Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility ...€¦ · Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Regional Managed / Transit

Priority Lanes Feasibility Study

December 2016

Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report

Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2

Table of Contents



SECTION 0

Table of Contents

Contents

Table of Contents ................................................................................................... 3

Executive Summary................................................................................................. 8

Tier 1 Screening .............................................................................................................................9

Tier 2 Screening .............................................................................................................................9

Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 10

Introduction ..........................................................................................................15

Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................................... 16

The Context for Managed Lanes .............................................................................18

Defining Managed and Transit Priority Lanes ................................................................................ 19

Principal Components of Managed Lanes...................................................................................... 20

Eligibility Control ........................................................................................................................................... 20

Access Control ............................................................................................................................................... 21

Flow Control .................................................................................................................................................. 21

Managed Lanes Objectives ........................................................................................................... 22

Operational Objectives .................................................................................................................................. 22

Financial Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 22

User Objectives ............................................................................................................................................. 22

Managed Lanes Alternatives Studied ......................................................................24

Hard Shoulder Running ................................................................................................................ 25

Contra Flow and Reversible Lanes ................................................................................................ 26

Express Lanes............................................................................................................................... 27

Access-Controlled Express Lanes ................................................................................................................... 27

Occupancy-Controlled Express Lanes ............................................................................................................ 28

Pricing-Controlled Express Lanes ................................................................................................................... 29

Bus Only Shoulder Lanes .............................................................................................................. 30

Truck Only Lanes .......................................................................................................................... 30

Flow Control Corridors ................................................................................................................. 31

Ramp Metering ............................................................................................................................................. 31

Active Traffic Management ........................................................................................................................... 32



Managed Freeways ....................................................................................................................................... 32

Existing Managed Lanes in San Antonio ........................................................................................ 33

Ramp Metering ............................................................................................................................................. 33

Left Lane Truck Restriction ............................................................................................................................ 33

Hurricane Response Lanes ............................................................................................................................. 34

Arterial Treatments ....................................................................................................................................... 34

Applying Managed and Transit Priority Lanes ............................................................................... 34

Corridor/Strategy Selection Criteria .............................................................................................................. 36

Integration with Regional Transportation Planning........................................................................................ 37

Tier 1 Screening .....................................................................................................39

Existing Congestion ...................................................................................................................... 39

Modeling ..................................................................................................................................... 41

Tier 2 Screening Methodology ...............................................................................46

Safety Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 47

Hard Shoulder Running ................................................................................................................................. 47

Express Lanes ................................................................................................................................................ 47

Contra Flow Lanes ......................................................................................................................................... 48

Truck Only Lane ............................................................................................................................................. 48

Corridor Definition for Analysis .................................................................................................... 49

Detailed Geometric Features and Existing Cross-Sections .............................................................. 52

Strategy specific right-of-way and/or pavement width requirements ............................................................ 54

Right-of-way assessment ............................................................................................................................... 57

Evaluation Methodology .............................................................................................................. 61

Tier 2 Screening Results .........................................................................................65

Hard Shoulder Running – Mixed Traffic ......................................................................................... 65

Inside Shoulder Versus Outside Shoulder ...................................................................................................... 65

Bus on Shoulder ........................................................................................................................... 69

Contraflow Lanes ......................................................................................................................... 71

Reversible Lanes .......................................................................................................................... 73

Express Lanes............................................................................................................................... 75

Access Controlled .......................................................................................................................................... 75

Occupancy Controlled ................................................................................................................................... 75

Pricing Controlled .......................................................................................................................................... 75

Truck Only Lanes .......................................................................................................................... 81

Flow Controlled Corridors ............................................................................................................ 83



Recommendations .................................................................................................86

Summary of Recommendations .................................................................................................... 87

Strategy & Corridor Recommendations......................................................................................... 88

Strategy: Bus on Shoulder ............................................................................................................................. 88

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic ......................................................................................... 91

Express Lanes............................................................................................................................... 92

Contraflow Lanes and Dual Reversible Lanes ................................................................................ 96

Truck Only Lanes .......................................................................................................................... 96

Flow Controlled Corridors ............................................................................................................ 97

Strategies Not Currently Recommended ....................................................................................... 99

Corridor / Strategy Ranking Criteria ...................................................................... 101

Corridor/Segment-Oriented Criteria ........................................................................................... 101

Criterion - Features in 100 Most Congested Highways in Texas: Weighting of 5. ......................................... 101

Criterion - Project Has Been Identified in State/Regional Planning: Weighting of 5. ..................................... 102

Criterion - Percentage of Truck Traffic on the Corridor: Weighting of 3. ...................................................... 103

Criterion - Annual Hours of Truck Delay per Mile: Weighting of 3. ............................................................... 103

Criterion - Employment density on the corridor: Weighting of 3.................................................................. 103

Criterion - Population density on the corridor: Weighting of 3. ................................................................... 103

Criterion – Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT): Weighting of 5.................................................................. 104

Criterion - Annual Hours of Delay per Mile: Weighting of 3. ........................................................................ 104

Criterion – Effective Congestion: Weighting of 3. ........................................................................................ 104

Criterion - Number of Existing Bus Routes on ML Candidates: Weighting of 3. ............................................ 104

Criterion - Potential for future expansion in addition to the proposed improvement: Weighting of 3. ........ 105

Criterion - Current Park and Ride Facilities: Weighting of 1.......................................................................... 105

Criterion - Potential for additional park and ride facilities based on land available at logical locations:

Weighting of 1. ............................................................................................................................................ 105

Criterion - Opportunities for transit feeder service or innovative solutions such as subscription transportation

or ride-sourcing for last mile services: Weighting of 1. ................................................................................ 105

Criterion - Identify high crash locations: Weighting of 5. ............................................................................. 106

Criterion - Ability of existing cross sections to accommodate Improvements: Weighting of 5. ..................... 106

Criterion - Low income/low auto ownership areas served by Tier 2 corridors: Weighting of 3. .................... 106

Criterion - Ability to improve transit connections between activity centers, and between activity centers and

residential areas: Weighting of 3. ................................................................................................................ 107

Strategy Oriented Criteria .......................................................................................................... 107

Criterion - Ability to Influence Mode Choice to More Efficient Modes: Weighting of 3. ............................... 107

Criterion - Ability to Implement Effective Lane Management: Weighting of 3. ............................................ 107

Criterion - Improved System, Intermodal, and/or Multimodal Connectivity: Weighting of 3. ....................... 108

Criterion - Ability to Use the ML to Develop Transit Networks to Facilitate Transit Travel: Weighting of 5. .. 108

Criterion - Potential for Transit and Carpool Time Savings: Weighting of 3. ................................................. 108



Synthesis ................................................................................................................................... 108

Numerical Ranking Results ................................................................................... 110

Hard Shoulder Running in Mixed Traffic ...................................................................................... 110

Bus on Shoulder ......................................................................................................................... 112

Contraflow Lanes ....................................................................................................................... 114

Reversible Lanes ........................................................................................................................ 117

Access Controlled Express Lanes ................................................................................................. 120

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes .......................................................................................... 122

Price Controlled Express Lanes ................................................................................................... 124

Truck Only Lanes ........................................................................................................................ 126

Flow Controlled Corridors .......................................................................................................... 128

Strategy Performance by Corridor ........................................................................ 130

Corridor Evaluation Results .................................................................................. 139



Executive Summary



SECTION 1

Executive Summary

The Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning

Organization (MPO), in partnership with the

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT),

VIA Metropolitan Transit (VIA), and other

regional partners, evaluated the potential for

managed and transit priority lanes to provide

reliable travel on the region’s congested

highway corridors, while increasing person

throughput. Of particular interest in the Alamo

region are managed / transit priority lanes

applications that enhance traffic operations

through flow maximization, improve average

vehicle occupancies and transit ridership,

reduce crashes and other incidents, and

improve travel time reliability. Managed lanes

are a family of operating strategies, in existence

for over forty years, that are increasingly

utilized as an approach to effectively and

efficiently use existing capacity, recapture

capacity present in congested corridors, and

provide alternatives to recurring travel time

delay. Specific freeway lane management

strategies have many operational variants,

including system-management techniques (such

as time-of-day restrictions), vehicle-type

restrictions, and congestion pricing.

While increasing vehicle throughput is

important, the ultimate objective is moving

more people as efficiently as possible. All

strategies studied can achieve the goal of

moving more people, and some directly support

more efficient modes including transit and

carpooling. The process for examining these

possibilities in the Alamo region included:

Identify best practices for consideration

and deployment of managed and transit

priority lanes.

Assess traffic and geometric conditions

within the Alamo area's corridors.

Screen regional corridors for

applicability of managed lane

strategies.

Screen shortlisted corridors for strategic

identification and prioritization.

Evaluate regional network

considerations for managed lane

implementation.

Recommend a network deployment of

managed lane strategies.

This analysis yielded two levels of screening

analysis, and subsequent packaging of managed

lane strategy prioritization. The first screening

identified corridors that experience significant

traffic congestion, in order to establish those

corridors that could benefit from managed

lanes and associated treatments. The second

screening identified corridor characteristics to

identify those corridors most in need of

improvement and identify managed lanes

improvements that should be considered for

those corridors. The findings of these two

screenings led to recommendations described

in the full report.

Nine primary managed lane strategies were

considered for implementation to improve the

performance of congested segments:

Hard Shoulder Running

Bus-Only Shoulder Lanes

Contraflow / Reversible Lanes

Access-Controlled Express Lanes

Occupancy-Controlled Express Lanes

Pricing-Controlled Express Lanes

Truck-Only Lanes

Flow-Controlled Corridors



Tier 1 Screening

Two major elements were taken into account in

Tier 1 screening. The first was the presence of

congestion in the near to medium term.

Without congestion, the impact of the

improvements considered would have little to

no effect. Second, improvements on isolated

facilities will have much less benefit than

improvements that can be extended and

networked. For that reason, in Tier 1, the San

Antonio region was evaluated as a whole to

determine the existing patterns of congestion,

using the regional travel demand forecast

model for 2020 and 2040 conditions. Although

the 2040 model includes managed lanes, these

were removed so as to avoid any

predetermination of managed lanes

effectiveness.

Tier 2 Screening

For Tier 2 screening, specific managed lanes

strategies were analyzed for use on the study

corridors advancing from Tier 1 screening. The

Tier 2 screening process involved several

iterative steps:

Selection criteria development

Safety screening

Corridor definition, segmentation, and

analysis

Assessment of strategy-specific right-of-

way and/or pavement width

requirements

Managed lane strategy evaluation

Quantitative data was used when available.

However, at this level of screening, much of the

data available is qualitative. To allow both

qualitative and quantitative data in the analysis,

qualitative data was assigned a numerical value

based on observed conditions, deployments of

the strategy outside of San Antonio, academic

research, and professional judgment. All

combinations of strategies and segments were

paired together, with differences in scores for

segment-based criteria and strategy-based

criteria contributing to a unique overall score

for each segment/strategy combination.

Highlighted findings include:

Hard Shoulder Running scored well on

most corridors, although it is only

appropriate when sufficient pavement

width exists. This can be implemented

on the inside or outside shoulders.

Bus on Shoulder scored very well on

several corridors, with similar findings

and caveats for Hard Shoulder Running.

This strategy emphasizes benefits to

transit services, where they exist,

without adding new pavement.

Contraflow Lanes are unlikely to be a

viable strategy for the Alamo region,

because no corridor has both the

required directional split and number of

lanes in each direction.

Reversible Lanes require a minimum of

60% to 40% directional split during peak

periods, and only three segments on

two corridors in the region met this

criterion (Loop 1604 and SH 151).

Express Lanes are already in the

Mobility 2040 Plan, and moving forward

in development. Early in the project,

the decision was made to proceed

without any consideration of these

developments, so as to avoid

predetermined results. Findings

indicated all corridors previously in

development were warranted, and rank

very well for managed lane treatments.

Access controlled express lanes ranked

well in some corridors, but not as

broadly as other strategies. Occupancy

controlled express lanes offer additional

flexibility, and yielded more success.

Finally, pricing controlled express lanes



scored even better, given the additional

access to the express lanes.

Truck Only Lanes have limited

application in the Alamo region, as

truck traffic is not high enough to

warrant this strategy’s deployment in

lieu of other managed lane treatments.

Flow-Controlled Corridors, which

include adaptive ramp metering and

other active traffic management

technologies, scored well, including the

only strategy that can be used

effectively on I-10 and US 281 between

Loop 1604 and Downtown San Antonio.

Recommendations

Based on the Tier 2 screening, the project team

developed a set of recommended managed

lanes treatments for select corridors in the San

Antonio metropolitan region. The

recommendations in this section take into

account several factors, including:

Continuity on connected segments

Strategy / Corridor Tier 2 score

Ease of implementation

Builds upon strategy

Complements other strategies

Based on the above factors, implementing Bus

on Shoulder is the overall highest

recommended strategy. Bus on Shoulder scored

well throughout the Alamo region, so continuity

between various segments can be achieved.

Further, Bus on Shoulder Tier 2 strategy /

corridor scores were high, it is relatively easy to

implement, it can be built upon by other

strategies, and it can be implemented with

other strategies. In terms of sequential strategy

deployment, Mixed-Use Shoulder Running can

generally follow Bus on Shoulder deployment

where appropriate. Implementation of one of

several express lanes can follow after that. By

implementing in this order, the performance of

each strategy informs the order in which

subsequent strategies should be implemented.

Flow-controlled corridors can be implemented

at any time and with any other strategy

examined in this study that is contemplated,

planned or already implemented.

Maps demonstrating individual corridor

segments and recommended strategies for

deployment are provided in the report. A

summary of recommendations for all corridor

segments are provided in Table 1.



Corridor- Segment

Corridor

Limits Recommended Alternatives

1A Loop 1604 Interstate 35 to US 281

1B Loop 1604 US 281 to Interstate 10

1C Loop 1604 Interstate 10 to SH 151

2A Loop 410 Interstate 35N to US 281

2B Loop 410 US 281 to Interstate 10

2C Loop 410 Interstate 10 to SH 151

2D Loop 410 SH 151 to US 90

2E Loop 410 US 90 to Interstate 35

2F Loop 410 Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd

3A Interstate 35 NE Division Ave to US 90

3B Interstate 35 NE US 90 to Interstate 10

3C Interstate 35 NE Interstate 10 to Interstate 37

3D Interstate 35 NE Interstate 37 to Loop 410

3E Interstate 35 NE Loop 410 to Loop 1604

3F Interstate 35 NE Loop 1604 to SH 46

4A Interstate 35 SW Loop 410 to SH 422

4B Interstate 35 SW SH 422 to Division Ave

5A Interstate 10 NW Loop 410 to Loop 1604

5B Interstate 10 NW Loop 1604 to SH 46

6A Interstate 10 I-35 to Loop 410

7A Interstate 10 E I-37 to Loop 410

7B Interstate 10 E Loop 410 to Loop 1604

8A US 281 Fair Ave to Interstate 10



Corridor- Segment

Corridor

Limits Recommended Alternatives

8B US 281 Interstate 10 to interstate 35

8C US 281 Interstate 35 to Loop 410

8D US 281 Loop 410 to Loop 1604

8E US 281 Loop 1604 to SH 46

9A SH 151 Loop 1604 to Loop 410

9B SH 151 Loop 410 to US 90

10A US 90 SH 151 to Interstate 35

10B US 90 Interstate 35 to Interstate 37

11A US 90 W Loop 1604 to Loop 410

11B US 90 W Loop 410 to SH 151

12A Interstate 37 Loop 410 to US90

Table 1: Summary Recommendations for All Corridor Segments





Introduction



SECTION 2

IntroductionAs with most

metropolitan areas in

the United States and

throughout the world,

San Antonio, Texas

experiences significant

traffic congestion,

particularly during the

morning and evening

peak commute hours.

Much of this can be

attributed to the

region’s strong

population growth,

which is expected to

continue for the near

future (Figure 1).

Mobility 2040, the long range

multi-modal transportation plan for the San

Antonio metropolitan (Alamo) region,

concluded that travel demand and associated

congestion in the Alamo region is expected to

grow substantially. Meeting this demand by

increasing roadway capacity, such as by adding

new roadway facilities and lanes, is one

potential strategy. However, key corridors such

as IH 35, US 281, IH 10, Loop 1604, Loop 410,

and IH 37 are constrained by right of way,

environmental, and development issues.

Furthermore, adding roadway space within

major metropolitan areas is costly and can take

many years to complete.

These physical, financial, and environmental

constraints emphasize the need to meet current

and future demand through innovative use of

existing infrastructure assets. Through the

Mobility 2040 development process, regional

partners confirmed that innovative solutions to

address population and travel growth through

enhanced person throughput, meaning

increasing the number of people a given

roadway facility carries, are necessary.

Through the course of this study, the Alamo

Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

(MPO), in partnership with the Texas

Department of Transportation (TxDOT), VIA

Metropolitan Transit (VIA), and other regional

partners, evaluated the potential for managed

and transit priority lanes to provide reliable

travel on the region’s congested highway

corridors. Additionally, this evaluation

examined options for providing new incentives

for ridesharing and transit ridership that

increase the number of people travelling on a

roadway without increasing the number of

vehicles.

Overall, this effort worked to identify innovative

and sustainable transportation concepts that

can lead to better long term performance in the

Alamo region.

Figure 1: San Antonio Regional Population, 1990 - 2015

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

San Antonio Regional Population

Population



At the direction of the Alamo Area MPO,

metropolitan San Antonio was analyzed to

determine what combinations of managed lane

strategies could assist in reducing current

congestion and that likely to be brought about

by future demand. Of particular interest in the

Alamo region are managed / transit priority

lanes applications that enhance traffic

operations through flow maximization, improve

average vehicle occupancies and transit

ridership, reduce crashes and other incidents,

and improve travel time reliability. Specific

freeway lane management strategies, which will

be discussed in more detail in the next

subsection, have many operational variants,

including system-management techniques (such

as time-of-day restrictions), vehicle-type

restrictions, and congestion pricing. To receive

the maximum benefit from managed lanes,

determining that they are the right fit for any

given facility is appropriate prior to

development.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the Managed / Transit Priority

Lanes Feasibility Study is to inform regional

decisions regarding the future consideration of

managed lanes implementation as a cohesive

network throughout the Alamo region. While

increasing vehicle throughput is important, the

ultimate objective is moving more people as

efficiently as possible. All strategies studied can

achieve the goal of moving more people, and

some directly support more efficient modes,

including transit and carpooling.

The structure of the study involved the

following components identified in Figure 2.

This analysis yielded two levels of screening

analysis, and subsequent packaging of managed

lane strategy prioritization. All of these stages

are summarized in this report.

The first screening identified corridors that

experience significant traffic congestion, in

order to establish those corridors that could

benefit from managed lanes and associated

treatments. The second screening identified

corridor characteristics in order to perform

additional analysis to identify those corridors

most in need of improvement and identify

managed lanes improvements that should be

considered.

Figure 2: Study Components for the Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Study



Context for Managed Lanes



SECTION 3

The Context for Managed Lanes Almost every metropolitan area in the United

States has witnessed an increase in vehicle

miles traveled and congestion over the past

decade. Furthermore, highway construction

costs continue to grow, right of way availability

is exceptionally limited, and traditional

transportation funding sources have continually

lost purchasing power. There is a growing

acceptance that with unlimited demand and

limited capacity, metropolitan regions are

unable to build new capacity to accommodate

future demand.

Instead of accepting the status quo as the “best

we’re going to get” in terms of regional

congestion mitigation and interconnectivity,

states and metropolitan areas are evaluating

and implementing creative approaches to

managing transportation infrastructure.

Emerging technologies have allowed for the

development and refinement of strategies to

meet these challenges. Flexible operating

strategies offer a means of addressing mobility

needs and providing new travel options with

minimal roadway capacity improvements.

Managed lanes are a family of operating

strategies, in existence for over forty years, that

are increasingly utilized as an

approach to effectively and

efficiently use existing capacity,

recapture capacity present in

congested corridors, and provide

alternatives to recurring travel time

delay.

Managed lanes systems are

designed to address a wide array

of transportation goals. The

term itself is ambiguous and

can mean different things to

different stakeholders in the transportation

industry, meaning that there is a wide array of

different strategies (Figure 3). However, one

key aspect that all managed lanes strategies

share in common is active management.

Managed lanes actively control demand for

those facilities, in contrast to traditional

roadways where agencies have little control

over when and how often travelers use them.

The ability of managed lanes operators to

manage, often on a dynamic real-time basis,

who uses the facility and when they use it

allows for improved efficiency of existing

capacity. This holds especially true in situations

where options for constructing new capacity

are limited. Latent demand in moderate to

severely congested corridors can quickly fill

capacity that is not managed.

Managed lanes strategies can be deployed to

improve recurring congestion or safety issues at

a specific location, or be deployed across a

highway corridor as a broader transportation

management strategy. In addition, different

managed lanes strategies are often deployed in

combinations to maximize benefits and make

efficient use of the managed lanes

infrastructure.

Express toll lanes

HOV lanes

Reversible & contra-flow lanes

Shoulder lanes

Truck & bus only lanes

Flow controlled freeways

Figure 3: Example Managed Lanes Strategies Commonly Found in the U.S.



Managed lanes encompass proactive

management, control, and

influence of the demand

for and use of surface

transportation facilities.

Under a Managed lanes

system, transportation

system performance is

the primary metric by

which the system is

operated.

Many strategies invoke

continuous assessment

and response in real

time to achieve performance

objectives, such as preventing

or delaying breakdown conditions,

ensuring travel times

and speeds, improving

safety, promoting

sustainable travel modes, reducing emissions,

or maximizing system efficiency. Implemented

actions are further monitored as they start to

affect system performance. This cyclical, real-

time monitoring and adjustment approach can

be carried out at various operational time-

scales, ranging from longer-term strategic

approaches to the short-term tactical decisions.

Defining Managed and Transit Priority Lanes

Since the deployment of the first managed

lanes in the early 1970’s, various types of

managed and transit priority lane systems have

been applied on limited access roadways.

Initial exclusive-use facilities for buses quickly

evolved to allow for high occupancy vehicles

(HOV) to optimize use of those lanes and

increase the number of travelers moved. Within

the past twenty years, electronic toll collection

on managed lanes have added the capability for

many to use the lanes with payment of a fee.

Managed Lanes also include the concepts of

intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and

active traffic management (ATM), which utilize

real-time transportation management

strategies to better inform travelers’ choices

and use of specific routes and lanes of travel.

This expansive use of technology is oriented

directly towards efficiency and safety

enhancement. Regardless of the specific

application, the ultimate purpose of Managed

lanes is the proactive management of traffic

within designated systems of corridors and

connecting facilities.

Managed lanes strategies are intended to

reduce traffic congestion, enhance mobility and

travel options, and improve safety, through the

introduction of controlled use of dedicated or

time-of-day highway capacity. The universe of

managed / transit priority lanes is illustrated in

the continuum of Managed Lanes graphic,

shown in Figure 4.

As can be seen in the figure, pricing, eligibility,

and access controls are combined with various

Figure 4: Universe of Managed Lanes Strategies, adapted from WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff, Texas Transportation Institute, and Federal Highway Administration



traffic technologies to form any number of

managed lanes strategies. Strategies combining

more combinations of control result in

increasing complexity but are also more flexible

in response to dynamic conditions. In general,

three basic categorizations comprise the

universe of managed lanes, wherein the much

broader diversity of strategies can emerge, as

shown in the figure above.

Dedicated Managed Lanes involves dedicating

lanes for use by any combination of high-

occupancy vehicles, buses, trucks, or any other

vehicle meeting eligibility requirements. Lanes

operate at a higher speed than adjacent general

purpose lanes, creating an incentive to utilize a

lane eligible mode. Dedicated managed lanes

may be oriented towards a particular mode

(such as buses) or they may involve the

reallocation of existing lanes (such as reversible

and contra-flow facilities).

Use of Shoulders either involves operating

buses on roadway shoulders in slower speed

application to bypass general purpose lane

traffic queuing during peak periods, or, using

the shoulders for general traffic during peak

periods to maintain or provide added capacity.

Either option may be deployed in conjunction

with the application of other managed lanes on

the inside of the roadway.

Active Traffic Management (ATM) denotes

application of advanced electronics to assign

traffic priority, lane assignment, speed control,

and flow control, and includes such systems as

ramp metering, speed harmonization, queue

warning, and dynamic re-routing. These

strategies may be deployed in conjunction with

dedicated managed lanes as well as shoulder

use applications.

Principal Components of Managed Lanes

Active management, as previously introduced

encompasses a range of strategies, with three

principal elements: Eligibility, Access Control

and Flow Control.

Eligibility Control Eligibility refers to the restriction of certain

vehicles and vehicle types from accessing a

given facility, which is most often based on

occupancy, vehicle type, or pricing.

Restrictions based on occupancy generally

stipulate that only vehicles carrying a certain

number of occupants – usually two or greater –

may enter a facility. For example, on traditional

HOV lanes, single occupant vehicles (SOV) are

barred completely from accessing such

facilities. By comparison, on priced dynamic

shoulder lane (PDSL) applications, all passenger

vehicles are eligible to access the facility, but

they are required to pay a fee for access (albeit,

free use may be offered to HOV’s).

Restrictions based on vehicle type generally bar

certain types of vehicles from entering a facility,

such as large commercial trucks, or provide free

access for others, such as buses, low emission

vehicles or motorcycles.

Eligibility may also vary by time of day or

change over the life of the facility in response to

changing volumes of various vehicle classes.

Shoulder lane facilities, for example, may

experience growth in the volume of users such

that congestion begins to occur and the level of

service on the facility is degraded. This

degradation of service may require a

restructuring of eligibility requirements so as to

reduce the number of eligible vehicles and thus

reduce congestion in the lane.

For eligibility controlled facilities a hierarchy of

user classifications should therefore be



established and eligibility requirements may be

adjusted so as to eliminate lower priority users.

Access Control If the desire is for managed traffic speeds in

certain lanes, then another management option

is to separate vehicles on managed facilities

(regardless of vehicle type or occupancy) from

adjacent general purpose lanes and restrict

physical access to those managed lanes.

Access control is often accomplished by

physically separating a managed facility from

other facilities via barrier, such as those

commonly found on express lanes where the

managed lanes are separated from general

purpose lanes by a barrier of plastic delineators.

In some situations, such as a bus-on-shoulder

program in a confined urban area, right of way

(ROW) may not be sufficient to construct a

barrier and a simple stripe has to suffice.

Flow Control Managing flow on any managed lanes system

involves metering of traffic demand.

Metering can occur with traffic signals (such as

ramp or mainline signals), or as a proxy through

variable pricing. Adaptive ramp metering is

commonly found in the United states, whereas

predictive and coordinated ramp metering are

the cornerstone of managed motorway

strategies, as found in Australia.

Most contemporary managed lanes strategies –

such as HOV facilities, queue bypasses, bus

rapid transit, managed motorways, and other

such facilities – do not feature a pricing

component. However, for the 30 facilities

nationally that do, pricing may be set on a

variable schedule, where rates change pursuant

to a pre-established schedule, or dynamic,

where the price for access increases during

times of day where volumes are the highest.

Table 2 illustrates how eligibility, access

management and metering may be used in

managed lanes applications. These are

illustrative examples only.

Strategy Examples Characteristics Techniques in Operation

ELIGIBILITY

Occupancy Lanes based on occupancy provide a priority to HOVs. Typically implemented in congested corridors to encourage shift to HOVs. Designed to provide travel time advantage and trip reliability.

California, Texas, Washington, Virginia, Minnesota, Colorado, Pennsylvania. Arizona, Florida, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Tennessee, Hawaii

Vehicle Management based on vehicle type. May provide a superior service as in the case of transit-only facilities. May seek to improve operations by separating vehicles types, like trucks.

Bus-only: Pittsburgh, Ottawa, Canada; Dual-Dual facility: New Jersey Turnpike. Bypass lanes: New Jersey, Hawaii, Texas, Illinois, Washington, California, Minnesota

ACCESS CONTROL

Express Lanes

Limited access points, reducing weaving and disruptions in traffic flow

I-90 and I-5, Seattle; Dan Ryan Expressway, Chicago

Shoulder Lanes

Limited access to shoulders during peak periods for vehicular travel.

Various cities throughout the US

FLOW CONTROL

Variable Speed Limits

Alter speed limits in real time, so as to avoid shockwave effects of queuing, resulting in smoother flow.

Minnesota, Washington, Utah, Colorado, and Missouri

Ramp Meters

Meters control the flow of traffic onto a facility to reduce turbulence, resulting in smoother flow.

Various cities throughout the US

Table 2: Managed Lanes Strategy, Examples, Characteristics, and Operations



Managed Lanes Objectives

Just as managed lanes strategies are most

effective when applied in the right

circumstances, they are also most effective

when developed with appropriate goals and

objectives, which may vary based on the

specifics of the project. These objectives are

usually informed by operational, financial and

user perspectives.

Operational Objectives Operational objectives seek to optimize the

utilization of the managed lanes facility.

However, optimal utilization may have different

meanings to different agencies.

For example, an agency might seek to optimize

utilization by keeping travel speeds in the

managed lane above a minimum threshold and

therefore maximize the number of vehicles

using the facility. Such an agency might

therefore impose pricing policies to manage

demand and associated congestion regardless

of vehicle type. Another agency might seek to

optimize utilization by maximizing the number

of people moved within the managed lane. Such

an agency might therefore impose eligibility

requires that favor vehicles carrying more

people such as HOVs, carpools and transit

vehicles.

Other agencies may take a broader view and

optimize utilization through overall congestion

management, meaning it will impose eligibility

requirements, access controls as well as pricing

policies to influence demand in given corridors

so that fluctuations in traffic flows are minimal

between peak and off peak periods of the day.

Reliability for users is thus insured regardless of

when they choose to travel.

Objectives aimed at throughput maximization

will ultimately lead to policies that maximize

either the number of vehicles or the number of

people traveling through a given corridor.

Achieving operational efficiency objectives

means maintaining both high levels of

throughput as well as high operating speeds for

vehicles on the facility.

Financial Objectives Financial objectives are those that set targets

for the level of revenue to be generated by a

facility.

In most managed lanes applications, there are

no financial objectives, as the goal of the facility

is to maximize person throughput on the

corridor. However, pricing-oriented managed

lanes strategies do generate revenue. Facility

operators may therefore choose to set pricing

policies so that potential revenues are

maintained at a specific level, generally one that

allows that operator to meet operations and

maintenance expenses, maintain debt service,

and develop future projects. Operators may

also choose to pursue economic efficiency with

their pricing mechanism, wherein fees are set at

a level equal to the marginal economic cost

imposed on the transportation system by each

new user on a given facility. This is most often

done through some form of congestion pricing,

with dynamic pricing applications being the

most effective at setting price closest to

marginal economic cost.

User Objectives User objectives are those that improve a

traveler’s experience on a given facility. This can

be done by adopting policies that increase

safety, improve reliability, or improve

convenience. These objectives often overlap

with a facility’s financial and operational

objectives. For example, improving traffic

throughput through pricing can address

congestion, thus meeting operational objectives

and improving the experience of drivers while

also generating revenue.



Managed Lanes Alternatives



SECTION 4

Managed Lanes Alternatives Studied Nine primary managed lane strategies were

considered for implementation to improve the

performance of congested segments.

Examined managed lanes treatments are

characterized by proactive and dynamic

management, control, and influence of travel

demand, traffic demand, and traffic flow of

transportation facilities. With the managed

lanes strategies identified, the transportation

system performance is continuously assessed;

dynamic actions using contemporary

monitoring tools, algorithms and decision

support systems are constantly evaluated and

implemented in real time to achieve

performance objectives, such as preventing or

delaying breakdown conditions, improving

safety, promoting sustainable travel modes,

reducing emissions, or maximizing system

efficiency. Implemented actions are

continuously monitored as they start to affect

system performance. This cyclical, real-time

monitoring and adjustment approach can be

carried out at various operational time-scales,

ranging from longer-term strategic approaches

to short-term tactical decisions.

The nine managed lanes strategies evaluated in

this study are shown in Table 3 below. These

strategies can be deployed to improve recurring

congestion or safety issues at identified

locations, or deployed across a highway

corridor as a broader transportation

management strategy. In addition, the

strategies are often deployed in combinations

to maximize the benefits and make efficient use

of infrastructure.

Table 3: Managed Lanes Strategies Considered




This strategy involves allowing vehicles, often

buses but sometimes passenger and other

vehicles as well, to utilize the shoulder of a

highway facility.

Allowing mixed traffic to utilize a shoulder

requires different designs and operational

strategies than bus only operations (discussed

later in this section) to ensure safety.

Additionally, shoulder design may warrant

restrictions on the vehicles eligible for hard

shoulder running but such restrictions are much

more often the result of the overall managed

lanes strategy. These restrictions may include

limiting the shoulder to use by certain vehicle

eligibility or other characteristics.

In allowing passenger vehicles (as opposed to

just buses), the assumption is that traffic will

operate at speeds up to free flow and that there

will be much higher volumes of traffic on the

shoulder than a bus only shoulder operation.

For traffic to operate safely in hard shoulder

operations, the shoulder

width should ideally be a

minimum of 11 feet for

the traffic, and an

additional width of

shoulder to the median or

edge of pavement of

three or more feet (see

Figure 5).

Also, for right side

shoulder lanes, merges for

entrances and exits must

conform to safe

standards. Hard shoulder

running can be

accomplished in

conjunction with Dynamic

Lane Assignment, which

usually takes the form of

overhead dynamic

message signs that inform drivers when the

shoulder is available and actively managing

access to the shoulder in response to

conditions. Alternatively, the shoulder can be

managed with time of day restrictions and static

signing. While a dynamic lane assignment

system in conjunction with mixed use Hard

Shoulder Running is preferred, systems using

static signing have been successfully

implemented.

Hard shoulder running effectively adds capacity

during peak periods but can increase safety

risks by removing shoulders that are used for

break downs, emergency response, incidents,

and for drivers to divert to avoid a rear end

collision. However, hard shoulders are

deployed in areas where congestion already

exists, and by utilizing the shoulder the overall

capacity of the corridor is expanded.

This reduces congestion and crashes due to

congestion, compared to conditions where the

shoulder is not utilized.

Figure 5: Hard Shoulder Running on I-66 in Virginia



Contra Flow and Reversible Lanes

Contra flow lanes involve taking one lane from

the off peak direction and converting it for use

in the peak direction, usually using a movable

center barrier. The barrier is moved utilizing

special equipment called “zipper trucks”. Contra

flow lanes are typically installed in corridors

where there is a significant difference in

directional flow during the peak

hours of travel and constraints exist

(physical or financial) that limit how

many lanes can be built in each

direction of traffic. Contra flow

lanes can also serve special event

traffic or be utilized for emergency

management and evacuations.

Reversible lanes are similar;

however, the barriers involved

remained fixed. Flow is usually

inbound to the central business

district in the morning and outbound

in the afternoon. Direction is

controlled using gates that open to

allow access to operating direction

of travel and then close when the

operation is reversed and different

access gates are opened. During the

reversal of flow, all entrance gates

are closed until the facility clears

completely.

Examples of Contra flow and

reversible lanes include:

I-30, Dallas

H-1, Honolulu

I-95, Boston

Tappan Zee Bridge, New York

Coronado Bay Bridge, San

Diego

Selmon Expressway, Tampa

Access points to contra flow and reversible

lanes vary by design. For these types of

operation, the number of access points is

typically limited, often with little or no mid-

point access between the beginning and end of

the facility. As described above, for safety

reasons the access points are usually controlled

by gating systems and electronic signs that

allow the facility to be closed for changing the

direction of operations.

Figure 6: Contraflow Lanes on I-30 in Dallas

Figure 7: Reversible Lanes on I-25 in Denver



Express Lanes

Express Lanes are a grouping of managed lane

types generally classified as being focused on

providing an expedited trip along a corridor,

thus the term “express.” The facility control

scheme determines the means by which drivers

receive the expedited trip. Each of these

control strategies is discussed below:

Access Controlled

Occupancy Controlled

Pricing Controlled

The type of express lane implemented in any

given region is often a policy decision. The

physical requirements in terms of construction

and operation for each type of express lane is

similar enough that construction and

operational requirements usually have little to

do with the decision regarding which variant of

express lanes to implement. In making this

decision, regional, and/or state policies are

often a key factor.

Access-Controlled Express Lanes Access-controlled express lanes, as the name

implies, limit the ability of drivers to move into

and out of the express lane. The

lanes have been developed as a

mechanism to separate through

traffic from local traffic on urban

expressways.

Although other types of express

lanes often include access-control,

the use of access-controlled

express lanes does not require any

other type of restriction. For

example, access-controlled

express lanes on the New Jersey

Turnpike only differentiate by end

destination, not be vehicle class or

eligibility (Figure 8).

Through traffic access the express lanes prior to

entering the urban core and exit after leaving

the urban core, thereby avoiding the turbulence

created by the multiple entrances and exits of

local traffic. Because of the lack of turbulence,

access controlled through lanes should have a

higher capacity than lanes being used by a

significant amount of local traffic. This can be

offset somewhat, as express lanes are often

single lane facilities, meaning that capacity is

reduced by the inability of traffic to effectively

maneuver.

With access controlled express lanes there is a

trade-off between the number and location of

access openings and throughput. Too few

access points will lower the number of vehicles

able to access the express lanes and might

result in sub-optimal volumes and throughput.

However, too many access points might result

in oversaturation of the lanes and could result

in congestion. Furthermore, the increased

number of access points increases the number

of vehicles maneuvering into and out of the

express lanes, which may impact travel speeds

and throughput.

Figure 8: New Jersey Turnpike Access-Controlled Express Lanes



This tradeoff in access versus throughput

capacity requires a significant understanding of

the traffic using the express lanes, particularly

the origins and destinations of that traffic.

While express lanes controlled only by access

are possible and is common in large

metropolitan areas throughout North America,

access control is often implemented along with

priced and/or occupancy controlled managed

express lanes to better manage the traffic

flows.

Occupancy-Controlled Express Lanes Occupancy-controlled express lanes are usually

referred to as high occupancy vehicle (HOV)

lanes. In these lanes, the number of vehicle

occupants is the determining factor as to which

vehicles may access the lane. While the

majority of HOV lanes in the United States have

a two occupant minimum, three occupant

minimum lanes are becoming more common as

traffic and demand growth continue within

large metropolitan areas.

HOV lanes have a significant advantage in the

fact that they encourage more efficient use of

vehicles through carpooling. Their disadvantage

is that occupancy-controlled access, by itself,

does not allow for precise lane management

and it is possible for significant over or under

demand to exist.

The use of access-control with occupancy-

control is common, but limited. The majority of

HOV lanes in the U.S. utilize continuous access,

including those in Arizona, Washington,

northern California, Tennessee, and elsewhere.

However, access-control through use of

painted-buffer and dedicated ingress / egress

points are increasingly found, including in Texas

and southern California.

Despite the availability of electronic toll

collection, and increasing use of pricing for

providing access to express lanes, the total

number of lane miles of occupancy-controlled

express lanes dwarfs that of priced express

lanes. Furthermore, state DOTs continue to

construct new HOV lanes including most

recently in California, Michigan, and

Massachusetts.

Figure 9: US 75 (Dallas) Occupancy-Controlled Express Lane



Pricing-Controlled Express Lanes Pricing-controlled express lanes can exist either

as express lanes that require all vehicles to pay

a toll, or require vehicles to pay a toll that have

fewer than the number of occupants required

to be considered an HOV. In the latter case,

these are commonly referred to as High

Occupancy Toll (HOT) or priced managed lanes.

In the former case, the common terminology is

express toll lanes.

Pricing-controlled express lanes have the

advantage of being most able to maximize

vehicle throughput as the requirement for entry

(payment of a toll) can be controlled in a way to

fully utilize the capacity of a lane. The toll itself

acts as a meter upon traffic: higher demand

carries a higher likelihood of over-use, so the

price is raised in order to discourage that over-

use scenario from occurring.

Political and public acceptance is often a major

disadvantage for pricing-controlled express

lanes. The payment of a fee for use is a

significant barrier,

as media and the

general public

focus upon the

toll value as

opposed to the

congestion-free

benefits of a

pricing-controlled

express lanes.

Additionally,

social equity

issues are also

sometimes raised

as an issue; albeit,

how toll revenues

are used can

sometimes offset

both of these

concerns.

Pricing-controlled express lanes are in operation

on 32 facilities in the U.S. (as of summer 2016),

including extensive use in the Houston, Dallas,

and El Paso regions of Texas, and additional

facilities in Austin currently under construction.

Like occupancy-controlled express lanes, the

use of access-control concurrent with pricing-

control is common, but not required.

Minnesota and Washington have deployed

pricing-controlled express lanes with

continuous access; California, Colorado,

Georgia, and Utah have used a buffer-

separation without physical barrier; and

California, Texas, Florida, and Virginia have

deployed physical barriers – either concrete or

pylons – to fully separate traffic.

In all known cases, the use of access control

was driven by the local build environment and

traffic operations requirements, as opposed to

enforcement or policy concerns.

Figure 10: US 36 (Denver) Pricing-Controlled Express Lanes



Bus Only Shoulder Lanes

Allowing buses to operate on the existing

outside shoulder in congested areas improves

transit travel times and transit trip reliability.

These improvements can lead to increased

transit ridership. Given the limited number of

buses that will use the facility in any given hour

and the use of professionally trained drivers,

experience with this managed lanes strategy

has indicated no inherent impact on safety.

To operate a hard shoulder for buses, key

provisions must be in place to ensure that no

safety issues are created. These criteria include

limiting the maximum speed buses can travel

(typically 35 mph) and/or limiting the speed

that buses can travel relative to the adjacent

traffic speeds (typically no more than a 15 mph

difference).

Professional drivers can potentially operate

busses on shoulders with a width of 10 feet or

more, especially around bridge piers and other

impediments; however, for this study, a

minimum width of 11 feet is recommended.

Bus on shoulder operations exist in 13 states,

including Ohio, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina,

New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,

Minnesota, Illinois, Kansas, California, Colorado,

and Washington. Minnesota has the largest

system, with over 300 miles of bus shoulders.

Truck Only Lanes

Truck only lanes separate truck traffic from

general-purpose traffic to improve the flow of

goods movement and improve traffic flows in

general traffic lanes. While there are very few

truck only lanes in the United States, separating

trucks from general traffic is common through

the use of truck lane restrictions. Formally

separated trucks, however, yield safety

improvements as well as overall improved

traffic flow as measured on the corridors where

they are implemented.

The New Jersey Turnpike has a barrier

separated set of lanes and interchanges that

trucks are required to use. Cars are permitted

in the truck lanes but trucks are not allowed in

the car lanes.

Adding a pricing

component to the

concept, truck only

toll lanes have been

studied but not

implemented in

Georgia, Oregon,

California, Kansas,

and Missouri as a

way to improve

goods movement

and improve safety

for general traffic.

Figure 11: I-94 (Minneapolis) Bus Only Shoulder Lanes



Flow Control Corridors

Controlling the flow of traffic onto the mainline

freeway is oriented toward balancing traffic

demand with the capacity of the freeway.

Unlike the other strategies, this concept applies

the traffic management concept across all lanes

in a freeway corridor, which yields greater

efficiency and safety on the freeway as a whole.

The purpose of the flow control strategy is to

better regulate and manage

The most common application of flow control is

the use of ramp meters that control traffic flows

at specific locations. Ramp metering is in effect

in at least some locations in most metropolitan

areas. Active traffic management (ATM), as

implemented in Minnesota, California,

Colorado, and Washington, includes the use of

overhead gantries with lane control signals for

either smoothing traffic or diverting traffic in

times of incidents. Finally, a new approach to

flow control from Australia involves managing

traffic flows in a predictive, dynamic and system

wide manner.

Ramp Metering Ramp meters (or traffic signals on ramps)

control the rate at which vehicles enter a

freeway facility. Ramp

metering can be

operated in a variety of

methods, including

fixed time, real time

adaptive, and dynamic

coordinated.

Fixed time meters

apply a static metering

rate, based upon

historic volume

patterns. More

advanced metering

systems may maintain

a fixed time pattern as

a fallback system in

case of communications failure. Adaptive ramp

metering utilizes traffic responsive or adaptive

algorithms (as opposed to pre-timed or fixed

time rates) that can optimize either local or

clustered conditions. Dynamic coordinated

metering takes this concept further, and applies

in a systemwide context.

As a freeway management strategy, real-time

and anticipated traffic volumes on the freeway

facility control the rate that vehicles enter the

freeway itself. Based on the conditions, the

ramp meter rates are adjusted dynamically.

Ramp meters are utilized in nearly a third of the

largest 100 urban areas in the U.S. When

deployed as an adaptive, corridor wide

approach, ramp meters improve safety by

reducing the number of rear end crashes and

crash rates in merge zones and on the metered

freeway segment. Ramp meters also increase

the throughput of freeways and improve travel

time reliability.

Ramp meters do not change the number or

design of specialized access points; however, to

give travel time advantages for transit or

carpools, several cities have installed HOV

bypasses at metered ramps. This is another

Figure 12: I-15 (Salt Lake City) Entrance Ramp Meter



method of focusing on person throughput

versus simply increasing vehicular throughput.

Active Traffic Management ATM enhances freeway

operations by dynamically

managing traffic flow and lane

assignment based on prevailing

traffic conditions and presence

of collisions or other incidents.

ATM generally includes

traditional ITS strategies,

including metering, cameras for

incident and traffic

management, and changeable

messaging signs. ATM also

includes contemporary systems

oriented towards variable speed

limits, speed harmonization,

and dynamic lane assignment

through the use of overhead

signals spaced frequently

throughout the freeway

corridor (Figure 13).

Focusing on trip reliability,

ATM’s goal is to maximize the

effectiveness and efficiency of

the facility under recurring

congestion and non-recurring

incidents or road work. Through

the flexible use of the roadway,

it aims to increase system

performance as well as traveler throughput and

safety through the use of strategies that

actively regulate the flow of traffic on a facility

to match current operating conditions.

Managed Freeways The managed freeways concept is a new

operational model for controlling traffic flows

along an entire corridor, not just at key

junctures and along corridor segments. The

concept was created and first deployed in

Melbourne, Australia, under the moniker

“Managed Motorways” (Figure 14).

One of the most basic elements of the managed

freeways concept is extensive, dynamic and

coordinated ramp metering of on-ramps and

freeway interchanges. Access to the managed

freeway is controlled by ramp meters, the

timing and operation of which are informed by

vehicle detection and data collection systems,

incident detection systems, closed circuit

television surveillance and enabled by various

strategic design considerations.

Figure 13: I-94 (Minneapolis) Active Traffic Management System

Figure 14: M1 (Melbourne) Managed Freeway



The result is a coordinated ramp metering

network that synchronizes the flow of vehicles

entering a freeway with those that are already

on the freeway as opposed to simply managing

the flow of vehicles onto a roadway at certain

locations, as with traditional ramp metering.

Powered by the HERO algorithm developed by

the University of Crete, managed freeways take

collected data on corridor traffic volumes, travel

speeds and ramp queues to dynamically

optimize the phasing of ramp meters along the

entire length of the roadway. In addition to

these advance access control systems, managed

freeway systems can also integrate eligibility

and pricing controls. These may include variable

speed limits, dynamic lane management, hard

shoulder running, advanced traveler

information systems, variable/congestion

pricing, and priority vehicle queue bypass lanes.

Existing Managed Lanes in San Antonio

While most people think of lane

management using tolls, there are multiple

ways to manage capacity on the freeway

system. The San Antonio area is no stranger

to managed lanes, with many applications

throughout the metropolitan area.

This section covers the types of managed

lanes found in the Alamo region, including

use of vehicle eligibility or access control to

manage demand. Here are a few current

and historical examples of managed lanes in

San Antonio.

Ramp Metering A ramp meter typically consists of a traffic

signal or a two-section signal (red and green

only) that works with a signal controller to

regulate traffic flows entering a highway facility.

Although TxDOT no longer deploys ramp meters

in the San Antonio region, they have been

present in the past. TxDOT installed the first

ramp control signal in 1973 on the entrance

ramp from Culebra to eastbound I-10 (Figure

15). By 1980, there were nine locations

equipped with meter signals. All but one of

these were in the downtown area along I-10 or

I-35. The exception was the southbound US 281

entrance ramp from eastbound Basse.

San Antonio also had a meter signal on a

freeway-to-freeway ramp, specifically the

southbound US 281 ramp to southbound I-35.

In addition to the meter signals, there were also

two entrance ramp gates. TxDOT used these

gates to close the entrance ramps during the

morning rush hour to help reduce congestion

caused by traffic influx and weaving problems

due to the proximity of those entrances to

other ramps. The ramps along I-10 and I-35

were removed in the 1980s. The Basse

entrance ramp to US 281 was the last one

remaining in the city, but was subsequently

removed in June 2005.

Left Lane Truck Restriction Many states and regions have deployed

restrictions on truck use of interior freeway

lanes. The purpose of these restrictions is to

provide for greater speeds, reduced friction,

Figure 15: Historic Ramp Meter on I-10, Source:

TexasHighwayMan.com, 2015



and less weaving impacts resulting from truck /

passenger vehicle interface.

In 2004, the San Antonio City Council passed an

ordinance prohibiting trucks from using the left

lane of US 90 (both East and West) inside Loop

410 between 6am and 9pm Monday through

Friday. This was a trial project to determine

whether similar restrictions should be

implemented on other area highways. A

before-and-after study showed an overall 10%

reduction in crashes along the corridor with a

30% reduction in crashes involving trucks.

However, the restriction has not been

expanded to any other highways within the City

of San Antonio.

According to TxDOT, prohibiting large trucks

from sustained travel in the far left lane allows

passenger vehicles to move more quickly and

freely. It also reduces the number of lane

changes and passing maneuvers attempted by

passenger vehicles thereby reducing the

likelihood of crashes.

Hurricane Response Lanes Hurricane evacuation planning is necessary in

San Antonio, especially to prepare for the influx

of people coming from Corpus Christi, Victoria,

and Houston areas.

Two options are currently provided: contraflow

routing and shoulder lanes. Contraflow lanes

alter the normal flow of traffic to enhance

directional capacity. In order to help evacuate

the Texas Coastline safely and efficiently, TxDOT

identified a number of hurricane evacuation

contraflow routes including IH 10 in the

Houston/Galveston area and IH 37 from Corpus

Christi. When stage 2 of the evacuation plan is

activated, southbound lanes reverse to carry

two lanes of northbound traffic.

TxDOT also provided a plan for using both inside

and outside shoulder lanes as needed to help

with evacuations. Emergency shoulder

evacuation lanes are the first to be activated

during a stage of emergency. These lanes

include special pavement striping.

Arterial Treatments Probably the most frequent type of managed

lane in San Antonio is bus only lanes, or lanes

restricted to use by buses. Because of their

frequent stops, most drivers prefer to find a

way around buses, and bus drivers frequently

cite difficulty merging in and out of travel lanes

after bus stops. Bus lanes are designed to

resolve both issues, but largely depend on

enforcement to work.

There are a number of dedicated bus lanes in

the downtown area including Navarro, St.

Mary’s, Commerce, and Market St. to name a

few. The bus only lane that travels from San

Pedro / Main Street, on the north side of

Downtown to Alamo and south to Commerce is

a bus contraflow lane. It travels in the

southbound direction for a short distance on

Navarro to Alamo, past Alamo Plaza and ending

at Commerce Street. It was put in place to

allow VIA’s buses to access downtown from the

bus facility on San Pedro.

The City of San Antonio also has a reversible

lane system near the AT&T Center that includes

two reversible lane systems over a total 27

signals. Reversible lanes manage the flow of

traffic by maximizing the use of available traffic

lanes. This is done by reversing traffic flow to

meet travel demand. The city is also

considering a similar system for San Pedro and

Fredericksburg.

Applying Managed and Transit Priority Lanes

The Alamo area is not alone in recognizing there

are insufficient funds to undertake major

capacity improvement projects to meet

anticipated travel demand and population

growth.



The region has identified a preference for

incorporating operations and management

strategies into its long range transportation

plan as a means of enhancing efficiency,

improving safety, and generating more

reliability on the region’s transportation system.

In many ways, this policy preference reflects a

more “21st Century” approach to traffic

management; indeed, metropolitan areas

throughout the U.S., Australia, and Europe are

also relying on management and operational

strategies to address anticipated traffic

congestion and growth in travel demand.

The primary difference between U.S.

implementation, including that of the Alamo

area, and the Australian / European experience

is the U.S. dedication of one or more managed

lanes of travel for free-flow condition

maintenance.

In the United States, common types of managed

lanes are HOV lanes, priced managed lanes,

bus-only shoulders, and limited-access express

lanes.

By comparison, Australia and Europe tend to

prefer a flow-control oriented system, where

the operational treatments apply to all lanes of

travel equally. Active traffic management as

deployed in Europe and Australia attempts to

regulate the flow of all vehicles across all lanes

of traffic through the implementation of speed

harmonization, queue warning, lane controls,

junction controls, dynamic rerouting, and

dynamic travel time information.

Despite this difference, the broad implication is

that urban areas across the developed world

are increasingly investing in demand and

system management strategies that emphasize

operational performance rather than broad

system capacity.

Table 4 shows the implementation of managed

lane strategies by state, with a qualitative

assessment as to how extensive the strategy

deployment has been throughout the state’s

urbanized areas. In the past decade, not only

are managed lanes becoming an increasingly

important component of U.S. freeway

operations, but for many regions, managed

lanes have become a featured component for

addressing long-term capacity constraints in a

corridor.



State HOV lanes Bus Shoulders

Priced Express Lanes

Flow Metering

ATM

Arizona California Colorado Florida Georgia Hawaii Illinois Kansas Maryland Massachusetts Minnesota Nevada New Jersey New York North Carolina Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington Wisconsin

= Extensive = Moderate = Limited = None Table 4: Managed Lanes Strategies by State, 2016

Corridor/Strategy Selection Criteria The nature of managed lanes in certain

communities has evolved from a short-term,

corridor-specific, operationally-focused strategy

to a long-term, system-wide, mobility-focused

strategy. Although project development still

occurs at a corridor level for managed lanes,

capacity planning and systems integration are

increasingly conducted at a regional / system

level. In this context, managed lanes are often

considered side-by-side with active traffic

management.

For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area, a

comprehensive phasing plan has been

developed for the development of the

“Freeway Performance Initiative”. In a few

corridors, managed lanes are implemented

concurrent with flow-control strategies to

provide better traffic management. In this

context, the Bay Area generated a prioritized

list of system management and capital

investments for each corridor. From this list, a

comprehensive benefit / cost analysis was

conducted and prioritization / phasing

completed.



For example, for a corridor with a long-term

projected need for managed lanes, a new

auxiliary lane along a portion of the eventual

managed lane corridor might have been

recommended as an initial measure to “buy

some time” until the fully realized managed

lane implementation was warranted and

funding was available.

By comparison, North Central Texas Council of

Governments’ policy endorsing toll road

viability has yielded a system-wide approach to

implementing priced managed lanes.

Both metropolitan regions envision managed

lanes as the principal capacity expansion

function for the 20-year long range plan.

Integration with Regional Transportation

Planning There is no established guidance for the

incorporation of managed lane strategies within

the context of the long-range plan, although a

current FHWA research project is developing

this guidance. Indeed, the development of the

long-range plan as a 20- or 30-year snapshot of

the future network is inherently biased towards

identifying capacity improvements independent

of their operational function.

Again referencing the San Francisco Bay Area,

the region has fundamentally changed the

development of the long range plan through the

Freeway Performance Initiative (FPI).

The FPI created a system-wide evaluation of

regional project priorities, but developed the

list of priorities in partnership with the project

sponsors. Thus, when projects were proposed

for development or inclusion with the long

range plan, the phasing of the project in the FPI

determined its suitability for inclusion. If

iterative steps (as identified in the FPI) were not

conducted first, the project was not included.

This prevents big-capacity projects from

absorbing regional funds. Furthermore, it

shows a preference for operational and

management treatments that maximize the use

of available capacity before new capacity is

added to the system.

An interesting development witnessed in

various metropolitan areas is the extensive use

of regional partnerships to implement and

deliver managed lanes strategies for congested

freeway corridors. Although financing is a key

consideration within the development, it should

be noted that this extends beyond financial

considerations. For example, partnerships with

regional / county authorities, as well as non-

profits (transportation management

associations) and private-sector enterprises,

have helped bring projects to fruition quicker

and with greater regional concurrence.

The current effort to assess the appropriateness

of various managed lane treatments for

application on San Antonio roadways is similar

to the processes undertaken in San Francisco.

Like San Francisco, the Alamo region is

interested in making the most efficient use of

current capacity and not undertaking a planning

process that prioritizes adding capacity. As will

be seen in subsequent sections, the evaluation

framework adopted for this exercise identifies

those corridors and associated managed lane

treatments that are not compatible given

existing roadway dimensions and right-of-way

and would therefore require significant

reconstruction. These facilities and treatments

are not recommended for further consideration

at this time. Furthermore, the scoring criteria

utilized in the evaluation framework was

developed with input from regional

transportation stakeholders, echoing the Bay

Area’s premium on regional partnerships in

implementing managed lanes projects.



Tier 1 Screening



SECTION 5

Tier 1 Screening In order to concentrate upon those freeway

corridors that would most likely benefit from

manage lanes strategies, the Feasibility Study

project team conducted a high level screening

process known as “Tier 1 Screening”. There

were no preconceived assumptions as to which

corridors would move forward from Tier 1

screening, and all freeway corridors in

metropolitan San Antonio were included. Tier 1

study corridors are shown in Figure 16.

Figure 16: Tier 1 Screening Analysis Study Corridors

Existing Congestion

Two major elements were taken into account in

Tier 1 screening. The first was the presence of

congestion in the near to medium term.

Without congestion, the impact of the

improvements considered would have little to

no effect. Second, improvements on isolated

facilities will have much less benefit than

improvements that can be extended and

networked. For that reason, in Tier 1, the San

Antonio region was evaluated as a whole to

determine the existing patterns of congestion.

Information regarding existing recurring

congestion was obtained from TxDOT corridor

video as well as traffic counts. This information

was examined to identify existing recurring

congestion. The result of this examination as

well as traffic counts are shown in Figure 17.



Figure 17: Existing Recurring Congestion and Traffic Counts

In this first step in Tier 1 screening,

consideration was only given to identifying

those corridor segments with existing

congestion. This approach, while a good initial

step, does not take into account the need for

continuity on the network.

As seen in Figure 17 above, there are multiple

short uncongested segments between

congested segments. Applying strategies only to

those segments specifically identified as being

congested would result in a piecemeal,

ineffective application of strategies.

Therefore, the second step in Tier 1 screening

was to identify logical connections between

congested segments so that strategies

considered would begin and end at reasonable

termini. The corridors were then reviewed with

the working group and further refined.

In this exercise logical connections between

congested segments were developed. The final

corridors taken into Tier 2 screening combined

the congested corridors with the logical

connections between them as well as corridors

that will likely become congested in the future

as described in the modeling discussion below.



Modeling

Existing congestion is an important

consideration; however, San Antonio will

experience significant growth in the coming

years. If this growth is not taken into account in

the analysis, multiple corridors that will become

congested, and may therefore benefit from

managed lane improvements, could be

overlooked. For this reason, modeling runs

were made using the San Antonio multimodal

travel demand forecast model so that future

conditions could be taken into account in the

study.

Runs were made to simulate both 2020 and

2040 conditions. There were, however, two

decisions made that differ from how area wide

modeling is normally performed and utilized.

As discussed below, and as discussed with the

working group, the modeling methodology is, in

some ways, the reverse of how models of this

type are traditionally used.

Based on information contained in the AAMPO

2040 plan, it is known that many improvements

are planned to address congestion. These

improvements are included as part of the 2040

model. So that the impact of planned

improvements could be taken into account,

runs reflecting both 2020 and 2040 land use

were made on the on the 2040 network.

Normally, the modeling runs with 2020 land use

would use the existing network or only those

network improvements projected to be in place

by 2020. Areas of congestion would be

identified and appropriate mitigation measures

would be proposed. Modeling, as the study did,

based on the 2040 network would normally be

criticized for potentially overlooking problems

that could exist in 2020 if the additional

improvements planned to be in place by 2040

were used in the 2020 modeling. However, for

the purpose of this study, the methodology is

sound and useful.

In this study, if the traditional approach using

the existing network or a network with only

2020 improvements in place, had been used,

the project team might have spent resources

examining issues that would be solved with

improvements already planned between 2020

and 2040. In other words, the project team

designed this approach so that only congestion

existing in 2020 that would not be solved with

improvements in future years was revealed.

While significantly different than a traditional

modeling approach, this ensured that solutions

for problems that would not exist in the longer

term were not pursued. A more traditional

approach could have introduced significant

inefficiencies into the study.

The process was described as a “reverse”

process since the 2020 modeling was done in

such a way as to “mask” congestion that could

be solved with later improvements rather than

running the existing 2015 network to identify all

problems that might exist in 2020.

The purpose of this study does not include

completely redefining the AAMPO’s 2040 plan.

It does include evaluating managed lanes

strategies including various types of lane

management. To analyze managed lane

strategies, the project team wanted the analysis

to be performed with a “clean slate” from a

freeway management and improvement

standpoint. For this reason, changes were

made to the 2040 network to remove all

managed lanes included in the model.

This approach resulted in a network that

included all improvements in the AAMPO 2040

plan, except that managed lanes, none of which

currently exist, were removed. This allowed the

project team to begin its analysis including all

improvements other than those in the freeway

management realm without predetermining

any managed lanes solutions. The model



therefore included the effects of all non-

managed lanes strategies, such as the addition

of lanes, while revealing those areas where

these strategies could provide needed

improvements. In this way, the project team

knew that it was not attempting to solve issues

that were already being resolved in AAMPO’s

2040 plan, so that it could concentrate on areas

where freeway management strategies were

needed and useful.

Using a graphical representation of Volume /

Capacity ratios allowed the project team to

quickly identify areas with probable congestion

and expand the study area to encompass these

areas. In general, the 2020 modeling showed

potential “hot spots” where congestion is likely

to occur within five years. Not surprisingly, the

2040 model revealed much broader areas of

likely congestion. Modeling results for 2020

and 2040 are shown in Figure 18 and Figure 19.

Figure 18: 2020 Modeling Results



Figure 19: 2040 Modeling Results

Based on the results of the 2020 and 2040

modeling, the corridor segments taken into Tier

2 screening were significantly expanded beyond

existing areas of congestion and their related

connections previously identified. The results of

the 2020 and 2040 modeling were reviewed

with the project working group, and corridors

that were likely to become congested in the

midterm (2020) were added to Tier 2 screening.

Only limited access facilities were considered in

the study. However, two facilities that are not

limited access appear to become congested by

the year 2020 based on the modeling results.

These are US 87 to the east of I-410 and US 181

east of I-37. While these two roadways were

not taken into Tier 2 screening, if they are

converted to limited access facilities in the

future, some type of managed lane treatment

should likely be considered.

In addition to expanding the facilities moving

into Tier 2 analysis, potential congestion in the

year 2040 identified addition al corridors

showing a propensity to eventual congestion,

but not to the level for inclusion in Tier 2

screening. For this reason, a significant set of

roadways was identified as corridors for future

study.

The final corridor segments recommended for

advancement in the Tier 2 screening are shown

in Figure 20. As shown, there are some

corridors in the San Antonio area that are not

currently recommended for either Tier 2

screening or definitively identified for future

study. However, in the event that any of these

facilities undergo reconstruction, managed lane

strategies deserve full consideration in the

planning and design process.



Figure 20: Corridors Recommended for Tier 2 Screening and for Future Study



Tier 2 Screening

Methodology



SECTION 6

Tier 2 Screening Methodology For Tier 2 screening, specific managed lanes

strategies were analyzed for use on the study

corridors advancing from Tier 1 screening. The

Tier 2 screening process involved several

iterative steps:

1. Safety screening - All managed lane

treatments considered for implementation

in San Antonio were first given a high-level

safety assessment without regard to

specific corridors in order to identify

treatments that could pose heightened

safety risks.

2. Corridor definition, segmentation and

analysis - San Antonio roadways advancing

from the Tier 1 assessment were broken

down into “micro segments” for a more

detailed assessment.

3. Assessment of strategy specific right-of-

way and/or pavement width requirements

– San Antonio micro-segments where

analyzed in order to establish available

right-of-way and existing pavement width.

Next, right-of-way and pavement width

requirements for each of the managed lane

treatments under consideration where

determined and compared to the available

right-of-way and pavement width the

selected corridor segments to determine

which strategies are feasible from a

footprint perspective.

4. Evaluation methodology development – In

order to determine selection criteria

appropriate for the region, the project team

convened a workshop of regional agencies

to identify transportation goals for the

region. These goals informed the selection

of qualitative and quantitative criteria that

were then ranked and weighted based on

their importance in terms of meeting

regional transportation goals.

5. Managed Lane Strategy Evaluation –

Finally, strategies and corridors where

combined and scored based on the selected

criteria and weighting. Segments were then

ranked within each strategy to show those

segments that would most likely benefit

from the selected managed lane strategy.

The overall process in arriving at recommended

managed lane treatments for San Antonio

roadways is shown in Figure 21.

Quantitative data was used when available.

However, at this level of screening, much of the

data available is qualitative. To allow both

qualitative and quantitative data in the analysis,

qualitative data was assigned a numerical value

based on observed conditions, deployments of

the strategy outside of San Antonio, academic

research, and professional judgment.



Figure 21: Tier 2 Screening Process

Safety Assessment

If any of the alternatives considered had been

found to have a poor safety record based on

experience in other implementations, then the

alternative would not have been considered

further in this study. As such, the managed lane

treatments considered for this study were first

subject to an overall safety assessment without

regard to their application on any specific

facility.

No prohibitive safety concerns were found.

However, this is not meant to serve as a

definitive safety analysis of any alternative, as

this initial assessment occurred without

consideration of the various design features of

San Antonio’s roadway segments. As such,

significant additional analysis of safety and

other issues and benefits during subsequent

planning and design phases for specific facilities

will be required.

This high-level safety assessment is presented in

the following subsections.

Hard Shoulder Running Information available for two facilities, Virginia

I-66 and Minnesota I-35W, has been reviewed

for Hard Shoulder Running.

Virginia I-66: Based on a safety analysis using

crash data from 2002 to 2004, researchers

concluded that there was no evidence that the

HOV/Shoulder Lane managed-lane strategy had

a statistically significant effect on crash

frequency during peak hours.

Minnesota I-35W: The safety statistics are not

available at this time. However, MnDOT

personnel believe that the facility is operating

safely and as planned.

Express Lanes The safety benefits of operating an express lane

depends on how the system is implemented. If

the express lane is added to a corridor, thereby

increasing the overall capacity, then overall

corridor congestion and associated crashes are

expected to be reduced. The same is true if an

existing underutilized occupancy-controlled

express lane is converted to a price-controlled

express lane.



A reduction in overall corridor congestion is

expected to reduce side swipe and rear end

crashes.

Regardless of type, an express lane introduces

new safety issues that would not exist if the

lane were a general purpose lane. Operation of

an express lane is expected to be at higher

speeds than adjacent general purpose lanes.

This speed differential creates potential safety

issues where traffic is merging into or out of the

express lane.

A variety of designs are available to deal with

this access issue and operate the lane safely. To

improve safety, express lanes often have

buffers between the lane and the adjacent

general purpose lane. The buffer can be a fixed

permanent barrier, pylons, or striping. Access

in or out of the lane is managed by direct

ramps, merge/diverge buffer lanes, or through

open access areas where drivers negotiate

merging.

With the wide variety of available designs for

express lanes, the expected safety outcome of

its implementation is dependent on the

circumstances and design of the express lane.

Operation of express lane in a variety of

locations (Seattle, San Diego, Minneapolis,

Denver, and Houston, among others) has been

accomplished within acceptable safety

thresholds.

Contra Flow Lanes As with express lanes, the safety impact of

contra flow lanes relate to how the system is

implemented. The increase in capacity that

results from the contra flow lanes reduces

congestion and thus improves the overall

corridor safety; however, care must be taken

that congestion in the opposite direction is not

adversely affected.

Contra flow lanes have many design options.

Freeway implementation of contra flow lanes

requires physical separation because of the

potential for very high speed head-on collisions

with opposing traffic.

In freeway applications, it is not recommended

that contra flow lanes be deployed without

positive access control using a barrier system.

Truck Only Lane Truck only lanes are intended to separate truck

traffic from general traffic to improve the flow

of the general traffic lanes. There is limited

experience with truck only lanes in the U.S.

Truck only toll lanes have been studied in

Georgia, Oregon, California and Missouri as a

way to improve goods movement and improve

safety for general traffic.

To date, no truck only toll lanes have been

implemented, so safety benefits of these

systems have not been verified. However, there

is an expected improvement in safety due to

improved traffic flow similar to that for express

lanes.

A summary of the safety assessment of the

strategies is shown in Table 5 below.



Managed Lane Strategy

Reduction in severity and frequency of crashes

Proposed improvement has proven safety enhancement record


Reduces congestion and related crashes. Reduction can be significant if corridor congestion is substantially reduced.

Existing information is limited, but no negative safety impacts have been documented.

Contra Flow Lanes and Reversible Lanes

Expands corridor capacity, reduces congestion and crashes.

Proven safety benefits when tied to overall reduction in congestion. Positive separation required to ensure that the possibility of head on collisions is mitigated

Express Lanes – All Types

Managed lane deployments have resulted in reductions in overall crashes as congestion is reduced

Proven safety benefits in US when tied to overall reduction in congestion.

Bus Only Shoulder Lanes

No impact on crashes Proven to have no negative or positive impact on safety (Minnesota study)

Truck Only Lane Removing trucks from general purpose lane can improve GP lane reliability and enhance safety. No documented cases.

Minimal US locations, no proven impact on safety

Flow-Controlled Corridors

ATM and ramp meters are proven to reduce both severity and frequency of crashes

Yes (multiple documented studies)

Table 5: Strategy Safety Assessment

Corridor Definition for Analysis

In analyzing strategies for various corridors

identified for Tier 2 screening, the corridors

were broken down into very short “micro”

segments. This allowed the analysis to take into

account changes in cross-section, particularly

those due to bridges and/or overpasses, as well

as other issues that can impact the desirability

of a particular strategy.

While the micro segments are useful for data

collection, the managed lanes strategies

examined in this study are best implemented

over a reasonable distance rather than in

multiple “spot” locations. For instance, adding

an additional lane as an express lane over a

short distance accomplishes little as the overall

capacity of the corridor will still be constrained

at either end of the express lane.

It was, therefore, necessary to reassemble the

segments into a meaningful corridor for

consideration of each strategy. For this reason,

study segments were reassembled and defined

based on interchanges with major facilities. The

resulting study corridors are shown graphically

in Figure 22 and in a tabular format in Table 6.



Figure 22: Tier 2 Study Corridor Segmentation



Corridor-Segment

Corridor Limits Length (miles)

1A Loop 1604 Interstate 35 to US 281 9.72

1B Loop 1604 US 281 to Interstate 10 7.83

1C Loop 1604 Interstate 10 to SH 151 10.77

2A Loop 410 Interstate 35N to US 281 5.29

2B Loop 410 US 281 to Interstate 10 8.33

2C Loop 410 Interstate 10 to SH 151 7.88

2D Loop 410 SH 151 to US 90 2.60

2E Loop 410 US 90 to Interstate 35 4.71

2F Loop 410 Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd 1.00

3A Interstate 35 NE Division Ave to US 90 1.15

3B Interstate 35 NE US 90 to Interstate 10 2.48

3C Interstate 35 NE Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 2.21

3D Interstate 35 NE Interstate 37 to Loop 410 8.74

3E Interstate 35 NE Loop 410 to Loop 1604 4.77

3F Interstate 35 NE Loop 1604 to SH 46 17.18

4A Interstate 35 SW Loop 410 to SH 422 4.42

4B Interstate 35 SW SH 422 to Division Ave 3.10

5A Interstate 10 NW Loop 410 to Loop 1604 7.28

5B Interstate 10 NW Loop 1604 to SH 46 15.68

6A Interstate 10 I-35 to Loop 410 6.42

7A Interstate 10 E I-37 to Loop 410 5.92

7B Interstate 10 E Loop 410 to Loop 1604 6.70

8A US 281 Fair Ave to Interstate 10 0.92

8B US 281 Interstate 10 to interstate 35 2.53

8C US 281 Interstate 35 to Loop 410 6.01

8D US 281 Loop 410 to Loop 1604 6.43

8E US 281 Loop 1604 to SH 46 12.67

9A SH 151 Loop 1604 to Loop 410 5.68

9B SH 151 Loop 410 to US 90 4.44

10A US 90 SH 151 to Interstate 35 4.40

10B US 90 Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 2.29

11A US 90 W Loop 1604 to Loop 410 3.30

11B US 90 W Loop 410 to SH 151 3.94

12A Interstate 37 Loop 410 to US90 6.05 Table 6: Tier 2 Study Corridor Segmentation Descriptions



Detailed Geometric Features and Existing Cross-Sections

Corridors identified for Tier 2 screening were

assessed for existing right-of-way and existing

pavement width, which was then compared to

the requirements of each strategy being

evaluated. The assessment was completed in

the following steps:

Existing geometrics and cross-sections of

each study corridor were researched and

compiled.

The geometric and cross-section

information developed was compared with

the specific requirements of each of the

various alternatives.

Corridor/strategy combinations that would

require significant reconstruction of a major

portion of the corridor were identified.

Short gaps, such as might exist on a bridge

or an underpass, where sufficient cross-

section/right-of-way does not exist was

then identified.

This process is described further in the sections

below. The availability of sufficient right away

and/or the existing pavement is a critical factor

in determining the desirability of a particular

strategy for each corridor. Google Earth

imagery validated by field visit was used to

assess conditions, sufficient for secondary

screening, to determine a facility’s

appropriateness for the various strategies.

Special attention was given to areas around

bridges, overpasses, underpasses or ramps, as

available cross section is often reduced in these

areas. In addition, any areas where the road

width was observed to change were noted.

Figure 24 shows this process in detail.

Figure 23: Corridor Assessment Process



Figure 24: Right of Way Data Acquisition Methodology

Existing road geometrics and existing cross-

sections were measured using Google Earth

aerials. Information was developed for each

direction of traffic flow to likely right-of-way.

The available pavement and areas that could

relatively easily accept new pavement were also

determined.

A windshield survey of each of the corridors

was made to verify the reasonableness of

information obtained from Google Earth aerials.

For each of the corridor/strategy scenarios, the

available pavement width, as well as an

estimate of the available right-of-way was

compared with the footprint needed to

implement the particular strategy.



While pavement width and right-of-way were

held static during this analysis, the use of the

right-of-way and/or pavement was assumed to

be flexible. In other words, it was assumed that

restriping could be done, and new pavement

could be added as needed if it would not

require major demolition of existing

infrastructure or incursion beyond the

identified right-or-way.

In establishing suitability for a strategy, it was

assumed that width for all travel lanes could be

reduced to a minimum of 11 feet and that

shoulder width could be reduced to a minimum

of 1 foot. For concurrent flow express lanes, it

was assumed that no buffer between the

express lane or lanes and the general-purpose

lanes was required.

It must be clearly stated that these minimums

are not desirable widths, but rather the

absolute minimum that would be needed to

implement a strategy without significant

reconstruction in the corridor. Design

exceptions will be needed to implement these

types of cross-sections, and a full design and

operational study will be needed to ensure that

the horizontal and vertical curvature would

allow such a reduced cross-section.

Available right-of-way for strategy development

was calculated using the right-of-way formula

below. Calculating available pavement width

used the pavement width formula also shown

below. The amount of right-of-way and/or

existing pavement width to accommodate a

strategy was calculated as:

Existing laneage (feet) = (11 feet X Existing number of lanes) + 2 feet

Available right-of-way (feet) = Total width (feet) – Existing laneage

Available pavement width (feet) = Total pavement width (feet) – Existing laneage

Strategy specific right-of-way and/or

pavement width requirements The required width for implementation of each

strategy was developed using the same

minimum widths described above.

Figure 25 maps the use of available right-of-

way, the available pavement width, and the

number of lanes in the considered strategies.

Table 7 describes the right-of-way requirement

for each strategy in detail.

As with available pavement width, the

minimums specified in the table are not

necessarily desirable, but serve to assess if a

corridor could possibly accommodate the

considered strategy.



Figure 25: Use of Available Right-of-Way, Pavement Width, and/or Number of Lanes



Strategy

Minimum # of existing lanes (directional)

# lanes to be added

Minimum Inner Shoulder width*

Minimum Outer Shoulder width (ft)

Separating barriers from existing lanes (ft)

Total required footprint (ft)

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic

- 1 0 0 0 11

Bus on Shoulder Lanes

- 1 0 0 0 11

Contraflow Lanes

3 0 1 1 2 4

Reversible Lane

- 1

Total 4: 2 for Reversible + 1

in each direction of

GP lanes

8 4 27

Dual Reversible Lanes

- 2

Total 3: 1 for Reversible + 1

in each direction of

GP lanes

1 4 30

Access Controlled Express Lanes

- 1 1 1 0 13

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes

- 1 1 1 0 13

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes

- 1 1 1 0 13

Truck Only Lanes

- 1 1 1 0 13

Flow Controlled Corridors

- 0 0 0 0 0

Table 7: Right of Way Requirements for Strategies

Contraflow lanes and reversible lanes were

considered as special cases due to the nature of

their operation. Because of their special nature

the specific methodology for evaluating the

strategies is described below.

Contraflow

Contraflow lanes are called for in corridors that

cannot reasonably accommodate additional

pavement. Additional operational costs do exist

but they are less than the cost of new

construction and the cost of congestion to the

traveling public.

In contraflow operation, one lane in the off-

peak direction is temporarily assigned to flow in

peak direction. A movable barrier is used to

accomplish this transition. To maintain smooth



traffic operations, at least two operational lanes

in addition to the contraflow lane are needed in

the off-peak direction.

As a result, locations in San Antonio with fewer

than three existing lanes in each direction were

considered unable to accommodate contraflow

operation. Additionally, as a travel lane is

removed from the off peak direction, there

needs to be a significant directional split during

the peak hours of operation. A directional split

of 66% in the peak direction to 34% in the off

peak direction was considered to be a minimum

to consider contraflow operation.

No corridors in the study area met both

requirements, therefore contraflow lanes were

essentially eliminated from consideration.

Reversible Lanes

While movable barriers are not required for

reversible lanes, the nature of reversible lanes

means that there will be concurrent flow with

the general-purpose lanes in one direction and

opposing flow with the general-purpose lanes in

the other direction.

In general, the concurrent flow will be with the

peak direction and the opposing flow will be

with the off-peak direction. Over a 24 hour

period, directional flow will reverse as the peak

direction transitions from inbound to outbound

and vice versa.

For this reason, impenetrable barriers are

needed on both sides of the reversible lanes to

prevent the possibility of head on crashes. Since

this creates a situation where express lane

traffic cannot easily access the general-purpose

lanes to move around a disabled vehicle,

sufficient shoulder width is needed for the

express lane to enable this to occur. In general

this requires an 8 foot shoulder on one side of

the express Lane, and a 2 to 4 foot shoulder on

the other side of the express lane. This results in

a minimum of 21 feet between concrete

barriers (an 11 foot travel lane plus an 8 foot

shoulder plus a 2 foot shoulder) as well as

additional width to accommodate the barriers

themselves, generally 2 feet on each side. This

results in a 25 foot cross-section for the single

reversible lane alone. As concurrent flow

express lanes can be handled with a lesser

cross-section, a single reversible lane is not an

efficient choice.

The increased capacity of a lane in each

direction, and the reduced operating costs of

one lane in each direction (rather than a

reversible lane) created a scenario where a

single lane in each direction was felt by the

evaluation team to be superior in all respects to

a reversible lane. However, a two reversible

lane strategy can potentially be implemented in

a smaller footprint than two managed lanes in

each direction. For this reason, a strategy to

have one reversible lane was not pursued

further while the strategy to build two

reversible lanes remained in consideration. A

minimum directional traffic factor of 60% in the

peak direction and 40% in off-peak direction

was considered necessary to consider a two

reversible lanes strategy.

Right-of-way assessment The required footprint for the remaining

corridor/strategy combinations were next

compared to the available width currently in

the corridor. As the available width varied over

the corridor, the smaller sub-segments used in

geometric and cross-section data collection

were used to compare the required versus the

available pavement width and right-of-way.

Assessments for sub-segments of a corridor

were then re-integrated so to analyze overall

feasibility.



Figure 26: Right of Way Assessment Process

It is unusual to find a corridor in any

metropolitan area where the strategies studied

in this project could be implemented with very

little or no reconstruction of the existing

conditions. The question becomes what is an

appropriate cutoff between mitigating relatively

minor deficiencies versus the need for major

reconstruction for a given strategy.

For this study, strategies that contemplated

new lanes, other than bus on shoulder, were

assumed to require major reconstruction for

corridors with insufficient pavement width that

could not be easily added or required additional

right-of-way for 10% or more of its length or if

the deficiency was brought about by a major

system to system type interchange. These

strategies include: Hard Shoulder Running for

Mixed traffic, Express Lanes of all types, Two

Reversible Lanes, and Truck Only Lanes. If

insufficient width existed in more than 10% of

the corridor’s length or involved a major

interchange, the strategy was deemed to

require major reconstruction of the corridor to

allow the strategy to be implemented.

In a Bus on Shoulder strategy, buses can merge

back into general traffic in areas with

insufficient shoulder width for operation.

Merging several dozen buses each hour in and

out of a shoulder lane creates far less disruption

than moving the 1200 to 1800 vehicles that a

mixed traffic shoulder lane would carry back

and forth from the shoulder to the general-

purpose lanes. Even with a Bus on Shoulder

strategy, overall, the corridor should be able to

accommodate operation for most of its length.

For this reason, corridors with insufficient

pavement width or right-of-way for 25% or

more of their length were assumed to require

major reconstruction.

Flow controlled corridors utilizing ramp

metering, are not dependent on the right-of-

way available on the corridor mainline.

Therefore, flow controlled strategies were

deemed to not require major reconstruction for

any of the considered corridors. Table 8

summarizes the results of the pavement

width/right-of-way assessment process for

corridor/strategy combinations.



ID Corridor

Len

gth

Hard

Sho

uld

er

Ru

nn

ing

Bu

s on

Sho

uld

er

Lane

s

Co

ntra-flo

w Lan

es

Two

Re

versib

le

Lane

s

Expre

ss Lane

s (all typ

es)

Truck O

nly La

ne

s

Flow

Co

ntro

lled

Co

rrido

rs

1A Loop 1604 from Interstate 35 to US 281 9.72 1B Loop 1604 from US 281 to Interstate 10 7.83

1C Loop 1604 from Interstate 10 to SH 151 10.77

2A Loop 410 from Interstate 35N to US 281 5.29

2B Loop 410 from US 281 to Interstate 10 8.33

2C Loop 410 from Interstate 10 to SH 151 7.88

2D Loop 410 from SH 151 to US 90 2.6

2E Loop 410 from US 90 to Interstate 35 4.71

2F Loop 410 from Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd 1

3A Interstate 35 NE from Division Ave to US 90 1.15

3B Interstate 35 NE from US 90 to Interstate 10 2.48

3C Interstate 35 NE from Interstate 10 to Interstate 37

2.21

3D Interstate 35 NE from Interstate 37 to Loop 410

8.74

3E Interstate 35 NE from Loop 410 to Loop 1604 4.77

3F Interstate 35 NE from Loop 1604 to SH 46 17.18

4A Interstate 35 SW from Loop 410 to SH 422 4.42

4B Interstate 35 SW from SH 422 to Division Ave 3.1

5A Interstate 10 NW from Loop 410 to Loop 1604

7.28

5B Interstate 10 NW from Loop 1604 to SH 46 15.68

6A Interstate 10 from I-35 to Loop 410 6.42

7A Interstate 10 E from I-37 to Loop 410 5.92

7B Interstate 10 E from Loop 410 to Loop 1604 6.7

8A US 281 from Fair Ave to Interstate 10 0.92



ID Corridor

Len

gth

Hard

Sho

uld

er

Ru

nn

ing

Bu

s on

Sho

uld

er

Lane

s

Co

ntra-flo

w Lan

es

Two

Re

versib

le

Lane

s

Expre

ss Lane

s (all typ

es)

Truck O

nly La

ne

s

Flow

Co

ntro

lled

Co

rrido

rs

8B US 281 from Interstate 10 to interstate 35 2.53

8C US 281 from Interstate 35 to Loop 410 6.01

8D US 281 from Loop 410 to Loop 1604 6.43

8E US 281 from Loop 1604 to SH 46 12.67

9A SH 151 from Loop 1604 to Loop 410 5.68

9B SH 151 from Loop 410 to US 90 4.44

10A US 90 from SH 151 to Interstate 35 4.4

10B US 90 from Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 2.29

11A US 90 W from Loop 1604 to Loop 410 3.3

11B US 90 W from Loop 410 to SH 151 3.94

12A Interstate 37 from Loop 410 to US90 6.05

potentially not viable major reconstruction required potentially feasible

Table 8: Strategy-based Right of Way Assessment of Corridors



Figure 27: Evaluation Methodology

Evaluation Methodology

After establishing available and required right-

of-way and pavement, the next step was to

develop the evaluation methodology for scoring

facility segments relative to the managed lanes

strategies (Figure 27).

This began with the identification of regional

goals and associated objectives by facilitating a

San Antonio system stakeholder workshop.

Workshop participants articulated a high-level

vision for San Antonio’s transportation system

and then identified goals and objectives for

achieving that vision. Next, the project team

selected quantitative and qualitative metrics

aligning with those goals and objectives, which

were converted into criteria for the evaluation.

The initial workshop engaged representatives

from agencies throughout the San Antonio

region to identify and define the goals,

objectives, considerations, opportunities and

constraints with respect to managed lanes

strategies. The results from that exercise were

categorized and consolidated by the project

team into three broad goals and eleven

supporting objectives, as shown in Table 9.

Screening criteria were developed based on a

corridor/strategy combination’s ability to satisfy

the established goals and objectives.



Goals Objectives

A Provide a Smart, Integrated Transportation System

1 Increase transit and carpool mode share

2 Accommodate future travel demand growth

3 Enhance connections and reliability between economic activity centers

4 Preserve and recapture available capacity

B Provide a Reliable and Efficient Transportation System

1 Improve travel time reliability in peak periods

2 Reduce travel time delay in peak periods

3 Increase person throughput

4 Increase vehicular throughput

C Provide Safe and Equitable Transportation Systems

1 Reduce crashes

2 Improve operations to minimize conflicts

3 Provide access to service for all income levels

Table 9: Goals and Objectives for Regional Managed Lanes Strategies

Subsequent stages of the screening process

relied on more detailed data than previous

stages of the process. In cases where

quantitative data was available, it was utilized.

Data from city, county, state and federal

transportation agencies as well as other data

resources where used in the development of

the screening criteria. As most criteria can help

assess the performance of each scenario for a

multitude of goals/objectives, a one-to-one

relationship between a specific criterion and a

specific objective does not exist.

The screening criteria developed apply to either

the regional corridors identified for valuation,

the strategies under consideration, or (for one

criterion) both corridors and strategies. For the

final stage of screening process corridors /

segments were paired with managed lanes

strategies and the sum of the corridor /

segment and strategy criterion yielded one

overall score for each combination. Each

criterion in each category was scored a zero (0),

one and a half (1.5), or three (3). While these

numbers may seem somewhat unusual, they

allow a reasonable differentiation between

corridor/strategy combinations without one

criterion dominating the selection. In general,

zero was assigned where the corridor / strategy

combination has little or no positive impact, or

even potentially a negative impact; one and a

half was assigned where there was a moderate

positive impact; and three was assigned where

there was a significant positive impact. In this

way, the highest ranking went to those

strategies that best achieve the project goals.

Each of the criteria was also weighted as either

one (1), three (3), or five (5). A rating of one

indicated the criterion would be tangentially

beneficial to the project; three was assigned

when the criterion was felt to be important, but

not critical; and five was assigned to those

criteria felt to be critical to the overall project

goals. A brief description and weighting of each

criterion is shown in Table 10 below. Additional

information on each criterion scoring and

weighting is provided in Appendix 1; whereas,

numerical rankings for each of the following

synthesis criteria ranking are in Appendix 2.



Criteria Description Weight

Corridor or segment is featured in TxDOT’s listing of the 100 Most Congested Highways in Texas

5

Corridor / segment is identified in State and/or Regional plans 5

Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for the corridor / segment as per TxDOT 5

Contains high crash locations 5

Ability of existing cross sections to accommodate Improvements 5

Ability to Use the ML to Develop Transit Networks to Facilitate Transit Travel 5

Annual Hours of Truck Delay per Mile 3

Trucks as a percentage of all traffic on the corridor/segment 3

Employment density along the corridor / segment as per the 2014 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data set from the US Census

3

Population density along the corridor / segment as per the US Census Bureau's 2010-2014 American Community Survey

3

Effective congestion (combination of data from TxDOT) 3

Annual Hours of Delay per Mile (combination of data from TxDOT) 3

Number of Existing Bus Routes along the corridor / segment 3

Potential for future expansion in addition to the proposed improvement based on available right-of-way

3

Presence of low income/low auto ownership areas served by Tier 2 corridors 3

Ability to improve transit connections between activity centers, and between activity centers and residential areas

3

Ability to Influence Mode Choice to More Efficient Modes 3

Ability to Implement Effective Lane Management 3

Improved System, Intermodal, and/or Multimodal Connectivity 3

Potential for Transit and Carpool Time Savings 3

Current park and ride facilities along the corridor / segment 1

Opportunities for transit feeder service or innovative solutions such as subscription transportation or ride-sourcing for last mile services

1

Potential for additional park and ride facilities based on land available at logical locations 1

Table 10: Description and Weighting of Criteria



Tier 2 Screening

Results



SECTION 7

Tier 2 Screening Results

Figure 28: Tier 2 Screening Evaluation Process

After the developing the evaluation

methodology, establishing criteria and assigning

scores and weights, the next step was to

conduct the actual scoring of corridor segments

and strategies. All combinations of strategies

and segments were paired together, with

differences in scores for segment-based criteria

and strategy-based criteria contributing to a

unique overall score for each segment /

strategy combination.

The following pages show the performance of

San Antonio area corridors for each strategy,

with figures and tables that summarize the

evaluation of corridors and their relative ranks

within each strategy.

How strategies work together in a network

setting will be more important than their

specific ranking with a specific corridor. For

instance, it would not be appropriate to

implement Flow Control on a corridor, Price

Controlled Express Lanes on the adjacent

corridor, and then Truck Only Lanes on the next

corridor. However, how each strategy fares in

each corridor is of interest, and Appendix 3

summarizes the performance of strategies for

each corridor.

Hard Shoulder Running – Mixed Traffic

Hard Shoulder Running scored well on most

corridors. However, there is one caveat that

should be kept in mind when considering Hard

Shoulder Running: it is only appropriate when

sufficient pavement width exists to

accommodate it without adding pavement. If

adding a full lane of pavement is necessary to

implement a strategy, some type of express

lane is likely a better choice.

Inside Shoulder Versus Outside Shoulder Either Bus on Shoulder (discussed in the next

section) or Mixed Traffic Hard Shoulder Running

as discussed below can be implemented on the



inside shoulder, next to the median, or on the

outside shoulder outside of the right-most lane

of traffic. There are advantages and

disadvantages to both approaches.

Outside shoulders allow priority traffic such as

busses and HOVs (if allowed) to access the

priority lane without having to merge across

multiple general purpose lanes. This reduces

weaving and is particularly beneficial when the

Hard Shoulder Running segments are fairly

short. In these shorter segments, the Hard

Shoulder may be underutilized if it is the inside

shoulder as the time necessary to access the

lane may not be fully offset by the relatively

short travel in the priority lane.

The main disadvantage of outside shoulder use,

particularly when used as a priority lane

restricted to certain vehicles, is interference

with entering and exiting traffic. This is most

common when Hard Shoulder use extends

through an interchange, however, it can also

occur to a lesser extent when Hard Shoulder

use extends to or from an exit or entrance.

Usually at entrances or exits, general purpose

traffic will mix with priority traffic to the extent

necessary to allow entry or exit to be

accomplished. This can degrade the

performance of the Hard Shoulder Running

where the shoulder is used for priority traffic.

This is especially problematic where traffic for

an exit backs up past the beginning of the exit

ramp. It can also significantly complicate

enforcement as it can be difficult to

differentiate between general purpose traffic in

the lane to make a needed maneuver and

drivers trying to illegally use the shoulder.

Using the inside shoulder for hard shoulder

running tends to allow the shoulder to operate

in a manner closer to an exclusive managed

lane. If the lane is intended for priority traffic,

there is no need for general purpose traffic to

travel on the hard shoulder. This eliminates

interference for and from entering and exiting

traffic.

As the majority of fully established Express

Lanes are on the inside lane(s), use of an inside

shoulder for hard shoulder running enables a

much better transition from the Express Lane

into the shoulder designated for hard shoulder

running or from the hard shoulder into the

Express Lane when the Express Lane and the

Hard Shoulder are contiguous. In situations

where this will occur, or is likely to occur in the

relatively near future, an inside shoulder is

preferred.

The main disadvantage of using an inside

shoulder for Hard Shoulder running is that

traffic must merge across several lanes to

access the shoulder. This is most

disadvantageous when the shoulder is being

used for priority traffic.

In any decision regarding whether to use the

inside or the outside shoulder, significant design

and operational issues must be examined. For

that reason, in this study, specific decisions

regarding whether the inside or outside

shoulder were not made. However, on facilities

where hard shoulders are likely to connect to

Express Lanes, the inside shoulder likely has an

advantage. This would include facilities such as

US 281 south of Loop 1604 and I-10 south of

Loop 1604, as both of these facilities could

connect to the Occupancy Controlled Express

Lanes being constructed on these facilities

north of Loop 1604.



Figure 29: Hard Shoulder Running with Mixed Traffic – Results



Corridor Number

Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Rating

3D Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410 Very good

2C Loop 410 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Very good

1C Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Good

2A Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Good

1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good

3E Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good


5A Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good

8D US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good

3B Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10 Good

3C Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 Good

3F Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Good

8B US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Good

12A Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Good

10A US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Fair

3A Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 Fair

8C US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410 Fair

1A Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Fair

8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair

10B US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 Fair

6A Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410 Fair

4B Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave Fair

2D Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90 Fair

5B Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair

8A US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Fair

11B US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151 Fair

9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Fair

2E Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35 Fair

7B Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Fair

4A Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Fair

7A Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410 Poor

9B SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90 Poor

11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Poor

2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Poor Table 11: Corridor Ranking for Hard Shoulder Running with Mixed Traffic



Bus on Shoulder

Bus on Shoulder scored well on almost all

corridors, and very well on several corridors.

The differences in scoring for this strategy

relative to Mixed Use Hard Shoulder Running

are the result of the specific transit benefits of

Bus on Shoulder. The same caveat discussed for

Mixed Use Hard Shoulder Running regarding

lane addition also applies to Bus on Shoulder: it

is appropriate when there is sufficient existing

pavement to accommodate the strategy

without adding new pavement.

Figure 30: Bus on Shoulder Lanes – Results



Corridor Number





2A Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Very good

1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Very good

3E Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Very good








10A US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Good

3A Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 Good


8C US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410 Good

1A Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Good

8A US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Good

8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Good











7A Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410 Fair

9B SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90 Fair

11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Fair

2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Poor Table 12: Corridor Ranking for Bus on Shoulder Lanes



Contraflow Lanes

Contraflow lanes are unlikely to be a viable

strategy for the San Antonio Metropolitan

region because no corridor in the region has

both the required directional split (66.7/33.3)

and the required number of lanes (three

minimum) in each direction. Nonetheless, the

strategy was evaluated based on the study

criteria, but was not ranked due to the

unlikelihood of implementation.

Figure 31: Contraflow Lanes – Results



Corridor Number

Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Score

3D Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable

5A Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable

2C Loop 410 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Potentially not viable

3B Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10 Potentially not viable

3C Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 Potentially not viable


2A Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Potentially not viable

1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Potentially not viable

3E Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable


8C US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable

8D US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable

8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Potentially not viable

3F Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Potentially not viable

3A Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 Potentially not viable

6A Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable

8B US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Potentially not viable

12A Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Potentially not viable

10A US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Potentially not viable

1A Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Potentially not viable

8A US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Potentially not viable

4B Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave Potentially not viable

2D Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90 Potentially not viable

5B Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Potentially not viable

10B US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 Potentially not viable

2E Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35 Potentially not viable

11B US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151 Potentially not viable

9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable

7B Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable

4A Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Potentially not viable

7A Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable

9B SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90 Potentially not viable

11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable

2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Potentially not viable Table 13: Corridor Ranking for Contraflow Lanes



Reversible Lanes

Reversible Lanes were required to have a

minimum of a 60% to 40% directional split and

only three segments in the region met this

criterion. Furthermore, due to this strategy’s

relatively low scores, the need for major

reconstruction, and the low continuity between

segments, reversible lanes are not a highly

ranked strategy for the San Antonio area.

Figure 32: Dual Reversible Lanes – Results



Corridor Number



9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Poor


3D Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable

5A Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable


3B Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10 Potentially not viable

3C Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 Potentially not viable


2A Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Potentially not viable

3E Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable


8D US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable

8C US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable

8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Potentially not viable

3F Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Potentially not viable

3A Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 Potentially not viable

6A Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable

8B US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Potentially not viable

12A Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Potentially not viable

10A US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Potentially not viable

1A Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Potentially not viable

8A US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Potentially not viable

4B Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave Potentially not viable

2D Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90 Potentially not viable

5B Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Potentially not viable

10B US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 Potentially not viable

2E Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35 Potentially not viable

11B US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151 Potentially not viable

7B Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable

4A Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Potentially not viable

7A Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable

11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable

2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Potentially not viable Table 14: Corridor Ranking for Dual Reversible Lanes



Express Lanes

Express Lanes are part of the Mobility 2040 long

range plan, with projects on I-10, US 281, Loop

1604, and I-35 already in development. The

decision was made to proceed without any

consideration of previous decisions. This

eliminated the possibly of “predetermined

results”; however, the study’s analysis found all

of these projects are warranted.

Access Controlled Access Controlled Express Lanes rank well in

some corridors but did not score as well and as

broadly as other strategies. Segments that

perform well reflect similar opportunities with

other capacity oriented options.

Occupancy Controlled Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes scored well

over a broad area. They offer additional

flexibility compared to Access Controlled

Express Lanes and the ability to encourage

more efficient mode choice, which led to this

overall higher score.

Pricing Controlled Pricing Controlled Express Lanes also scored

well over a broad area. Combining pricing with

occupancy control operations, in particular,

maintains the ability to encourage more

efficient mode choice while the pricing element

allows for consistent maximization of overall

vehicle and person throughput in the lane.

Figure 33: Access Controlled Express Lanes – Results



Corridor Number
















8D US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Fair

3F Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair


















2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Poor Table 15: Corridor Ranking for Access Controlled Express Lanes



Figure 34: Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes - Results



Corridor Number












10A US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Good






1A Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Good

















2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Poor Table 16: Corridor Ranking for Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes



Figure 35: Pricing Controlled Express Lanes – Results



Corridor Number



































2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Poor Table 17: Corridor Ranking for Pricing Controlled Express Lanes



Truck Only Lanes

Truck Only Lanes are a very specialized strategy

with a relatively small deployment in the United

States. While San Antonio does have a

significant amount of freight traffic, other types

of Express Lanes are likely to offer a greater

benefit to the transportation network as a

whole.

Figure 36: Truck Only Lanes – Results



Corridor Number


3D Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410 Good





1C Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Fair

5A Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Fair

2A Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Fair

3F Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair

3B Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10 Fair

3C Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 Fair

8D US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Fair


8B US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Fair

12A Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Fair









4B Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave Poor

8A US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Poor

11B US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151 Poor

2E Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35 Poor

7B Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Poor

4A Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Poor

9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Poor




2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Poor Table 18: Corridor Ranking for Truck Only Lanes




Due to their comparatively low cost and the fact

that no right-of-way on the actual mainline

facility is required, Flow Controlled Corridors

(adaptive ramp metering) scored well. This

strategy is also the only one that can be used

effectively on I-10 between 1604 and I-410, and

US 281 between 1604 and the Central Business

District without requiring a major investment in

the corridor.

Figure 37: Flow Controlled Corridors – Results



Corridor Number














8B US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Fair

12A Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Fair















7B Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Poor

4A Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Poor




2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Poor Table 19: Corridor Ranking for Flow Controlled Corridors



Recommendations



SECTION 8

Recommendations

Figure 38: Recommendations for Managed Lanes Strategies

Based on the Tier 2 screening, the project team

developed a set of recommended managed

lanes treatments for select corridors in the San

Antonio metropolitan region. The

recommendations in this section take into

account several factors, shown in Figure 39.

Figure 39: Strategy Recommendation Factors



Summary of Recommendations

Based on the above factors, implementing Bus

on Shoulder is the overall highest

recommended strategy. Bus on Shoulder scored

well throughout the Alamo region, so continuity

between various segments can be achieved.

Further, Bus on Shoulder Tier 2

strategy/corridor scores were high, it is

relatively easy to implement, it can be built

upon by other strategies, and it can be

implemented with other strategies. In fact, bus

on shoulder makes an excellent partner with

the HOV lanes already approved for US 281 and

I-10 north of the 1604 Loop. In total, and using

the vernacular, Bus on Shoulder provides an

excellent “Bang for the Buck”.

In terms of sequential strategy deployment,

Mixed-Use Shoulder Running can generally

follow Bus on Shoulder implementation where

appropriate. Implementation of one of several

express lanes can follow after that. By

implementing in this order, the performance of

each strategy informs the order in which

subsequent strategies should be implemented.

Flow-controlled corridors can be implemented

at any time and with any other strategy

examined in this study that is contemplated,

planned or already implemented. Therefore,

flow controlled corridors are discussed

separately from other strategies.

The next section presents specific corridors with

associated managed lanes strategies for

consideration. To facilitate better

comprehension of the recommendations

presented in the following pages, the corridor

identification graphic previously presented is

replicated in Figure 40 below.

Figure 40: Study Corridors and Segments



Strategy & Corridor Recommendations

Strategy: Bus on Shoulder Bus on Shoulder as a strategy scored very well

on almost all corridors and exceptionally well

on several (Figure 41). It is the simplest strategy

to implement of all under consideration.

Therefore, it is relatively inexpensive and can be

implemented relatively quickly. Further, the Bus

on Shoulder strategy complements the HOV

lanes that have been approved for construction

on I-10 north of 1604 Loop, and US 281 north of

the 1604 Loop.

For these reasons, it is the strategy

recommended for first implementation. The

next section describes a potential

implementation plan for Bus-on-Shoulders in

the San Antonio area.

Figure 41: Recommendation Factors for Bus on Shoulder Strategies

Numerous segments along I-410, specifically

those from Valley Hi Drive south of US 90 to I-

35 (corridors 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D and a portion of

2E), scored very well and, in total, represent a

significant continuous corridor.

Multiple VIA routes already exist on these

corridors and major trip generators and

attractors are located in the corridors, including

Lackland Air Force Base, Port San Antonio,

North Star Mall, and the San Antonio

International Airport.

Given these factors this section of I-410 is the

ideal corridor for initial deployment of Bus-on-

Shoulders.

Segments of I-35 and Loop 1604 are also

recommended for consideration for Bus-on-

Shoulder implementation. A map showing the

recommended corridors and associated

segments for the implementation of Bus-on-

Shoulder is shown below in Figure 42.



Figure 42: Recommended Alamo Area Corridors and Associated Segments for Bus on Shoulder Implementation

Based on Strategy/Corridor Tier 2 Scoring, the

Loop 410 Corridor should receive the highest

priority for Bus-on-Shoulder implementation,

with prioritization of segments (based on

evaluation and continuity) as follows:

1. 2C - Loop 410 between I-10 to SH 151

2. 2A - Loop 410 between I-35 to US 281

3. 2B - Loop 410 between US 281 to I-10

4. 2D - Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90

5. 2E - Loop 410 between US 90 to I-35

I-35 between US 281 and Loop 1604 (corridors

3D and 3E) is the next logical implementation of

Bus on Shoulder. Both corridors scored

exceptionally well and the recommended

implementation order is:

1. 3D – I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410

2. 3E – I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604

Either corridor supports implementations that

are assumed to have already been completed

on I-410. Because of this, other factors can also

be considered regarding whether the corridors



are implemented simultaneously, or what the

actual implementation order will be.

Loop 1604 between SH-151 and I-35 is the next

logical implementation. All corridors, 1A, 1B,

and 1C all scored very highly, and there is

flexibility on the order that they would be

implemented. Based on continuity and Tier 2

scoring, the recommended implementation

order is:

1. 1B - Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10

2. 1C - Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151

3. 1A - Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281

The I-10 corridor from northwest of the city to

downtown San Antonio is a special case. This is

due to the HOV lanes planned north of Loop

1604, and with the potential for significant

investment that would be necessary to

implement the strategy between Loop 1604 and

I-410.

An HOV lane provides more benefit than bus on

shoulder. It allows better operating conditions,

and it also allows vehicles other than buses to

access the lane. The HOV status also

encourages the efficient use of the lane by

encouraging multiple occupant vehicles, either

buses or HOV’s. Because of the additional HOV

benefits, implementation of Bus on Shoulder on

I-10 north of Loop 1604 is not recommended at

this time.

Implementing Bus on Shoulder on segment 6A

allows premium bus service to bypass

congestion between the I-410 loop and I-35.

However, without the ability to implement Bus

on Shoulder between Loop 1604 and I-410, a

significant gap exists. Closing this gap would

provide a continuous bus route between the

areas north of Loop 1604 and downtown San

Antonio.

For this reason, a deeper analysis was made of

the segment of I-10 between Loop 1604 and I-

410. Given the HOV lanes being constructed

north of Loop 1604 and the ability to implement

bus on shoulder on the segment of I-10 south of

I-410, allowing flexibility in the implementation

evaluation criteria on this portion of I-10 is

appropriate. Bus on Shoulder should be

considered, and likely implemented on this

segment as the other improvements to either

side of the segment come online.

While the corridors described above are the

better corridors for initial pilot type

implementation, coordination between

AAMPO, VIA, and TxDOT should be undertaken

to establish the definitive order of

implementation. Furthermore, the majority of

corridors in Tier 2 screening scored well on the

Bus on Shoulder strategy. These corridors are

certainly good candidates for Bus on Shoulder

implementation. Therefore, as previously

discussed, it is recommended that AAMPO

coordinate with VIA and TxDOT to determine

which of these additional corridors should move

forward.



Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic

Mixed Traffic Hard Shoulder Running also

scored well overall (Figure 43). It is a logical

next step to Bus on Shoulder implementation

and therefore deserves consideration. As

discussed above, the decision to convert the

shoulder to Mixed Traffic or letting it remain

Bus on Shoulder should be informed based on

the operation of the shoulder as Bus on

Shoulder. Further, some corridors that can

accommodate Bus on Shoulder because of the

ability of transit traffic to more easily weave

onto general-purpose lanes when needed to

avoid a Pinch Point, cannot support Mixed-Use

Hard Shoulder Running due to the larger

number of vehicles that would need to be

accommodated.

Figure 43: Recommendation Factors for Hard Shoulder Running (Mixed Traffic)

Nine corridors scored over 60% of the available

points for Mixed-Use Hard Shoulder Running

and would not require major investment to

accommodate the strategy. These are shown

below as well as the map in Figure 44:

3D: I-35 NE between I-37 to Loop 410

2C: I-410 between I-10 to SH 151

1B: Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10

3E: I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604

1C: Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151

2A: I-410 between I-35 N to US 281

2B: I-410 between US 281 to I-10

3C: I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37

3F: I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46

These nine corridors are recommended for

consideration for initial deployment of Mixed-

Use Hard Shoulder Running. As with Bus on

Shoulder, other corridors that scored well for

the strategy can be considered for

implementation at an appropriate time. Again,

AAMPO should undertake coordination with

both VIA and TxDOT in making these decisions.

As part of this coordination, the benefits of

leaving a particular corridor as Bus on Shoulder

should also be evaluated.

Two other issues regarding Mixed-Use Hard

Shoulder Running deserve discussion: First, if

there is a driving need for congestion relief that

includes SOV’s, Mixed-Use Hard Shoulder

Running can be implemented as the first step

rather than converting from Bus on Shoulder.

Further, Mixed-Use Hard Shoulder Running can

be implemented in an occupancy controlled

manner. In other words, the same requirements

could be imposed on a Mixed-Use Hard

Shoulder Lane that are imposed on an

Occupancy Controlled Express Lane, with only



HOVs being able to use the shoulder in addition

to buses. This could allow greater use of the

capacity that the shoulder represents with little

to no degradation in transit performance.

Figure 44: Recommended Alamo Area and Associated Segments for Hard Shoulder Running (Mixed Traffic) Implementation

Express Lanes

Express lanes, regardless of the control

mechanism, scored well in the San Antonio

region (Figure 45). Furthermore, they can be

implemented with the other strategies in this

report and the strategy can be built upon.

However, in cases that require a significant

investment, they are more difficult to

implement, but they provide a significant

capacity increase.



Figure 45: Recommendation Factors for Express Lanes

The development of a new lane, often on new

pavement represents a significant investment.

To protect the value of this investment, and to

improve mobility in the region, the

management of this added capacity is critical.

Without some type of management, it is

possible, if not probable, that congestion will

return with its severe reduction in travel speeds

and its reduction in vehicular throughput.

Each of these lane control strategies (access,

occupancy and price) require essentially the

same footprint, and operating conditions are

not so different that the implementation of one

is significantly easier to bring about than the

implementation of another. For this reason, the

type of lane demand management used in the

region is likely to be as much of a policy

decision as it is a planning and/or engineering

decision. The advantages, and in some cases the

disadvantages, of each of these lane demand

management strategies has been discussed

previously in this document.

Regardless of the type of demand management,

the addition of a new lane, particularly one

developed on new pavement, represents a

significant capacity increase. Further, there is

no doubt that an actual lane will operate at

least somewhat better, if not significantly

better, than operating on the shoulder in terms

of travel speed and capacity. For these reasons,

implementation of some type of express lanes,

where feasible, is believed to be superior to

shoulder operation. This means that if

additional pavement is needed to implement

some type of shoulder operation,

implementation of an express lane should be

strongly considered instead.

This should not be taken to mean that Bus on

Shoulder and Mixed-Use Hard Shoulder Running

should not be deployed as initial strategies. To

the contrary, these shoulder strategies are far

more easily deployed and, as previously

discussed, could assist in informing where any

eventual investment in new capacity should

take place. Of course, when the resources are

available, it is very reasonable to move directly

to new lanes, such as being done on I-10 and US

281.

Using Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes as

the example, the top 20 corridors in terms of

scoring definitively are shown below. Corridors

that would require a major investment are

shown in red and italicized:

3D - I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410

2C - I-410 between I-10 to SH 151

3E - I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604

5A - I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604

1C - Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151

2A - I-410 between I-35 N to US 281



1B - Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10

8E - US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46

3B - I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10

3C - I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37

2B - I-410 between US 281 to I-10

12A - I-37 between I-410 to US90

8D - US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604

8B - US 281 between I-10 to I-35

3F - I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46

8C - US 281 between I-35 to I-410

3A - I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90

6A - I-10 between I-35 to I-410

5B - I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46

4B - I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division

Ave

It should be noted that I-10 (from La Cantera to

FM 3351) and US 281 (north of Loop 1604) are

not shown in the above listing as requiring a

major investment, even though there is

currently a significant reconstruction plan to

add Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes (HOV

lanes) to these facilities. However, the planned

improvements to these corridors make

significant improvements beyond simply adding

one express lane in each direction. In fact, the

currently planned improvements on I-10 and US

281 are substantial improvements that should

yield significant benefits to regional mobility. As

such, the accommodation of occupancy

controlled express lanes on these facilities is not

deemed to require significant investment for

the purposes of this assessment.



Figure 46: Recommended Alamo Area Corridors and Associated Segments for Express Lanes



Contraflow Lanes and Dual Reversible Lanes

Neither of these strategies scored well for

implementation in the San Antonio area (Figure

47). Specifically, for Contraflow lanes no

corridors met the dual requirements of three or

more lanes in the opposing direction and a

minimal directional split of 66% to 34%.

For reversible lanes, as previously discussed a

single reversible lane requires a larger footprint

than adding a concurrent flow managed lane in

both directions. For that reason, single

reversible lanes were removed from

consideration.

Only three corridors met the directional split

required to consider reversible lanes. All three

of these would have required a major

investment to implement dual reversible lanes.

Other alternatives are likely to be more

productive than either of these strategies.

Neither Contraflow Lanes nor Reversible Lanes

are recommended for implementation in the

San Antonio region.

Figure 47: Recommendation Factors for Contraflow and Dual Reversible Lanes

Truck Only Lanes

While truck only lanes are a viable alternative

for transportation improvement, the efficacy of

truck only lanes in the San Antonio region is not

as great as other add-a-lane solutions (Figure

48). The resources required to implement truck

only lanes are practically identical to those

required for other express lanes considered in

this study. With a lesser benefit and the same

general cost as other express lanes considered,

Truck Only Lanes are not recommended for San

Antonio region at this time.



Figure 48: Recommendation Factors for Truck Only Lanes

Figure 49: Recommendation Factors for Flow Control Corridors


As noted earlier, flow-controlled corridors can

be implemented at any time and with any other

strategy examined in this study. They also

scored well over the whole region and can build

upon other strategies (Figure 49).

There are two types of congestion: recurring

and nonrecurring. Either robs roadways of three

critical factors: travel speed, vehicular

throughput, and travel time reliability.

Nonrecurring congestion, as the name implies,

is relatively unpredictable. It is caused by

crashes, vehicle breakdowns, weather, and

other factors that do not recur on a predictable

basis. Except that the strategies described in

this report can lead to improved safety, and

therefore fewer crashes, they do not specifically

address non-recurring congestion and are not

designed to do so. Non-recurring congestion is

best handled by improved incident response,

and other improvements besides those studied

in this project such as improved geometrics that

can reduce the number and severity of crashes.

Recurring congestion is relatively predictable in

terms of the time of day it will occur and the

location where it will occur. It is caused by

vehicle density on the roadway, defined by

vehicles per lane per mile, exceeding the critical

density at which point vehicles begin interfering

with each other to the extent that

maneuverability is significantly impaired. This



results in reduced speeds and reduced vehicular

throughput. Because the extent and impact of

recurring congestion differs from day-to-day, it

also impacts travel time reliability. Finally, the

congested conditions usually result in a higher

frequency of accidents.

Recurring congestion can be reduced by several

means. The strategies presented in this report,

such as express lanes of various types or hard

shoulder running, increase capacity which

reduces density and therefore congestion as

well as increasing the movement of persons.

Strategies that encourage mode changes from

SOVs to HOVs and/or transit can reduce the

number of vehicles on the road and therefore

density and congestion. The final method is to

control the number of vehicles accessing the

facility at any given time, and this is what flow

controlled corridors accomplish.

Flow control as discussed here is obtained by

ramp metering, in other words using a traffic

signal at the ramp stop bar to briefly hold a

vehicle in place prior to releasing it to access

the mainline facility. There are several types of

ramp metering.

Fixed time ramp metering uses ramp signal

timing that is based on having a certain set time

period between vehicles being released at any

given ramp. It is the least sophisticated type of

ramp metering, and generates limited benefits.

This is due to the fact that the system is not

capable of increasing the time period between

released vehicles when necessary, and

conversely may hold vehicles unnecessarily

when freeway densities are low enough to

accept additional vehicles.

Adaptive ramp metering has the capability or

reacting to real time traffic conditions and

adjusting the time period between released

vehicles accordingly. The time period between

releases would be increased in high density

conditions and decreased in low-density

conditions. Adaptive ramp metering is the most

common type currently deployed in the United

States and produces greater benefits than pre-

timed ramp metering.

Coordinated adaptive ramp metering combines

the capability of adaptive ramp metering with

the ability to coordinate with other ramp

meters at other entrances in real time. The

ramp meters not only react to conditions on the

mainline roadway, they also react to the queue

that is developed on the ramps themselves. As

an example, if a ramp is beginning to back up

significantly, it can “request” the ramp

upstream to slow its release rate so that the

downstream ramp can increase its release rate

and reduce its queue. The most sophisticated

systems have the ability to coordinate multiple

ramps to maintain the most efficient operation

of both the mainline and the ramps.

A system known as Managed Motorways

(sometimes called Managed Freeways) was first

deployed in Melbourne, Australia a

metropolitan area of over 4 ½ million residents.

In Melbourne, the Managed Motorways

concept was deployed on the M1, also known

as the Monash Motorway. After deployment,

congestion was significantly reduced.

Following implementation throughput on the

M1increased by 4.7% and 8.4%, travel speeds

increased by 34.9% and 58.7% and the

percentage of time with less than a 20% speed

variation (a measure of travel time reliability)

increased by 148.7% and 516.4% for the AM

peak and PM peak respectively. These

improvements where driven by the more

dynamic, predictive and holistic nature or the

manage motorways concept relative to the

fixed time metering that had previously been in

place.

Managed Motorways, or any type of flow-

control when applied to the freeway corridor,

can be implemented either by itself or with any



of the strategies examined in this study. If

AAMPO is interested in pursuing a ramp

metering or active traffic management strategy,

it is logical to first study the strategy in the

corridors that would require a major

investment for almost any type of other

strategy. US 281 south of Loop 1604 is a good

potential candidate. With the improvements

being made on US 281 north of Loop 1604,

increasing the capacity of segments south of

the Loop might be especially productive.

Strategies Not Currently Recommended

It must be stressed that strategies that are not

recommended for potential pilot projects in this

report are not “bad” strategies. Many of these

strategies may at some point in time be

considered for deployment in San Antonio. The

full rankings of individual corridor/strategy

combinations are shown in Appendix 2.



Appendices



APPENDIX 1

Corridor / Strategy Ranking Criteria Corridor/Segment-Oriented Criteria

Corridor and segment-oriented criteria are those applied to the various San Antonio regional corridor

segments considered for managed lane treatments as part of this evaluation and refined in the Corridor

Definition phase of this evaluation. Data from city, county, state and federal transportation agencies as

well as other data resources where used in the development of these criteria, which include:

Corridor featured in TxDOT’s listing of 100 Most Congested Highways in Texas;

Corridor / Facility / Project Has Been Identified in State/Regional Planning;

Annual Hours of Truck Delay per Mile;

Percentage of Truck Traffic on the Corridor;

Population density on the corridor;

Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT);

Effective congestion;

Annual Hours of Delay per Mile;

Number of Existing Bus Routes;

Potential for future expansion in addition to the proposed improvement;

Current park and ride facilities;

Opportunities for transit feeder service or innovative solutions such as subscription

transportation or ride-sourcing for last mile services;

Contains high crash locations;

Ability of existing cross sections to accommodate Improvements;

Potential for additional park and ride facilities based on land available at logical locations;

Presence of low income/low auto ownership areas served by Tier 2 corridors;

Ability to improve transit connections between activity centers, and between activity centers

and residential areas.

Each criterion and their associated scores and weighting are discussed in further detail below.

Criterion - Features in 100 Most Congested Highways in Texas: Weighting of 5. Texas DOT frequently releases a list of the top 100 most congested corridors in the state. It is calculated

based on a variety of performance measures such as auto/truck delay, congestion cost per person, and a

collection of travel time indices. This list was used to identify corridors in San Antonio with existing

severe congestion. If all or part of the corridor was a part of the top 100 list, it was given a score of 3. As

congestion is a major metric for determining corridor performance for essentially all transportation

agencies, this criterion was considered to be critical to regional goals and objectives and therefore given

a weighting of 5. San Antonio Corridors in the 100 Most Congested Highways in Texas are identified in

Table 20.



Corridors Segments

Loop 1604 Interstate 35 to US 281 US 281 to Interstate

10 Interstate 10 to SH

151

Loop 410 Interstate 35N to US 281

US 281 to Interstate 10

Interstate 10 to SH 151

SH 151 to US 90

US 90 to Interstate

35

Interstate 35 to

Somerset Rd

Interstate 35 SH 46 to Loop 1604

Loop 1604 to

Loop 410

Loop 410 to

Interstate 37

Interstate 37 to

Interstate 10

Interstate 10 to US

90

US 90 to Division

Ave

Interstate 35 Division Ave to SH 422 SH 422 to Loop 410

Interstate 10 Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Loop 1604 to SH 46

Interstate 10 I-35 to Loop 410

Interstate 10 I-37 to Loop 410 Loop 410 to Loop 1604

US 281 Fair Ave to Interstate

10

Interstate 10 to

interstate 35

Interstate 35 to

Loop 410

Loop 410 to Loop

1604 Loop 1604 to SH 46

SH 151 Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Loop 410 to US 90

US 90 SH 151 to Interstate 35 Interstate 35 to Interstate 37

US 90 Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Loop 410 to SH 151

Interstate 37 Loop 410 to US 90

LEGEND - Features among

100 most congested

Corridors in Texas

Yes Partial Corridor No

Table 20: Corridors in 100 Most Congested Highways in Texas

Criterion - Project Has Been Identified in State/Regional Planning: Weighting of 5. Projects in a state or regional transportation plan are already identified as a corridor needing

improvement and were given a score of 3, otherwise it received a score of 0. Projects being identified in

planning documents also indicates the possibility of existing funding availability or likely funding.

Additionally, if the strategy has been included in a document that requires public adoption, it has the

benefit of having been seen by the public during the development and adoption of the document. As a

result, this criterion was considered to be critical to project goals and given a weighting of 5.



Criterion - Percentage of Truck Traffic on the Corridor: Weighting of 3. As trucks that carry freight are impacted by the strategies contemplated in the corridors, the percentage

of trucks that will be impacted was used as the indicator of whether the corridor is a significant freight

movement corridor. Freight concerns are important but not critical to project goals and objectives, so

truck traffic percentages where given a weighting of 3. Specific scoring occurred as follows:

Corridors with percentage of trucks greater than 15% were given a score of 3,

Corridors with percentage of trucks between 10% to 15% were given a score of 1.5,

Corridors where trucks accounted for less than 10% of the traffic were given a score of 0.

Criterion - Annual Hours of Truck Delay per Mile: Weighting of 3. Reducing annual hours of truck delay per mile would help in providing reliable and efficient

transportation systems in the region. It was considered to be important but not critical to the overall

project goals and objectives and therefore given a weighting of 3. This criterion was scored based on a

combination of evidence of overall congestion in the corridor and observed truck traffic in the corridor.

The combination of these performance measures is likely to be an indicator of potential truck delay in

the corridor. The specific scoring criteria are as follows:

3 if the corridor featured in the 100 most congested corridor list and if the truck volume exceeded 10% or traffic.

1.5 if the corridor featured in the 100 most congested corridor list or the truck volume on the corridor exceeded 10% of traffic, but not both.

0 if corridor does not feature in the list and truck volume is under 10% of traffic.

Criterion - Employment density on the corridor: Weighting of 3. Greater employment density along the corridor indicates a greater opportunity to reduce person travel

time and is considered important but not critical to achieving project goals. Employment density on

corridors was therefore given a weighting of 3. Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data (2014)

from the US Census was used to estimate number of jobs within one-half mile of the corridor. The

average employment density of the county or counties through which each corridor travels was also

developed and used in scoring. The specific scoring criteria are as follows:

A score of 3 was assigned if the employment density in the corridor exceeds 200% of the county average.

If the employment density within the corridor was between 100% and 200% of the county average, a score was 1.5 was given.

A score of 0 was given to the corridor if the employment density was lower than the county average.

Criterion - Population density on the corridor: Weighting of 3. As with employment density, greater population density along the corridor indicates a greater

opportunity to reduce person travel time and is considered important but not critical to achieving

project goals and therefore given a weighting of 3. American Community Survey (2010-2014) data from

the US Census Bureau was used to estimate population within one-half mile of the corridor. The specific

scoring criteria are as follows:



A score of 3 was assigned if the population density in the corridor exceeds 200% of the county average.

If the population density within the corridor was between 100% and 200% of the county average, a score was 1.5 was given.

A score of 0 was given to the corridor if the population density was lower than the county average.

Criterion – Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT): Weighting of 5. AADT is a primary metric for all roadway facilities. AADT also serves as a direct parameter to assess the

extent of the potential impact of improvements on each corridor. Hence, it was considered to be critical

in satisfying goals and objectives of the project and given a weighting of 5. AADT values for the corridors

were obtained from TxDOT. Scoring proceeded as follows:

Corridors, with AADT higher than 150,000, were given a score of 3.

Corridors with an AADT between 80,000 and 150,000 were given a score of 1.5.

Corridors with an AADT less than 80,000 were given a score of 0.

Criterion - Annual Hours of Delay per Mile: Weighting of 3. As other criteria consider the amount of congestion present on the corridor, Annual Hours of Delay per

Mile was felt to be important to include in the analysis, but with other congestion factors in the analysis

it was not considered critical so it was weighted at 3. It was rated based on a combination of observed

AADT in each corridor and if the corridor featured in the Top 100 Most Congested Roadways in Texas.

The specific scoring criteria are as follows:

3 if corridor is in Top 100 Most Congested Corridors and AADT was ranked as medium (1.5) or high (3).

1.5 if the corridor is in the Top 100 Most Congested Roadways or the AADT is medium or high, but not both.

0 if the corridor is not in the Top 100 Most Congested Roadways and AADT was scored 0.

Criterion – Effective Congestion: Weighting of 3. This criterion was considered as a proxy to the overall congestion experienced by users in San Antonio.

As with annual hours of delay per mile, effective congestion was rated based on a combination of

observed AADT in each corridor and whether the corridor featured in the Top 100 Most Congested

Roadways in Texas. The specific scoring criteria are as follows:

3 if corridor is in Top 100 Most Congested Corridors and AADT was ranked as medium (1.5) or high (3).

1.5 if the corridor is in the Top 100 Most Congested Roadways or the AADT is medium or high, but not both.

0 if the corridor is not in the Top 100 Most Congested Roadways and AADT was scored 0.

Criterion - Number of Existing Bus Routes on ML Candidates: Weighting of 3. As a higher number of bus routes on a corridor indicates a potentially larger benefit for transit

operations, this criterion was considered to be important but not critical, receiving a weighting of 3. The

number of VIA bus routes currently running on the corridor was considered in this process. As strategies



are implemented, additional routes are certainly possible and desirable, beyond those considered in this

ranking. Scoring was as follows:

Corridors with more than 2 routes were given a score of 3;

Corridors with one or two routes were given a score of 1.5; and

Corridors without any existing bus routes were given a score of 0.

Criterion - Potential for future expansion in addition to the proposed improvement: Weighting of

3. This measure assesses proposed strategies based on ROW availability once the proposed strategy is

implemented. For example, if Bus on Shoulder was implemented in a corridor with a 40 foot grass

median, it would have the capacity to implement an additional strategy, such as an Occupancy

Controlled Express Lane, without the need for expensive reconstruction. That would provide flexibility to

further upgrade the corridor in the future. For scoring, if a corridor had significant additional right-of-

way available after implementing the strategy under consideration, it was given a score of 3. If the

corridor did not have sufficient space for adding an additional strategy, it was given a score of 0.

Criterion - Current Park and Ride Facilities: Weighting of 1. While important, this is the first of a pair of park and ride criteria which led to a lower weighting of 1.

This measure was scored based on the number of park and ride lots near study corridors as follows:

Corridors with more than one park and ride facilities that could serve the corridor were given a score of 3;

Corridors with one park and ride facility in proximity were given a score of 1.5; and

Corridors which did not have any park and ride facilities located near them were given a score of 0.

Criterion - Potential for additional park and ride facilities based on land available at logical

locations: Weighting of 1. As the second of the two park-and-ride criteria, a weighting of 1 was also assigned to this criterion. It

was scored based on a qualitative review of satellite imagery. Available areas along a corridor and

connectivity to major activity centers in the region were assessed qualitatively based on the corridor’s

location and the potential for new park and ride facilities to be added. Scores were assigned as follows:

Corridors were given a score of 3 for good potential for adding park and ride facilities,

Corridors with a fair potential were scored 1.5; and

Corridors with poor potential for adding park and ride facilities were scored 0.

Criterion - Opportunities for transit feeder service or innovative solutions such as subscription

transportation or ride-sourcing for last mile services: Weighting of 1. This criterion was scored based on suitability of land use near each corridor for implementing

subscription/ride-sourcing for last mile services as follows:

Corridors with good suitability to improve transit connections between activity centers and between activity centers and residential areas were given a score of 3;

Corridors with fair suitability were given a score of 1.5; and

Corridors with poor suitability were given a score of 0.



Criterion - Identify high crash locations: Weighting of 5. The frequency of crashes along corridors was considered very important and critical for project goals,

thus receiving a weighting of five. The number of crashes per mile on each corridor was determined

based on 2014 data available on San Antonio’s MPO’s data portal. To enable comparison of corridors of

different lengths, the number of crashes per mile on each corridor was calculated. Scoring of this

criterion occurred as follows:

If more than 45 crashes per mile were recorded on a corridor, it was assigned a score of 3;

If the number of crashes was between 22 and 45, a score of 1.5 was assigned; and

For corridors where the number of crashes per mile was lower than 22, a score of 0 was assigned.

Criterion - Ability of existing cross sections to accommodate Improvements: Weighting of 5. In addition to assessing the corridor as a whole, existing right-of-way and existing pavement width was

also assessed within the corridor at locations such as bridges, overpasses, and ramps. In some of these

locations, available width for an improvement is insufficient, usually due to the presence of bridge piers

in underpasses or a narrow bridge in overpasses. These “pinch points” were classified into two

categories: Major and Minor, based on visual inspection using Google Earth Imagery. Major and Minor

pinch points were assigned a weights of 1 and 2 respectively to calculate a weighted average of pinch

points per mile for each corridor. Scores were assigned to this criterion based on the values for average

pinch points per mile as follows:

Corridors with an average of 0.5 or fewer pinch points per mile were given a score of 3;

Corridors with more than an average of 0.5 pinch points per mile but less than 1.5 pinch points per mile received a score of 1.5; and

Corridors with an average of 1.5 or more pinch points per mile were given a score of 0.

In addition to providing an indication of the ability of a corridor to accommodate a particular improvement, this criterion also acts as a proxy for a cost factor for the corridor/strategy combination. While not an exact measure, in general, the higher the number of pinch points the more expense a corridor would be to upgrade.

Criterion - Low income/low auto ownership areas served by Tier 2 corridors: Weighting of 3. Low income families and families with no auto access were felt to potentially benefit greatly from some

strategies, particularly when transit services can be improved due to strategy implementation. “Low

Income” was defined as income below the poverty threshold for the county. The percent of low income

population within half mile of corridor was estimated using data from the US Census Bureau’s 2010 and

2014 American Community Survey and compared with the average percent population below poverty

threshold for the corresponding County/Counties. Similarly, the percentage of households with no

available vehicles was also compared with corresponding County/Counties averages. Scoring was

assigned as follows:

If both the percentage of low income population within a half mile of the corridor and the percentage of household with no available vehicles exceeded corresponding County average, a score of 3 was assigned;

If only one of these statistics exceeded the corresponding County average, a score of 1.5 was assigned; and



If neither percentage exceeded the County average, a score of 0 was assigned to the corridor.

Criterion - Ability to improve transit connections between activity centers, and between activity

centers and residential areas: Weighting of 3. The scoring of this criterion was primarily subjective and was based on a combination of the existing

transportation network and the suitability of land use near each corridor to form transit connections

between activity centers and residential areas. Scoring occurred as follows:

Corridors with good suitability to improve transit connections were given a score of 3;

Corridors with fair suitability were given a score of 1.5; and

Corridors with poor suitability were given a score of 0.

Strategy Oriented Criteria

Strategy-oriented criteria are those applied to the various managed lane strategies under consideration

for this exercise. Criteria were selected, scored and weighted based on the professional knowledge and

experience of the evaluation team. These assessments are therefore qualitative in nature; however,

they are informed by real world experience and results from other managed lanes system deployments

from around the US.

The strategy-oriented criteria used for this evaluation include the following:

Ability to Influence Mode Choice to More Efficient Modes;

Ability to Implement Effective Lane Management;

Improved System, Intermodal, and/or Multimodal Connectivity (BOTH);

Ability to Use the ML to Develop Transit Networks to Facilitate Transit Travel; and

Potential for Transit and Carpool Time Savings.

Criterion - Ability to Influence Mode Choice to More Efficient Modes: Weighting of 3. This criterion was considered important, but was not ranked as critical due to the relatively subjective

nature of the scoring. This criterion was scored based on the impact each strategy is expected to have

on shifting mode choices toward more efficient modes. Strategies such as Bus on Shoulder Lanes or

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes have a direct impact on modal choice by providing benefits to

transit or high occupancy vehicles and were therefore scored as 3. Strategies such as Price Controlled

Express Lanes have moderate impact on mode choice and received a score of 1.5 as the lane is managed

to free flow conditions and more efficient mode choices are able to access the lanes at a lower, or no,

toll. Strategies such as Hard Shoulder Running for Mixed Traffic, Access Controlled Express Lanes and

Truck Only Lanes are not necessarily managed to maintain free flow conditions and/or are not available

to HOVs or transit and are not likely to have a positive impact on mode choice. A score of 0 was assigned

to these strategies.

Criterion - Ability to Implement Effective Lane Management: Weighting of 3. This criterion has a significant impact on preserving and recapturing existing capacity and on increasing

person and/or vehicle throughput in the corridor. This criterion was scored based the ability of a

considered strategy to effectively manage peak demand and thereby maintain throughput capacity.



Strategies able to do this efficiently received a score of 3. Strategies able to indirectly implement

effective lane management were given a score of 1.5. Strategies that do not impact effective lane

management were given a score of 0.

Criterion - Improved System, Intermodal, and/or Multimodal Connectivity: Weighting of 3. Improvement in intermodal or multimodal connectivity can directly reduce passenger travel time

through more efficient use of the network. While important, it is a relatively qualitative assessment and

was therefore weighted as 3 rather than 5. This measure was scored by looking at the transportation

infrastructure in the region in a holistic manner. As such, this is the only criterion in the framework

where scoring was based on the particulars of both the managed lane strategy as well as the corridor

under consideration. Modes such as Auto, Freight and Air were considered when scoring

corridor/strategy combinations. The Flow Controlled strategy received a 0. This is due to the fact that,

while flow control increases mobility by providing better operating conditions, it does not change

intermodal connectivity. On the other hand, truck only lane strategies on corridors outside of Loop 410

(including Loop 410 itself) were given a score of 3, as freight movement is significantly enhanced. For

truck only strategies, corridors inside the 410 loop were scored 1.5. The change in scoring for facilities

inside the 410 loop reflects the fact that through freight movements are best handled by circumferential

facilities such as the 410 loop. For other strategies, including all types of express lanes, mobility inside

the 410 loop increases multimodal connectivity by reducing congestion near the central business

district. These strategies on corridors within Loop 410 (including Loop 410) were scored at 3, while those

outside of 410 received a score of 1.5.

Criterion - Ability to Use the ML to Develop Transit Networks to Facilitate Transit Travel:

Weighting of 5. This criterion is critical in developing integrated, efficient transportation networks in the region and was

therefore given a weight of 5. Strategies that can support an integrated transit network, including all

types express lanes and hard shoulder running, received a score of 3. Strategies such as Truck Only

Lanes and Flow Controlled that have little to no direct benefit for transit network development and

were given a score of 0.

Criterion - Potential for Transit and Carpool Time Savings: Weighting of 3. Strategies that can provide a direct benefit to transit and carpool vehicles received a 3 on this criterion.

These included Bus on Shoulder Lanes, Occupancy Controlled Lanes, and Pricing Controlled Lanes.

Similarly, Flow Controlled Corridors can make use of technology such as queue jumps for transit vehicles

to provide a direct travel time benefit. Strategies such as Hard Shoulder Running for Mixed Traffic,

Contraflow or Reversible Lanes and Access Controlled Lanes can improve operations for transit and

carpool vehicles. However, these strategies provide the same benefit to general traffic and therefore

given a score of 1.5. Truck Only Lanes, assuming they are not available to HOVs and busses, do not

provide any major travel time benefit to transit vehicles and were scored 0.

Synthesis

As discussed in the text, the various strategies and corridors are diverse. To be able to compare strategy

corridor combinations, corridor/strategy scoring was performed as described above. To enable an

understandable scale, options were ranked on both the total points they achieved as well as the

percentage of total points available. Multiplying each criteria by the maximum score of three times the



weighting of that criteria and then summing the result of each criteria gives a maximum score of 225.

Because of the diversity of the strategies and corridors, it is not surprising that no strategy/corridor

combinations score a perfect, or even close to a perfect, score.



APPENDIX 2

Numerical Ranking Results Hard Shoulder Running in Mixed Traffic

Figure 50: Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic - Numerical Results



Corridor Number

Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Total Points (Maximum

of 225)

Ranking Score

Rating Rank

within strategy

3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 180 80.0% Very good 1

2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 171 76.0% Very good 2

1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 165 73.3% Good 3

2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 165 73.3% Good 3

1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 163.5 72.7% Good 5

3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 163.5 72.7% Good 5

2B I-410 between US 281 to I-10 154.5 68.7% Good 7

5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 153 68.0% Good 8

8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 145.5 64.7% Good 9

3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 144 64.0% Good 10

3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 142.5 63.3% Good 11

3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 142.5 63.3% Good 11

8B US 281 between I-10 to I-35 138 61.3% Good 13

12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 136.5 60.7% Good 14

10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 133.5 59.3% Fair 15

3A I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 132 58.7% Fair 16

8C US 281 between I-35 to I-410 126 56.0% Fair 17

1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 124.5 55.3% Fair 18

8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 121.5 54.0% Fair 19

10B US 90 between I-35 to I-37 118.5 52.7% Fair 20

6A I-10 between I-35 to I-410 114 50.7% Fair 21

4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division 111 49.3% Fair 22

2D I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 109.5 48.7% Fair 23

5B I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 109.5 48.7% Fair 23

8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 106.5 47.3% Fair 25

11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 106.5 47.3% Fair 25

9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 102 45.3% Fair 27

2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 100.5 44.7% Fair 28

7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 99 44.0% Fair 29

4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 93 41.3% Fair 30

7A I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 87 38.7% Poor 31

9B SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 79.5 35.3% Poor 32

11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 76.5 34.0% Poor 33

2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 67.5 30.0% Poor 34 Table 21: Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic - Numerical Results



Bus on Shoulder

Figure 51: Bus on Shoulder - Numerical Results



Corridor Number


of 225)

Ranking Score

Rating Rank

within strategy

3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 193.5 86.0% Very good 1

2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 184.5 82.0% Very good 2

1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 178.5 79.3% Very good 3

2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 178.5 79.3% Very good 3

1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 177 78.7% Very good 5

3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 177 78.7% Very good 5

2B I-410 between US 281 to I-10 168 74.7% Good 7

5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 166.5 74.0% Good 8

3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 157.5 70.0% Good 9

3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 156 69.3% Good 10

3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 156 69.3% Good 10

8B US 281 between I-10 to I-35 151.5 67.3% Good 12

12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 150 66.7% Good 13

10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 147 65.3% Good 14

3A I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 145.5 64.7% Good 15

8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 144 64.0% Good 16

8C US 281 between I-35 to I-410 139.5 62.0% Good 17

1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 138 61.3% Good 18

8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 136.5 60.7% Good 19

8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 135 60.0% Good 20

4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division 133.5 59.3% Fair 21

2D I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 132 58.7% Fair 22

5B I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 132 58.7% Fair 22

10B US 90 between I-35 to I-37 132 58.7% Fair 22

6A I-10 between I-35 to I-410 127.5 56.7% Fair 25

11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 120 53.3% Fair 26

9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 115.5 51.3% Fair 27

2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 114 50.7% Fair 28

7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 112.5 50.0% Fair 29

4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 106.5 47.3% Fair 30

7A I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 100.5 44.7% Fair 31

9B SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 93 41.3% Fair 32

11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 90 40.0% Fair 33

2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 81 36.0% Poor 34 Table 22: Bus on Shoulder - Numerical Results



Contraflow Lanes

Figure 52: Contraflow Lanes - Numerical Results



Corridor Number


of 225)

Ranking Score

Rating Rank

within strategy

3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 180 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 177 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 171 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 168 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 166.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 165 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 165 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 163.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 163.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

2B I-410 between US 281 to I-10 154.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

8C US 281 between I-35 to I-410 150 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 147 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 145.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 142.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

3A I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 139.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

6A I-10 between I-35 to I-410 138 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

8B US 281 between I-10 to I-35 138 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 136.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 133.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 124.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 123 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division 120 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A



Corridor Number


of 225)

Ranking Score

Rating Rank

within strategy

2D I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 118.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

5B I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 118.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

10B US 90 between I-35 to I-37 118.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 109.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 106.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 102 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 99 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 93 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

7A I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 87 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

9B SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 79.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 76.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 67.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

Table 23: Contraflow Lanes - Numerical Results



Reversible Lanes

Figure 53: Dual Reversible Lanes - Numerical Results



Corridor Number


of 225)

Ranking Score

Rating Rank

within strategy


9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 87 38.7% Poor 2


3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 165 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 162 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 156 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 153 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 151.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 150 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 150 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 148.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

2B I-410 between US 281 to I-10 139.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 139.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

8C US 281 between I-35 to I-410 135 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 130.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 127.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

3A I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 124.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

6A I-10 between I-35 to I-410 123 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

8B US 281 between I-10 to I-35 123 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 121.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 118.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 109.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 108 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A



Corridor Number


of 225)

Ranking Score

Rating Rank

within strategy

4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division 105 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

2D I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 103.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

5B I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 103.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

10B US 90 between I-35 to I-37 103.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 94.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 91.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 84 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 78 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

7A I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 72 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 61.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 52.5 0.0% Potentially not viable

N/A

Table 24: Dual Reversible Lanes - Numerical Results



Access Controlled Express Lanes

Figure 54: Access Controlled Express Lanes - Numerical Results



Corridor Number


of 225)

Ranking Score

Rating Rank

within strategy

3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 171 76.0% Very good 1

2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 162 72.0% Good 2


3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 154.5 68.7% Good 3

5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 153 68.0% Good 5

1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 148.5 66.0% Good 6

2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 148.5 66.0% Good 6

3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 144 64.0% Good 8

3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 142.5 63.3% Good 9


8B US 281 between I-10 to I-35 138 61.3% Good 10

12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 136.5 60.7% Good 12



8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 130.5 58.0% Fair 15

3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 126 56.0% Fair 16





4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division 111 49.3% Fair 21

2D I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 109.5 48.7% Fair 22


1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 108 48.0% Fair 24

8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 106.5 47.3% Fair 25

11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 106.5 47.3% Fair 25

2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 100.5 44.7% Fair 27

7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 99 44.0% Fair 28

4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 93 41.3% Fair 29

9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 93 41.3% Fair 29


11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 76.5 34.0% Poor 32


2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 67.5 30.0% Poor 34 Table 25: Access Controlled Express Lanes - Numerical Results



Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes

Figure 55: Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes - Numerical Results



Corridor Number

Strategy/Corridor Ranking List

Total Points

(Maximum of 225)

Ranking Score

Rating Rank

within strategy



1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 168 74.7% Good 3

3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 168 74.7% Good 3







10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 147 65.3% Good 11






1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 138 61.3% Good 17





8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 129 57.3% Fair 22











9B SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 84 37.3% Poor 33

2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 81 36.0% Poor 34 Table 26: Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes - Numerical Results



Price Controlled Express Lanes

Figure 56: Price Controlled Express Lanes - Numerical Results



Corridor Number


Total Points

(Maximum of 225)

Ranking Score

Rating Rank

within strategy



1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 168 74.7% Good 3





















1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 121.5 54.0% Fair 24










2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 81 36.0% Poor 34 Table 27: Price Controlled Express Lanes - Numerical Results



Truck Only Lanes

Figure 57: Truck Only Lanes - Numerical Results



Corridor Number

Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Total Points (Maximum of 225)

Ranking Score

Rating Rank

within strategy

3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 147 65.3% Good 1

2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 142.5 63.3% Good 2




1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 133.5 59.3% Fair 6

5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 133.5 59.3% Fair 6

2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 129 57.3% Fair 8

3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 127.5 56.7% Fair 9

3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 120 53.3% Fair 10

3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 118.5 52.7% Fair 11

8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 111 49.3% Fair 12



12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 103.5 46.0% Fair 15






10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 93 41.3% Fair 20



4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave 87 38.7% Poor 24

8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 82.5 36.7% Poor 25

11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 82.5 36.7% Poor 25

2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 81 36.0% Poor 27

7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 79.5 35.3% Poor 28

4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 69 30.7% Poor 29

9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 69 30.7% Poor 29

11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 57 25.3% Poor 31



2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 48 21.3% Poor 34 Table 28: Truck Only Lanes - Numerical Results




Due to their comparatively low cost and that no right-of-way on the actual mainline facility is required,

Flow Controlled Corridors (adaptive ramp metering) scored well. This strategy is also the only one that

can be used effectively on I-10 between 1604 and I-410, and US 281 between 1604 and the Central

Business District without requiring a significant investment in the corridor.

Figure 58: Flow Controlled Corridors - Numerical Results



Corridor Number

Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Total Points (Maximum of 225)

Ranking Score

Rating Rank

within strategy


2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 160.5 71.3% Good 2




2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 154.5 68.7% Good 6








12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 117 52.0% Fair 14

8C US 281 between I-35 to I-410 115.5 51.3% Fair 15



3A I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 112.5 50.0% Fair 18











7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 88.5 39.3% Poor 29

4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 82.5 36.7% Poor 30

7A I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 76.5 34.0% Poor 31


11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 66 29.3% Poor 33

2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 57 25.3% Poor 34 Table 29: Flow Controlled Corridors - Numerical Results



APPENDIX 3

Strategy Performance by Corridor

Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Total Points

(Maximum of 225) Ranking Score

Rank within corridor

Corridor - 1A: Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281

Bus on Shoulder Lanes 138 61.3% 1

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 138 61.3% 1

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 124.5 55.3% 3

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 121.5 54.0% 4

Access Controlled Express Lanes 108 48.0% 5

Flow Controlled Corridors 102 45.3% 6

Truck Only Lanes 93 41.3% 7

Contraflow Lanes 124.5 0.0% N/A

Reversible Lanes 109.5 0.0% N/A

Corridor - 1B: Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10



Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 168 74.7% 2


Flow Controlled Corridors 157.5 70.0% 5

Access Controlled Express Lanes 154.5 68.7% 6

Reversible Lanes 148.5 66.0% 7

Truck Only Lanes 139.5 62.0% 8


Corridor - 1C: Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 to SH 151

Bus on Shoulder Lanes 178.5 79.3% 1

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 165 73.3% 2






Contraflow Lanes 165 0.0% N/A

Reversible Lanes 150 0.0% N/A

Corridor - 2A: Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281















Corridor - 2B: Loop 410 between US 281 to Interstate 10



Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 151.5 67.3% 3







Corridor - 2C: Loop 410 between Interstate 10 to SH 151










Corridor - 2D: Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90










Corridor - 2E: Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35















Corridor - 2F: Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd










Corridor - 3A: Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90










Corridor - 3B: Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10










Corridor - 3C: Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37















Corridor - 3D: Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410










Corridor - 3E: Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604










Corridor - 3F: Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46










Corridor - 4A: Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422















Corridor - 4B: Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave










Corridor - 5A: Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604










Corridor - 5B: Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46










Corridor - 6A: Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410










Corridor - 7A: Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410















Corridor - 7B: Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604










Corridor - 8A: US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10










Corridor - 8B: US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35










Corridor - 8C: US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410















Corridor - 8D: US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604










Corridor - 8E: US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46










Corridor - 9A: SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410







Reversible Lanes 87 38.7% 7



Corridor - 9B: SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90












Reversible Lanes 64.5 28.7% 7



Corridor - 10A: US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35










Corridor - 10B: US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37










Corridor - 11A: US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410










Corridor - 11B: US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151















Corridor - 12A: Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90












APPENDIX 4

Corridor Evaluation Results


Total Points

(Maximum of 225)

Percentage of Total Points

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 193.5 86.0%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 184.5 82.0%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 184.5 82.0%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 184.5 82.0%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410

180 80.0%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 178.5 79.3%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-410 between I-35N to US 281 178.5 79.3%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 177 78.7%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 177 78.7%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 175.5 78.0%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 175.5 78.0%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 171 76.0%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 171 76.0%

Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 169.5 75.3%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10

168 74.7%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 168 74.7%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-410 between US 281 to I-10 168 74.7%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604

168 74.7%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604

168 74.7%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 166.5 74.0%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604

166.5 74.0%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604

166.5 74.0%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151

165 73.3%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-410 between I-35N to US 281

165 73.3%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10

163.5 72.7%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604

163.5 72.7%




Total Points

(Maximum of 225)


Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151

162 72.0%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 162 72.0%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-35N to US 281 162 72.0%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-35N to US 281 162 72.0%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 162 72.0%

Flow Controlled Corridors for I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 160.5 71.3%

Flow Controlled Corridors for Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 159 70.7%

Flow Controlled Corridors for Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 157.5 70.0%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 157.5 70.0%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 157.5 70.0%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 157.5 70.0%

Flow Controlled Corridors for I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 157.5 70.0%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 156 69.3%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 156 69.3%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 156 69.3%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 156 69.3%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 154.5 68.7%

Flow Controlled Corridors for I-410 between I-35N to US 281 154.5 68.7%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-410 between US 281 to I-10 154.5 68.7%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604

154.5 68.7%

Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 153 68.0%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604

153 68.0%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604

153 68.0%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between US 281 to I-10 151.5 67.3%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between US 281 to I-10 151.5 67.3%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 281 between I-10 to I-35 151.5 67.3%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-37 between I-410 to US90 150 66.7%

Two Reversible Lanes for Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 148.5 66.0%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 148.5 66.0%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-35N to US 281 148.5 66.0%

Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 148.5 66.0%

Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 147 65.3%

Truck Only Lanes for I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 147 65.3%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 147 65.3%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 145.5 64.7%

Flow Controlled Corridors for I-410 between US 281 to I-10 144 64.0%




Total Points

(Maximum of 225)


Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10

144 64.0%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 144 64.0%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 144 64.0%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604

144 64.0%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604

144 64.0%

Truck Only Lanes for I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 142.5 63.3%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 142.5 63.3%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 142.5 63.3%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46

142.5 63.3%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-10 to I-35 142.5 63.3%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-10 to I-35 142.5 63.3%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-37 between I-410 to US90 141 62.7%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-37 between I-410 to US90 141 62.7%

Truck Only Lanes for Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 139.5 62.0%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46

139.5 62.0%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46

139.5 62.0%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 281 between I-35 to I-410 139.5 62.0%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-35 to I-410 139.5 62.0%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-35 to I-410 139.5 62.0%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 138 61.3%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between US 281 to I-10 138 61.3%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 281 between I-10 to I-35 138 61.3%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90

136.5 60.7%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90

136.5 60.7%

Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 136.5 60.7%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-37 between I-410 to US90 136.5 60.7%

Truck Only Lanes for I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 135 60.0%

Flow Controlled Corridors for US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 135 60.0%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46

135 60.0%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46

135 60.0%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 135 60.0%




Total Points

(Maximum of 225)


Truck Only Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 133.5 59.3%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave 133.5 59.3%

Truck Only Lanes for I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 133.5 59.3%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 90 between SH 151 to I-35

133.5 59.3%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 132 58.7%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90

132 58.7%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 132 58.7%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 90 between I-35 to I-37 132 58.7%

Flow Controlled Corridors for US 281 between I-35 to I-410 115.5 51.3%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604

145.5 64.7%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604

130.5 58.0%

Flow Controlled Corridors for US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 115.5 51.3%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 147 65.3%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 130.5 58.0%

Truck Only Lanes for I-410 between I-35N to US 281 129 57.3%

Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 112.5 50.0%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 136.5 60.7%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-10 to I-35 138 61.3%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-10 between I-35 to I-410 127.5 56.7%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 between I-35 to I-410 127.5 56.7%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 between I-35 to I-410 127.5 56.7%

Flow Controlled Corridors for US 281 between I-10 to I-35 118.5 52.7%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-37 between I-410 to US90 136.5 60.7%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46

126 56.0%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 281 between I-35 to I-410 126 56.0%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-35 to I-410 126 56.0%

Flow Controlled Corridors for I-37 between I-410 to US90 117 52.0%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281

124.5 55.3%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave

133.5 59.3%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave

124.5 55.3%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between SH 151 to US 90

123 54.7%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 123 54.7%




Total Points

(Maximum of 225)


Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-410 between US 90 to I-35 114 50.7%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90

132 58.7%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46

123 54.7%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46

123 54.7%

Flow Controlled Corridors for US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 106.5 47.3%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 between I-35 to I-37 132 58.7%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 between I-35 to I-37 123 54.7%

Flow Controlled Corridors for US 90 between I-35 to I-37 114 50.7%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281

138 61.3%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 121.5 54.0%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46

121.5 54.0%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46

121.5 54.0%

Truck Only Lanes for I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 120 53.3%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave

111 49.3%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10

129 57.3%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 120 53.3%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 120 53.3%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151

120 53.3%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 120 53.3%

Flow Controlled Corridors for Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 102 45.3%

Truck Only Lanes for I-410 between US 281 to I-10 135 60.0%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-410 between SH 151 to US 90

109.5 48.7%

Truck Only Lanes for I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 118.5 52.7%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46

109.5 48.7%

Flow Controlled Corridors for I-10 between I-35 to I-410 103.5 46.0%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 90 between I-35 to I-37 118.5 52.7%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 133.5 59.3%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10

106.5 47.3%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 115.5 51.3%




Total Points

(Maximum of 225)


Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between US 90 to I-35 123 54.7%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between US 90 to I-35 114 50.7%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-10 between I-35 to I-410 114 50.7%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 between I-35 to I-410 114 50.7%

Flow Controlled Corridors for I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 103.5 46.0%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 112.5 50.0%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604

112.5 50.0%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 112.5 50.0%

Flow Controlled Corridors for US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 96 42.7%

Truck Only Lanes for I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 127.5 56.7%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave

111 49.3%

Truck Only Lanes for US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 111 49.3%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 109.5 48.7%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-410 between US 90 to I-35 100.5 44.7%

Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave 109.5 48.7%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46

118.5 52.7%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 between I-35 to I-37 109.5 48.7%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 108 48.0%

Flow Controlled Corridors for I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 99 44.0%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 106.5 47.3%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422

106.5 47.3%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 106.5 47.3%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 106.5 47.3%

Truck Only Lanes for US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 106.5 47.3%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410

106.5 47.3%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410

106.5 47.3%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151

106.5 47.3%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 106.5 47.3%

Truck Only Lanes for US 281 between I-10 to I-35 105 46.7%

Truck Only Lanes for I-37 between I-410 to US90 103.5 46.0%


Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410

102 45.3%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between US 90 to I-35 100.5 44.7%




Total Points

(Maximum of 225)


Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 100.5 44.7%

Flow Controlled Corridors for I-410 between US 90 to I-35 99 44.0%

Truck Only Lanes for I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 99 44.0%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604

99 44.0%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 99 44.0%


Flow Controlled Corridors for US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 96 42.7%

Truck Only Lanes for I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 94.5 42.0%

Truck Only Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 93 41.3%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422

93 41.3%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 93 41.3%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410

93 41.3%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 93 41.3%

Truck Only Lanes for US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 93 41.3%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 91.5 40.7%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 91.5 40.7%

Flow Controlled Corridors for SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 91.5 40.7%

Truck Only Lanes for I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 90 40.0%

Truck Only Lanes for I-10 between I-35 to I-410 90 40.0%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 90 40.0%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410

90 40.0%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410

90 40.0%

Flow Controlled Corridors for I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 88.5 39.3%

Truck Only Lanes for I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave 87 38.7%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 87 38.7%

Two Reversible Lanes for SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 87 38.7%

Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for SH 151 between I-410 to US 90

84 37.3%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 84 37.3%

Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 82.5 36.7%

Truck Only Lanes for US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 82.5 36.7%

Truck Only Lanes for US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 82.5 36.7%

Truck Only Lanes for I-410 between US 90 to I-35 81 36.0%

Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 81 36.0%




Total Points

(Maximum of 225)


Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd

81 36.0%

Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 81 36.0%

Truck Only Lanes for I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 79.5 35.3%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for SH 151 between I-410 to US 90

79.5 35.3%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 78 34.7%

Flow Controlled Corridors for I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 76.5 34.0%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410

76.5 34.0%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410

76.5 34.0%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 70.5 31.3%

Truck Only Lanes for I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 69 30.7%

Truck Only Lanes for SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 69 30.7%

Flow Controlled Corridors for SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 69 30.7%

Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd

67.5 30.0%

Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 67.5 30.0%

Flow Controlled Corridors for US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 66 29.3%

Two Reversible Lanes for SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 64.5 28.7%

Flow Controlled Corridors for I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 57 25.3%

Truck Only Lanes for US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 57 25.3%

Truck Only Lanes for I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 54 24.0%

Truck Only Lanes for SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 51 22.7%

Truck Only Lanes for I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 48 21.3%

Documents

Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility ...€¦ · Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization