Feasibility of a Metropolitan Truck-only Toll Lane Network: The Case of Atlanta, Georgia

1. Feasibility of a Metropolitan Truck-only Toll Lane Network: The Case of Atlanta, Georgia Michael D. Meyer, P.E., Professor School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology

2. High level proof-of-concept analysis • Not an exhaustive list of options • Analysis based upon… • Available regional truck travel data • HOT lane study analysis methods • Assumed facilities (engineering feasibility not examined.) TOT Study

3. Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) • Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) • Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) • State Road and Tollway Authority (SRTA) • Georgia Motor Trucking Association • American Transportation Research Institute • Industry representatives (United Parcel Service, Lithonia Lighting, Drug Transport, Inc.) HOT/TOT Steering Committee SteeringCommittee

4. Congestion in 2030 Afternoon Peak (PM)

5. Most HOV corridors have excess capacity The Opportunity & aChallenge But some HOV corridors will be congested

6. 2030 target analysis year • Managed lanes network on all limited access facilities • One lane in each direction inside I-285 • Two lanes in each direction on and outside of I-285 • Scenarios evolved based on expected performance levels and ability to handle demand at reasonable levels of service. HOT and TOT Study Primary Assumptions TOTAssumptions

7. “MANAGE” the new lanes…Building to achieve --- • Free flow conditions for managed lane users • Free flow conditions for the region’s planned BRT network • Maximum use of the highway capacity TOT Lane Objectives

8. Trucks constitute significant portion of highway flows • Trucks take up a lot of space (capacity) • Logistics industry in Atlanta region is significant and likely to grow • Growth in national economy suggests tremendous growth in through truck trips • Truck/auto crashes Why Interested?

9. Voluntary use of TOT lanes • Value of time: • $35/hr for heavy trucks (over 8,000 lbs.) • $18/hr for light trucks • Fees charged when needed and in the amount needed to manage performance of TOT lanes • Conservative passenger car equivalents used (1 truck = 2 cars) • Truck lane interchanges provided at HOV interchanges for initial assessment • Buses can use TOT lanes as well TOT Assumptions

10. Alternative 1: TOT lanes are established along side of planned HOV lanes. • Alternative 2: Same as above, PLUS in midday hours (10am-3pm) light service trucks can use HOV lanes inside I-285. • Alternative 3: TOT lanes are established in place of planned HOV lanes along I-285 and outside of I-285. Three Alternatives Evaluated

11. East-West North-South Alternative 1 • Voluntary TOT • I-75 N • I-85 N • I-285 • I-75 S • HOV network • Entire region

12. Alternative 2 • Current HOV lanes inside I-285 restricted to light duty trucks in midday

13. Voluntary TOT • Outside I-285 • On I-285 • HOV network • Inside I-285 only • TOT replaces HOV outside and on I-285 Alternative 3

14. Truck Productivity TOT Scenarios

15. N • 2030 PM Peak Period • Through trip in TOT lanes saves 70 minutes in TOT lanes compared to travel time in GP lanes TOT Alt 3:North-South corridor travel time Alternative 3 North-South Truck Trip

16. N Alternative 3 East-West Truck Trip • 2030 PM Peak Period • Through trip in TOT lanes saves 80 minutes in TOT lanes compared to travel time in GP lanes

17. Truck Trip Performance

18. Change in Weekday Vehicle Hours and Vehicle Miles, 2030 Network Performance

19. Change in Weekday Vehicle Hours and Vehicle Miles, 2030 Network Performance

20. Performance of GP Lanes PM Peak Hour 17 to 24% reduction in congested general purpose directional miles

21. Change in PM Truck Volume TOT Alternative 3

22. Performance of Arterials and Collectors A 10-15% reduction of congested arterial and collector miles

23. ARC modeled air quality impact and found little change in expected emissions, however…. • Safety benefits are potentially huge ($3 million per fatality, not to mention delay costs) Air Quality and Safety

24. 2030 Projected Annual Revenue

25. Improved freight and passenger movement • Regional travel time saving (for all, except HOV users) • More reliable travel conditions • Safer travel conditions (we believe) • Efficient • Truck operators save time, increase productivity • Regionally, similar vehicle miles traveled in fewer hours • Potentially cost effective • Opportunity to offer substantial benefits, earn revenue What We Learned About TOT Lanes

26. Comparative Results of Regional Managed Lane Strategies2030 HOV, HOT and TOT Scenarios

27. System-wide Annualized Capital & Operating Costs (M)

28. Regional Value of Annual Time Savings* Estimates ($M)

29. PM Peak Hour Level of Service General Purpose Lanes 20% increase in free flow performance

30. Range of responsibilities for TOT planning, development, operation, maintenance, and enforcement • Common visions and principles • Determine pricing strategy early on • Regional vs. corridor-level issues • Consistency with RTP • TOT alternative in corridor studies • Potential for PPP • Use of revenues • Public outreach • Consistency with region’s fee collection strategy Implementa-tion

31. Travel demand model can be used for an analysis-driven debate • Confluence of technical analysis and political advocacy • Trucking representatives • Strategy tied to BRT • Voluntary use of lane • Corridor-level studies with freight component • Trade-off between HOV and …. Lessons Learned

32. http://www.TOT_Final_Report_July2005 Some Extensions Since the Study Was Done

33. Application of Screening Criteria (1) Screening Criterion 1: PM level of service Screening Criterion 2: Daily truck volume Source: Hsing-Chung Chu, Implementing Truck-Only Toll Lanes at the State, Regional, and Corridor Levels:Development of a Planning Methodology, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2007.

34. Application of Screening Criteria (2) Screening Criterion 3:Daily truck percentage Screening Criterion 4: High truck-related crashes Source: Hsing-Chung Chu, Implementing Truck-Only Toll Lanes at the State, Regional, and Corridor Levels:Development of a Planning Methodology, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2007.

35. Application of Screening Criteria (3) Screening Criteria 5: 90% cost saving threshold Potential TOT corridors – Combine screening criteria Source: Hsing-Chung Chu, Implementing Truck-Only Toll Lanes at the State, Regional, and Corridor Levels:Development of a Planning Methodology, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2007.

36. (1) Define Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures (2) Identify Potential TOT Corridors and Their Extents (3) Determine the Placement of TOT lanes (4) Determine the Location of Access Points (5) Determine Vehicle Eligibility (6) Determine a Mandatory or Voluntary Policy (7) Determine the Pricing Strategy (8) Determine the Financing Mechanism Implementation Steps for TOT Lanes Efficiency, Safety, Freight productivity, Self-financing, Environment Planning Guidance Screening Process Through truck traffic Connect freight generators Excess capacity – medium trucks Trucking industry support Variable pricing / Optimum toll rates Public-private partnerships Source: Hsing-Chung Chu, Implementing Truck-Only Toll Lanes at the State, Regional, and Corridor Levels:Development of a Planning Methodology, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2007.