National Academies Press: OpenBook

Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes (2010)

Chapter: Chapter 2 - Background and Key Concepts

« Previous: Chapter 1 - Introduction
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Background and Key Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14389.
×
Page 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Background and Key Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14389.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Background and Key Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14389.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Background and Key Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14389.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Background and Key Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14389.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Background and Key Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14389.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Background and Key Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14389.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Background and Key Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14389.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Background and Key Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14389.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Background and Key Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14389.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Background and Key Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14389.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Background and Key Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14389.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Background and Key Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14389.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Background and Key Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14389.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Background and Key Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14389.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Background and Key Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14389.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Background and Key Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14389.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Background and Key Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14389.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Background and Key Concepts." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14389.
×
Page 23

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

This chapter provides a summary of key background concepts and issues that are important to the understanding of potential applications of CMV-only lanes. It summarizes a detailed dis- cussion of these issues that was included in this project’s interim report and is contained in this report as Appendix A (available on the TRB website at www.TRB.org by searching for NCHRP Report 649/NCFRP Report 3). The main topics that are discussed in this chapter include the following: • Planning process issues, • Configuration and design issues, • Integration with ITS, • LCV operations, and • Tolling and privatization. 2.1 Planning Process Issues CMV-only lanes should be integrated with long-range planning objectives of a state or MPO, and they should be applied to selected corridors after a thorough evaluation of a number of differ- ent alternative approaches to achieve the same objectives. Some of the benefits that are sought from CMV-only lanes include those presented in Table 2.1. This table also indicates why CMV-only lanes might be a superior approach to achieving these benefits in certain circumstances. Since many applications of CMV-only lanes anticipate tolling as a way to finance the facility, Table 2.2 illustrates how some of the benefits described in Table 2.1 can create value for the private sector that can be captured by the public sector through tolling. A number of studies cited in Appendix A illustrate how inclusion of CMV-only lanes in long- range plans or how evaluation of CMV-only lanes as options in major corridor studies can be related to regional or corridor-specific planning goals. Specific regional goals that may be sup- ported by CMV-only lane concepts include: safety, improved mobility for both trucks and autos, economic development, and reduced neighborhood impacts (moving trucks to a desig- nated facility with clear mobility benefits). In determining the degree to which CMV-only lanes represent a feasible approach to supporting these objectives, the Georgia Department of Trans- portation (GDOT) notes, “to achieve the highest and best use of a truck-only lane system invest- ment requires an understanding of the market for truck-only lanes and designing a system that captures the greatest market share and provides the greatest opportunity to garner travel time savings.”2 5 C H A P T E R 2 Background and Key Concepts 2Georgia Department of Transportation, Truck-Only Lanes Needs Analysis and Engineering Assessment, April 2008.

6 Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes Category Benefit Group Benefiting Description Operational Efficiency Higher Travel Speeds Less Delay Improved Level of Service (LOS)1 General Purpose (GP)2 Lane Users CMV-Only Lane Users Vehicle separation allows all vehicles to travel at their designated speeds without conflict. Slower commercial vehicles are not present in right (slow) travel lanes. Less weaving. Improved operational efficiency. Safety Enhanced Safety General Purpose Lane Users CMV-Only Lane Users Fewer, less severe crashes as a result of vehicle separation (and minimal car-truck interaction). Enhanced Travel Options CMV-Only Lane Users Increased trip reliability and reduced transportation costs of fuel consumption due to severe congestion or delay caused by truck- car accidents. Economic Improved Freight Productivity CMV-Only Lane Users The productivity of freight movement in and around major metropolitan areas and along long- haul intercity corridors is an important factor in ensuring local, regional, and national economic competitiveness. Environmental Reduced Vehicle Emissions General Purpose Lane Users CMV-Only Lane Users Stop-and-go traffic conditions improve as congestion is decreased on general purpose lanes, and air pollution emissions from slowed or stalled cars and trucks will be reduced. Notes: 1. LOS is a designation used to assess the state of performance of transportation systems. Usually, LOS categories are defined by the letters A, B, C, D, E, and F; wherein A stands for the best state of performance of the system while F stands for the worst. LOS categories are typically defined based on the performance objectives of a system, such as mobility (in which case, level of congestion measured in terms of volume-capacity (V/C) ratio, for example, is used to define LOS categories), or safety. 2. The mixed-flow lanes (lanes carrying both auto and truck traffic) of a highway are also referred to as general purpose (GP) lanes. Table 2.1. Potential benefits of CMV-only lanes. Category Benefit Group Benefiting Description Operational Efficiency Congestion Management General Purpose Lane Users CMV-Only Lane Users By imposing fees when demand levels reach capacity on CMV facilities, the level of congestion on CMV facilities is controlled. Economic Revenue General Purpose Lane Users CMV-Only Lane Users Fees can provide an additional source of revenue to pay for transportation improvements, especially the operations and maintenance of the CMV lanes themselves. Note: Benefits are general, and are not specifically tied to either mandatory or optional tolling scenarios. Table 2.2. Additional CMV-only application benefits through tolling.

Because of the high level of investment required for CMV-only lane projects, several studies have recommended “thresholds” be in place prior to pursuit of the project to be used in screening high potential corridors. These threshold categories are reasonable when considering that CMV-only lanes are most attractive when they provide meaningful blocks of travel time savings to commer- cial vehicle users, thus minimum values for numbers of trucks or percent trucks on roadway seg- ments can serve as a guide for planning. However, the conditions in the field necessary to ensure a successful CMV-only lane project can be difficult to quantify. By providing thresholds, planners are able to gauge, at a high level, whether the region’s conditions warrant the concept. Research3 shows that a variety of CMV-only lane planning thresholds have been developed as follows: • Mainline Volume – Peak hour > 1,800 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) (Janson) – Off-peak hour > 1,200 vphpl (Janson) – Two-way average daily traffic (ADT) > 120,000 (Douglas) – ADT > 100,000 (Battelle) • Heavy Truck ADT – > 20,000 for 10 mi (Douglas) • Heavy Vehicle Mix – > 30% (Janson) – 25% Trucks (Battelle) • Freight Generator Proximity – Truck generator at one terminus (Douglas) Development of performance measures and screening criteria for CMV-only lane projects will aid agencies in ensuring that objectives set early in the planning process are met. Some examples of categories of performance measures that have been used in the studies cited in Appendix A include the following: • Level of service on CMV-only lanes; • Level of service or vehicle throughput throughout the corridor (including the multipurpose lanes); • Safety through reduced number of total crashes but, more particularly, reduced number of fatal or injury crashes; • Cost-effectiveness; • Compatibility with local economic development plans (typically measured in terms of improved accessibility to major freight generators); and • Reduced emissions due to smoother traffic flows. When evaluating CMV-only lanes as part of long-range plans or corridor studies, it is impor- tant to compare CMV-only lanes with other alternatives that can achieve the same objectives. The following appropriate alternatives that have been looked at in several of the studies described in Appendix A include: • Equivalent capacity in multipurpose lanes, • CMV-lanes with and without LCV operations and/or tolling, • High-occupancy vehicle/high-occupancy toll (HOV/HOT) lanes or other types of special purpose lanes, and • Increased rail capacity. In many of the studies of CMV-only lanes that were identified in this project, traditional travel demand models have been used as the primary tool for evaluation. As follows, these models have Background and Key Concepts 7 3Paul W. Dorothy, The Potential for Exclusive Truck Facilities in Ohio, presentation at Ohio Transportation Engineering Conference, 2007, http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineering/OTEC/2007%20Presentations/Tuesday/ Session7/OTEC%202007%20Truck%20Lane%20(Dorothy).pdf.

some major shortcomings that planners should be aware of when they are using travel demand models to evaluate CMV-only lanes: • Many state and regional travel demand models do not provide comprehensive coverage of truck activity by corridor with any breakdown by the different markets that trucks serve. This can be a critical shortcoming, especially if tolling is being evaluated. Some studies suggest that value of time for trucks may vary by commodity hauled or purpose of the trip. Another short- coming of many state and regional travel demand models is that they do not have accurate representation of truck origin-destination patterns, and this can make it difficult to estimate the level of CMV-only lane usage when the facility has limited access/egress locations as com- pared to existing mixed-flow facilities. • The operational benefits of separating trucks and autos are not captured in traditional travel demand models, thus the travel time savings may not be accurately reflected in the analysis. • Traditional travel demand models do not take into account the reliability benefits of CMV- only lanes. Likewise, they do not provide much information that can be used to evaluate safety benefits. Some of these shortcomings suggest that in the future, simulation models may be a more useful tool for evaluating the benefits of CMV-only lanes. Prior to undertaking a CMV-only lane project, it is important to understand the economic benefits to the community at large of having more effi- cient freight transportation. It also is important to be able to describe how CMV-only lanes will mitigate impacts of truck traffic as compared to other alternatives that may be seen as having more direct benefits to passenger vehicles. Since long-haul multistate corridors are often candidates for CMV-only lanes, it is important to establish effective planning and funding mechanisms for multistate collaboration. Several of the studies undertaken to date have established pooled funds study efforts that join states in a collaborative planning process, but few have taken the next step into coordinated multistate implementation of a CMV-only lane project. A wide range of stakeholders should be engaged in planning for CMV-only lanes, and each may have varied positions. Since CMV-only lanes are targeted at a relatively small portion of the motor-vehicle population, getting public support is critical. Since the implementation of CMV- only lanes has a direct impact on travel conditions for autos on general purpose lanes (due to the diversion of trucks to truck-only lanes), public input and outreach would be critical in increasing awareness of the impacts of truck-only lanes (and in many cases, for garnering public support for the implementation of truck-only lanes). Also, public outreach could be essential in understand- ing public perceptions regarding truck-only lanes, such as the impacts of concentrated truck traffic (traveling on CMV-only lanes) on surrounding neighborhoods, such as on access routes serving CMV-only lanes. As the primary users of CMV-only lanes, the involvement and acceptance of the trucking industry is critically important. The participation of the trucking industry would be crucial in understanding industry perceptions of, and expectations for, CMV-only lanes. For example, the work conducted by Reich et al.4 in Florida suggested that motor carriers would be amenable to the CMV-only lane concept if CMV-only lanes provide sufficient access to trucks, serve truckers’ desired length of travel, and allow higher speed operations. The work conducted by Samuel et al.5 from the Reason Foundation talks about the importance of involving shippers and carriers, through the development of shipper/carrier forums, in contributing to policy development 8 Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes 4Stephen Reich, Janet Davis, Martin Catala, Anthony Ferraro, and Sisinnio Concas, The Potential for Reserved Truck Lanes and Truckways in Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research, Research Report 21-17- 422-LO, May 2002. 5Peter Samuel, Robert W. Poole, Jr., and Jose Holguin Veras, Policy Study 294, Toll Truckways: A New Path Toward Safer and More Efficient Freight Transportation, Reason Foundation, June 2002.

related to toll truckway standards and interoperability. For example, the study talks about how FHWA could potentially sponsor an Operators and Shippers Forum for the exchange of ideas related to toll truckway planning and development. The importance of involving shippers in the CMV-only lane planning process would be critical in the case of analysis of LCV operations, since shipper inputs can be useful in understanding potential markets (types of commodities) along a corridor, and their propensity towards LCVs. The trucking industry has provided extensive com- ment on issues such as tolling CMV-only lanes (and associated trucking industry equity implica- tions) and LCV operations on CMV-only lanes. These positions are summarized in Appendix A. The planning issues surrounding mandatory versus voluntary usage of tolled truck-only lanes are also worth noting. The importance of this issue is underscored by the fact that the performance of truck-only lanes is a direct function of truck diversion (from general purpose to truck-only lanes), and tolls can directly impact the level of truck diversion in the case of voluntary usage of truck-only lanes. Also, mandatory usage of truck-only lanes may be associated with opposition from stakeholders, such as the carrier and shipper industry, which would be important issues to consider as part of any planning/policy making processes related to tolling truck-only lanes. In the case of voluntary usage of tolled truck-only lanes, it would be important to assess the impact of various toll scenarios (variations in toll rates) on utilization of truck-only lanes. This information would, in turn, be useful in determining the revenue generation potential under var- ious toll scenarios, as well as the performance of the corridor under each scenario, to arrive at a scenario that maximizes both the toll revenue as well as corridor performance relative to other scenarios. Chapter 5 presents some key results from the work conducted in this regard as part of the I-710 Major Corridor Study. Mandatory usage of tolled truck-only lanes might be more applicable on truck-only lanes serving specific truck trip purposes, such as truck-only lanes serving major freight facilities like seaports. However, as stated earlier, the issue of industry opposition would be important to address as part of the planning process for these facilities. Another important aspect to analyze in the case of mandatory usage of tolled truck-only lanes is the mobility performance of the truck-only lanes, depending on the capacity of these lanes, and the magnitude of truck demand. For freight facilities generating high daily truck traffic, it would be important to ensure that the truck-only lanes have adequate capacity in order to ensure operational efficiencies on these lanes under mandatory usage. 2.2 Configuration and Design Issues This section presents a summary of the various types of CMV-only lane applications and the key configurational and design issues pertaining to them. This section is subdivided into the following subsections: • Types of truck lanes, • Methods of separation, • CMV-only lane cross-sectional configurations, • Right-of-way (ROW) requirements, • Pavement design, • Geometric and cross-sectional design issues, and • Costs. Additional data and information on each of these subsections can be found in Appendix A. Structural design elements (such as those pertaining to bridges) associated with CMV-only lanes have not been covered in this study, because it was concluded that analysis to elucidate the key issues surrounding this aspect of CMV-only lane projects and their relative comparisons against other alternatives would require substantial resources that are beyond the scope of the current Background and Key Concepts 9

study. It is, however, noted that future research focusing specifically on structural design issues of CMV-only lanes, and how they compare with other alternatives in terms of costs, should be under- taken to supplement the results and inferences obtained from this study. Also, such research might be more relevant for application on a case-by-case basis (for example, in the case of a corridor study where elevated CMV-only lanes might be a viable alternative). 2.2.1 Types of Truck Lanes As noted in Chapter 1, there are a number of different types of CMV-only lane concepts that include interchange treatments, lane restrictions, and climbing lanes in addition to the mainline treatments that are the focus of this study. Mainline CMV-only treatments include exclusive truck lanes (ETLs), nonexclusive truck lanes, and dual-dual roadways. ETLs physically separate truck lanes from general purpose highway lanes either through the construction of barriers or through grade-separated structures. They also may have dedicated access/egress ramps. By completely sep- arating trucks and autos they minimize weaving and maximize safety benefits. Nonexclusive truck lanes are mainline lanes that are not barrier separated (often using rumble strips) and autos typ- ically weave through the lanes at access/egress ramps. The dual-dual roadway concept has been implemented along the New Jersey Turnpike, which consists of inner auto-only lanes and outer lanes that carry mixed-flow traffic and to which truck traffic is restricted. Other types of CMV-only treatments include the following: • Truck interchange bypasses for the purpose of removing trucks from interchange merge areas where their presence could be potentially detrimental to interchange operations, as well as exac- erbating interchange safety issues. • Truck climbing lanes for the purpose of separating slow-moving trucks from the highway main- lines to prevent their impacts on optimal traffic speeds on high grades. In addition to overall speed benefits these lanes offer safety benefits by reducing lane changes by faster-moving vehicles. • Truck ramps have a similar operational function as interchange bypasses but with the focus on improving operations by allowing more efficient access and egress of trucks by reducing weav- ing conflicts. 2.2.2 Methods of Separation Fully separated lanes can involve at-grade lanes separated with a median strip, elevated sections, or tunnels. The latter separations have safety and operational benefits and may reduce right-of-way impacts but at a greater expense than the first option cited. Structural issues associated with these methods of separation that are unique to truck traffic are discussed later and in more detail in Appendix A. Jersey barriers, as used in the New Jersey Turnpike, are often provided in the case of exclusive CMV-only lanes (ECLs, i.e., CMV-only lanes that are physically separated from general purpose lanes) and dual-dual roadways to ensure complete separation of truck and auto flows. The general configuration of Jersey barriers in terms of the cross-sectional design features is governed by the need to develop a configuration that minimizes the possibility of collisions between opposing traf- fic movements, as well as minimizing the impacts on vehicles hitting the barrier. A detailed discus- sion of the configuration features of Jersey barriers is provided in McDevitt.6 The compendium of CMV-only lane information provided in Appendix A presents a summary of this information, including standards for height and cross-sectional dimensions in different applications. Rumble strips are a common feature on highways as a safety measure to mark separation in nonexclusive truck lanes. There are many factors that can favor the application of non-ECLs in lieu 10 Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes 6C. F. McDevitt, “Basics of Concrete Barriers,” Public Roads, March 2000.

of exclusive facilities for trucks, such as right-of-way (ROW) availability, costs, interchange and ramp requirements, and amount of truck traffic demand. Since the functional characteristics of rumble strips for non-ECLs would be the same as those applied for shoulders in mixed-flow facil- ities, the configuration of rumble strips for truck-auto lane separation applications is expected to follow the same standards developed by FHWA for mixed-flow facilities. 2.2.3 CMV-Only Lane Cross-Sectional Configurations Depending on ROW availability and the level of truck traffic, ECLs may include passing lanes to allow for truck passing maneuvers and access for safety vehicles. In long-haul corridors, these lanes can be short length sections placed at appropriate intervals in much the same way that railroad sidings are used. Passing lanes may not be required if shoulder widths are adequate to make them viable as breakdown lanes. In all situations, cross-sections must take into account general purpose lane requirements (lane- widths may be able to be reduced if trucks are restricted), barrier widths, and inner/outer shoul- ders (widths are related to separation and access functions). A study conducted by Middleton, et al.7 from the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) on strategies for separating trucks from passenger vehicles presents various types of CMV-only lane facility configurations under different ROW scenarios. Key observations about configuration standards are summarized in Appendix A and include options for standards with respect to CMV- only and general purpose lane widths, Jersey barrier widths, shoulder widths, and median widths under different design conditions. This, and other referenced studies, provides cross-sectional views for various configurations. Middleton’s study also provides guidance on cross-sectional design considerations related to truck passing, accommodation of disabled trucks, impacts of con- figuration elements on capital costs, accounting for future expansion possibilities, and account- ing for the efficiency and ease of exit/entrance maneuvers for trucks. Several other studies are summarized in Appendix A, including the I-710 Major Corridor Study (Los Angeles Metro), I-75 truck lanes study (Florida and Georgia DOT), and Reason Foundation studies of LCV proposals. All of these studies present alternative cross-sectional design concepts with their rationale for specific design features that may be appropriate in particular circumstances. Based on the literature review, the New Jersey Turnpike was identified as the only real-world application of the dual-dual roadway concept. The auto-only and mixed-flow lanes are physically separated from each other, and each is provided with its own access ramps to/from interchanges. Typical cross-sections are presented in Appendix A. Douglas8 provides a good discussion of truck ramp configuration issues that address concerns such as location, spacing, length, and geometry. 2.2.4 ROW Requirements Cross-sectional configuration of CMV-only lanes determines ROW requirements or vice versa. Therefore, the reader is referred to the discussion of cross-sectional configuration in Appendix A for information about ROW requirements. It should be noted that elevated CMV-only lane con- figurations are increasingly being proposed with innovative elevated structural design concepts such as box girders with slender columns, to minimize their ROW requirements. Background and Key Concepts 11 7D. Middleton, S. Venglar, C. Quiroga, D. Lord, and D. Jasek, Strategies for Separating Trucks from Passenger Vehicles: Final Report, September 2006. 8J. G. Douglas, Handbook for Planning Truck Facilities on Urban Highways, August 2004.

2.2.5 Pavement Design CMV-only facilities will typically experience a higher degree of pavement wear-and-tear com- pared to mixed-flow facilities, due to the constant heavy truck loads, presumably at higher oper- ational speeds. A study conducted by Button et al.9 from TTI was identified as a major source providing a discussion of pavement design issues addressing truck traffic loads. The following information draws heavily from this study. Large stone asphalt mixtures (LSAMs) are increasingly finding applications in the design of heavy-duty flexible pavements. Research conducted by Mahboub and Williams10 points out that properly designed LSAMs can be potentially attractive candidates for construction in heavy-truck traffic routes owing to their high resistance to deformation. Researchers are of the opinion that one of the key factors in achieving cost-effective pavement designs for heavy truck lanes is the use of premium base materials. Ongoing projects being con- ducted by TTI for TxDOT involve field testing of experimental base materials that are expected to provide useful information for the evaluation of existing material specifications, particularly for heavy truck traffic conditions. A key issue that needs to be addressed in conjunction with the devel- opment of new material specifications for CMV-only lanes is the application of new construction methods. It is expected that the implementation of new material specifications will likely require changes in existing pavement construction practices such as placing and compacting of new pave- ment materials. There also has been an increasing focus on the potential applications of smart materials11 for heavy truck corridors, because their implementation is expected to have significant benefits asso- ciated with reduced costs of pavement maintenance and improvements in traffic safety. An exam- ple of a smart material would be a self-healing polymeric substance used in pavements that would automatically heal pavement cracks. Finally, post-tensioned continuously reinforced concrete pavement designs have been proposed for consideration for the CMV-only lanes for the Trans Texas Corridor (TTC) and some of the cited advantages would appear to have general applicability to CMV-only lanes. 2.2.6 Geometric and Cross-Sectional Design Issues Although highway mainline design standards typically account for the physical and operating characteristics of trucks in the design processes for geometrics (horizontal and vertical alignments) and cross-sectional features (lane widths, shoulder widths, etc.), it is expected that these design standards would not always be directly transferable to CMV-only lanes, because of factors such as differences in truck operating characteristics on CMV-only lanes compared to general purpose lanes (for example, CMV-only lanes would typically allow for higher truck operating speeds than would general purpose lanes). Also, CMV-only lanes supporting long-haul LCV operations would require the application of a separate set of design guidelines that specifically address the physical and operating characteristics of LCVs, which are quite different from those of regular combina- tion trucks. Appendix A summarizes the major geometric and cross-sectional design parameters that would be important to consider in the design of CMV-only lanes, including sight distance, horizontal and vertical alignment, and cross-sectional elements. 12 Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes 9J. W. Button, E. G. Fernando, and D. R. Middleton, Synthesis of Pavement Issues Related to High-Speed Corri- dors, Texas Transportation Institute, Research Report 0-4756-1, September 2004. 10K. Mahboub and E. G. Williams, “Construction of Large-Stone Asphalt Mixes (LSAMs) in Kentucky,” Transportation Research Record 1282, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., pp. 41–44, 1990. 11Smart materials, as defined by Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org), are materials whose properties can be signifi- cantly changed in a controlled fashion under external stimuli, such as temperature, moisture, stress, etc.

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; Background and Key Concepts 13 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.

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- 14 Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes 15Y. 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.

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 Background and Key Concepts 15 Alternative 2 (Without CVHAS) Alternative 3 (Automatic Steering) Alternative 4 (Fully Automated) Alternative 5 (Time-Staged 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. Table 2.3. Costs and benefits of truck lane concepts compared to baseline (in millions of dollars). 16S. E. Shladover, Advanced Vehicle Technologies and Exclusive Truck Lanes: Research from California PATH Program, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., January 2006. 17S. 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.

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- 16 Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes 18J. 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.

cles and their drivers. The WRI program is expected to be fully deployed in 2012. WRI technolo- gies could be applied to CMV-only lanes to maximize CMV inspections with minimal roadside investment costs. The roadside components of WRI are envisioned to include equipment, positioned along high- ways, that supports wireless communications to collect safety data message sets from properly equipped CMVs and provide the message sets to the rest of the WRI system. Roadside equipment will include receiver units and mobile enforcement vehicles. CMV-only facilities can be equipped with the necessary roadside units and, because all the traffic consists of CMVs, there is potential for optimal numbers of inspections, constrained only by the level of participation on the part of CMVs (unless equipment is mandated). It should be noted that the separation of trucks and cars may not improve the technical aspects of collecting information by ITS/CVO technologies for enforcement or tolling purposes. Auto- matic vehicle identification (AVI), WIM, and WRI technologies are designed to work in a variety of traffic environments, and would not “work better” technically in CMV-only facilities. However, the separation of trucks and cars would ease the challenges of concentrating trucks in weigh sta- tions or in the outermost lanes of multilane highways in order to capture information from them. In this “captive” environment, few, if any, trucks would be able to avoid size, weight, and/or safety monitoring. As larger numbers of trucks use the CMV-only facilities, enforcement agencies will be able to ensure the compliance of a greater percentage of the CMV population. 2.4 Longer Combination Vehicle Operations Longer combination vehicles (LCVs) were defined by ISTEA as “any combination of a truck tractor and two or more trailers or semi-trailers which operate on the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways with a Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) greater than 80,000 pounds.” ISTEA also allowed grandfathering of existing LCV operations in states where LCVs were allowed prior to June 1, 1991. Because of their larger size and higher weight limit, several potential advantages have been tied to operating LCVs over smaller, lighter commercial vehicles, including increased produc- tivity, reduced truck traffic, reduced cost per unit cargo, and reduced emissions. Similarly, several disadvantages of LCVs also have been associated with the concept and include potential safety issues, potential increases in pavement damage, potential increases in roadside damage (e.g., shoul- ders, curbs, roadside signs), and inadequate rest area parking for truck driver relief. Appendix A provides more detailed information about current LCV configurations and size and weight limits by state. According to the Reason Foundation,19 the existing United States LCV network is fragmented. Although our economy is dependent on global supply chains and efficient goods movement, our internal network for longer commercial vehicle operations does not support the supply chain either at a national level, or between states. While the western U.S. states have the beginnings of an inter- state LCV network, there are no LCV routes that provide connectivity between the western United States and the eastern United States over the Mississippi River. When discussing the use of LCVs and implementation of multistate LCV corridors, it is natural to probe the issue of truck-rail competition. Trucking remains by far the largest freight transporta- tion mode, carrying around 69% of the tonnage for all goods shipped in the United States.20 This Background and Key Concepts 17 19R. W. Poole, Jr. and P. Samuel, Policy Study 316, Corridors for Toll Truckways: Suggested Locations for Pilot Projects, Reason Foundation, February 2004. 202007 Commodity Flow Survey (http://www.bts.gov/publications/commodity_flow_survey/preliminary_tables_ december_2008/html/table_01.html).

is due to the fact that nearly 55% of all freight shipped (measured in tons) travels less than 50 mi, and around 78% travels less than 250 mi.21 Shorter trip lengths with lower lane densities are dom- inated by trucks, while longer trip lengths with higher lane densities are dominated by rail. In recent years, containerizations have turned rail intermodal into more of a long-distance trucking com- petitor; however, whether a shipper chooses to use truck or rail to transport goods depends on sev- eral key factors, including the type of commodity, distance (transit time), service quality, price, and customer preference. Potentially, implementation of LCVs could influence these factors; however, it is not within the purview of this study to investigate them. 2.4.1 LCV Studies Reason Foundation Study In order to mitigate some of the perceived disadvantages of LCV operations noted in the pre- vious section, the Reason Foundation proposes that heavy-duty toll truckways be constructed to complement the existing LCV network.22 The toll truckways would be constructed with the high- est regard for pavement, geometric and safety requirements to allow for use by LCVs. These lanes are proposed to be voluntary to all trucks; however, they would be mandatory for LCVs in non- LCV states. According to the return on investment calculated, these lanes would also be self- funding using the following assumptions: • Two (14-ft) lanes each way, • Concrete Jersey barrier separation, • Separate access/egress ramps, • Nodes (make-up/breakdown yards), • Variable tolling (all electronic), • Voluntary for conventional rigs, mandatory for LCVs, and • Located in existing freeway corridors. Although truckers are leery of paying tolls in addition to the other fees and taxes already required, the Reason Foundation concludes that productivity gains made possible by truckways would be so large that trucking companies would be willing to pay tolls to use them. Table 2.4 shows the truck productivity performance of dedicated truckways (with standard truck and LCV operations) compared to mixed freeways with standard truck operations. The semitrailer is the most common long-haul truck in all 48 contiguous states, while the turnpike double is the largest currently operational LCV. The results of this comparison show that signif- icant gains in truck productivity are possible when trucking companies take advantage of dedi- cated truckways. I-35 Trade Corridor Study The I-35 Trade Corridor Study23 reviewed a variety of alternative scenarios aimed at improv- ing local, intrastate, interstate, and international service on I-35 from Texas to Minnesota. One of the alternatives, Trade Focus Strategy, centered on emphasizing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) function of the corridor (through the implementation of a partial NAFTA truckway). The alternative proposes to upgrade highways and use truckways to carry 18 Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes 212007 Commodity Flow Survey (http://www.bts.gov/publications/commodity_flow_survey/preliminary_tables_ december_2008/html/table_03.html). 22P. Samuel, R. W. Poole, Jr., and J. Holguin Veras, Toll Truckways: A New Path toward Safer and More Efficient Freight Transportation, Reason Foundation, June 2002. 23HNTB and Wilbur Smith Associates, I-35 Trade Corridor Study, Recommended Corridor Investment Strategies, Texas Department of Transportation, September 1999.

commercial vehicles with larger size and weight limits, where practical, for saving in purchase of additional ROW. The study resulted in the Trade Focus Strategy being recommended with best scores in cate- gories of socioeconomic, environmental, traffic (i.e., operating cost, accident cost savings, and travel time savings), and feasibility. This alternative scored highest in these categories because of the cost-effectiveness of being able to add exclusive lanes for trucks, only where they are required. The study did note that there would be several obstacles to promoting the Trade Focus Strategy through this multijurisdictional study corridor. However, the biggest benefits would be derived by creating a seamless corridor. Some of the key factors that will impact the effectiveness of LCV operations include organizational complexity, regulatory complexity, carrier participa- tion, credentials, and truck size and weight uniformity. Western Uniformity Scenario Analysis The Western Governors’ Association requested that U.S.DOT24 assess the impacts of lifting the LCV freeze and allowing harmonized LCV weights, dimensions, and routes among only those western states that currently allow LCVs. The assumption was made that weights would be limited to a maximum gross vehicle weight of 129,000 lbs, and that any benefits achieved would be limited because of the limited scope of the study (i.e., it did not take the whole nation into account). Table 2.5 shows that if LCVs were harmonized in these states, it is predicted that there would be a 76% reduction in travel by conventional five-axle tractor-semitrailers, a 44% reduc- tion of STAA doubles (Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 [STAA] description as five- or six-axle twin trailers with maximum trailer lengths of 28.5 ft) travel, and a 25% reduction in total heavy truck travel. “Because shipments that would divert to LCVs are longer than shipments that would not divert, the decrease in total travel is greater than the decrease in shipments by Background and Key Concepts 19 Mixed Freeway Semitrailer Truckway Semitrailer Truckway Triple Short Truckway Turnpike Double Payload (Pounds) 45,000 45,000 67,500 90,000 Metric Tons 20 20 30 40 100-mi Delivery (2004 Freight Rates) $500 $500 $750 $1,000 Average Speed on the Road 38 mph 60 mph 60 mph 60 mph Miles Driven in 8-h Shift (6 h Driving) 228 mi 360 mi 360 mi 360 mi Revenue from 6 h Payload at 2004 Rates $1,140 $1,800 $2,700 $3,600 Variable Costs $684 $684 $1,007 $1,165 Available for Overhead, Profits, Tolls $456 $1,116 $1,693 $2,435 Extra Earnings from Using Truckways per Shift per Day N/A $660 $1,237 $1,979 Assume Extra Productivity Split Three Ways N/A $220 $412 $660 Shipper Savings on 100-mi Delivery N/A $61/12.2% $76/15.2% $91/18.3% Source: Adapted from Poole, Jr., R.W. and P. Samuel, Toll Truckways: Increasing Productivity and Safety in Goods Movement, Reason Foundation, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/download/hep/freightplanning/talkingfreight3_16_05bp.ppt. Table 2.4. Comparison of truck productivity between truckway and mixed freeway. 24U.S.DOT, April 2004, Western Uniformity Scenario Analysis: A Regional Truck Size and Weight Scenario Requested by the Western Governors’ Association.

tractor-semitrailer. On a tonnage basis, less than one-half of tractor-semitrailer shipments was estimated to divert to LCVs.”25 Although costs increase due to bridge and geometric improvements, it is expected that pave- ment costs will be reduced due to the reduced number of VMT. Also, note that many of the LCV routes are currently designated as such, and already have strengthened pavement and bridges. The costs reported in the study may not be typical of new, exclusive CMV-only applications. Finally, one of the most significant benefits highlighted in this study is that of shipper savings. Considering that the majority of freight on the system travels by truck (approximately $610 bil- lion in business per year), even a modest saving in shipper cost can make a significant difference. This study suggests that by expanding LCV operations, shipper costs may be reduced by as much as $2 billion per year, representing an almost 4% saving of total shipper costs within the region. 2.4.2 Policy Changes Required for LCV Implementation Appendix A notes that there are a number of regulatory and policy changes that would be needed to facilitate LCV implementation for CMV-only lanes. The Reason Foundation has pro- vided several recommendations with respect to LCV operations, which include the following:26 • Provision of ROW in interstate and freeway corridors, • Liberalized size and weight limits on truckway lanes, and • Removal of ban on interstate tolling for truckway lanes. 2.5 Tolling and Privatization The application of tolls for trucks operating on CMV-only lanes and use of the toll revenues to finance them has been reported to be a particularly promising concept in a variety of studies, due to the higher value of time and reliability of trucks compared to passenger vehicles, and the con- gestion reduction benefits for trucks operating on CMV-only lanes. Studies conducted by the Rea- 20 Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes Vehicle Configuration Base Case VMT (Millions) Scenario VMT (Millions) Scenario Percent Change Five-Axle Tractor Semitrailer 14,476 3,442 -76% Six-Axle Tractor Semitrailer 1,924 938 -51% Five- or Six-Axle Double 1,351 750 -44% Six-Axle Truck Trailer 626 607 -3% Seven-Axle Double 188 2,190 +1,065% Eight-or-More-Axle Double 213 5,626 +2,541% Triples 45 473 +951% Total 18,823 14,028 -25% Source: U.S.DOT, Western Uniformity Scenario Analysis: A Regional Truck Size and Weight Scenario Requested by the Western Governors’ Association, April 2004, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/truck/wusr/wusr.pdf. Table 2.5. Forecasts of 2010 base case VMT by vehicle configuration and western uniformity VMT impact for 13 analyzed states. 25U.S.DOT, April 2004, Western Uniformity Scenario Analysis: A Regional Truck Size and Weight Scenario Requested by the Western Governors’ Association. 26R. W. Poole, Jr. and P. Samuel, Policy Study 316, Corridors for Toll Truckways: Suggested Locations for Pilot Projects, Reason Foundation, February 2004.

son Foundation have supported the implementation of toll truckways with LCV operations, based on the rationale that operating LCVs on dedicated truckways offer truckers not only travel time and reliability benefits, but increased productivity, for which truckers would be willing to pay higher tolls. 2.5.1 Truck Value of Time In order to assess the feasibility of tolling CMV-only lanes, it is important to understand how truck operators value time savings. Generally speaking, a trucker’s value of time is a function of many factors, which include, but may not be limited to, the type of trucking business operation (for example, for-hire and private carriers), truck trip length characteristics (short-haul versus long-haul trips), the type of truck (medium versus heavy trucks), the type of delivery schedule (not fixed delivery schedule versus penalty on late delivery), as well as the type of highway facil- ity (noncongested rural highways and heavily congested urban areas). Several methods have been employed to measure a trucker’s value of time, including the following: • Revenue or net operating profit method. This method estimates truck value of time in terms of the net increase in profit resulting from reduction in travel times. • Cost-saving method. This method estimates truck value of time in terms of the cost savings to truck operators per unit of time. • Cost-of-time method. This method calculates the cost of providing time savings for a specific project. • Willingness-to-pay method. This method measures the “market” or “perceived” value of time for trucks based on observed or stated choices under tradeoff situations involving time and money. Appendix A includes data from several studies that have addressed value of time using these methods and the application of these methods to estimate optimum toll rates with various val- ues of time assumptions. 2.5.2 Productivity Benefits from LCV Operations and Associated Tolling Implications The Reason Foundation study27 on toll truckways discussed earlier is the first comprehensive study that looks at the feasibility of developing toll truckways to support LCV operations, based on considerations of productivity benefits of LCV operations. The study analyzes how productivity benefits from LCV operations and toll truckways would provide the incentive for the application of tolls on these truckways as a way of financing such facilities. Toll truckways, because of their physical separation from general purpose lanes, also address safety concerns of operating LCVs on general purpose lanes by completely eliminating the interaction between autos and LCVs. The Reason Foundation approach for the quantification of productivity benefits from LCV operations is based on the estimation of the incremental earnings for truck operators per day and the average number of miles driven per day on toll truckways, to arrive at the incremental earnings per mile. Thus, the approach not only considers the increase in payload due to LCV operations, but also includes the productivity gains associated with higher speeds on toll truckways, in the quantification of productivity benefits. The inherent assumption in this analysis is that trucking firms would be willing to pay one-third of the value of productivity benefits from LCV operations in the way of tolls. Background and Key Concepts 21 27P. Samuel, R. W. Poole, Jr., and J. Holguin Veras, Policy Study 294, Toll Truckways: A New Path toward Safer and More Efficient Freight Transportation, Reason Foundation, June 2002.

The study compared a variety of different LCV configurations with conventional semitrailer configurations to determine the potential productivity gains from LCV operations. Based on the results from this study, double-long LCV operations on toll truckways yield maximum productiv- ity benefits and, consequently, the maximum toll rates These are followed by triple-short LCV operations. The maximum feasible toll rate is observed for double-long trucks of $1.83 per mile, followed by $1.15 per mile for triple-short trucks. Appendix A considers a number of issues associated with the policy and tax implications of tolling truckways and industry concerns. It also provides a discussion of how revenues from tolls could be used to support various forms of financing for the facilities. The notion of privatized toll facilities has been offered as an attractive option for financing CMV-only lanes, because this approach can provide access to large pools of new capital, transfer risk from the public to the pri- vate sector, create potential to develop multistate projects, and other potential innovations associ- ated with design and operations concepts. In order to demonstrate the potential viability of CMV-only lanes operating as private facilities, Samuel et al.28 examined various operating scenar- ios based on assumptions about capital costs, percent of trucks using the facility (based on average rural interstate truck volumes), and toll rates. The results were presented as potential return on investment (ROI is a measure used to quantify the profitability of an investment for the private sec- tor in relation to the total cost of the investment). As seen from Table 2.6, the ROI for the private sector is directly proportional to the toll rate and the number of trucks using the CMV-only lanes. Positive ROIs are observed for all the scenarios analyzed (based on varying assumptions related to capital cost, truckway utilization, and toll rates), implying that the investment is always profitable under the given scenarios. The profitability (ROI) 22 Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes Traffic ($1 Million/Mile Capital Cost) Toll = $0.40 Toll = $0.80 25% Trucks (1,000) 8.60% 17.26% 50% Trucks (2,000) 16.85% 33.12% 75% Trucks (3,000) 23.92% 48.46% 100% Trucks (4,000) 32.72% 64.52% $2 Million/Mile Capital Cost 25% Trucks (1,000) 4.12% 9.17% 50% Trucks (2,000) 8.85% 17.34% 75% Trucks (3,000) 13.04% 25.31% 100% Trucks (4,000) 16.97% 33.19% $3 Million/Mile Capital Cost 25% Trucks (1,000) 2.26% 6.23% 50% Trucks (2,000) 5.97% 12.02% 75% Trucks (3,000) 9.03% 17.40% 100% Trucks (4,000) 11.76% 22.66% Source: Reprinted from Samuel, P., R. W. Poole, Jr., and J. Holguin Veras, Policy Study 294, Toll Truckways: A New Path toward Safer and More Efficient Freight Transportation, Reason Foundation, June 2002, http://reason.org/files/cce62e3a8ed97d31be8e1094f658968a.pdf. Table 2.6. Private ROI for toll truckways for 40,000 ADT. 28P. Samuel, R. W. Poole, Jr., and J. Holguin Veras, Policy Study 294, Toll Truckways: A New Path toward Safer and More Efficient Freight Transportation, Reason Foundation, June 2002.

increases with increased truckway utilization as higher toll revenues (and net earnings) are gener- ated for a given toll rate and capital cost. However, it is important to note that the number of trucks using the CMV-only lanes (utilization) would be a function of the toll-rate. Thus, the results from the table would be particularly useful in analyzing what the optimal toll rates should be that would result in the highest ROI, based on the determination of the percent trucks using the CMV-only lanes (utilization) for different toll rate scenarios (typically, this can be done using data on truck value of time and an understanding of truck behavior under tolls using stated preference surveys). Appendix A provides information about some recently proposed public-private partnerships in which CMV-only lanes have been incorporated. 2.5.3 Examples of Truck Tolling Approaches from Other Countries Appendix A presents information on national truck tolling systems that have been implemented in Austria, Switzerland, and Germany. None of these systems are applied on CMV-only facilities. The approaches use different types of electronic toll collection and/or global positioning system (GPS) data systems to collect information about truck use of facilities. These approaches could be applied to tolling/financing of CMV-only lanes. Background and Key Concepts 23

Next: Chapter 3 - Performance Evaluation »
Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NCFRP) have jointly released NCHRP Report 649/NCFRP Report 3: Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes. The report examines major issues and concepts that should be understood in developing new applications of commercial motor vehicle-only (CMV-only) lanes as a potential method for both easing congestion and reducing the number of traffic accidents on highways.

Appendices A through D for NCHRP Report 649/NCFRP Report 3 are available online as follows:

  • Appendix A: NCHRP Project 03-73 Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes Task 7—Interim Report
  • Appendix B: Performance Evaluation
  • Appendix C: Benefits Monetization Factors and Unit Costs
  • Appendix D: Net Present Value Calculations for Benefit-Cost Analysis
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!