POTOMAC AND RAPPAHANNOCK TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO OFFICIAL COMMISSION MEETING SECOND: FEBRUARY 10, 2005

Transcription

1 ITEM 11-D (76 PAGES) POTOMAC AND RAPPAHANNOCK TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION MOTION: RESOLUTION NO OFFICIAL COMMISSION MEETING SECOND: FEBRUARY 10, 2005 RE: HOV CONGESTION PROBLEM AND POSSIBLE REMEDIES WHEREAS, The Commonwealth s HOV lane system in Northern Virginia continues to be the single most important element of the regional transportation network; and WHEREAS, HOV traffic volumes have increased significantly in the past year, especially in the I-95/I-395 HOV lanes; and WHEREAS, the two principal reasons for this volume increase are the dramatic rise in the number of hybrid vehicles and the increase in the numbers of HOV vehicles; and WHEREAS, usage of the I-95/I-395 HOV lanes has grown to the point that total volume exceeds the desirable carrying capacity of the lanes on a chronic basis; and WHEREAS, the incidence of hybrid vehicles in the HOV lanes has the potential to increase substantially in the immediate future assuming such vehicle use is allowed to continue because a number of automobile manufacturers are poised to introduce other hybrid vehicle models with higher horsepower engines, appealing to an even broader segment of the Country s auto buying population; and WHEREAS, the congestion problem plaguing the HOV lanes is jeopardizing the performance of the lanes; and WHEREAS, Transportation Secretary Whittington Clement and Public Safety Secretary John Marshall have re-convened an HOV Enforcement Task Force that examined previous HOV lane difficulties to freshly examine the performance of the lanes currently to diagnose the causes of the problem and recommend actions to remedy the problem; and

2 ITEM 11-D (76 PAGES) WHEREAS, the HOV Enforcement Task Force has completed its work and made a set of recommendations that are now under review by Secretaries Clement and Marshall; and WHEREAS, PRTC management has briefed the Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC) on the Task Force s findings and recommendations; and WHEREAS, PRTC management has concluded that the Task Force recommendations as described in PRTC management s accompanying staff report are well founded and the Commission concurs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission hereby concurs and authorizes its Chairman to sign and send the attached letter to Secretary Clement and Secretary Marshall urging them to adopt these recommendations and take actions as required to try to implement them. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission also urges Secretary Clement and Secretary Marshall to declare that buses and HOVs warrant priority consideration in the use of the HOV lanes, to guide the preparation of any action plan that might be required to insure unimpeded flow in the HOV lanes.

3 TO: FROM: Chairman Greenup and Commissioners Alfred H. Harf Executive Director RE: HOV Congestion Problem and Possible Remedies Recommendation: Accept the findings and recommendations of the HOV Enforcement Task Force that Virginia Transportation Secretary Whittington Clement and Public Safety Secretary John Marshall are entertaining, and authorize the Chairman to sign and send a letter to the Secretaries expressing support for these recommendations. The Task Force was directed by the Secretaries Clement and Marshall to examine the mounting traffic congestion problems plaguing the interstate HOV lanes (particularly I-95/I-395), diagnose the causes, and ready recommendations by mid-december 2004 for their consideration, so that any adopted recommendations requiring statutory action could be transmitted to the General Assembly for consideration in the upcoming session. Background: At the December 2004 Commission meeting, there was a brief discussion about the growing I-95/I-395 HOV congestion problem. The Commission considered the possibility of adopting a resolution to highlight the Commission s concern and urge VDOT to resolve it expeditiously, but this idea was tabled to await the release of Secretary Clement s and Secretary Marshall s HOV Enforcement Task Force findings and recommendations which I advised was expected shortly. 1 Accordingly, the Commission asked management to ready a report summarizing the Task Force s effort and proposing a course of action for the Commission s consideration at its January 2005 meeting if possible. The Task Force s findings and recommendations were released in early January, so the February meeting is the first available opportunity for the Commission to take up the issue as an action item. 1 I was invited to participate as a Task Force member after the Task Force was first convened and I have been doing so.

4 Page 2 The now-released Task Force Report appears here as attachment one and a brief summary of its findings follows: 1. The Commonwealth s Northern Virginia HOV lane system continues to be among the most productive elements of the regional transportation network, carrying more peak-hour passengers than the conventional freeway lanes, bus system, Metrorail, or Virginia Railway Express (VRE) in associated corridors. More than 52,600 commuters rely on these lanes daily, and the key to the continued success of these lanes is the time saving advantage they have historically enjoyed relative to the general purpose lanes. For reasons described below, this time saving advantage is being seriously eroded, prompting the need for the analysis conducted by the Task Force and expedited consideration of the Task Force s recommendations. 2. HOV traffic volumes have increased significantly in the past year, especially in the I-95/I-395 HOV lanes. Traffic in the HOV lanes has been carefully monitored for the past couple of years because the level of service in these lanes has been in jeopardy before. Indeed, the HOV Enforcement Task Force was first established in 2002 because service quality had perceptibly eroded around that time, and the Task Force report produced in 2003 was the impetus for both stepped-up enforcement efforts to curb non-authorized use of the lanes and statutory increases to fines to curb violators. While the Task Force s most recent re-examination confirmed that stepped-up enforcement efforts and increased fines have been helpful in curbing violators, these actions alone have not resolved the congestion problem because of the nature of the traffic growth (see below). 3. The two principal reasons for the HOV volume increase are the dramatic rise in the number of hybrid vehicles 2 and the increase in the numbers of HOV 2 Hybrid vehicles are permitted by state law to use the HOV lanes no matter what the occupancy of the vehicle (Virginia Code , which authorizes the issuance of special clean fuel license plates to qualifying vehicles, with an associated exemption from the HOV occupancy requirements until July 1, 2006). The sunset date for this exemption could be sooner, however, if the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) declares that the state statute granting this exemption contravenes federal law. While the various TEA-21 reauthorizing bills would allow states to permit hybrid vehicle exemptions from HOV restrictions, such exemptions would be with the proviso that the HOV lanes need to be monitored to insure that they continue to provide desirable level of service. Moreover, these authorizing bills have not been enacted, so at the present time TEA-21 is operative. TEA-21 has no such exemption provision, but FHWA has not seen fit as yet to categorically state that Virginia s hybrid vehicle exemption is in contravention. Instead, FHWA has sent a letter giving the Commonwealth until February 2005 to come up with a plan to remedy the traffic congestion problem plaguing the HOV lanes. The FHWA letter appears as an exhibit in the Task Force Report.

5 Page 3 vehicles. Traffic counts conducted in October and November of 2004 showed as many as 1691 hybrid vehicles in the 6 AM to 9 AM period on I-95 alone (Newington south of the flyover), in contrast to counts of 250 and 480 such vehicles in the fall of 2003 and spring of 2004, respectively. HOV usage of the lanes has also increased since the fall of 2003 from fewer than 3900 in the fall of 2003 to as many as 6745 on one day in October While there are still sizable numbers of violators in the lanes vehicles that are neither hybrids nor vehicles with the requisite number of occupants the number of violators is down from observations in 2003 because of both stepped-up enforcement efforts and the fine increases enacted by the General Assembly last year. Counts of violators in October and November of 2004 were as high as vehicles in the I-95 HOV lanes (again at Newington south of the flyover), significantly lower than from the 2660 violators observed in the fall of 2002 and modestly lower than the 1860 violators observed in the fall of Other, lesser factors contributing to the HOV lanes volume increase include: o The presence of law enforcement, allowable utility company, and emergency vehicles (i.e., fire-fighting vehicles, ambulances, and rescue squad vehicles) without the requisite occupancies in the lanes (as permitted by state law, though there are grounds for varying statutory interpretations as to what vehicles should qualify under this exemption category); o The presence of Dulles Airport-related vehicles in the I-66 HOV lanes which are also authorized so long as they are truly related to the Airport. The incidence of such vehicles continues to grow, in part because savvy motorists have discovered that they can use the lanes under this pretence by backtracking to the Airport in order to purchase gasoline, beverages, and/or newspapers, arguably not what was envisioned when then USDOT Secretary Coleman conditionally approved the construction of I-66 in 1977 and specifically allowed the use of I-66 by non-hov vehicles during HOVrestricted hours if they were Airport-related. 4. Usage of the I-95/I-395 HOV lanes has grown to the point that total volume exceeds the desirable carrying capacity of the lanes on a chronic basis. This problem is especially acute in the 6 AM to 7 AM period, though there is 3 The 6745 number observed on one day during the data collection effort was an exception situation more typically the numbers of HOV vehicles observed between 6 AM to 9 AM ranged from during the October - November 2004 period.

6 Page 4 evidence that the volume-capacity problem is spreading across a larger span of hours. As a result, speeds have slowed perceptibly, prompting many HOV users to communicate with VDOT urging remedial action. 5. The incidence of hybrid vehicles in the HOV lanes has the potential to increase substantially in the immediate future assuming such vehicle use is allowed to continue because the auto manufacturers are introducing new, higher horsepower hybrid vehicles beginning with the Ford Motor Company s Escape SUV (already available) and soon to be followed by Toyota s Highlander SUV, Honda s Accord, and Lexus s RX 400h SUV (an article appearing in the December 14 edition of the Washington Post provides a fuller account; attachment two). As now written, Virginia Code does not permit state officials to discriminate among hybrid vehicle models based on fuel economy or other factors in the issuance of special clean fuel license plates with the associated HOV occupancy requirement exemption. Based on these findings and conclusions, the Task Force has recommended the following action plan to remedy the growing traffic congestion problem: 1. Continue strict enforcement of HOV laws and regulations in order to maintain HOV capacity and preserve the timesaving benefits HOV lanes provide, accompanied by communication and educational efforts to insure that commuters are aware of the HOV lanes rules and regulations and the benefits these lanes provide. As part of that effort: o Create specific enforcement zones for HOV lanes by adding better lighting with easier and safer access for members of law enforcement and; o Include additional HOV enforcement funding ($250,000) in each year of the Six-Year Program in order to maintain low violation rates (20% or below) in I-95 corridor. 2. VDOT and other interested stakeholders, including federal, state and local government agencies, businesses and civic leaders, should immediately develop a plan detailing actions required in the event the HOV lanes reach capacity. This group should specifically include hybrid car dealers and manufacturers of hybrid vehicles. Where appropriate, the planning should account for the possibility that HOV lanes may be converted to HOT lanes in the future. Part of this process also should involve:

7 Page 5 o Determining the expectations of hybrid owners with respect to the exemption expiration date of July 2006; o Developing and implementing real-time performance indicators to support active management of the HOV network; and o Determining the expectations of bus and HOV-3 travelers confronting the deteriorating performance of the HOV lanes as traffic in the lanes has grown 3. Provide limits to the number of clean special fuels exemptions. Such limits might include: o An increased occupancy requirement for exempt vehicles (though not necessarily the same occupancy requirement applicable to non-exempt vehicles) and the exclusion of motorcycles; o With the General Assembly s approval, Virginia DEQ s immediate adoption of a more restrictive definition of vehicles eligible for the exemption like the super-low emission vehicle standard (SULEV); o Allowing clean special fuel vehicle license registrations to be valid for one year only (no multi-year registrations); o Capping the number of vehicles registered with clean special fuel vehicle license plates that can be exempt with a lottery process for issuance; o Not extending Virginia s clean special fuel license plate exemption, which under state statute is scheduled to expire on July 1, 2006 (the Task Force Report notes that, in contrast to current federal law, the various TEA-21 reauthorization bills introduced in the last Congressional session would allow [but not mandate] states to grant such exemptions, with the proviso that HOV performance would have to be carefully monitored to insure that such exemptions do not degrade HOV performance); o Eliminate the government-owned clean special fuel vehicle exemption specified under Virginia Code (the Task Force Report notes that this particular provision has not been implemented as set forth in statute primarily because of concerns about the means of identifying qualifying vehicles);

8 Page 6 o Increase the issuance fee for clean special fuel vehicle license plates from $10 per year to at least $500 per year (about $2 per day per commute, assuming 250 business days each year) and share the funds with law enforcement to further their HOV enforcement efforts, and with VDOT to help maintain HOV facilities; or o One or more combinations of the above options. 4. Amend the Code of Virginia to delegate specified authority for traffic operational decisions that need to be made expeditiously in order to protect the public interest (e.g., determining occupancy exemptions) to an entity other than the General Assembly. 5. Expand HOV facility peak period hours using appropriate traffic studies and review by VDOT and NVTC, and conduct such studies at least every two years. In addition, make HOV facility requirements uniform wherever possible. Current HOV requirements vary somewhat from facility to facility. Consistent, uniform HOV requirements would be easier for commuters to follow and for police officers to enforce. 6. Amend the Code of Virginia, in consultation with VDOT, the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority (MWAA) and NVTC, to better determine what constitutes airport business for the purposes of improving enforcement efforts in and around Dulles Airport. Once that determination is made and established in the Virginia Code, improve HOV access and enforcement for Dulles Airport users by: o Enhancing enforcement efforts at the back entrance to Dulles via Route 606; o Having State Police and MWAA develop better long-term enforcement mechanisms for the Dulles Access Road and I-66, in part by performing a coordinated exercise designed to determine effective enforcement levels in and around Dulles Airport; 7. Clarify that the law enforcement vehicle exemption is not for an officer s personal vehicle, emphasizing to all law enforcement agencies that their law enforcement personnel cannot legally commute on the HOV lanes in their personal nonexempt vehicles without the required occupancy levels.

9 Page 7 8. Improve HOV facilities by: o Ensuring that the I-495 PPTA proposal includes widened shoulders on I- 66 portion of I-66/I-495 interchange; o Performing quarterly quality control on fixed and variable HOV signage; and o Limiting access to and from I-95 HOV lanes by closing or staggering breaks in guardrails. 9. The Task Force should continue to meet and develop long term strategies for complying with federal requirements and meeting level-of-service standards for HOV lanes. The Task Force Report contains among its appendices two letters from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that are particularly noteworthy, warranting a brief recap here. The first of these letters -- sent to VDOT s Director of Planning and the Environment in April 2003 points out that the Commonwealth s statutory exemption of hybrid vehicles from HOV lane minimum occupancy requirements is contrary to federal law, but goes on to say that FHWA was not going to mandate the end of this in light of the fact that the TEA-21 reauthorization proposals envisioned giving states the discretion to allow such exemptions under specified circumstances. The second letter sent to VDOT Commissioner Shucet in December 2004 again notes the prospect of federal statutory change as part of reauthorization and FHWA s reluctance to mandate cessation of the hybrid vehicle exemption, but goes on to express the agency s grave concern about the dramatic increase in the number of hybrid vehicles using the HOV lanes and the associated degradation of traffic flow. The letter goes on to direct VDOT to step up its monitoring efforts and to provide a report to FHWA by no later than February 28, 2005 indicating actions taken, evaluated or planned for implementation to remedy the problems plaguing the HOV lanes. Returning to the recommendations, they are currently under review by Secretary Clement and Secretary Marshall so changes may result, but in PRTC management s view these recommendations are sound and warrant adoption. Accordingly, a resolution expressing the Commission s support for these recommendations and a transmittal letter for the Chairman to sign and send have been prepared (attachment three). Note that while the resolution and draft letter for the Chairman s signature takes no exception to the Task Force s recommendations, both the resolution and the draft letter differ in one

10 Page 8 respect from the recommendations by highlighting that the Commission s paramount interest is in seeing the buses and HOVs flow unimpeded in the HOV lanes, establishing a clear hierarchy of preference as to what vehicles should be permitted to use the lanes if choices between buses/hovs and hybrid vehicles have to be made. Fiscal Impact: Not applicable.

11 DRAFT The Honorable John W. Marshall The Honorable Whittington W. Clement Secretary of Public Safety Secretary of Transportation 202 North Ninth Street, Room North Ninth Street, Room 523 Richmond, Virginia Richmond, Virginia Gentlemen: At its meeting on, the Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC) discussed the findings and recommendations of the HOV Enforcement Task Force you directed to examine the growing traffic congestion problem in Northern Virigina s HOV lanes. As you know, the HOV lanes are a critical part of the Northern Virginia transportation network, so your directive that the Task Force diagnose the causes of this congestion problem and recommend actions to resolve it was a very welcome development for the Commission and its constituents. The Commission believes the HOV Enforcement Task Force did an outstanding job in responding to your direction, and also believes the Task Force s recommendations are well founded. Accordingly, on behalf of the Commission, I urge you to adopt these recommendations and pursue the actions necessary to enhance the prospects for their implementation, including among other things the legislative changes these recommendations require. The Commission is especially anxious to see the recommended action plan called for in the event the HOV lanes reach capacity prepared as quickly as possible, because the capacity problem is already present, not a future eventuality. Such immediate attention would also seem to be in keeping with the Federal Highway Administration s call for a report on the state s intentions to resolve the HOV lane capacity problem by no later than February 28, The Commission believes such an action plan must accord priority to buses and HOVs in the event that HOV lane usage must be curtailed, in furtherance of the air quality and traffic congestion relief aims underlying the HOV lanes. A copy of the Commission s adopted resolution is enclosed. Sincerely, Enclosure: As stated H. William Greenup Chairman cc: PRTC Commissioners