REGIONAL HOV STUDY - MARC

REGIONAL HOV STUDY Kansas City Metropolitan Area

Considerations for a regional system of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes

and traffic management for sustainability, mobility, and equity.

Freeway Tools

Active traffic management concept – Parsons Brinckerhoff

& Tools for City Streets

May 2009

i

Study Team

This study was sponsored by the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) and

managed by Ron Achelpohl, Assistant Transportation Director, and Marc Hansen,

Planner. The study was conducted by the University of Kansas, Urban Planning

Department of the School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Transportation

Planning Implementation class (UBPL 757). The student team included Gabe

Casner, Tyler Means, and Lance White. The class instructor was Marcy Smalley.

Input was also received from MARC staff including Marge Gasnick, Rideshare

director; Tom Gerend, Assistant Transportation Director; and Jim Hubbell, Planner.

Special Thanks

The study team also appreciates the assistance of John Dobies, HNTB Corp., Chuck

Fuhs, Parsons Brinckerhoff and Dick Jarrold, KCATA.

ii

Table of Contents

Page Number

Study Team ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. i.

Executive Summary (insert)

TABLE OF CONTENTS ……………………………………………………………………………………………. ii.

I. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1

A. Background

B. Study Goals and Organization

II: EXISTING CONDITIONS…………………………………………………………………………………….. 3

A. Regional Overview

1. Congestion and candidate roadways 2. Carpool Trip Length 3. Travel Time and Trends

B. Potential User Characteristics …………………………………………………………………………… 9

1. General Characteristics

2. Transit…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12

3. Ridesharing…………………………………………………………………………………………… 16

C. Environment…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 20

D. Environment Justice…………………………………………………………………………………………. 22

E. Journey to Work……………………………………………………………………………………………… 24

F. Population

G. Employment..………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 27

H. Trucking………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 31

III. TOOLKIT………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 33

A. Overview

B. Freeways

1. A. Facilities

New HOV Lanes………………………………………………………………………… 34

Lane Conversions

Bus-on-Shoulder………………………………….……..……………………………… 37

Express Lanes……………………………………………………………………………… 38

Queue bypass…………………………………………………………………………….. 39

Direct access………………………………………………………………………………. 40

1. B. Facility Cost Comparisons

iii

1. C. Special Application

High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes……………………………………………….. 43

2. Traffic Demand Management………………………….………………………………… 44

Ramp metering

Active traffic management……….……………………………………………… 45

Advance traveler information systems ATIS………………………………. 47

C. Arterials……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

1. Facilities

Bus Rapid Transit BRT

Diamond Lanes

Queue bypass……………………………………………………………………………. 48

Boarding islands and Curb extensions

2. Traffic Management/Bus Preference

Light preference

Special bus turns…………………………………………………………………… 49

Advance travel information system ATIS

IV. ASSESSMENT………………………………………………………………………………………………… 50

A. Overview

B. Four-step screening process…………………………………………………………………………….. 51

C. Demand Estimation – HOV projection process

D. Roadways under consideration……………………………………………………………………….. 53

1. Freeways

2. Arterial Roads

E. Screening…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 55

1. Freeways – Primary Criteria

2. Freeway HOV Demand Assessment Results………………………………………… 59

V. RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………….…………………………………………………….. 62

A. Overview and Capital Cost Comparisons

B. Freeways

1. Services and Facilities

Expand express bus service (Transit and Social Equity)………..…… 64

Implement Bus on Shoulder…………………………………………………………. 66

Identify Lane Conversion project (with tolling consideration)

Educate public…………………………………………………………………………….. 67

Implement queue jumpers…………………………………………………………. 68

Develop I-29 / BRT tourism strategy with KCI link

Study new HOV Lane (with tolling and trucking considerations)

iv

Commuter Rail considerations………………………………………………….. 70

2. Traffic Management

Expand traffic management capabilities

Implement ramp metering

Implement active traffic management

C. Arterial Recommendations

1. Services and Facilities .…………………………………………………………………………. 71

Expand transit services on arterial roads

Expand bus rapid transit system (first priorities)

Implement bus preference tools on high volumes routes

BRT and Freeway linkages

Queue bypass…………………………………………………………………………… 72

Bus preference in Environmental Justice areas……………………………….. 73

Curb extensions


Enhance MAX signal priority to all day

Implement light preference on all major transit routes.

D. Next Steps………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 73

1. Seek community review

2. Conduct government regulations and enforcement review

3. Conduct a tolling study

References………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 75

Regional HOV/Managed Lane Study

1

I: INTRODUCTION

A. Background

Kansas City’s population is expected to reach two million by 2020, and the already congested

roads within the metropolitan area will only worsen. High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and

managed lane applications, used in conjunction, have the potential not only to lessen congestion

and increase the amount of persons moved during peak-hour traffic, but also improve air quality,

save travel time, and conserve resources. More importantly, these applications can be used

together to incorporate park and ride lots, rideshare, and bus rapid transit into a regional HOV

managed lane system.

MARC’s long-range transportation plan for the Kansas City region (Transportation Outlook

2030) encourages HOV lanes on major roadways, and calls for an evaluation of their feasibility

as major investment studies are conducted. Historically, these studies have been conducted at

the corridor rather than regional level. A preliminary assessment of regional HOV potential was

completed in 1999 (MARC Regional HOV Assessment) and identified the need for a more

detailed regional focus.

Over the last decade, the concept of HOV and managed lanes has evolved with new ideas and

technologies such as bus on shoulder applications and high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes.

MARC’s RideShare program, the commuter resource center has continued to progress. It offers a

web-based registration system serving the Greater Kansas City and Lawrence region.

With renewed interest in maintaining our existing road system (outlined in Transportation

Outlook 2040 Update) and the impact of energy prices on commuting patterns, citizens, planners,

and stakeholders are beginning to change the way they think. The concept of a regional HOV

system on regional highways and arterials may now be a more attractive option.

B. Study Goals and Organization

The study intent is to enhance the understanding of a potential regional approach to HOV and

managed lanes and identify strategies that provide:

Cost-effective congestion relief and travel time reliability

Equity (strategies that support MARC’s environment justice policies)

Sustainability (strategies that supports MARC’s Eco-logical initiative)


2

The study was designed to provide a sustainable transportation planning approach. Table I-1

describes sustainable planning principals that were used as a general guide. The study includes

a review of existing conditions (Chapter II); a comprehensive toolkit of HOV and managed lane

options (Chapter III); a general assessment based on professional standards and criteria (Chapter

IV); and study recommendations (Chapter V.)

Table I-1

Principles of Sustainable Planning

Principle Explanation

Comprehensive Analysis Transportation planning should address economic, social, and environmental

factors.

Strategic Planning Transportation planning decisions should be subordinated to strategic economic,

social, and land use plans.

Focus on Goals,

Performance, and

Outcomes

Transportation planning is to focus on goals and outcomes such as improved

social welfare, ecological health, and access.

Consideration of Equity Equity impacts should be considered in decision-making, especially those that

could be imposed on future generations.

Market Principles Markets should eliminate incentives to abuse and misuse natural resources and

the degradation of the environment.

Precautionary Principle

(Incorporate Risks)

Transportation planning should emphasize the importance of incorporating and

minimizing risks in decision making.

Conservation Ethic Transportation planning should create solutions that increase efficiency and

reduce resource consumption.

Transparency,

Accountability, and

Public Involvement

There should be ample opportunities for the stakeholder(s) to become informed

and to be involved in the decision-making and consensus-building processes.

Source: Victoria Transport Policy Institute


3

II: EXISTING CONDITIONS

This chapter summarizing regional congestion and travel time conditions, potential HOV system users,

environmental and social conditions, commute patterns, population, employment and trucking.

A. Regional Overview

1. Congestion and candidate roadways

The roadways assessed in this study are identified in the regional Congestion Management

System (Exhibit II-1) and other major transit routes. Roadways of 10 miles or more are of

particular interest in this study because HOV applications are typically most effective for longer

commuters. ( TCPR 100 Report).

2. Carpool Trip Length

In the Kansas City region, 95% of all rideshare trips exceed 10 ten miles, while over 30 percent

of trips exceed 50 miles.

Exhibit II-1:

Typical Carpool Travel Distances

Source: Data from Mid-America Regional Council, Rideshare Survey

3. Travel Time and Trends

Historically, from 1977 to 2000, overall travel times improved in the region, allowing residents

to live and work farther away from the central business district CBD and commute to the

Downtown Loop within 20 minutes. Exhibit II - 2 illustrates the 20-minute interval contours that

indicate travel times to and from the CBD. Travel times have begun to degrade in some parts of

the region, particularly on the eastern section.

Percentages of Rideshares by Trip Length

0-10 Miles

11_20 Miles

21_30 Miles

31_40 Miles

41_50 Miles

51 + Miles


4

During this period, speeds on inner freeways increased by 23 percent, while outer and regional

freeways increased by 29 and 34 percent, respectively. (Table I-2) The speeds for all three

classifications have increased since 1977.

Inner major arterial speeds increased by 13 percent, while outer and regional major arterials

increased by 23 and 21 percent, respectively. Table I-3 shows percent increases and decreases, in

miles per hour. As with the expressways, during this period, the speeds increased, however, by a

lower rate in comparison to the freeways. Overall average speeds have increased since 1977.

(Table II-4).

Exhibit II–2:

Congestion Management System Map


5

Exhibit II-3:

Historical 20-Minute PM Travel Time Intervals

from Downtown Loop in Kansas City

Source: 2000/2001 MARC Travel Time Study

Table II-2: FREEWAYS/EXPRESSWAYS

Percent Increase/Decrease 1977 – 2000 in Miles per Hour

Freeways/Expressways

Years Inner Outer Regional

1977 44.9 47.8 45

2000 55.4 61.6 60.2

Increase/Decrease 10.5 13.8 15.2

Percent Increase/Decrease 0.23 0.29 0.34



6

Table II-3: Major Arterials

Percent Increase/Decrease 1977-2000 in Miles per Hour

Table II-4: Historic Average Travel Speeds

Table I-5 and Table I-6 have travel times data for major routes in Kansas City from 1977 to

2000. As you can see, travel times, for each route, decreased between 1977 and 1993, but

increased from 1993 to 1996. However, since 1996, travel times have decreased.

Table II-5: Travel Times on Selected Routes

Using Typical and Reverse Commuter Data (minutes)

Major Arterials

Years Inner Outer Regional

1977 25.4 30.8 29.8

2000 28.8 38 36

Increase/Decrease 3.4 7.2 6.2

Percent Increase/Decrease 0.13 0.23 0.21


Historic Average Travel Speeds

Freeway/Expressway Principal Arterial

Inner Outer Regional Inner Outer Regional

1977 44.9 47.8 45 25.4 30.8 29.8

1987 44.4 53.6 51.6 27.5 31.1 29.7

1990 49.6 52.8 52.2 26.3 29.1 27.8

1993 45.6 57.7 53.9 25.6 35.4 31.4

1996 53.7 59.3 57.4 28.1 32 30.6

2000 55.4 61.6 60.2 28.8 38 36


Travel Time on Selected Major Routes using Typical & Reverse Commute Data (minutes)

Route Begin End 1977 1987 1990 1993 1996 2000

Downtown-Airport 6th and Broadway KCI 21.9 20.7 19.2 19 18.5 19.6

I-70 West I-70 and Broadway Turner Diagonal 11.2 15.5 10.5 9.2 9.6 9.2

I-70 East 14th and Charlotte M-291 19.8 26.2 17.8 12.4 17.5 19.2

I-35 South 12th and I-35 I-435 20.4 15.5 15.2 16.3 20.8 17.9

I-435 South I-35 (S. Junction) US-71 22 19.8 20 20.7 19.5 11.8

SW Trafficway/Ward Parkway 12th and I-35 I-435 25.5 26.6 24 20.2 27.2 24.1

95th Street/Bannister Road Switzer Road I-435 22.6 26.3 25 21 33.1 21.2



7

Table II-6: Travel Times on Selected Routes

Using Only Typical Commute Data (minutes)

Table II-7 and Table I I-8 show data for average speeds and miles per hour for freeways and

principal arterials. As you can see, the average speeds increased between 1977 and 2000.

Table II-7: Average Travel Speed (MPH using Typical and Reverse Commuter Data

Table II-8

Travel Time on Selected Major Routes using only Typical Commute Data (minutes)

Route Begin End 1977 1987 1990 1993 1996 2000

Downtown-Airport 6th and Broadway KCI 21.9 20.7 19.2 19 18.5 21

I-70 West I-70 and Broadway Turner Diagonal 11.2 15.5 10.5 9.2 9.6 9.1

I-70 East 14th and Charlotte M-291 19.8 26.2 17.8 12.4 17.5 25.8

I-35 South 12th and I-35 I-435 20.4 15.5 15.2 16.3 20.8 21

I-435 South I-35 (S. Junction) US-71 22 19.8 20 20.7 19.5 12.4

SW Trafficway/Ward Parkway 12th and I-35 I-435 25.5 26.6 24 20.2 27.2 23.9

95th Street/Bannister Road Switzer Road I-435 22.6 26.3 25 21 33.1 -


Average Travel Speed (MPH) using Typical and Reverse Commute Data


Inner Outer Inner Outer

1977 44.9 47.8 25.4 30.8

1987 44.4 53.6 27.5 31.1

1990 49.6 52.8 26.3 29.1

1993 45.6 57.7 25.6 35.4

1996 53.7 59.3 28.1 32

2000 56.1 60 28.8 37.3


Average Travel Speed (MPH) using only Typical Commute Data



1977 44.9 47.8 25.4 30.8

1987 44.4 53.6 27.5 31.1

1990 49.6 52.8 26.3 29.1

1993 45.6 57.7 25.6 35.4

1996 53.7 59.3 28.1 32

2000 56.1 60 60.2 28.8



8

Table II-9

The Travel Time Survey selected highly-congested corridors to conduct further analysis. They

were Broadway/I-29 Northbound, I-35 North, I-35 South, I-70 Eastbound (most congested

between the Jackson Curve and Van Brunt), I-70 Westbound, I-435 (most congested between

Metcalf and Wornall; and between Holmes and I-470), US-69, and US-71.

4. Transit Ridership

Average daily ridership fluctuated between 1972 and 2005. Ridership increased, significantly,

between 1972 and 1980. One theory behind the ridership increase during this time revolves

around the global oil crisis. However, a large decline in average daily ridership ensued, from

1980 to 1983. Ridership levels remained constant between 1983 and 1991, only to decrease

slightly in 1992. From 1992 to 2005, ridership levels remained constant, once again.

Exhibit II-4: Historic Average Daily Transit Ridership 1972-2005

Delay (seconds/mile) using Typical and Reverse Commute Data



1977 4.2 1.8 19.8 18

1987 3 2 22 19

1990 1 2 25 21

1993 3.1 0.7 25.5 13.9

1996 1.8 2.3 26.9 20.3

2000 1.6 3.2 23.2 19



9

However, average daily ridership levels increased slightly from 2005 to 2007 and more

significantly between 2007 and 2008. The ridership increase from 2007 and 2008 can be

attributed to gasoline prices, which approached $4.00 per gallon.

Exhibit II-5:

Average Daily Transit Ridership 2005-2008

B. Potential User Characteristics

1. General Characteristics

Vehicle Availability

The majority of households in the region had two vehicles. Nearly 17 percent of urban

households did not have an automobile. Less than 10 percent of suburban households also did

not have any vehicles in their possession. Nearly 45 percent of urban households had only one

automobile, while nearly 36 percent of suburban households only had one automobile.

Slightly less than 30 percent of urban households had only two automobiles, while

approximately 40 percent of suburban households had only two automobiles. Just fewer than 10

percent of urban households had three or more automobiles, while nearly 17 percent of suburban

households had three or more automobiles. However, the remainder of households with three or

more vehicles was nearly 21 percent. (MARC Household Travel Survey)

Household Workers by Area

Nearly 30 percent of urban households did not have any workers in the household, compared to

25 percent of suburban household. Roughly 45 percent of urban households had only one

worker compared to 40 percent of suburban households. Fewer than 25 percent of urban

households had two or more workers, compared to 35 percent of suburban households.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

2005 2006 2007 2008

Average Daily Ridership (KCATA)


10

Travel by Day of the Week

The majority of the travel, during the workweek, was on Tuesdays (23%) while the least was

done on Fridays (16%)

Travel Mode

An overwhelming majority of the region utilizes personal/private automobiles. Just over 1

percent utilizes transit, while less than 5 percent walk or bike. The same percentage utilizes some

other form of transportation not mentioned previously. Over 90 percent of households with 1 or

more vehicles utilize auto, while less than 1 percent in this category utilizes transit. Nearly 5

percent of households with 1 or more automobiles walk or bike, while the same percentage

utilizes some other form of transportation. Roughly 35 percent of households without a vehicle

utilizes auto, while just over 25 percent of these households utilizes transit. On the other hand,

just fewer than 23 percent of households with no vehicles, bike or walk, while approximately 15

percent utilize some other form of transportation.

Exhibit II-6:

Travel Mode

Trip Departure Times

The majority of households in the survey departed between 10 am and 3:59 p.m., while less than

5 percent departed between 11 p.m. and 5:59 am. The majority of auto dependent persons make

their departure between 10 am and 3:59 p.m., while the majority of transit riders and

bikers/walkers make their departures during the same time interval.

4% 1%

65%

26%

4%

Travel Mode

Walk/Bike

Transit

Auto (Driver)

Auto (Passenger)

Other

Source: Mid-America Regional Concil


11

Table II-10: Trip Departure Times

Time %

6 am – 9:59 am 25%

10 am – 3:59 p.m. 37%

4 p.m. – 7:59 p.m. 30%

8 p.m. – 10:59 p.m. 7%

11 p.m. – 5:59 p.m. 2%

Destinations - The majority of the AM peak destinations are in either in Jackson or Johnson

County. Destinations by time of day are illustrated on Exhibit II-7.

Summary of the Household Travel Survey - The percentage of households without vehicles

has increased. Households in the Kansas City MSA averaged 10.6 trips daily, with trip rates

increasing with household size, vehicle ownership, and income. However, there was little

variation in trip purpose. There was some indication of differences in destination choices by

area. Automobiles were the dominant modal choice in the region, but transit, walking, and

biking were more dominant in the urban area. Peaks were typical during the morning,

midday, and evening hours. However, the midday peak period had the most non-household

bound travel and non-auto travel. In comparison to the 1990 study, the household size was

smaller in the latest study and the number of household trips was smaller. Travel mode usage

and travel departure time tendencies did not differ, significantly from 1990.


12

Exhibit II-7: Destinations by Time of Day

Source: MARC Household Travel Survey

1. Transit

Data from the On-Board Transit Survey was used to create transit volume maps for the Kansas

City area. High volume routes include the top 15 percent of all routes, which included 13 routes

with more than 500 different riders per day. These routes were classified as those with more than

1,000 riders per day. Medium volume routes include the next 15 percent of all routes based on

total ridership, which included 13 routes with 150-500 different riders per day. These routes were

classified as those with between 300 and 1,000 riders per day. Low volume routes include the

bottom 70 percent of all routes based on ridership, which included 60 routes with less than 150

riders per day. These routes were classified as those with less than 300 riders per day. The map

of the three volume classes are on the next page. Table II-11 lists the high transit volume routes.


13

Table II-11:

High Volume Routes

12- 12th

Street 56- Country Club

24- Independence 71- Prospect

25- Troost 106- Quindaro

28- Blue Ridge 108- Indiana

31- 31st Street 173- Casino

39- 39th

Street 53/54- Armour

Swope/Paseo 51- Ward Parkway

Source: MARC On-Board Transit Survey

Proposed Regional Transit Services – Long Range Transit Plan

The regional long range transit plan (Exhibit II-9) proposed regional corridors on both major city

streets and freeways. The commuter corridors are designed to connect large retail and

commercial shopping centers, with retail centers of at least 250,000 square feet and

commercial/office centers of at least 200,000 square feet. The regional routes are to operate at

high levels of at least 3,000 average daily trips. The commuter service routes (blue lines) are part

of the freeway system. Two major commuter routes are indicated for possible future commuter

rail. The urban service routes (red lines) are proposed candidates for bus rapid transit. Other

major fixed routes are denoted by yellow lines.


14

Exhibit II-8

Transit Route Volumes Map

Source: Mid-America Regional Council On-Board Transit Survey, ETC Institute


15

Exhibit II-9:

Long Range Transit Plan Conceptual Map

with Park and Ride Lots

Source: MARC Long Range Regional Transit Plan


16

2. Ridesharing

Carpooling and vanpooling are other ways of maximizing vehicle occupancy rates. Increasing

vehicle occupancy could go a long way in reducing traffic congestion, air pollution, and energy

consumption. Vanpooling, transit, and car pooling are means of optimizing the performance of

the road network without having to resort to high-cost infrastructure and capacity improvements.

Vehicle Occupancy

Vehicle occupancy data is based on MARC’s 2002 Vehicle Occupancy Study summarized in the

following table.

Table II-12

Average Vehicle Occupancy by Peak Hour

Peak Period Vehicle Occupancy

A.M. Peak 1.29

Afternoon Peak 1.22

Evening 1.16

Source: 2002 MARC Vehicle Occupancy Study

The data is from work trips during peak periods of 4:30 pm - 6:30 pm and 7:00 am-8:30 am.

Data collection was performed on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, as those days were

more representative of average work-related commuting. According to the Household Transit

Survey, the AM peak period is between 6 am and 9:59 am, the afternoon peak from 10 am to

3:59 pm, and the evening peak from 4 pm to 7:59 pm.

Freeways and expressways had the highest percentage of single-occupant vehicles, with the

evening peak period having the highest percentage of single-occupant vehicles. Collector and

local roads had the highest average vehicle occupancy rate.

The average vehicle occupancy rate in the Kansas City region, during the evening peak, declined

from 1989 to 1997, but has increased since then. The average vehicle occupancy rate for the

morning peak had also declined only to increase again.


17

Exhibit II-10:

Historic Average Vehicle Occupancy

Table II-13

Estimated Vehicle Occupancy by Roadway Classification

Occupants per Vehicle (% of Total Sample)

Evening Peak

Functional

Classification

1 2 3 4 5 6 or

More

AVO

Freeway 83.4% 13.1% 2.3% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.19

Principal Arterial 82.2% 14.7% 2.3% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 1.22

Minor Arterial 80.9% 15.8% 2.7% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 1.23

Collector/Local 76.7% 18.4% 3.9% 0.7% 0.2% 0.1% 1.29

Morning Peak

Functional Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 + AVO

Freeways 89.9% 9.3% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.14

Principal Arterial 88.1% 10.6% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.13

Minor Arterial 89.7% 9.0% 1.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 1.14

Collector/Local 83.8% 13.4% 2.1% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 1.21

1.16

1.18

1.20

1.22

1.24

1.26

1.28

1.30

1.32

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1997 2002

Historic Average Vehicle Occupancy


18

According to the study, an array of factors such as MARC’s Rideshare program, increasing

environmental awareness, increasing air quality concerns, and increasing gasoline prices

contributed to the increased average vehicle occupancy rates during the 1980s. However,

increased vehicle miles traveled and private automobile usage, which all are seen as results of

urban sprawl and changing demographics, may have contributed to the decreased average

vehicle occupancy rates during the 1990s.

Vanpooling and carpooling are two practices that aim to reduce auto emissions and other auto-

induced effects, while helping people save money on car-related expenses. Someone, who may

either work, or play in a given area, can arrange to ride with another person, headed to the same

destination. Car and vanpooling benefits include less automobile mileage (that prolongs the

lifespan of an automobile), less driving-related stress, and potential friendships with fellow car

and vanpoolers.

MARC Rideshare is a commuter matching service for commuters in the region. It helps

commuters save money, by encouraging motorists to use their automobiles less. This service also

aims to increase mobility, reduce congestion, and decrease commuting time by promoting

commuter transportation services. This service is also part of the State Implementation Plan to

improve air quality in the bi-state Kansas City region. The carpool connection web-based

matching service: Carpool Connection allows motorists to search for other carpoolers living in

close proximity. Patrons can also utilize one of over 50 free park-and-ride commuter lots

throughout the Kansas City area.

MARC Rideshare also offers guaranteed rides home for eligible Rideshare customers in case

they should become ill at work. The workplace location must be within 40 miles of the Kansas

City area. The Kansas City Area Transportation Authority also has its own guaranteed ride

home program. The following graphs and charts illustrate ridesharing trends by month and by

trip length.

There was a notable increase in ridesharing during the summer months of June, July, and August

of 2008, when gasoline prices encroached, and in many cases, surpassed $4.00 per gallon.


19

Table II-14

Exhibit II-12

Source: Mid-America Regional Council

Rideshares by Month in Kansas City in 2008

Carpool Vanpool

April/May 724 76

June 3,245 239

July 9,227 796

August 7,638 612

September 3,668 212

October 3,827 212

November 1,907 127

December 1,623 108

Total 31,859 2,382


0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500Rideshare Counts by Month and Trip Length

0-10 Miles

11-20 Miles

21-30 Miles

31-40 Miles

41-50 Miles

51 + Miles


20

Exhibit II-13:

Rideshares by Month in 2008


C. Environment

Reducing Ozone Forming Emissions - At the present time, the Kansas City region is classified as

an attainment area because federal clean air standards are being met. However the region is

expected to lose that status in the future based on new standards and conditions. According to the

MARC Clean Air Action Plan information, ozone concentrations occur at different rates and are

influenced by three factors: local emissions sources, transported ozone and ozone precursor

emissions, and meteorological influences such as warmer days that tend to trap ground-level

ozone (Page 19 of MARC Clean Air Action Plan).

Emissions are categorized as: point sources, area sources, and mobile sources. This study

addresses mobile sources only. Mobile sources are any kind of mobile vehicle or piece of

equipment that is dependent of gasoline or diesel fuel. The following table below described

existing emissions, by source for 1998 and for 2010 projected.

800

3,484

10,023

8,253

3,880 4,039

2,0341,731

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Rideshares by Month in 2008


21

Table III-17

Emissions (Tons/Day) by Source Type for 1998 and 2010 Projected

1998 1998 2010 2010

Source Type VOC NO x VOC NO x

Area Sources 130.8 24.6 111.0 28.5

Non-Road Mobile Sources 49.5 119.9 32.4 77.8

On-Road Mobile Sources 121.7 140.7 52.1 71.9

Point Sources 28.9 289.9 31.5 226.0

Total 330.9 575.1 227.0 404.2

Source: MARC Clean Air Action Plan

The air quality maintenance conformity boundary for the region is illustrated in Exhibit II-13

Exhibit III-13:

Air Quality Maintenance Conformity Boundary

D. Environmental Justice

The data described in this section, along with related data in other sections was used to help

assess the study’s environmental justice and social equity goals. Environmental Justice

considers how low-income and minority populations are affected by the actions of governing

bodies. All Federal agencies are required to assess environmental justice in their policies,

programs and activities. The purposes are:


22

To avoid, minimize or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and

environmental impacts, including social and economic effects on minority populations and

low income populations;

To ensure full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the

transportation decision-making process; and

To prevent the denial of, the reduction in, or significant delay in receipt of benefits by low-

income and minority populations.

MARC’s Environmental Justice assessment determined minority population level thresholds, and

the average percentage of minority populations for all census tracts within the metropolitan

planning boundary. Those tracts where the minority population exceeded the regional average

were identified as tracts where environmental justice issues should be analyzed and are

illustrated in Exhibit II-14.

According to the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) Order on Environmental Justice,

minority persons include Blacks, Hispanics, Asian Americans, American Indians and Alaskan

Natives. A similar process was used to map areas with high portions of low-income individuals.

Low-income was referred to as an individual whose household income was at or below the

United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) guidelines. Social research

considers census tracts with 20 to 40 percent low-income individuals as high poverty areas.

Census tracts with 20 percent or higher low-income individuals are illustrated in Exhibit II-14.


23

Exhibit II-14

Environmental Justice Map

Kansas City Metropolitan Area

Source: MARC Transportation 2030 Update, Appendix C

The Environmental Justice assessment found that pedestrian crash rates are higher in

Environment Justice areas as compared to other areas. The long range regional plan recommends

that this disparity be addressed.

In addition, MARC’s Household Travel Survey reported that people who lived in Kansas City’s

urban center were less likely to own vehicles and more likely to own fewer vehicles than their

counterparts in lower density housing. Individuals living in urban centers were more likely to

rely on pedestrian and bicycle facilities in their commutes. They tended to have smaller family

units and fewer sources of income; the urban densities were more likely to be out of work.


24

MARC’s Onboard Transit survey found that large proportions of transit riders made less than

$20,000 per year; more than 50 percent of Unified Government Transit and 40 percent of

KCATA riders fell into the category of individuals who made less than $20,000. The percentage

of bus riders who made more than $75,000 were 1.6 percent and 2.3 percent for Unified

Government Transit and KCATA respectively. With the high numbers of low-income transit

riders it makes logical sense to include an Environmental Justice component

E. Journey to Work

Major work commuter trips are a primary source of congestion. Journey to work patterns are

illustrated in the following exhibit. Both intra and inter county trips are shown. The broader lines

below illustrate the major work flows that could be candidates for HOV applications.

Exhibit II –14: Journey to Work

Source: Journey to Work 2000, Smart Moves Transit Plan


25

Table II-18:

Journey to Work Data

Source:

Journey to

Work 2000

Data, Smart

Moves

Transit Plan

Although this data does not describe precise trip origins and destinations, it does, however,

provide general indicators for major roadway congestion conditions as described in Table II - 18.

I-35: This corridor has a service level of E or F throughout the region. South of Downtown

Kansas City, Johnson County has nearly 50,000 residents who commute to Jackson County and

Jackson County has nearly 40,000 residents who commute to Johnson County. I-35 is the

primary corridor between the two counties and the primary north/south corridor through Johnson

County, which has over 160,000 residents who commute within the county. In between these two

counties on I-35 is Wyandotte County which has nearly 19,000 residents commuting to Johnson

County and 11,000 residents commuting to Jackson County. In addition Wyandotte County

receives approximately 15,000 employees from Johnson County and 11,600 from Jackson. North

of Downtown Kansas City

Clay County has nearly 27,000 residents who commute to Jackson County and Jackson County

has 14,500 who commute to Clay. In addition Clay County generates more than 10,000

employees to Johnson and Wyandotte Counties and the two Kansas Counties send more than

5,000 back. Clay County has over 47,000 residents who commute within the County and I-35

serves as one of the primary North/South corridors.

I-70: This corridor has a service level of F from Downtown Kansas City to the Metropolitan

Eastern City Limits. Jackson County has over 230,000 residents who commute within the

County, in which I-70 is the primary East/West corridor. Commuters from several counties who

work in Eastern Jackson County would likely utilize this route. Commuters from Clay and Platte

County to the North and Wyandotte and Johnson to the South that commute to Jackson via I-35

would likely utilize this route. From the West commuters from Wyandotte and Leavenworth

Counties who commute via I-70 likely exacerbate traffic in this corridor.


26

I-29: This corridor has a service level of D North of the intersection with I-35 to the Barry Road

exit. The congested portion of this expressway runs North/South through Clay County. This

route runs north through Platte County and converges with I-35 in the southern portion. In

addition, this route is congested from the over 47,000 residents who live and commute in Clay

County. Platte County has 9,548 residents who work in Jackson County and 7,119 who work in

Clay County; I-29 is the most likely route for these commuters. There are many Clay County

residents working in Jackson County and likewise Jackson County residents working in Clay

County. This likely contributes to the congestion along this route.

I-435: The most congested segment of this expressway runs East/West through Johnson County

into Jackson County and North/South in Jackson County. The majority of this congestion likely

comes from those who work and live in Johnson County and those who live and work in Jackson

County. This congestion is also likely influenced by the interchange between Jackson and

Johnson County employees and residents.

US-71: The segment of US-71, with D, E, and F levels of congestion, begins in Cass County

and continues north to its intersection with I-435. This is likely due to the over 16,000 Cass

County residents who work in Jackson County and nearly 7,000 residents who work in Johnson

County. Relatively few Johnson and Jackson County residents work in Cass County. As a result,

this traffic is likely one-way.

F. Population

Future travel patterns will be impacted by increasing and decreasing population centers where

work commutes begin and end. The exhibit below projects those changing patterns for 2030.

Jackson County is expected to increase in population to 710,000 by 2030. In 2000, the

population was 630,000. The population of Jackson County has been fairly stable in recent

decades. However, Jackson County is expected to lose population from the urban core, while the

Eastern sections of the county are expected to gain population which could add to the congestion

on I-435 and I-70.

Johnson County is expected to increase in population to 744,000 by 2030. Johnson County has

been the fastest growing county in the metropolitan area for several decades. This trend is

expected to continue. Most of the growth will occur in the southern tracts of the county near the

metropolitan boundary. This could have a great impact on the already congested I-35, I-435 and

US -69 corridors.


27

Exhibit II: 15:

Population Change 2000 - 2030

Source: MARC Outlook 2030

Clay County is growing, though at a slower rate than Johnson County. The population is

expected to reach 260,000 by 2030. This could create additional traffic on sections I-35, I-29 and

I-435 already experiencing D, E and F levels of service.

Platte County is another county which is experiencing rapid population growth. The total

population is projected to reach 115,000 by 2030. This could add traffic to I-29 and I-435.

Cass County is a growing county. The northern sections of the county are supposed to increase

rapidly in the coming decades. The 2030 population is projected to reach 130,000. This could

add to congestion on US-71.


28

Wyandotte County has been fairly stagnant or declining in recent years and is projected to

remain stagnant in the future. Similar to Jackson County, Wyandotte County is experiencing

population loss near the city center and experiencing growth along the edges of the county.

Leavenworth County has been fairly stagnant as well. The population is projected to increase but

at a slow rate by 2030.

G. Employment Centers

While employment has become dispersed over the last decades, Downtown Kansas City remains

the largest employment center. As illustrated in Exhibit II-17 the major employment areas and

corridors are as follows:

Southtown Corridor – The map shows a thin line of high employment density census tracts

beginning in the north at downtown and proceeding south toward the plaza area and beyond

through Brookside and Waldo.

I-35 corridors in Johnson County – Employment concentrations are high throughout

Johnson County, Kansas, especially along the I-35 corridor.

I-435 Corridor in Johnson County – The employment densities along the 435 corridor in

Johnson County are similar to those along the I-35 corridor.

KCI – Located off of I-29 near the northern border of the Kansas City, Missouri city limits,

the airport, hotels, and surrounding office buildings serve as components of a major

employment node.

Northtown Corridor – There appears to be several strong employment concentrations in the

industrial areas of North Kansas City and the Northeastern district industrial areas.

Fairfax/Downtown KCK/Armourdale - There are several high employment concentrations

in close proximity to the city center on the Kansas side. This trend begins in the northern

portion, at the Fairfax industrial district which as the higher employment concentrations, and

continues down through the Downtown office and Armourdale industrial districts.

Northeastern I-435 – There is an employment concentration around the Worlds of Fun

amusement park off of I-435 in northeastern Jackson County. Just to the north is Clay

County, which is home to a major employer, Ford Automotive. Just to the south of the

amusement park is Ameristar Casino.

The Legends – Although completed too late to be included on this map, The Legends

shopping and entertainment district should create an employment node in the next few years.

A development, consisting of an amusement park and casino is scheduled for completion by

2010. This development is within close proximity to Cabbella’s and the Kansas Speedway.

The area is located off of I-435 in Kansas City, Kansas.


29

Exhibit II-16:

Population Change Trends


30

Exhibit II-17:

Employment Concentrations

Source: MARC Outlook 2030


31

H. Trucking

National corridors for trucking (Exhibit II-18) include I-35 which runs from Texas in the South

to Michigan in the North. I-35 is a National Freight Corridor through out the Metropolitan area.

I-29 runs from Kansas City in the south to the Canadian border in the north. I-70 is the primary

east/west corridor in the city and runs from the west coast to the east coast. Highway 71 runs

north into Kansas City and contributes to national trucking flows in Kansas City. It also appears

that some trucking is diverted onto I-635, I-470, and I-435 on the Missouri side of the border.

Highway 69 and I-435 on the Kansas side appear to be regional freight corridors in the Kansas

City metropolitan area. I-435 on the Missouri side appears to gain traffic from regional trucking

in the north eastern curve. Highway 71 gains traffic from regional trucking.

Exhibit II-18: Significant Freight Corridors

National, Regional and Local Signifance


32

Source: 2008 Kansas City Regional Freight Outlook Study


33

III. TOOLKIT

A. Overview

This chapter provides a comprehensive toolkit of all available HOV and managed lane

applications. The freeways and arterial roadway tools described here include both facililty

applications and traffic management applications.

Table III-1: Toolkit Summary

In Chapter IV, these tools will be examined for their feasibility based on conditions in the

Kansas City metropolitan area. In Chapter V recommendations for each toolkit application is

addressed. This examination will result in a package of proposed modifications to the existing

Congestion Management System (CMS) Toolkit.

B. Freeways

1. A. Facilities


34

a). New Lanes

Busway: A roadway or lane built in an entirely separate Right-of-Way. This facility is

exclusively for HOV use, primarily for buses. (Exhibit III-1)

Exhibit III-1:

Busway

Analysis: This practice is the most expensive to implement. Building of the roadway can

range from approximately $8.0 to $17.5 million per mile. The benefit of this facility is

that it can move 1,600 to 2,400 persons/hour/lane. (PB HOV Manual, 1999)

b). Lane Conversion (Freeway Right of Way)

Contraflow: An HOV facility that designates a freeway lane or lanes in the off-peak

direction of mixed-flow travel. The designated lane(s) is commonly separated by plastic

posts or a moveable barrier, but may have no separation. This type of facility usually

accommodates bus only or bus and vanpool only, but can include other HOV vehicles.


35

Exhibit III-2:

Lane Conversion: Contraflow

Analysis: Contraflow lanes are some of the cheapest facilities to implement. They often

do not necessitate building of new lanes, because existing infrastructure can be converted.

Another aspect that can be either good or bad is that this facility only requires 400-800

vehicles/hour/lane. On the downside, this facility is only worth the effort if there is a

large amount of commuting in one direction, but not in the other. (PB HOV Manual,

1999)

Concurrent Flow (Barrier-Separated)

This consists of lanes built within the freeway right-of-way that is physically separated

from the other freeway lanes by barriers or pylons. This facility is HOV use only during

a portion or for all parts of the day. This facility also can be used in a reversible-flow

basis (like contraflow lanes) or two-way basis.


36

Exhibit III-3:

Lane Conversion: Concurrant Flow

Analysis: This type of facility is expensive to implement; usually costing between $3.5

and $7.0 million per mile. The reason for the high cost is that often the freeways where

this facility is to be implemented is not wide enough to incorporate an HOV lane and

barrier(s). However, this facility is proven to yield lessened travel time savings and is

easily adjustable to accommodate different traffic scenarios. Also, it has a low peak-hour

minimum volume threshold of 400-800 vehicles/hour/lane. (PB HOV Manual, 1999)

Concurrent Flow (Buffer-Separated)

This facility features a lane that is not physically separated from adjacent mixed-flow

lanes. The lane is instead separated by a distance of one to three feet, and is marked by a

double yellow line and/or road reflectors. This facility often is HOV only use during

portion of the day and then is open to mix-flow traffic during the rest of the day.

Exhibit: III-4:

Concurrent Flow (Buffer-Separated)


37

Analysis: This facility is easy to implement, in the event that existing infrastructure can

be converted to accommodate a one to three foot buffer. Cost of implementation can

range between $40,000 and $4.4 million per mile (if new infrastructure needs to be built).

This facility only requires a minimum threshold of 400-800 vehicles/hour/lane and

recommends a minimum bus volume of 10 to 15 passengers. (PB HOV Manual, 1999)

Bus on Shoulder

A lane that does not have a buffer between itself and adjacent mix-flow lanes. This

facility is either the farthest inside or farthest outside lane (shoulder may be used), and is

HOV only use during peak-hour traffic.


38

Exhibit III-5:

Bus on Shoulder

Analysis: Bus on shoulder is fairly inexpensive to implement; only costing between

$42,000 and $66,000 per mile. The only costs are concerned with ensuring that the

shoulder is level, drivable, and wide enough to handle bus traffic. Other non-separated

facilities can range from being around $40,000 to $5 million per mile. (PB HOV Manual,

1999)

Express Lane:

Consists of lanes that are physically separated from the general-purpose lanes, and allow

limited access points. Express lanes are open to general traffic. This practice is usually

implemented between two destinations known to have high volumes of traffic. In some

instances, these lanes are tolled. A benefit of this type of lane management is that it is bi-

directional; therefore, the lane(s) can be designated for temporary use in the opposite

direction of usual flow if need be.


39

Exhibit III-6:Express Lane

Other options

Queue Bypass:

This facility consists of a lane, often non-separated, that operates in the same direction as

mixed-flow traffic lanes through a specified bottleneck, toll plaza, or street light. It is

basically, a “head of the line” process for HOV vehicles to pass queued traffic.

Exhibit III-6:

Queue Bypass

Analysis: This type of facility is very effective at being a preferential treatment towards buses

and HOV vehicles. If a street light does not have to be added implementation cost can be as little


40

as $50,000. Furthermore, Kansas City’s Scout Program and traffic coordination system will help

make operational costs minimal.

Direct Access:

This facility involves building additional ramps in the region that connects directly to the HOV

facility. Direct access ramps have been found in the Puget Sound Area to increase speed, access,

and reliability of bus operations. Furthermore, the ramps could also be used to allow direct

access for carpoolers and vanpoolers. In terms of location, direct access ramps can be used for

freeway-to-freeway or arterial-to-freeway connection.

Exhibit III-6:

Direct Access

Analysis: Direct access gives direct preferential treatments to HOV vehicles and buses. If used

in conjunction with the SCOUT program and existing coordinated light system this facility is

effective in creating time savings benefits. Implementation costs are high because of the need to

construct a new right-of-way, but operation and maintenance costs are all that exist upon

completion.

1. B Facility capital cost comparison - – The cost of the new bus lane option is significantly

higher than the conversion of a general purpose lane to a HOV facility as illustrated in the

following table.


41

Table III-1: Facility Capital Cost Comparison

By $ Million per Mile

Facility operating cost and operations features are described in Table III-2


42

Table III-2:

Operating Cost Comparisons and Other Factors

HOV Lane Types

Cost/Mile

(in

Millions)1

Annual

Operation

Cost (in

Millions)1,2

Minimum

Volumes

for Buses

Minimum

Volumes for

Peak Hour

Flows

Required

Lane

Width

Existing

Locations

New Lane -

Separate Right-of-

Way

Busway $8.55-

$17.32 $0.08 40-60 1600-2400

18-24

feet

Pittsburgh,

PA

Lane Conversions

- Freeway Right-

of-Way

Contraflow $0.23-

$0.56 $0.06-$0.76 10 to 15 400-800

10-12

feet

New Jersey,

Dallas,

Boston

Concurrent flow

(Barrier-Separated)

$3.50-

$6.45 $0.04-$6.30 10 to 15 400-800

18-24

feet

Houston,

LA, San

Diego

Concurrent flow

(Buffer-Separated)

$0.04-

$4.44 $0.01-$0.26 10 to 15 400-800

10-12

feet w/ 1-

3 foot

buffer

Orlando,

Seattle,

Honolulu

Concurrent flow

(Non-Separated)

$0.04-

$5.00 $0.08 10 to 15 400-800

10-12

feet

Miami,

Montgomery

County

(MD)

Concurrent flow

(Bus on Shoulder)

$0.04-

$0.07 $0.08 40-60

1600-2400

(passengers) 12 feet

Minneapolis,

MN

Preference

Treatment

Queue Bypass $0.05-

$0.15 minimal 20-30 100-200

Needs a

total of

20 feet

Oakland,

San Diego,

LA, Chicago

1Prices inflated from 1999 using CPI

Calculator

2 Operation costs reflect existing facilities of

various route lengths.


43

1. C Special Applications

The following applications may be applied to the proceeding facilities:

a). HOT Lanes: These facilities require single-occupant vehicles to pay a toll in order to use

HOV facilities. The toll often varies based on demand. The idea behind HOT lanes is to

maximize the efficiency of an HOV facility’s ability to move vehicles; therefore, relieving

congestion.

b). Toll Lanes - This type of lane management requires drivers to pay a toll in order to utilize

the freeway. Tolling is conducted at either entry and exit points at designated tolling stations

or at multiple locations along the way via a method known as a mainline toll system. It is

possible to have tolling only during peak-hour in order to limit congestion. This facility may

be effective, but is often very controversial.

Exhibit III-8:

Toll Lanes

b). Temporary Use HOV Lanes: This application is ideal, and capable of providing HOV

facilities during flexible hours. In times of construction or lane closing a general mixed-use

lane can become an HOV lane during peak-hour traffic, in order to alleviate the bottleneck

effect.


44

2. Freeways - Traffic Demand Management

a) Ramp Metering This application utilizes a basic traffic light or a two-phase light to

regulate traffic entering freeways via a process called access rate reduction. The rate of

traffic flow entering the freeway is based on current traffic conditions. By utilizing

traffic control systems and the scout program, ramp metering allows a freeway at its

optimal rate of speed and ensures constant traffic flow.

Exhibit III-7:

Ramp Metering

HNTB Corp.

b). Active Traffic Management: (Exhibit III-8) this system involves adjusting speed

limits to better regulate traffic. It focuses on decreasing speeds upon increases in traffic

flow, congestion, or incidents to ensure maximum throughput. Through the use of traffic

control systems and the Scout program this technique’s initial costs are derived from

overhead signage and pavement markings (used to indicate lane status). The main benefit

of this system is the reduction of secondary accidents, and therefore, keeping an efficient

level of traffic movement. It is used primarily in Europe and is now being considered for

US applications.


45

C.) Active HOV Management (Exhibit III-9) A key to HOV lane success in ensuring

that volumes are adequate to justify implementation cost, but not so high as to degrade

HOV lane service. Active management provides tools to maintain effective balances.

For example, excess demand can be reduced by increasing HOV user requirement. Two

occupant vehicles HOV 2 can be changed to HOV 3 though variable message signs.

This process is illustrated in Exhibit III-9

Exhibit III-8

Active Traffic Management

Parsons Brinckerhoff

Source: Active traffic management concept for I-35W Minneapolis, Minnesota – Parsons Brinckerhoff


46

Exhibit III-9:

Active HOV Management

A. For some period after opening, an HOV lane may have significant excess capacity

during peak periods. These “empty lanes”, as perceived by the public, often exist side-

by-side with congested general purpose traffic.

B. Growth in HOV traffic eventually overwhelmes available capacity. Congestion in the

HOV facility degrades travel times.

C. In order to perserve travel times for transit, authorities must elmininate HOV2 access

to the facility, creating excess capacity that surpasses the amount of excess capacity

present at the opening of the facility.

(Source: Parson Brinckerhoff, workshop presentation, Mid-America Regional Council,

Five County Study, March 2009)

c). Coordinated Light System: This technique is effective at improving traffic flow and

reducing emissions by minimizing stops on arterial streets. Furthermore, this system

improves travel times along arterial networks. Linking all the involved intersection street

lights may make implementation costs high, but once installation is completed costs are

limited to operation and maintenance.

d) Highway Information System: This technique involves placing digital information

boards along the freeway that gives real time information about the upcoming roadways.

This allows freeway users to better plan their trips and reduce overall travel times.

Furthermore, this system can help create peak-period travel shifts; reducing congestion


47

during peak-hour travel. Design and implementation costs may be high since all

information boards will be new, but operation and maintenance costs are minimal.

e.) Advanced Traveler Information System: This technique involves creating a database

that contacts registered users over wireless devices and/or anyone interested via the

internet. The information sent gives anticipated freeway-users information about

roadway conditions, closures, accidents, speed estimates, and weather. This type of

system can reduce travel times and create peak-period travel shifts. Costs of

implementing such a system may be expensive due to required designing, but operation

and maintenance costs are minimal.

C. Arterials

1. Facilities

a). Bus Rapid Transit: Kansas City’s bus rapid transit system is integrated into the

Metropolitan Area Express MAX plan. Running on bus only lanes during peak-hour

traffic this system offers increased time savings and convenient locations along the Main

Street corridor between the River City market and Country Club Plaza. GPS units allow

users to know exact arrival times, and well lit bus shelters allow users a more comfortable

place to wait for arriving buses. Special traffic light signals give buses more green light

time through signal priority.

Exhibit III-10:

Bus Rapid Transit

b). Diamond Lanes: This facility is similar to the bus rapid transit system already in place

in that a separate right-of-way for buses is offered. Being able to avoid mixed-use traffic

travel time will be decreased and convenience for users will be increased. A benefit of

this facility is that existing infrastructure can be converted for bus use, and these bus only

lanes can tie directly into freeway HOV facilities.


48

Exhibit III-11:

Diamond Lanes

c). Queue Jump: An additional travel lane that is restricted to HOV vehicle and bus use. The

lane exists on the approach to an intersection with a traffic signal. This facility focuses on

allowing HOV vehicles and buses to queue the traffic via a light signal that allows them to

proceed through the intersection before the other general purpose lanes.

Exhibit III-12: Queue Jumper

HNTB Corp.

d). Boarding Islands: This facility allows for pedestrians to safely board buses that operate in a

non-curb travel lane. There may be concern about pedestrians crossing the street to board the

buses; therefore, it is important to provide some type of warning to drivers via signage or traffic

calming devices.

e). Curb Extensions: A curb extension is a traffic calming measure that increases driver

awareness and slows traffic by simply narrowing the roadway. The curb extensions are often

marked by paint, barriers, or are raised with painted curbs. This facility is best suited for areas of

high pedestrian traffic.

2. Traffic Management Techniques

a). Light Preference: This technique helps speed up bus travel at intersections with traffic

signals. This system works by having the buses signal ahead, via radio, their arrival times, and


49

upon arrival the buses receive green lights at surrounding intersections. This technique often

works in conjunction with bus lanes.

b). Special Bus Turn Provisions: This technique, basically, allows buses along their routes to

commit turns that would otherwise be illegal. These provisions can create better scheduling, and

help buses meet their headways more efficiently.

c). Automated Traveler Information Systems (ATIS): This technique involves creating a

database that contacts registered users over wireless devices and/or anyone interested via the

internet. The information sent gives anticipated freeway-users information about roadway

conditions, closures, accidents, speed estimates, and weather. This type of system can reduce

travel times and create peak-period travel shifts. Costs of implementing such a system may be

expensive due to required designing, but operation and maintenance costs are minimal.


50

IV. ASSESSMENT

A. Overview

This chapter identifies and describes the roads to be assessed, the screening process and results,

and the HOV demand estimation process and results. Some of the assessments are based on

professional standards from the following reports:

o Transit Cooperative Research Program. TCRP 100 Report, Transit Capacity and Quality

of Service Manual, 2nd

edition. Transportation Research Board, and the

o High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Manual, Parsons, Brinkerhoff, 1999.

A regional perspective is used to identify opportunities to achieve project goals through HOV

and managed lane strategies. Opportunities to apply the tools described in the preceding chapter

are identified. However, final corridor recommendations will be based on further studies that

include public involvement, additional planning and engineering level detail.

Exhibit VI-1:

Levels of Analysis Funnel

………………………...…..Regional………….………....……

Opportunities for regional

lane management & HOV applications

…………....Corridor……....

Treatment type

…..Facility..

engineering


51

B. Four step screening process

A four -step screening process was conducted to answer the following questions:

1. What roads are possible candidates for HOV/managed lane tools?

2. Of these roads, which are the most likely candidates for toolkit treatments? Which have

the highest existing and projected congestion, transit and carpool use, trip origins and

destinations in Environmental Justice areas and other factors?

3. Of these freeway candidates, what are the projected HOV lane demand estimates?

Projected HOV volumes can also be used to estimate potential reductions in vehicle miles

traveled, reduced emissions and energy consumption.

4. Are volumes high enough to warrant the implementation costs, and low enough to

prevent degradation of services? What are the pros and cons of various toolkit options

and what can be learned from other communities.

C. Demand Estimation

The number of buses, carpools and vanpools projected to use an HOV facility represents

important criteria in the sketch planning screening process. Demand estimation is based on a

simplistic sketch planning approach described in the HOV manual developed by Parsons

Brinkerhoff (Table IV-1). This technique is based on the following primary sources of demand:

Primary diversion: HOVs diverted from existing general purpose lanes.

Secondary diversion: Existing HOVs on parallel routes diverted to new HOV lane,

Latent demand: People who begin to carpool or use transit because of the new facility.

Projected growth – this study only addresses current conditions.


52

Table IV-1: Demand Estimation Technique

Primary Diversion – is estimated by assuming that between 70 and 90 percent of the current mainline and

service road HOVs will divert onto the HOV facility, assuming the average trip distance is adequate for

the desired travel time savings. The aggregate directional mainline and service road value is multiplied by

.7 for a minimum estimate and .9 for a maximum estimate.

Secondary Diversion – The secondary diversion is estimated by assuming between 25 and 50 percent of

the currently eligible parallel route HOVs will divert onto an HOV facility, assuming the average trip

distance is adequate for the desired travel time savings. The aggregate HOV value on all parallel routes is

multiplied by .25 for a minimum estimate and .5 for a maximum estimate.

Latent Demand – The latent demand is estimated by taking the low and the high estimates derived for the

primary diversion and multiplying by 1.2 and 1.6 respectively, for a minimum and maximum estimate of

latent demand. The general rule of thumb is that latent demand may represent up to two-thirds of the

forecast use on a new HOV facility. The latent demand will be influenced by the travel time savings and

travel time reliability offered by the HOV facility.

Current Demand – The subtotals for the various estimates are calculated (E+G and E+G+H) to obtain a

low and a high demand estimate for the current year.

Growth – A local growth factor can be applied to the subtotal to project demand in a future year. The

local growth factor may reflect different time periods.

Future Demand – The local growth factor is multiplied by the previous current demand subtotal to obtain

the future demand estimation.


53

D. Roadways under consideration

The road network considered includes all freeways, as identified by the Congestion Management

System (CMS), all transit corridors included in the regional transit plan including Commuter

Express, Urban Services and Major fixed routes corridors.

Freeways are assessed separately by the length of congested segments. This is because the

creation of an HOV lane is most useful for road lengths that exceed 10 miles. (TCRP 100 report)

Shorter freeway segments may be more appropriate for treatments such queue jumpers and

traffic management.

1. Freeways

Freeways rated Level of Service LOS D or lower in the Congestion Management System are

described in Table IV-2, and are segments eight or more miles in length. Table IV-3 has road

segments for roads that are less eight than miles long.

Table IV-2: Freeway Candidates for Consideration

Congestion segments 8 miles or longer

Freeway Boundaries Level of Service Distance (miles)

I-35

Throughout Metro E and F 38

I-70 East of I-35 to M-7 E and F 18

I-435

East from K-10 to US-

71

E and F 14

South of US-24 to

North of Bannister Rd

E and F 10

I-29 South of Barry Rd. to

I-35

D, E, F 10

US-71 South of Bannister Rd.

to Metro Boundary

D, E, F 8


54

Table IV-3:Freeway Candidates for Consideration

Congested segments less than 8 miles long

Freeway Boundaries Level of

Service

Distance

(miles)

M-7 I-70 South to Colburn Rd. F 8

US-71 South of Bannister Rd. to Metro

Boundary D, E, F

8

M-291 South of US-40 to Coburn Rd. D 7

I-635 Between I-35 and Santa Fe Ave. F 5

US-69 South of I-35 past 135th St. E and F 4

M-291 South of M-210 to North of Us-24 E 4

M-350 West of I-435 in Missouri F 3

M-1 3 mile section North of I-35 E 3

I-435 Armour Rd to Front St. D 3

I-470 East of US-71 Junction E 2

US-50 South of I-470 Junction D 2

US-169 North of I-29 Junction for 2 miles D 2

1. Arterial Roads

Arterial roads considered include all urban corridor and major fixed routes corridors, as

identified in the regional transit plan (Exhibit II-9).

Table IV-4

Arterial Candidates for Consideration

Urban Services (Bus Rapid Transit Corridors)

Main Street - MAX

State Avenue

Troost Ave

Linwood Street

Truman Avenue

Metcalf Avenue

Shawnee Mission Parkway


55

Table IV-5

Arterial Candidates for Consideration

Major Fixed Routes

12- 12th


24- Independence 71- Prospect




39- 39th

Street 53/54- Armour Swope/Paseo

51- Ward Parkway


E. Screening

1. Freeways – Primary Criteria

The primary criteria used in the freeway screening process included the factors below.

Congestion Levels – Existing and forecasted traffic congestion levels within a corridor or

on a facility serve as good indicators of the need for a HOV improvement. The criteria

should be revised for local conditions but should be identified by using criterion, such as

level of service (LOS) D or E, or average peak hour speeds in miles per hour. Data from

the MARC Congestion Management System was used.

Travel Patterns – The origins and destinations to be served by a possible HOV facility.

Journey to work data is used to provide general pattern information.

Current Bus and Car Pool Volumes – Existing transit services, carpools and vanpools in a

corridor can be used to provide an indication of the potential use of an HOV facility.

MARC’s Onboard Transit Survey and Vehicle Occupancy studies are the data sources

used.

Travel Time Savings and Travel Time Reliability – Estimating the potential travel time

savings and travel time reliability offered by the HOV facility. MARC has information

on current travel times in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area.

Trip Distance –The average distance of commute trips in a corridor can also provide a

good indication of the possible candidates for HOV facilities. Longer distance trips may

realize greater travel time savings.


56

Person Throughput – A major objective of the HOV facility is to increase the person-

moving capacity of a corridor or facility. To meet this objective, the HOV lane should

carry more people in fewer vehicles than the adjacent mixed-flow lanes. Peak hour travel

volumes are used.

Cost Effectiveness – Cost effectiveness represents another criteria used to choose

between alternative HOV facilities. The toolkit includes generalized cost estimates for

each tool.

Environmental Justice – Special treatment for highways and arterials that provide service

to neighborhoods identified by MARC Outlook 2030 Plan as having Environmental

Justice Concerns.

Environmental Concerns – Special emphasis should be taken to ensure that any HOV

plan contain Environmental considerations. A high level of environmental stewardship

needs to be developed to ensure the Kansas City Metro area receives federal funding.

The screening results are described on Table IV-6


57

Table IV-6 Screening – Part I

Freeway

Screen CRITERIA Standard/Source Data FEASIBILITY RANK FREEWAY FREEWAY FREEWAY FREEWAY FREEWAY FREEWAY

I-35 I-70 I-29 I-435 I-435 US 711. Lower 2. Medium 3. Higher Description Rank Description Rank Description Rank Description Rank Description Rank Description Rank

Throughout

Metro

Downtown to

Metro Boundary

From I-35 to

Metro Boundary

East from K-10

to US-71

South of US-24 to

South of M-350

South of US-50 to

Metro Boundary

A. CONGESTION

Existing Level of Service is D or

worse

MARC -

Congestion

Management

System Report

LOS C or

better

LOS D LOS E AND F E and F 3 F 3 D and E 3 E and F 3 E and F 3 E and F 3

B. PEAK HOUR

VOLUMES

0-1,000 1,500-2,500 greater than

2,500 2,977 3 2,800 3 2,501 3 3,109 3 2,777 3 2,666 3

C. VEHICLE

OCCUPANCY

Ability to maximize

vehicle occupancy

MARC's Vehicle

Occupancy Report

PM Avg: 1.21,

AM Avg: 1.14

PM Avg:1.18,

AM Avg: 1.13

PM Avg:1.17, AM

Avg: 1.64

PM Avg:1.22, AM

Avg: 1.17

PM Avg:1.22, AM

Avg: 1.17

Data Not

Available

D. BUS VOLUMES Number of passengers

required to justify HOV

treatment:

MARC's On Board

Travel Study route

data by high,

medium and low

volumes

Less than

300 per day

300 to 1,000

per day

More than a

1,000 per day

120 1 I-70 to Blue

Springs

1 126 1 180 1 129 and 243 Routes 1 28X and 471 1

E. TRIP DISTANCE Trip distance is at least

10 miles

Calculated Less than 10 10-15 Over 15 38 3 18 3 10 2 14 2 14 2

8 1

D. MAJOR

EMPLOYMENT

DESTINATIONS and

LAND USE

Trips serve major

employment

destinations

Employment

Concentration Map

and Journey to

Work Data

General Observations 3 3 3 3 3 2

E. ENVIRONMENTAL

JUSTICE -

Trip Origin in

Environmental Justice

Area

Journey to Work

Data,

Environmental

Justice areas

General Observations Yes 2 3 1 1 3 3

F. Population

Centers

Corridor connects

heavily populated

areas and growing

areas

Population growth

maps


Trucking National, Regional and

Local freight corridors

Corridor of Freight

Significance Maps

National 3 3 National 3 Regional 3 National 3 National 3

F. PARK AND RIDE

LOTS

Availability to serve

transit users and

carpoolers

Park N Ride

location data and

population density

around lot

1 lot 2 lots 2 +=lots 7 3 6 3 2 2 7 3

G. Past or current

study activity if any.

Yes if application are

recommended

NO Yes

Yes 3 Yes 3 Yes 3 Yes 3 Yes 3 Yes 3

RANKING 27 28 23 22 24 24


58

Table IV-6 Screening – Part II.

Freeway



Throughout

Metro

Downtown to

Metro Boundary

From I-35 to

Metro Boundary

East from K-10

to US-71

South of US-24 to

South of M-350

South of US-50 to

Metro Boundary

A. CONGESTION


worse

MARC -

Congestion

Management

System Report

LOS C or

better


B. PEAK HOUR

VOLUMES

0-1,000 1,500-2,500 greater than

2,500 2,977 3 2,800 3 2,501 3 3,109 3 2,777 3 2,666 3

C. VEHICLE

OCCUPANCY

Ability to maximize

vehicle occupancy

MARC's Vehicle

Occupancy Report

PM Avg: 1.21,

AM Avg: 1.14

PM Avg:1.18,

AM Avg: 1.13

PM Avg:1.17, AM

Avg: 1.64

PM Avg:1.22, AM

Avg: 1.17

PM Avg:1.22, AM

Avg: 1.17

Data Not

Available



treatment:

MARC's On Board

Travel Study route

data by high,

medium and low

volumes

Less than

300 per day

300 to 1,000

per day

More than a

1,000 per day

120 1 I-70 to Blue

Springs

1 126 1 180 1 129 and 243 Routes 1 28X and 471 1


10 miles


8 1

D. MAJOR

EMPLOYMENT

DESTINATIONS and

LAND USE

Trips serve major

employment

destinations

Employment

Concentration Map

and Journey to

Work Data


E. ENVIRONMENTAL

JUSTICE -

Trip Origin in


Area

Journey to Work

Data,

Environmental

Justice areas


F. Population

Centers

Corridor connects

heavily populated

areas and growing

areas

Population growth

maps




Corridor of Freight

Significance Maps


F. PARK AND RIDE

LOTS


transit users and

carpoolers

Park N Ride

location data and

population density

around lot

1 lot 2 lots 2 +=lots 7 3 6 3 2 2 7 3

G. Past or current



recommended

NO Yes


RANKING 27 28 23 22 24 24

Freeway



Throughout

Metro

Downtown to

Metro Boundary

From I-35 to

Metro Boundary

East from K-10

to US-71

South of US-24 to

South of M-350

South of US-50 to

Metro Boundary

A. CONGESTION


worse

MARC -

Congestion

Management

System Report

LOS C or

better


B. PEAK HOUR

VOLUMES

0-1,000 1,500-2,500 greater than

2,500 2,977 3 2,800 3 2,501 3 3,109 3 2,777 3 2,666 3

C. VEHICLE

OCCUPANCY

Ability to maximize

vehicle occupancy

MARC's Vehicle

Occupancy Report

PM Avg: 1.21,

AM Avg: 1.14

PM Avg:1.18,

AM Avg: 1.13

PM Avg:1.17, AM

Avg: 1.64

PM Avg:1.22, AM

Avg: 1.17

PM Avg:1.22, AM

Avg: 1.17

Data Not

Available



treatment:

MARC's On Board

Travel Study route

data by high,

medium and low

volumes

Less than

300 per day

300 to 1,000

per day

More than a

1,000 per day

120 1 I-70 to Blue

Springs

1 126 1 180 1 129 and 243 Routes 1 28X and 471 1


10 miles


8 1

D. MAJOR

EMPLOYMENT

DESTINATIONS and

LAND USE

Trips serve major

employment

destinations

Employment

Concentration Map

and Journey to

Work Data


E. ENVIRONMENTAL

JUSTICE -

Trip Origin in


Area

Journey to Work

Data,

Environmental

Justice areas


F. Population

Centers

Corridor connects

heavily populated

areas and growing

areas

Population growth

maps




Corridor of Freight

Significance Maps


F. PARK AND RIDE

LOTS


transit users and

carpoolers

Park N Ride

location data and

population density

around lot

1 lot 2 lots 2 +=lots 7 3 6 3 2 2 7 3

G. Past or current



recommended

NO Yes


RANKING 27 28 23 22 24 24


59

Data Requirement Primary Diversion Secondary Diversion Latent Demand Sub-totals

Vehicle Occupancy 0.7 0.9 0.25 0.5 1.2 1.6 Low High

Vehicle RateLocation A. AM Peak

Hour Volume

B. Percent of 2+

vehicles

Volume of 2+

vehicles

Low D=70% High D=90% Low D=25% High D=50% Low

F=120%

High F=160%

I-35

Throughout

Metro*

2977 7.0% 208 146 188 175 300 321 488

I-35 South of

Downtown*

3074 7.0% 215 150.6 193.7 181 310 331 504

I-35 North of

Downtown

2828 7.0% 198 138.6 178.2 166 285 305 463

I-70 Total

East of

Downtown

4350 6.5% 283 197.9 254.5 238 407 435 662

I-70

Downtown to

M-291 5579

6.5% 363 254

326 305 522

558 849

I-70 M-291 to

Metro

Boundary 3008

6.5% 196 137

176 164 282

301 458

I-435 K-10 to

US 71*3109

8.5% 264 185

238 222 381

407 618

I-435 US-71 to

US-24 4142

8.5% 352 246

317 296 507

542 824

I-293737

8.5% 318 222286 267 457

489 743

US 71 2451 8.5% 208 146 188 175 300 321 488

A. B. A+B=C CxD=E CxD=E CxD=H CxD=H G

Local Growth Factor

Total Initial 2+ HOV

Demand Range

2. Freeway HOV Demand Assessment Results

The following table shows the worksheet for the demand estimation.

Table IV -7

Demand Estimation

*denotes dated data not from current Scout figures, dated data

The demand estimates, in Table IV- 8 give evidence of several options for HOV facilities in the

region. On the higher end are I-70, from the Central Business District, to M-291 and I-435 from

US-24 to US-71. Both of these corridors have demand estimates projecting more than 800

vehicles per hour usage of HOV lanes; sufficient to justify separate right of way HOV lanes. I-29

was not far behind I-35 and I-435, in terms of demand, at 743 vehicles per HOV lane, which

qualifies I-29 for several HOV treatments. Several highway segments in Kansas did not have the

most recent traffic counts and may be undercounted (I-35 and I-435). However, there were recent

traffic counts available for the highway segments in Missouri.


60

Table IV-8:

Projected HOV volumes and Minimum Operating Thresholds

Yes: Meets Standard - No: Does not meet standard.

Projected Freeway HOV Volumes Minimum Operating Threshold (peak

hour) volumes per lane per hour (vplph)

Location New

HOV

Lane

HOV by

Lane

Conversion

Queue Bypass

800-1000 400-800 100-200

I-35 Throughout Metro area 321-488 No Yes Yes

I-35 South of Downtown 331-504 No Yes Yes

I-35 North of Downtown 305-463 No Yes Yes

I-70 East of Downtown 435-662 No Yes Yes

I-70 Downtown to M-291 558-849 Yes Yes Yes

I-70 M-291 to Metro

Boundary

301-348 No No Yes

I-435 K-10 to US 71* 407-618 No Yes Yes

I-435 US 71* to US 24 542-824 Yes Yes

I-29 489-763 Possibly Yes Yes

US 71 321-488 No Yes Yes

Sources: Minimum Operating Standards (Parsons Brinkerhoff, HOV Manual, 1999) Existing

volumes data (MARC) and calculation (study team)


61

Exhibit IV-2

Feasible Freeway Corridors

Freeways Meeting Minimum standards for Lane Conversions and New HOV lanes


62

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Overview

The recommendations presented here are intended to maximize traffic flow for all major

roadway users and provide better service for high occupant vehicles (HOV): transit, carpool,

vanpools, and shuttles. Hopefully by taking an all inclusive approach there will be more

beneficiaries, and benefits that can result in more community support. For example, the

beneficiaries could include carpoolers and transit riders, single occupant cars, commercial

vehicles and tourists, and people of all income levels. The benefits could include more

predictable travel times for all users, improved safety, and cleaner air. Also new toll revenues

could be used for transit expansions.

Historically, the region has enjoyed low congestion as the result of its long-term commitment to

freeway construction. However, travel times have now begun to degrade (Exhibit II-3) and

further degradation is expected as the population continues to grow and as the already massive

amount of land that Kansas City covers develops further.

New technologies however provide important opportunities for the region to move forward in

new ways that may:

Make the most of the region’s infrastructures in a socially and environmentally

responsible manner,

Provide expanded resources for economic development particularly in the area of freight

movement and tourism,

Leverage existing infrastructure while controlling for sprawl,

Decrease vehicles miles traveled, and

More equitably distribute transportation resources.

To achieve this, an incremental and strategic approach is recommended, one based on the

following vision:

These recommendations are intended to help set the stage for needed conversations and decision

making. They are informed by the previous chapters (Existing Condition, Assessment, and

Toolkit) as well as the capital costs described in the following table.

Vision:

Freeway and arterial roadway capacity is enhanced by

increased vehicle occupancy and throughput via expanded

transit, HOV facilities, bus preference tools, other active

traffic and demand management techniques


63

Exhibit V-1:

Cost Comparisons: Cost per Million per Mile

(Source: Calculations were made based on data from HNTB and Parsons Brinkerhoff)

B. Freeways

1. Freeways - Expanded Transit, HOV Facilities and Other Bus Preference Options.

Recommendation: Implement additional bus service on freeways. The success of a

regional HOV/managed lane system will be based on a strong foundation of regional

transit to enhance HOV ridership. The region’s long range transit plan (Exhibit V-3) has

already identified needed transit services are the regional freeways. (Exhibit V-3: blue

and yellow lines)

Both transit and carpooling support systems (park and ride lots and ride match services)

should be planned, funded and implemented hand-in-hand with roadway improvements.

This collaborative planning could be enhanced administratively by merging MARC’s

transportation committees by function rather than mode. Also improved transit


64

expansions are crucial in achieving the major study goal of ensuring regional social

equity. This connection is described in more detail in the following:

Exhibit V-2: Environment Justice Considerations

Transit and Social Equity

Low income and minority populations are public transit’s most loyal customers but

transportation funds too often go toward increasing suburban ridership. (Taylor

1999)

In a comparison of roadway expenditures versus mass transit expenditures,

Dittmar and Chen find that urban low-income communities and rural communities

receive a smaller share of transportation funds than their suburban counterparts.

(1994)

Officials responsible for choosing the location of facilities typically use

conventional market place criteria in making their decision. One factor often

overlooked however: is there a transportation system that can provide people

efficient affordable access to it? (Grimshaw and Mizuno 1994)

Individuals on welfare with shorter commute times and better access to

employment rich areas tend to leave the welfare program faster than individuals

with longer commute. (Blumenberg and Ong 1994).

On the link between public transit and employment it appears possible that

improved access to public transit can overcome the physical separation between

the residential locations of nonwhite workers and job locations. (Sanchez 1999).

African Americans, other ethnic minorities and other persons with low household

incomes walk, bicycle and use transit more than the general populations, but are

also more likely to be the victims in auto-pedestrian/bicycle crashes. (Corless and

Arteaga 2000)


65

Exhibit V-3: Proposed Regional Transit System - MARC

Commuter Service, Urban Services and Major fixed route service

Source: MARC Regional Transit Plan Update


66

Bus on Shoulder (BOS)

Bus operations on I-35 freeway shoulder is expected to reduce travel time by 20 percent or

and triple ridership. (I-35 Corridor Study, Johnson County Transit and HNTB Corp.) BOS is

used only when traffic slows to 35 mph or less. For safety sake, speed differential stays at 15

percent or less. Safety is further enhanced by trained bus operators. Cars using the general

purpose lanes typically use the highway everyday for peak hour commutes so they get use to

it quickly.

Recommendation: Implement bus on shoulder on I-35. (South of Downtown to south

metro boundary). This is a high priority recommendation based on feasibility determined

in the I-35 Corridor Study, reasonable capital cost (Exhibit V-1) and the projects potential

to educate the region on BOS potential. The project also received high marks because it

serves the central business district of the region and provides linkages to Environmental

Justice area. (Chapter IV: screening)

Recommendation: Consider bus on shoulder in other corridors.

Assess feasibility on I-70, I-35 (north of Downtown), I-29, US 71, and I-435. As general

purpose lanes are upgraded over time, shoulder can be improved to meet bus-on-shoulder

standards such as ten-foot shoulders, rumble strips and needed drainage inlets

modifications. Structural support may also need to be assessed. Revise Missouri state

laws as needed.

Recommendation: Implementation activities should consider the following: Since bus on

shoulder does not provide benefit to carpoolers, support facility for carpoolers should be

added including park and ride lot improvement or additions, and preferential downtown

parking.

Conversion of General Purpose Lane to HOV lane.

Recommendation: Consider HOV lane conversion on segments that meet minimum

operating standards i.e. HOV volumes of 400 – 800 vehicles per lane per hour (vplph.

Table V-2: Freeway segments meeting standard for HOV Lane Conversion

Freeway Segments Projected HOV Volumes

Low to High

I-35 Throughout Metro area 321-488

I-35 South of Downtown 331-504

I-35 North of Downtown 305-463

I-70 East of Downtown 435-662

I-70 Downtown to M-291 558-849

I-435 K-10 to US 71 407-618

I-435 US 71 to US 24 542-824

I-29 489-763

US 71 321-488

Sources: Minimum Operating Standards (Parsons Brinkerhoff, HOV Manual, 1999),

existing volumes data (MARC) and calculation (study team)


67

Recommendation: Review the political feasibility of lane conversions and conduct related public

education activities. Conversion of general purpose lanes can be controversial if the public

thinks they look “empty”. This may be the case even though they may be carrying as many or

more people as general purpose lanes. The study described is

the side bar and exhibit show that past HOV lanes are still in

operation and that HOV lane creation is on the rise.

Exhibit V-1: Locations of US HOV Lanes

Dark dots are projects terminated since 1970

(Source: HOV Facility Development: A Review of National Trends, 2001 Chuck

Fuhs, Parsons Brinckerhoff and Jon Obenberger, FHWA)

Exhibit V-2: Current and Planned Freeway HOV Lane Miles

(Source: HOV Facility Development: A Review of National Trends, 2001 Chuck Fuhs, Parsons Brinckerhoff and Jon Obenberger, FHWA)

Are HOV Lane Conversions too

unpopular to implement?

A major study by Parson Brinckerhoff

with FHWA conducted in 2001

addressed this concern. Below are some

findings:

The data does not suggest that there has

been any consistent backlash throughout

the country to terminate existing or

proposed HOV lane projects.

To the contrary, the last HOV lane to be

terminated in the U.S. occurred on I-80

and I-287 on the Dulles Toll Road in

Northern Virginia, where a lane was

constructed and initially opened to

general purpose traffic, and then it was

converted into an HOV lane. The Dulles

project was terminated because it

reclaimed newly constructed lanes

opened to general traffic for HOV use,

creating a backlash among commuters.

The Dulles HOV lanes have since been

re-implemented along this entire facility

after the additional roadway capacity

was constructed to accommodate HOV

lanes.

The total number of HOV lanes

terminated since 1969 represent less

than 5% of all HOV lane route-miles”


68

Recommendation: Once an HOV lane is implemented, consider using variable message

signs to inform the public of the real time passenger miles traveled in both the HOV and

general purpose lane.

Queue jumpers

Recommendation: Maximize queue jumper use where possible to enhance transit and

carpool use. Enforce existing queue jumpers. Implement in areas such as US 71 (north of

I-435) at signalized intersections to give existing transit services a priority. Also US 71

has reserved right- of-way for future light rail transit. Enhanced bus preference on US 71

now can help build the market for more extensive HOV applications in the future.

Use HOV and Managed Lanes to promote tourism - KCI to Regional Tourist

Attractions.

Recommendation: Use the Regional HOV/Managed Lane toolbox to create tourist

friendly transportation among major destinations: For example, implement between the

airport (KCI) and Downtown along I-29. Next, use tools to link I-29 with the regional

bus rapid transit BRT system. Tools could include lane conversion, bus on shoulder or

just some queue jumpers to give tourist (and local commuters) the advantage over using

rental cars or taxis. Develop a related marketing strategy to attract more tourists to the

region and to serve them well once they arrive.

New HOV Lane(s)

Recommendation: Study the long term feasibility of constructing new HOV lanes on the

region’s most congested freeways such as I-70 (between Downtown and M 291), and

segments of I-435 and I-29. Minimum standards for new HOV lane construction are

800-1000 vehicles per lane per hour. The table below describes the freeway section

currently meeting or nearly meeting that minimum standard.

Table V-3 Freeways meeting standards for New HOV lane

(8 miles or more in length) Freeway Segments Projected HOV Volumes

Low to High

I-70 Downtown to M-291 558-849

I-435 US 71* to US 24 542-824

I-29 489-763 Sources: Minimum Operating Standards, (Parsons Brinkerhoff, HOV Manual, 1999)

Existing volumes data (MARC) and calculation (study team)

Recommendation: Due to the cost and possible negative environmental consequences of new

HOV lane construction, each of the following issues should be addressed in future studies.

Caution: The creation of new excess capacity can have the consequence of making car travel

more attractive and actually increasing congestions. (Anthony Downs) A goal is to find the

balance between making the most of existing infrastructure without providing a lot of

incentives for more and more freeway travel.


69

Tolling/Pricing Based on one sketch planning assessment standard, tolling is not yet

considered feasible. This is because travel times of 30 mph for 2 or more hours for a

distance of 3-5 miles do not exist. (Parson Brinkerhoff) But tolling may used for a

variety of reasons other than travel time conditions. For example: to offset construction

and operating cost, to manage demand, and to provide funding source for additional

transit services. Also HOV lanes operating under capacity can allow single occupant

vehicles to use the lane if a toll is paid. This can expand the HOV lane capacity.

Trucking enhancements Future planning should consider that trucks traditionally do not

use HOV lanes unless there is enough demand to warrant two directional lanes. Also,

required use of HOV lanes by trucks has been unpopular. However, high cost projects

such as HOV lane additions, should typically serve multiple objectives. For example, the

region’s trucking industry could potentially be a beneficiary. Future studies should

answer the questions: How might new HOV lane construction with managed lanes

leverage activities at the new intermodal facilities in the southern part of the region?

Barrier-separated bi-directional lanes. This tool would add two new lanes so two inside

lanes could be used as HOV in both directions (simultaneously or at different times). A

benefit of this facility type is that it can handle high degrees of congestion and meet

maximum operating thresholds. Once congestion catches up and service degrades, direct

access ramps could be added. In the Puget Sound Area direct access ramps were found to

Thoughts on Pricing

“As long as the private vehicle remains underpriced it will be very difficult to develop viable

alternatives. We have made large investment in public transit and HOV lanes, yet transit

market share remains flat and carpooling continues to decline. Why? The low price and

high convenience of private vehicle travel makes it the preferred mode of travel for most

people most of the time. We engage in wasteful public policy when we invest in alternative

modes while doing nothing to correct for the under pricing of the private vehicle.”

Susan Hanson and Genevieve Giuliano, 2004

“Charging employees for parking, even when combined with a transportation allowance of

the same amount, leads to significant reductions in drive alone commuting.”

Shoup and Wilson 1992


70

increase speed, access, reliability, and provide added preferential treatment to buses

and/or HOV users.

Recommendation: Consider HOV/managed lane tools as an alternative to, or as a first

phase toward implementing commuter rail. HOV capital costs are lower than commuter

rail. (Exhibit V-1). These tools could help build transit ridership in general commuter

corridors where commuter rail is envisioned in the future. Such a phasing strategy would

help justify commuter rail later, because ridership projections could be higher. Today’s

commuter rail ridership projections have not met standards required to receive federal

funding.

2. Freeways - Traffic Management

The region already benefits from the existence of the traffic management system known as

SCOUT that operating on I-70, I-35, and I-435. The system monitors traffic with cameras

and then uses variable message signs to warn motorist of incidents ahead.

Recommendation: Expand the existing SCOUT system to all major freeways.

Recommendation: Consider adding active traffic management tool to SCOUT. Consider

adding tools to alter speed limits in response to incidents (car wrecks, weather conditions,

etc.) so that traffic does not come to a standstill and also to prevent secondary

accidents/incidents. Slowing speeds to 55 miles per hour during peak hour increases the

people moving capacity of a corridor. (PB) Higher average speeds are more likely to

increase accidents than lower speeds. When speeds are high many drivers feel less safe

and break more often. This breaking then slows traffic. More cars, operating at higher

speeds, require longer headways and thus reduce highway capacity. Implementing active

traffic management may provide an incremental approach that can set the stage for other

more aggressive HOV tools later.

Recommendation: Implement ramp metering. Monitor the success of the region’s first

proposed ramp meter on I-435 and consider expansion to other freeway ramps. Consider

giving ramp metering preference to transit before cars where applicable. This tool has

relative low implementation costs.

While freeways offer opportunities to increase vehicle occupancy particularly for longer

distance trips to major destinations, transit use on freeways however can be problematic.

Riders typically cannot walk to bus stops, and there are fewer connections with local activity

centers. For this reason it is important for a HOV strategy to comprehensively address the

use of HOV and managed lane tools on arterial roads i.e. the city streets.

C. Arterial Recommendations

It is on the city streets/arterial road, rather than freeways, where we access the places we want to

go. It is here that transit riders can also walk or bike to transit stops. The region can further


71

increase the effectiveness of its transportation system by maximizing transit service and bus

preference tools throughout the arterial roadway system.

The region’s long range transit plan identifies where arterials transit corridors are warranted

based on transit demand studies (Exhibit V-2). These include Urban Corridor (illustrated in red)

that are now or projected to be bus rapid transit (BRT) services, and the Major Fixed Routes

(illustrated in yellow) that consist of major transit corridors. There are also local services

depicted in grey.

A full complement of HOV/managed lane tools is available to increase vehicle occupancy on

city streets and to link those routes with the freeway improvements previously discussed. This in

turn, can help increase ridership and mitigate the negative environmental and economic effects

caused by private automobiles. The key to creating a city that is eco-friendly is to create a bus

system that is attractive to all citizens, and does not create a substantial inconvenience.

1. Services and Facilities

Expand transit routes and carpool support services.

Recommendation: implement additional bus service to further enhance the capacity of the

existing arterial roadway system. Implement services proposed in MARC regional transit

plan with its comprehensive system of park and ride lots. Continue and expand rideshare

system supports. Enhance rideshare marketing and help make more people aware of the

new internet based Park and Ride lot finder.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) exclusive bus lanes and traffic signal light priority

Recommendation: Maximize BRT implementation on urban transit corridors. (Red lines,

Exhibit V-1). It is a necessity for a city the size of Kansas City to have a bus system that can

supply efficient headways, bus preferential treatment, and decreased commute times to its

residents. The BRT system is Kansas City’s opportunity to do just that. The successful MAX

operation has set the stage for future expansions in the following corridors: State Avenue,

Troost Ave, Linwood Street, Truman Avenue, portions of Metcalf Avenue, and extending the

Shawnee Mission Parkway route west to Metcalf Avenue.

Recommendation: First priorities should include routes in Environmental Justice area. These

particularly include State Avenue, Troost, and Linwood Boulevard. Prospect Avenue should

also be considered.

Recommendation: Another first priority corridor is Shawnee Mission Parkway. The highest

number of work trips (Journey to Work, 2000 U.S. Decennial Census) are between Jackson

and Johnson Counties. (Nearly 40,000 people from Johnson County to Jackson County and

nearly 50,000 in the reverse direction).


72

Other Major Fixed Transit Routes

Recommendation: Expand bus preference tools to high volume bus routes, as identified by

the MARC On-Board Transit Survey.

Table V-3: High Volume Bus Routes

12- 12th


24 -

Independence

71- Prospect




39- 39th

Street 53/54- Armour

Swope/Paseo 51- Ward

Parkway


Recommendation: Link arterial bus routes to freeways with HOV lanes, queue jumpers and

signal priority (including transit preference at ramp meters). Create exclusive bus lane

extensions at interchanges where freeways and BRT routes come together. Such connection

can be made by utilizing either ramp metering that gives preference to buses and HOV users

or queue bypass. The lane extensions would work in- conjunction with a light preference

system that allows buses and HOV users to turn on to entrance ramps before general traffic.

There may be particular opportunities for linkages at the roads described in Table V-4

Table V-4: Possible Opportunities for Freeway to Arterial road links

Via HOV and or Bus Preference Tools

Shawnee Mission Parkway to I-35

Shawnee Mission Parkway to I-435

KCI airport express I-29 to BRT system

to promote tourism.

Prospect Avenue to I-70

Main Street to I-70

Metcalf Avenue to I-35

Metcalf Avenue to I-435.

Queue Bypass

Recommendation: Explore opportunities where queue bypass can be used to provide bus

preference at intersection. The queue would allow for the buses and carpools in a

specified lane to go before general traffic at an intersection. Enforce existing queue

jumpers and maximize use at other locations. One current need is on US 71 at the

signalized intersections north of I-435.


73

Bus Preference for pedestrian safety in Environmental Justice Areas

Recommendation: For BRT or other transit services in environmental justice areas,

design bus preferential treatments to promote safety. Pedestrian safety in environmental

justice area is a higher than average and a regional concern. Bus preference features can

make pedestrian access safer. BRT, bus boarding islands, and traffic calming measures,

such as raised crosswalks, speed bumps, sidewalk improvements, and bump outs can go a

long way in making the proposed BRT corridors and other transit routes in

Environmental Justice areas safer for auto, transit and pedestrian activity.

If executed properly, traffic calming measures, can also provide for better pedestrian

access and mobility. Higher percentages of transit riders in low income areas walk to

transit stops. Crosswalks (raised and flat) can permit for better access, by designating

right-of-ways for pedestrians, especially for wheelchair-bound persons. If pedestrian

access to bus and transit stops is increased, an increase in mobility and transit ridership

may soon follow.

Curb Extensions/Boarding Islands

Recommendation: Implement Curb Extensions Where Possible. Curb extensions would

help buses load/unload passengers in a more efficient manner, and would work to

increase pedestrian safety.


Signal Prioritization and Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL)

Recommendation: Implement signal light preference more aggressively on current BRT

service (MAX) and provide some level of signal priority on all major transit routes. Use

AVL units to allow traffic controllers to see where buses are, so that they are able to give

approaching buses green lights at intersections. This can reduce operation cost for transit

operators.

D. Next Steps

In closing the following next steps are recommended.

1. Seek community review of HOV/Managed lane opportunities and constraints

As noted, this study did not include a public involvement component. That is an essential step to

continue a regional conversation with the broad array of potential beneficiaries and stakeholders.

2. Conduct a review of related government regulations and HOV lane enforcement.


74

3. Conduct a tolling study to assess opportunities and constraints and to consider the

following activities: the US DOT pricing pilot project, the Metro Congestion Initiative, the

interest of KDOT, and others in addressing climate change. Missouri state laws involving tolling

should also be reviewed. Finally the study team suggests consideration be given to using toll

revenues to help fund the transit improvements and carpool support facilities that are integral to

the all-inclusive transportation system envisioned in this study.


75

References

Blumenberg, E. and Ong, P.

(1994) Cars, buses and jobs: Welfare Participants and Employment Access in Los

Angeles

Cambridge Systematics

(2003) Twin Cities HOV Study prepared for the Minnesota Department of Transportation.

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

(2008) Managed Lanes Strategy Paper

Corless, J. and Arteaga

(2000) Pedestrian Safety and Social Justice. Surface Transportation Policy Project. Vol.

X(1):8. Federal Highway Administration

Dittmar and Chen

(1994) Equity in Transportation Investments

Downs, A.

(2004) Still Stuck in Traffic, Coping with Peak Hour Traffic Congestion, Brookings

Institute

Federal Highway Administration, FHWA

(2009) High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freewaymgmt/hov.htm

Fuhs, C. and Obenberger, J.

(2001) HOV Facility Development: A Review of National Trends, FHWA

Grimshaw and Mizuno

(1994) Justice in Decision Making, Social Equity Conference Proceedings, Chicago

Hanson, C. and Giuliano, G.

(2004) The Geography of Urban Transportation, Third Edition

Henderson, D.

(2009) An Overview of Managed Lanes in the United States, a presentation to the Mid-

America Regional Council

HNTB Corp.

(2008) ITE Presentation, John Dobies

Johnson County Transit and HNTB Corp.

(2008) I-35 Fixed Guideway, Phased Implementation Plan, Bus Rapid Transit and Bus

on Shoulder, PPT a presentation to the Kansas Department of Transportation

Kansas City Area Transportation Authority

(2004) Bus Rapid Transit Study

McCormick Rankin Corporation

(2003) Bus Priority Measures on Highways, Applications in Ottawa, Canada, Stephen

Schijns, P.Eng.

Mid-America Regional Council

(2008) Linking Environmental & Transportation Planning: A Draft Action Plan

(2000/2001) Travel Time Study

(2002) Vehicle Occupancy Study

(2008) Kansas City Regional Freight Outlook Study

(1999) Preliminary Report of High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV) Facility Suitability in the

Kansas City Metropolitan Area, prepared by MARC staff

(2004) Congestion Management System report

(2008) Rideshare Survey


76

(2001) Smart Moves Regional Transit Plan

Clean Air Action Plan

(2004)Household Travel Survey

(2005) On-Board Transit Survey

(2009) Outlook 2030 and Outlook 2040 in process

(2007) Regional Transit Plan update

(2004) Transportation 2030 Update, Appendix C, Environmental Justice Assessment

Nevada Department of Transportation

HOV/Managed Lanes/Ramp Metering, Public Outreach Primer http://www.nevadadot.com/reports_pubs/HOV/pdfs/HOV_OutreachPrimer_Challenge.pdf

Parson Brinckerhoff

(2009) Workshop presentation, Mid-America Regional Council, Five County Study

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc

(1999) HOV systems manual / Texas Transportation Institute

Shoup D. and Wilson, R (1992) Employer Paid Parking

Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board

(1999) TCRP 100 Report, Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd

edition.

TranSystems

(2007) KCI Airport Area Plan: Review of Multimodal Transportation Needs

(2005) I-35 Fixed Guideway Alternatives Analysis, Bus-Only Freeway Shoulder

Operations Case Study, Draft

Turnbull, K,

Transportation Research Record 2065, High-Occupancy Toll Lanes and Public

Transportation

US Census Bureau,

(2000) U.S. Decennial Census (2000) Journey to Work

US Department of Transportation USDOT

(2003) Houston Managed Lanes Case Study: The Evolution of the Houston HOV System

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

(2009) Sustainability Sustainable Transportation and TDM Planning That Balances

Economic, Social and Ecological Objectives

Documents

REGIONAL HOV STUDY - MARC