National Academies Press: OpenBook

Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes (2010)

Chapter: Chapter 1 - Introduction

« Previous: Front Matter
Page 1
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction." 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 1
Page 2
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction." 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 2
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction." 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 3
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Introduction." 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 4

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 report provides the final results of research on NCHRP Project 03-73, “Separation of Vehicles—Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV)-Only Lanes.” It presents a review and discussion of a wide range of issues relevant to planning, designing, and evaluating CMV-only lanes that should be useful to planners and policy-makers in the public and private sectors. It also presents results of a comparative evaluation of the performance of different CMV-only lane concepts, and potential benefits and costs of these concepts. Finally, it concludes with a discussion of potential areas of further research on promising CMV-only lane concepts. 1.1 Project Overview For a number of years, there has been growing interest in CMV-only lanes, and several notable proposals for CMV-only lane systems/projects have appeared in the planning and traffic engi- neering literature. To a large extent, this growth in interest has been related to the growth in truck traffic relative to automobile traffic and the contribution of truck traffic to congestion. Heavy trucks (standard trucks as well as longer combination vehicles [LCVs]) have a greater impact on capacity than their sheer volume would suggest, especially when mixed with auto- mobiles. Separation of autos and trucks may be a beneficial way of building more system capacity in certain circumstances. A number of studies also have suggested that CMV-only lanes that are tolled may present a viable means of financing system capacity improvements. The argument has been made that trucks have a higher value of time than autos, and may therefore be willing to pay a higher price for congestion relief. In addition to congestion relief, truckers might also be willing to pay tolls on CMV-only lanes that facilitate operations of LCVs and other oversize/overweight (OS/OW) trucks, in order to be able to engage in these operations to improve trucking productiv- ity and operational efficiency. A number of studies have shown that system reliability is especially critical in the movement of high-value, time-sensitive commodities, and that the reliability benefits of CMV-only lanes (due to the combination of less overall congestion and the incident-reduction potential of truck-auto separation) may provide added value for which truckers/shippers would be willing to pay. It also has been suggested that separation of autos and trucks may have significant safety benefits. Autos are far more maneuverable than heavy trucks, yet auto drivers often do not take this into account when making certain fast response driving maneuvers and this can lead to increased crashes. Fur- ther, when trucks and autos are involved in crashes, they are far more likely to be fatal crashes than when crashes involve only autos. The objectives of the Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes Project are to compile data from actual applications and studies of emerging concepts and use these data to present a profile of the benefits and costs of CMV-only lanes. This information will serve as a reference guide for planners 1 C H A P T E R 1 Introduction

who may be considering CMV-only lane concepts in corridor studies or other planning applica- tions. The analyses in the project also will provide data that practitioners can use to support their own evaluations of CMV-only lane projects. The research was comprised of the following 10 tasks for meeting the objectives of the project: • Task 1—Conduct a literature review of existing CMV-only facilities as well as proposed con- cepts, which will provide information for subsequent tasks. • Task 2—Describe planning process issues associated with the development of CMV-only lanes. • Task 3—Describe major CMV-only configurations and identify and analyze key design issues. • Task 4—Discuss opportunities to apply Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)/Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO) technology to CMV-only lanes and the benefits that can accrue from these deployments. • Task 5—Examine opportunities to operate LCVs and heavy-weight trucks on CMV-only lanes. • Task 6—Explore issues and opportunities associated with tolling and privatization of CMV- only lanes. • Task 7—Prepare an interim report that summarizes the findings and data collected in the first six tasks. The interim report was completed in August 2008 and an edited version of the report that responds to panel comments is presented as Appendix A (available on the TRB website at www.TRB.org by searching for NCHRP Report 649/NCFRP Report 3). • Task 8—Compile available field and modeling data into a performance evaluation of different CMV-only lane concepts. • Task 9—Evaluate CMV-only lanes in terms of relative costs and benefits. • Task 10—Prepare a final report that summarizes the results of the analyses conducted in the project. This report includes a summary of existing CMV-only facilities, a description of dif- ferent configurations and the factors that influence the feasibility of each configuration, a dis- cussion of performance data, and a summary of the benefits and costs of different CMV-only lane systems. 1.2 Definition of Commercial Motor Vehicle A commercial motor vehicle (CMV) can be defined in a variety of ways. In response to a request from the project’s Technical Panel, a working definition of a CMV was developed for this project. FMCSA, under the Code of Federal Regulations—Title 49 (49 CFR) Part 390 (Rulemaking Procedures—Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations), defines commercial motor vehicles for U.S. Department of Transportation vehicle registration purposes as follows: • Vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating or gross combination weight rating (in the case of combination vehicles) of at least 10,001 lbs; or • Vehicles designed or used to transport more than eight passengers (including the driver) for compensation; or • Vehicles designed or used to transport more than 15 passengers (including the driver), but not for compensation; or • Vehicles used in transporting material found by the Secretary of Transportation as being haz- ardous under 49 U.S.C. 5103, and transported in a quantity requiring placarding under 49 CFR, Subtitle B, Chapter 1, Subchapter C. This standard federal definition for CMVs includes not only trucks categorized according to weight and commodity (i.e., hazardous cargo), but also includes passenger vehicles such as buses. Another, more restrictive federal definition is based on commercial driver licensing (CDL) requirements (Part 383: Commercial Driver’s License Standards; Requirements, and Penalties). 2 Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes

This definition includes trucks with a gross vehicle weight or gross combination weight rating of at least 26,001 lbs, trucks carrying hazardous materials requiring placarding (same as Part 390), and vehicles carrying 16 or more passengers, including the driver. Finally, FHWA classifies nonpassenger vehicles by the number of axles and number of units, as opposed to the FMCSA’s definition based on weight or commodity. Single- and multi-trailer trucks (i.e., not single unit trucks), for example, fall within Classes 8 to 13 in FHWA’s scheme. The Technical Panel agreed with the project team’s recommendation that the types of vehicles included in the CMV definition for this project will be directly dependent on the types of vehicles best served by various CMV-only lane configurations and not tied to any of the federal definitions. Consequently, as trucks are implicitly the focus of this research, passenger vehicles falling under the CMV classifications under federal regulations (discussed previously) will not be included as CMVs. Since the work approach for this project involves analyzing different types of truck-only lane configurations, flexibility in the CMV definition has been adopted to accommodate different types of trucks, based on the type of application of truck-only lanes (note that the terms “CMV- only” and “truck-only” generally will be used interchangeably in this report). 1.3 Overview of the Report The interim report presented an extensive compendium of information about CMV-only lanes and identifies major issues and concepts that should be understood in developing new applications of CMV-only lane concepts. Since this compendium will be a useful planning reference for prac- titioners, it is reproduced in its entirety as Appendix A of this final report. The appendices of the interim report, which are also included as appendices to this final report, provide a detailed bibliography of references including an evaluation of the types of information available from major sources, and a compilation of data tables developed from the major sources. These data tables provide additional material that practitioners can use to support their own analyses of CMV-only lanes. In order to provide background on key concepts and to introduce some of the primary data sources that can be used in evaluating CMV-only lane concepts, Chapter 2 of this final report pro- vides a summary of the interim report. This sets the stage for the analytical elements of the final report, which are contained in Chapter 3, Performance Evaluation, and Chapter 4, Benefit-Cost Analysis. Chapters 3 and 4 draw data from other studies and provide a consistent framework for comparing various CMV-only lane configurations with each other and with other types of road- way capacity improvements. The general approach used in these evaluations was to define two pri- mary scenarios—long-haul intercity corridors and congested urban corridors—to develop a series of relevant alternatives for each scenario, and then to conduct sensitivity tests for the impact of other features (such as tolling). The performance evaluations examine measures of effectiveness related to congestion, reliability, and safety impacts. In Chapter 4, the benefits of the alternatives described in the performance evaluations are monetized and benefit-cost (B-C) comparisons are conducted. Chapter 5 presents the conclusions and recommendations of this study effort. Since the data used in the performance evaluations and B-C comparisons are drawn from various studies using different assumptions, traffic conditions, and analytical procedures, much of the ana- lytical effort was associated with adjusting the results to provide comparability. Wherever appro- priate, results are provided in ranges. A main finding of the background review of existing literature that was conducted for the interim report is that while there is a substantial body of information on CMV-only lanes from planning and feasibility studies, there are very few real-world applications of the concept. Actual Introduction 3

applications of concepts that are in some way related to CMV-only lane concepts fall into the fol- lowing categories: • Dual-dual1 roadways that provide separated lanes for autos only (an example of which is the New Jersey Turnpike); • Lane restrictions for trucks in right-hand lanes; • Interchange by-passes for trucks (examples of which are found on I-5 outside of Portland, Oregon, and on I-5 in California at the SR 14/I-5 interchange, the I-5/I-405 interchanges in both the north [San Fernando Valley] and south [Orange County]); • Truck climbing lanes on high grades (an example of which is found on I-10 in San Bernardino County, California, between Redlands and Yucaipa); and • Short connectors from major port/intermodal facilities to freeways (an example of which is found on the A-20 motorway connecting the Port of Rotterdam with the A-16 motorway). These applications are quite limited, and they do not correspond to the types of approaches of most interest in the various feasibility and planning studies that have been conducted in North America and Europe over the last 20 years, which have focused more on long-haul multistate cor- ridors or major urban freight corridors. The limited data available from these real-world applica- tions makes it difficult to conclusively evaluate certain performance features of CMV-only lanes, particularly the safety and reliability benefits. Nonetheless, where these data are available they have been used in this study to validate certain conclusions about anticipated performance benefits of CMV-only lanes. Although there is limited real-world application of CMV-only lanes, the literature review con- ducted for the interim report shows that there is a substantial number of references to CMV-only lane topics. The preponderance of information was found in planning, policy, and feasibility stud- ies with limited real-world application of the truck-only lane concept. It also was noted in the interim report that there is limited information in the areas of ITS applications and LCVs. Thus, much of the source data on these configurations of CMV-only lanes draw heavily on the work of a limited number of researchers. 4 Separation of Vehicles—CMV-Only Lanes 1As noted, dual-dual roadways are comprised of dedicated lanes for autos, along with general purpose (mixed- flow) lanes with auto and truck traffic (trucks are restricted to the general purpose lanes and are not allowed to operate on the auto-only lanes). The terminology “dual-dual roadway” is used by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to refer to sections along the New Jersey Turnpike with auto-only and general purpose lanes. These sections are also sometimes referred to as “dual roadway” sections.

Next: Chapter 2 - Background and Key Concepts »
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!