Click for next page ( 14

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 13
Background and Key Concepts 13 2.2.7 Costs The costs associated with the development and operations of CMV-only lanes can be broken into capital costs and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. Capital cost components typi- cally include ROW acquisition costs and construction costs. ROW acquisition costs for the devel- opment of CMV-only lane facilities depend on the land ownership patterns around existing highway corridors. It is expected that diversion of trucks from mixed-flow to CMV-only lanes would result in a net reduction in total pavement maintenance costs, since the increased pavement costs associated with the CMV-only lanes would be offset by the reduction in maintenance costs on the general purpose lanes due to reduction in pavement damage resulting from diversion of trucks to the CMV-only lanes. Middleton et al.12 provides a detailed discussion on the construction costs associated with exclusive CMV-only lane facilities as a function of the number of lanes, and how these costs compare to the construction costs of mixed-flow facilities. Detailed excerpts are pro- vided in Appendix A. The general conclusion is that the costs of building separated CMV-only lanes are always higher than mixed-flow facilities, and these incremental costs can be quite signif- icant. The primary factors contributing to higher costs for separated facilities is the higher qual- ity and thickness of pavement, potentially wider and higher quality shoulders for the separated facilities, and Jersey barriers with larger cross-sectional features and increased reinforcements compared to mixed-flow facilities. However, some of the benefits associated with separated facil- ities such as safety and reliability improvements can outweigh the increased costs when compared to mixed-flow facilities and justify their implementation. Reich et al.13 estimated that the most cost-effective option for an ECL facility is a two-lane facility built on existing median ROW with minimum width of 36 ft, which is nonbarrier sep- arated from the general purpose lanes, the capital cost for which would be around $4 million per mile. The Reason Foundation study on corridors for toll truckways14 provides even lower capital cost estimates of around $2.5 million per mile for two-lane toll truckways. The differ- ences in unit capital costs (cost per mile) between studies can be attributed to varying assump- tions related to type of pavement materials, number of interchanges, and shoulder width and type of material used for shoulders. Consequently, feasibility analyses of CMV-only lanes typi- cally entail conducting a detailed capital cost analysis, based on a key set of assumptions appli- cable to the corridor being studied. Additional data on CMV-only lane capital costs are provided in Appendix A. 2.3 Integration with Intelligent Transportation Systems Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) have been applied to Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO) in the United States for a number of years to improve the regulation and enforcement of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), as well as to improve motor carrier operations. ITS/CVO technologies primarily are used to provide improvements in the following four areas: 1. Safety assurance, for assuring the safety of commercial drivers, vehicles, and cargo, including automated inspections, safety information systems, and on-board safety monitoring systems; 12D. Middleton, S. Venglar, C. Quiroga, D. Lord, and D. Jasek, Strategies for Separating Trucks from Passenger Vehicles: Final Report, September 2006. 13S. Reich, J. Davis, M. Catala, A. Ferraro, and S. Concas, The Potential for Reserved Truck Lanes and Truckways in Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research, Research Report 21-17-422-LO, May 2002. 14R. W. Poole, Jr. and P. Samuel, Corridors for Toll Truckways: Suggested Locations for Pilot Projects, Reason Foundation, Policy Study 316, February 2004.

OCR for page 13
14 Separation of Vehicles--CMV-Only Lanes 2. Credentials administration, for improving the procedures and systems for managing motor carrier regulation, including electronic credentialing, electronic tax filing, and collection of electronic payments (and easing these processes for motor carriers); 3. Electronic screening, for facilitating the verification of size, weight, safety, and credentials infor- mation, including automated screening at weigh stations, international border crossings, and other inspection locations (one advantage of electronic screening for motor carriers is the sig- nificant improvement in carrier productivity--carriers allowed to by-pass weigh stations save fuel, maintain speeds, and incur less pavement wear and tear); and 4. Carrier operations, for reducing congestion and managing the flow of CMV traffic, including traveler information systems and hazardous material incident response. New technology applications also are being examined for improving operations through auto- mated guidance systems, and this appears to be a particularly promising application consistent with benefits sought in CMV-only lane projects. 2.3.1 ITS/CVO Applications to Increase Capacity and Save Time and Fuel on CMV-Only Lanes In 2004, Yin, Miller, and Shladover,15 in affiliation with the California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways (PATH) Program, examined the use of dedicated truck lanes, with and without the application of ITS technologies, to improve the performance of the freight movement system in metropolitan Chicago. Their focus was the feasibility of applying cooperative vehicle highway automation systems (CVHAS). CVHAS technologies are systems that provide driving control assistance or fully automated driving, based on information about the vehicle's driving environment that can be received by communication from other vehicles or from the infrastruc- ture, as well as from the vehicles' own on-board sensors. The authors considered both mixed traffic operations and trucks completely segregated from other traffic for their examination of CVHAS-related truck operations. CVHAS technologies included in the analysis consisted of automatic steering, speed, and spacing control, and opera- tion of trucks in either two- or three-truck platoons. To support their analysis, Yin et al. selected the following five operational concepts: 1. Baseline concept (i.e., no CVHAS technologies, no CMV-only facilities--"do nothing"); 2. CMV-only facility without CVHAS technologies and open to all trucks; 3. CMV-only facility with CVHAS technologies (automatic steering) for equipped trucks only; 4. CMV-only facility with CVHAS technologies (automatic steering, automatic speed, and spac- ing control with two- and three-truck platoons) for equipped trucks only--"fully automated"; and 5. CMV-only facility without CVHAS technologies before a certain year to be determined (even- tually set at 2015) and following that year, upgrade to an automated truckway (automatic steer- ing, automatic speed, and spacing control with two- or three-truck platoons)--"time-staged automation." The results (see Table 2.3) indicated that all CMV-only lane concepts appear to be cost-effective compared to the baseline. However, the benefits of deploying CVHAS technologies in relation to costs are not clear-cut, as evidenced by the benefit/cost ratio for Alternative 2 that did not deploy CVHAS, which is higher than the ratios for Alternatives 3 and 4 that employed CVHAS. Time- 15 Y. Yin, M. A. Miller, and S. E. Shladover, Assessment of the Applicability of Cooperative Vehicle-Highway Automation Systems to Freight Movement in Chicago, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., January 2004.

OCR for page 13
Background and Key Concepts 15 Table 2.3. Costs and benefits of truck lane concepts compared to baseline (in millions of dollars). Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 (Without (Automatic (Fully (Time-Staged CVHAS) Steering) Automated) Automation) Benefits Travel Time Savings 2,938 2,186 1,931 2,982 Reduction of Fuel Consumption 10 8 49 28 Total Benefits 2,949 2,194 1,980 3,010 Costs Construction 692 424 424 459 ROW 74 48 48 52 Annual O&M 14 15 16 15 CVHAS--Facility 0 0.4 1.6 0.8 CVHAS--Vehicle 0 146 269 40 Total Costs 780 634 758 566 Benefit/Cost Ratio 3.78 3.46 2.61 5.32 Source: Adapted from Shladover, S. E., Advanced Vehicle Technologies and Exclusive Truck Lanes: Research from California PATH Program, presented at Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., January 2006. staged automation, represented by Alternative 5, showed the best benefit/cost ratio. The authors concluded that automation is able to improve the performance of the freight movement system, but timing and how it is deployed are important in determining efficiency and success. The impli- cation is that, as the authors noted, the incremental costs of deploying CVHAS from the start out- weighed the incremental benefits, as compared with the more conventional CMV-only lanes without CVHAS technologies. On the other hand, Alternative 5 deployed CVHAS at the "right" time, when the cost of the technologies was reduced and the trucking industry was better prepared for the innovative technologies, leading to higher levels of market penetration. Their research rec- ommended for further investigation a concept consisting of a CMV-only facility open to all trucks before 2015, and then upgraded to an automated highway open only to automated trucks. In 2006, at the TRB Annual Meeting, Shladover16 looked at the Chicago case study and a Los Angeles study of nonautomated versus automated dedicated truck lanes on SR 60 (also conducted for the California PATH Program) to draw conclusions about advanced technologies and CMV- only lanes. In both the TRB presentation and a recapitulation of the Chicago case study (published in the PATH Intellimotion periodical, also 2006), Shladover17 reported that close-formation, three-truck platoons double the throughput per lane of a CMV-only facility. Greater increases are possible with larger platoons. Further, needed lane widths also can be reduced. As a result, even in corridors with very high truck volumes, ROW requirements may be reduced along with associated construction costs. Shladover also reported significant fuel consumption savings due to reduced aerodynamic drag on trucks that are electronically linked into platoons, although he said emissions reductions are less certain. He noted that truck lanes offer a "protected environment where imple- mentation of truck automation can be effected with a high probability of trucks being able to fol- low each other directly, without interference from light-duty vehicles, and with reduced technical 16 S. E. Shladover, Advanced Vehicle Technologies and Exclusive Truck Lanes: Research from California PATH Program, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., January 2006. 17 S. E. Shladover, "Improving Freight Movement by Using Automated Trucks on Dedicated Truck Lanes: A Chicago Case Study," California PATH Intellimotion, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2006.

OCR for page 13
16 Separation of Vehicles--CMV-Only Lanes and safety risks compared to implementations that would require coexistence with unequipped passenger cars." VanderWerf et al.18 in a 2004 PATH report, summarized the key benefits of truck automation that would accrue to commercial vehicle operators, as follows: Substantial reduction in fuel consumption, on the order of 10% to 20%, would considerably reduce operating costs; Reduced and predictable travel times resulting from automated truck platoons would improve the utilization of capital equipment and the ability to meet delivery deadlines; and Drivers could travel long distances while resting and earning payment, thereby resolving some of the current problems with driver fatigue and hours of service. VanderWerf et al. have noted that fully automated trucks on dedicated lanes are being studied in a prototype project called the Underground Logistics System that links the Amsterdam flower market with a major train station and the Schiphol Airport with fully autonomous electric shut- tles for small containers. There has been substantial interest in tolled CMV-only lanes. The rationale, which is discussed later in this chapter, is that if these lanes can generate productivity benefits for users through higher speeds and/or LCV operations, the public sector may be able to share this value with the private sector through tolling that helps generate a new revenue stream to pay for the infrastructure. A major component of this approach is the ability to utilize electronic toll collection technologies that could tap into existing toll collection programs and other types of electronic screening programs. A more extensive discussion of electronic toll collection technologies is included in Appendix A. 2.3.2 ITS/CVO Applications for Weight and Safety Enforcement on CMV-Only Lanes High-speed, mainline weigh-in-motion (WIM) systems offer states the opportunity to automat- ically verify weights of trucks traveling at highway speeds on CMV-only lanes. Weight limits can be monitored actively on truck facilities to assure pavement preservation and, when used on toll truckways, equitable collection of truckway tolls. Many states are deploying unstaffed, remote, or virtual weigh stations that feature mainline WIM, camera systems, and near real-time data trans- missions. Such a virtual weigh station can be deployed on dedicated truck lanes to spread the enforcement net of the state. On toll truckways that incorporate LCV operations, because LCVs could be required to travel on the truckways in states and on routes that do not currently allow LCV operations, it would enable the state to cost effectively monitor weights of vehicles. On any CMV-only lanes, all vehicles would be weighed-in-motion, and potential violators could be inter- cepted at special pull-out areas constructed along the CMV-only facility, or as they exit the facil- ity. Deployment of a virtual weigh station on a toll truckway, however, may be a disincentive to a portion of the industry. The self-financing structure of the facility will cause enforcement options to be scrutinized at least as heavily from the industry viewpoint as from the government viewpoint. In the future, direct or automated enforcement of CMV weight limits (or dimension, safety-related, or credentials regulations) is possible using electronically collected weight (or dimension, safety, or credentials) data. A wireless roadside inspection (WRI) program has been commissioned by FMCSA (the spon- soring agency of the ITS/CVO and CVISN programs) to validate technologies that can improve safety by leveraging on-board sensor systems and wireless communication of the condition of vehi- 18 J. VanderWerf, S. Shladover, and M. A. Miller, Conceptual Development and Performance Assessment for the Deployment Staging of Advanced Vehicle Control and Safety Systems, California PATH, 2004.