measurements for HOV, one can collect base-line data on the facility before it is under construction for HOV. This will establish the everyday general-purpose lane conditions on the freeway. Then, once the HOV lane is in operation, data on high-occupancy vehicle use and single occupancy vehicle use as well as travel times in HOV versus non-HOV lanes are collected. In the first few years of operation, it is useful to collect data frequently to measure the HOV effectiveness and then decrease the frequency of data collection and reporting over time. For example, after a new HOV lane is in operation, the necessary data could be collected monthly for the first six months, quarterly for the next two years, and then annually thereafter. TTI has observed in Texas that it takes a few years to reach a consistent level of HOV use on a facility. 9.1.2 Data Collection Only a small portion of the raw data used to perform HOV measurements of effectiveness analyses can be generated electronically. The primary collection tool is an observation survey. This requires employing people to observe and tally auto occupancy, traffic volumes, HOV violations, and monitor travel time. Usually, data is collected only during the peak periods, not daily. Overall, the manual data collection process is cost-intensive. However, technology needs to be monitored for the potential use in data collection to simplify the process. Some data, such as HOV violations, may be easier to collect as databases for regional enforcement are put in place. Table 9.1 summaries HOV objectives, measures of effectiveness, and data collection techniques utilized by the Texas Transportation Institute. 81 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report Table 9.1 Measures of Effectiveness Matrix October 2003 Objective Increase person movement Ridership of 10,000 or more Greater percent of persons in HOV lane vs. SOV lane during peak hour Increase vehicle occupancy Maintain reliability and integrity of HOV lane Demonstrate travel time savings of HOV over SOV lanes Increase number of carpools Enhance bus operations Increase bus ridership Increase Park and Ride Utilization Increase and maintain public support No adverse impact on general-purpose lanes Change in general-purpose lane speed Change in accident rate Cost effective increase of person-movement capacity Value of benefit outweigh costs Greater B/C ratio than SOV lane alternative Improve air quality Reduce fuel consumption Measure of Effectiveness Person movement Vehicle movement Vehicle occupancy Accident rate Violation rate Vehicle breakdown rate Average operating speed/travel time Carpool formation Average bus operating speeds during peak hour Bus vehicle and passenger trips Average daily number and percent of spaces utilized Person satisfaction Average operating speed/travel time Accident rate Average cost HOV construction Average cost of HOV support facilities Average cost of daily operation and enforcement Tons of pollutants emitted Gallons of fuel consumed Data Collection Visual Survey count vehicles, persons Automatic vehicle identification (AVI) readers located in HOV and general-purpose lanes Visual occupancy count survey count persons Accident data state records Visual survey state records Manual travel time surveys using floating car method Visual survey count carpools Manual travel time surveys using floating car method Visual survey count bus occupancy Visual survey count spaces Random survey Manual travel time surveys using floating car method Accident data state TTI has used the MicroBENCOST economic planning tool to analyze cost-effectiveness. It has other data input such as traffic, accident rate and geometric configuration in addition to cost inputs. Air quality monitoring station and model estimates Model estimates 9.2 Planning Toolkit for Implementation The planning toolkit for HOV implementation briefly covers additional analysis required as HOV projects proceed to design and environmental review. The HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region primarily focused on how to sequence development of HOV throughout the region. The planning analysis was conducted at a screening level. The results of the effort provide a guide for future development, but in most cases, additional, more detailed analyses are necessary in order to successfully implement HOV and complementary facilities. The following outlines specific areas for a detailed planning HOV lane evaluation. The HOV Strategic Implementation Plan used existing and projected mainline traffic volumes along sections between existing interchanges. Some additional counts were collected during the study, but additional traffic information will be needed such as: 24-hour vehicle counts along freeway mainline and/or at interchange ramps and along the current interchanging arterial roadways as well as non-interchanging, roadway crossings that could provide potential HOV interchange opportunities 82 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report AM and PM peak period traffic turning movement counts at all current interchange intersections along the project corridor, at intersections in close proximity to the existing interchange intersections, and at intersections that may be heavily impacted due to the diversion of HOV traffic to exclusive HOV interchanges Baseline auto occupancy and vehicle classification counts on corridor and arterial roadways Directional splits (derived from peak period and daily traffic counts) Some current and future land use data were reviewed for the implementation plan, but this review was at a macroscopic level. More detailed data may be available from local and regional agencies to meet these needs, GDOT should work closely with these agencies to minimize redundancy in data collection. To establish a better understanding of potential land use compatibility and impacts, the following should be performed: Evaluate land uses adjacent in the project corridor in order to ultimately determine the feasibility and impacts of alternative design concepts Evaluate existing and future land uses by major land use type as well as private versus public ownership Identify and inventory land uses on a parcel by parcel basis up to one-quarter mile radius of the corridor right-of-way at current and potential new interchange locations particularly where existing and potential park and ride facilities are integrated in the HOV system Though modeling the proposed HOV system was one part of the HOV plan, this model output performed at a gross level on the mainline. For a corridor-specific examination, the planning evaluation will require: Developing daily (ADT) traffic volumes for the existing condition and future year conditions Establishing growth rates by segments along the corridor roadway. This will allow the application of the rates to existing traffic data or supplemented traffic counts to establish the existing condition for the traffic operations analysis However, the ARC model is currently being redeveloped, and the new model will more precisely output data on HOV. This new model will need to be monitored for new output that may more accurately define HOV related data. 83 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region Final Report Additional considerations are: October 2003 Performing a traffic operations analysis for the existing and future background (No-Build) condition to establish a basis of comparing operations associated with the concept alternatives Examining heavily impacted intersections associated with the HOV interchanges Conducting highway operational analyses for weaving, ramp junction and basis freeway segment operations Developing a traffic simulation model to assess potential network modifications associated with the alternative concepts as well as operational modifications Finally, it will be necessary to continue coordination with the transit agencies, local jurisdictions and other agencies. 9.3 Design Toolkit for Implementation As HOV projects move into the concept development stage, there are several issues that should be noted for the benefit of those responsible for the development of the concepts. While many detailed issues were analyzed during this study, concept level layouts, typical sections and final cost estimates were not prepared. However, the analysis and recommendations of this study are a good starting point and should be reviewed before proceeding with concept development. Based on the work performed to develop the HOV Strategic Implementation Plan, the following are recommended for consideration by the engineers responsible for concept development. Database A GIS level database was used for this study. Aerial photography was flown at altitudes that are too high for use in preparing design level mapping. New photography and mapping should be obtained for concept and design. Typical Sections Barrier separation is desirable and should be used wherever practical. Moveable barriers, with provisions for drainage, should be placed in a full-depth pavement buffer between the HOV lane and general use lanes. Buffer separation should be used to avoid unnecessary bridge replacements, excessive property impacts, or undesirable environmental impacts. When buffer separation must be used, they should desirably be 4' wide with vertical delineator posts. 84 HOV Strategic Implementation Plan for the Atlanta Region October 2003 Final Report Alternative typical sections, layouts and cost estimates should be analyzed during concept development. While a consistent typical section is desirable, the final design may be a mixture of barrier and buffer separation. Where possible, the design should provide flexibility to allow for change in operation as conditions warrant. This should include the ability to convert the typical section to two HOV lanes or to relocate direct merge or slip ramps. Access The locations and types of HOV access recommended in this study are a good starting point. However, alternative locations and types should be studied during concept development. Direct access locations should be established first. Intermediate slip ramps should be located in areas not well covered by direct access points to capture HOV traffic that enter the freeway by general use interchanges. Direct merge access should only be used on buffer separated facilities and in areas where slip ramps and direct access are not practical. Slip ramps or direct merge access locations should be a sufficient distance from general use interchanges to allow safe weaves across the general use lanes. Where general use interchanges are spaced closely, the slip ramp or direct merge access should cover two or more interchanges. Enforcement Areas Provide safe enforcement areas where practical. For barrier separated systems, enforcement areas should be placed at all access points, especially the exits. Long gaps without an enforcement area should be avoided. The opportunity for vehicles to enter and exit the HOV system in areas without enforcement provisions should be avoided. Enforcement areas should be located so as not to give the violator an opportunity to exit the HOV system after seeing an enforcement vehicle. Other Issues All design should be in accordance with all AASHTO and GDOT guidelines and policies. Guide sign placement must be considered during concept development. 85 HOV System Plan October 2003