Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Regional Managed / Transit
Priority Lanes Feasibility Study
December 2016
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2
Table of Contents
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 3
SECTION 0
Table of Contents
Contents
Table of Contents ................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary................................................................................................. 8
Tier 1 Screening .............................................................................................................................9
Tier 2 Screening .............................................................................................................................9
Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 10
Introduction ..........................................................................................................15
Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................................... 16
The Context for Managed Lanes .............................................................................18
Defining Managed and Transit Priority Lanes ................................................................................ 19
Principal Components of Managed Lanes...................................................................................... 20
Eligibility Control ........................................................................................................................................... 20
Access Control ............................................................................................................................................... 21
Flow Control .................................................................................................................................................. 21
Managed Lanes Objectives ........................................................................................................... 22
Operational Objectives .................................................................................................................................. 22
Financial Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 22
User Objectives ............................................................................................................................................. 22
Managed Lanes Alternatives Studied ......................................................................24
Hard Shoulder Running ................................................................................................................ 25
Contra Flow and Reversible Lanes ................................................................................................ 26
Express Lanes............................................................................................................................... 27
Access-Controlled Express Lanes ................................................................................................................... 27
Occupancy-Controlled Express Lanes ............................................................................................................ 28
Pricing-Controlled Express Lanes ................................................................................................................... 29
Bus Only Shoulder Lanes .............................................................................................................. 30
Truck Only Lanes .......................................................................................................................... 30
Flow Control Corridors ................................................................................................................. 31
Ramp Metering ............................................................................................................................................. 31
Active Traffic Management ........................................................................................................................... 32
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 4
Managed Freeways ....................................................................................................................................... 32
Existing Managed Lanes in San Antonio ........................................................................................ 33
Ramp Metering ............................................................................................................................................. 33
Left Lane Truck Restriction ............................................................................................................................ 33
Hurricane Response Lanes ............................................................................................................................. 34
Arterial Treatments ....................................................................................................................................... 34
Applying Managed and Transit Priority Lanes ............................................................................... 34
Corridor/Strategy Selection Criteria .............................................................................................................. 36
Integration with Regional Transportation Planning........................................................................................ 37
Tier 1 Screening .....................................................................................................39
Existing Congestion ...................................................................................................................... 39
Modeling ..................................................................................................................................... 41
Tier 2 Screening Methodology ...............................................................................46
Safety Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 47
Hard Shoulder Running ................................................................................................................................. 47
Express Lanes ................................................................................................................................................ 47
Contra Flow Lanes ......................................................................................................................................... 48
Truck Only Lane ............................................................................................................................................. 48
Corridor Definition for Analysis .................................................................................................... 49
Detailed Geometric Features and Existing Cross-Sections .............................................................. 52
Strategy specific right-of-way and/or pavement width requirements ............................................................ 54
Right-of-way assessment ............................................................................................................................... 57
Evaluation Methodology .............................................................................................................. 61
Tier 2 Screening Results .........................................................................................65
Hard Shoulder Running – Mixed Traffic ......................................................................................... 65
Inside Shoulder Versus Outside Shoulder ...................................................................................................... 65
Bus on Shoulder ........................................................................................................................... 69
Contraflow Lanes ......................................................................................................................... 71
Reversible Lanes .......................................................................................................................... 73
Express Lanes............................................................................................................................... 75
Access Controlled .......................................................................................................................................... 75
Occupancy Controlled ................................................................................................................................... 75
Pricing Controlled .......................................................................................................................................... 75
Truck Only Lanes .......................................................................................................................... 81
Flow Controlled Corridors ............................................................................................................ 83
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 5
Recommendations .................................................................................................86
Summary of Recommendations .................................................................................................... 87
Strategy & Corridor Recommendations......................................................................................... 88
Strategy: Bus on Shoulder ............................................................................................................................. 88
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic ......................................................................................... 91
Express Lanes............................................................................................................................... 92
Contraflow Lanes and Dual Reversible Lanes ................................................................................ 96
Truck Only Lanes .......................................................................................................................... 96
Flow Controlled Corridors ............................................................................................................ 97
Strategies Not Currently Recommended ....................................................................................... 99
Corridor / Strategy Ranking Criteria ...................................................................... 101
Corridor/Segment-Oriented Criteria ........................................................................................... 101
Criterion - Features in 100 Most Congested Highways in Texas: Weighting of 5. ......................................... 101
Criterion - Project Has Been Identified in State/Regional Planning: Weighting of 5. ..................................... 102
Criterion - Percentage of Truck Traffic on the Corridor: Weighting of 3. ...................................................... 103
Criterion - Annual Hours of Truck Delay per Mile: Weighting of 3. ............................................................... 103
Criterion - Employment density on the corridor: Weighting of 3.................................................................. 103
Criterion - Population density on the corridor: Weighting of 3. ................................................................... 103
Criterion – Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT): Weighting of 5.................................................................. 104
Criterion - Annual Hours of Delay per Mile: Weighting of 3. ........................................................................ 104
Criterion – Effective Congestion: Weighting of 3. ........................................................................................ 104
Criterion - Number of Existing Bus Routes on ML Candidates: Weighting of 3. ............................................ 104
Criterion - Potential for future expansion in addition to the proposed improvement: Weighting of 3. ........ 105
Criterion - Current Park and Ride Facilities: Weighting of 1.......................................................................... 105
Criterion - Potential for additional park and ride facilities based on land available at logical locations:
Weighting of 1. ............................................................................................................................................ 105
Criterion - Opportunities for transit feeder service or innovative solutions such as subscription transportation
or ride-sourcing for last mile services: Weighting of 1. ................................................................................ 105
Criterion - Identify high crash locations: Weighting of 5. ............................................................................. 106
Criterion - Ability of existing cross sections to accommodate Improvements: Weighting of 5. ..................... 106
Criterion - Low income/low auto ownership areas served by Tier 2 corridors: Weighting of 3. .................... 106
Criterion - Ability to improve transit connections between activity centers, and between activity centers and
residential areas: Weighting of 3. ................................................................................................................ 107
Strategy Oriented Criteria .......................................................................................................... 107
Criterion - Ability to Influence Mode Choice to More Efficient Modes: Weighting of 3. ............................... 107
Criterion - Ability to Implement Effective Lane Management: Weighting of 3. ............................................ 107
Criterion - Improved System, Intermodal, and/or Multimodal Connectivity: Weighting of 3. ....................... 108
Criterion - Ability to Use the ML to Develop Transit Networks to Facilitate Transit Travel: Weighting of 5. .. 108
Criterion - Potential for Transit and Carpool Time Savings: Weighting of 3. ................................................. 108
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 6
Synthesis ................................................................................................................................... 108
Numerical Ranking Results ................................................................................... 110
Hard Shoulder Running in Mixed Traffic ...................................................................................... 110
Bus on Shoulder ......................................................................................................................... 112
Contraflow Lanes ....................................................................................................................... 114
Reversible Lanes ........................................................................................................................ 117
Access Controlled Express Lanes ................................................................................................. 120
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes .......................................................................................... 122
Price Controlled Express Lanes ................................................................................................... 124
Truck Only Lanes ........................................................................................................................ 126
Flow Controlled Corridors .......................................................................................................... 128
Strategy Performance by Corridor ........................................................................ 130
Corridor Evaluation Results .................................................................................. 139
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 7
Executive Summary
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 8
SECTION 1
Executive Summary
The Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO), in partnership with the
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT),
VIA Metropolitan Transit (VIA), and other
regional partners, evaluated the potential for
managed and transit priority lanes to provide
reliable travel on the region’s congested
highway corridors, while increasing person
throughput. Of particular interest in the Alamo
region are managed / transit priority lanes
applications that enhance traffic operations
through flow maximization, improve average
vehicle occupancies and transit ridership,
reduce crashes and other incidents, and
improve travel time reliability. Managed lanes
are a family of operating strategies, in existence
for over forty years, that are increasingly
utilized as an approach to effectively and
efficiently use existing capacity, recapture
capacity present in congested corridors, and
provide alternatives to recurring travel time
delay. Specific freeway lane management
strategies have many operational variants,
including system-management techniques (such
as time-of-day restrictions), vehicle-type
restrictions, and congestion pricing.
While increasing vehicle throughput is
important, the ultimate objective is moving
more people as efficiently as possible. All
strategies studied can achieve the goal of
moving more people, and some directly support
more efficient modes including transit and
carpooling. The process for examining these
possibilities in the Alamo region included:
Identify best practices for consideration
and deployment of managed and transit
priority lanes.
Assess traffic and geometric conditions
within the Alamo area's corridors.
Screen regional corridors for
applicability of managed lane
strategies.
Screen shortlisted corridors for strategic
identification and prioritization.
Evaluate regional network
considerations for managed lane
implementation.
Recommend a network deployment of
managed lane strategies.
This analysis yielded two levels of screening
analysis, and subsequent packaging of managed
lane strategy prioritization. The first screening
identified corridors that experience significant
traffic congestion, in order to establish those
corridors that could benefit from managed
lanes and associated treatments. The second
screening identified corridor characteristics to
identify those corridors most in need of
improvement and identify managed lanes
improvements that should be considered for
those corridors. The findings of these two
screenings led to recommendations described
in the full report.
Nine primary managed lane strategies were
considered for implementation to improve the
performance of congested segments:
Hard Shoulder Running
Bus-Only Shoulder Lanes
Contraflow / Reversible Lanes
Access-Controlled Express Lanes
Occupancy-Controlled Express Lanes
Pricing-Controlled Express Lanes
Truck-Only Lanes
Flow-Controlled Corridors
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 9
Tier 1 Screening
Two major elements were taken into account in
Tier 1 screening. The first was the presence of
congestion in the near to medium term.
Without congestion, the impact of the
improvements considered would have little to
no effect. Second, improvements on isolated
facilities will have much less benefit than
improvements that can be extended and
networked. For that reason, in Tier 1, the San
Antonio region was evaluated as a whole to
determine the existing patterns of congestion,
using the regional travel demand forecast
model for 2020 and 2040 conditions. Although
the 2040 model includes managed lanes, these
were removed so as to avoid any
predetermination of managed lanes
effectiveness.
Tier 2 Screening
For Tier 2 screening, specific managed lanes
strategies were analyzed for use on the study
corridors advancing from Tier 1 screening. The
Tier 2 screening process involved several
iterative steps:
Selection criteria development
Safety screening
Corridor definition, segmentation, and
analysis
Assessment of strategy-specific right-of-
way and/or pavement width
requirements
Managed lane strategy evaluation
Quantitative data was used when available.
However, at this level of screening, much of the
data available is qualitative. To allow both
qualitative and quantitative data in the analysis,
qualitative data was assigned a numerical value
based on observed conditions, deployments of
the strategy outside of San Antonio, academic
research, and professional judgment. All
combinations of strategies and segments were
paired together, with differences in scores for
segment-based criteria and strategy-based
criteria contributing to a unique overall score
for each segment/strategy combination.
Highlighted findings include:
Hard Shoulder Running scored well on
most corridors, although it is only
appropriate when sufficient pavement
width exists. This can be implemented
on the inside or outside shoulders.
Bus on Shoulder scored very well on
several corridors, with similar findings
and caveats for Hard Shoulder Running.
This strategy emphasizes benefits to
transit services, where they exist,
without adding new pavement.
Contraflow Lanes are unlikely to be a
viable strategy for the Alamo region,
because no corridor has both the
required directional split and number of
lanes in each direction.
Reversible Lanes require a minimum of
60% to 40% directional split during peak
periods, and only three segments on
two corridors in the region met this
criterion (Loop 1604 and SH 151).
Express Lanes are already in the
Mobility 2040 Plan, and moving forward
in development. Early in the project,
the decision was made to proceed
without any consideration of these
developments, so as to avoid
predetermined results. Findings
indicated all corridors previously in
development were warranted, and rank
very well for managed lane treatments.
Access controlled express lanes ranked
well in some corridors, but not as
broadly as other strategies. Occupancy
controlled express lanes offer additional
flexibility, and yielded more success.
Finally, pricing controlled express lanes
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 10
scored even better, given the additional
access to the express lanes.
Truck Only Lanes have limited
application in the Alamo region, as
truck traffic is not high enough to
warrant this strategy’s deployment in
lieu of other managed lane treatments.
Flow-Controlled Corridors, which
include adaptive ramp metering and
other active traffic management
technologies, scored well, including the
only strategy that can be used
effectively on I-10 and US 281 between
Loop 1604 and Downtown San Antonio.
Recommendations
Based on the Tier 2 screening, the project team
developed a set of recommended managed
lanes treatments for select corridors in the San
Antonio metropolitan region. The
recommendations in this section take into
account several factors, including:
Continuity on connected segments
Strategy / Corridor Tier 2 score
Ease of implementation
Builds upon strategy
Complements other strategies
Based on the above factors, implementing Bus
on Shoulder is the overall highest
recommended strategy. Bus on Shoulder scored
well throughout the Alamo region, so continuity
between various segments can be achieved.
Further, Bus on Shoulder Tier 2 strategy /
corridor scores were high, it is relatively easy to
implement, it can be built upon by other
strategies, and it can be implemented with
other strategies. In terms of sequential strategy
deployment, Mixed-Use Shoulder Running can
generally follow Bus on Shoulder deployment
where appropriate. Implementation of one of
several express lanes can follow after that. By
implementing in this order, the performance of
each strategy informs the order in which
subsequent strategies should be implemented.
Flow-controlled corridors can be implemented
at any time and with any other strategy
examined in this study that is contemplated,
planned or already implemented.
Maps demonstrating individual corridor
segments and recommended strategies for
deployment are provided in the report. A
summary of recommendations for all corridor
segments are provided in Table 1.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 11
Corridor- Segment
Corridor
Limits Recommended Alternatives
1A Loop 1604 Interstate 35 to US 281
1B Loop 1604 US 281 to Interstate 10
1C Loop 1604 Interstate 10 to SH 151
2A Loop 410 Interstate 35N to US 281
2B Loop 410 US 281 to Interstate 10
2C Loop 410 Interstate 10 to SH 151
2D Loop 410 SH 151 to US 90
2E Loop 410 US 90 to Interstate 35
2F Loop 410 Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd
3A Interstate 35 NE Division Ave to US 90
3B Interstate 35 NE US 90 to Interstate 10
3C Interstate 35 NE Interstate 10 to Interstate 37
3D Interstate 35 NE Interstate 37 to Loop 410
3E Interstate 35 NE Loop 410 to Loop 1604
3F Interstate 35 NE Loop 1604 to SH 46
4A Interstate 35 SW Loop 410 to SH 422
4B Interstate 35 SW SH 422 to Division Ave
5A Interstate 10 NW Loop 410 to Loop 1604
5B Interstate 10 NW Loop 1604 to SH 46
6A Interstate 10 I-35 to Loop 410
7A Interstate 10 E I-37 to Loop 410
7B Interstate 10 E Loop 410 to Loop 1604
8A US 281 Fair Ave to Interstate 10
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 12
Corridor- Segment
Corridor
Limits Recommended Alternatives
8B US 281 Interstate 10 to interstate 35
8C US 281 Interstate 35 to Loop 410
8D US 281 Loop 410 to Loop 1604
8E US 281 Loop 1604 to SH 46
9A SH 151 Loop 1604 to Loop 410
9B SH 151 Loop 410 to US 90
10A US 90 SH 151 to Interstate 35
10B US 90 Interstate 35 to Interstate 37
11A US 90 W Loop 1604 to Loop 410
11B US 90 W Loop 410 to SH 151
12A Interstate 37 Loop 410 to US90
Table 1: Summary Recommendations for All Corridor Segments
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 13
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 14
Introduction
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 15
SECTION 2
IntroductionAs with most
metropolitan areas in
the United States and
throughout the world,
San Antonio, Texas
experiences significant
traffic congestion,
particularly during the
morning and evening
peak commute hours.
Much of this can be
attributed to the
region’s strong
population growth,
which is expected to
continue for the near
future (Figure 1).
Mobility 2040, the long range
multi-modal transportation plan for the San
Antonio metropolitan (Alamo) region,
concluded that travel demand and associated
congestion in the Alamo region is expected to
grow substantially. Meeting this demand by
increasing roadway capacity, such as by adding
new roadway facilities and lanes, is one
potential strategy. However, key corridors such
as IH 35, US 281, IH 10, Loop 1604, Loop 410,
and IH 37 are constrained by right of way,
environmental, and development issues.
Furthermore, adding roadway space within
major metropolitan areas is costly and can take
many years to complete.
These physical, financial, and environmental
constraints emphasize the need to meet current
and future demand through innovative use of
existing infrastructure assets. Through the
Mobility 2040 development process, regional
partners confirmed that innovative solutions to
address population and travel growth through
enhanced person throughput, meaning
increasing the number of people a given
roadway facility carries, are necessary.
Through the course of this study, the Alamo
Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO), in partnership with the Texas
Department of Transportation (TxDOT), VIA
Metropolitan Transit (VIA), and other regional
partners, evaluated the potential for managed
and transit priority lanes to provide reliable
travel on the region’s congested highway
corridors. Additionally, this evaluation
examined options for providing new incentives
for ridesharing and transit ridership that
increase the number of people travelling on a
roadway without increasing the number of
vehicles.
Overall, this effort worked to identify innovative
and sustainable transportation concepts that
can lead to better long term performance in the
Alamo region.
Figure 1: San Antonio Regional Population, 1990 - 2015
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
San Antonio Regional Population
Population
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 16
At the direction of the Alamo Area MPO,
metropolitan San Antonio was analyzed to
determine what combinations of managed lane
strategies could assist in reducing current
congestion and that likely to be brought about
by future demand. Of particular interest in the
Alamo region are managed / transit priority
lanes applications that enhance traffic
operations through flow maximization, improve
average vehicle occupancies and transit
ridership, reduce crashes and other incidents,
and improve travel time reliability. Specific
freeway lane management strategies, which will
be discussed in more detail in the next
subsection, have many operational variants,
including system-management techniques (such
as time-of-day restrictions), vehicle-type
restrictions, and congestion pricing. To receive
the maximum benefit from managed lanes,
determining that they are the right fit for any
given facility is appropriate prior to
development.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the Managed / Transit Priority
Lanes Feasibility Study is to inform regional
decisions regarding the future consideration of
managed lanes implementation as a cohesive
network throughout the Alamo region. While
increasing vehicle throughput is important, the
ultimate objective is moving more people as
efficiently as possible. All strategies studied can
achieve the goal of moving more people, and
some directly support more efficient modes,
including transit and carpooling.
The structure of the study involved the
following components identified in Figure 2.
This analysis yielded two levels of screening
analysis, and subsequent packaging of managed
lane strategy prioritization. All of these stages
are summarized in this report.
The first screening identified corridors that
experience significant traffic congestion, in
order to establish those corridors that could
benefit from managed lanes and associated
treatments. The second screening identified
corridor characteristics in order to perform
additional analysis to identify those corridors
most in need of improvement and identify
managed lanes improvements that should be
considered.
Figure 2: Study Components for the Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Study
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 17
Context for Managed Lanes
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 18
SECTION 3
The Context for Managed Lanes Almost every metropolitan area in the United
States has witnessed an increase in vehicle
miles traveled and congestion over the past
decade. Furthermore, highway construction
costs continue to grow, right of way availability
is exceptionally limited, and traditional
transportation funding sources have continually
lost purchasing power. There is a growing
acceptance that with unlimited demand and
limited capacity, metropolitan regions are
unable to build new capacity to accommodate
future demand.
Instead of accepting the status quo as the “best
we’re going to get” in terms of regional
congestion mitigation and interconnectivity,
states and metropolitan areas are evaluating
and implementing creative approaches to
managing transportation infrastructure.
Emerging technologies have allowed for the
development and refinement of strategies to
meet these challenges. Flexible operating
strategies offer a means of addressing mobility
needs and providing new travel options with
minimal roadway capacity improvements.
Managed lanes are a family of operating
strategies, in existence for over forty years, that
are increasingly utilized as an
approach to effectively and
efficiently use existing capacity,
recapture capacity present in
congested corridors, and provide
alternatives to recurring travel time
delay.
Managed lanes systems are
designed to address a wide array
of transportation goals. The
term itself is ambiguous and
can mean different things to
different stakeholders in the transportation
industry, meaning that there is a wide array of
different strategies (Figure 3). However, one
key aspect that all managed lanes strategies
share in common is active management.
Managed lanes actively control demand for
those facilities, in contrast to traditional
roadways where agencies have little control
over when and how often travelers use them.
The ability of managed lanes operators to
manage, often on a dynamic real-time basis,
who uses the facility and when they use it
allows for improved efficiency of existing
capacity. This holds especially true in situations
where options for constructing new capacity
are limited. Latent demand in moderate to
severely congested corridors can quickly fill
capacity that is not managed.
Managed lanes strategies can be deployed to
improve recurring congestion or safety issues at
a specific location, or be deployed across a
highway corridor as a broader transportation
management strategy. In addition, different
managed lanes strategies are often deployed in
combinations to maximize benefits and make
efficient use of the managed lanes
infrastructure.
Express toll lanes
HOV lanes
Reversible & contra-flow lanes
Shoulder lanes
Truck & bus only lanes
Flow controlled freeways
Figure 3: Example Managed Lanes Strategies Commonly Found in the U.S.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 19
Managed lanes encompass proactive
management, control, and
influence of the demand
for and use of surface
transportation facilities.
Under a Managed lanes
system, transportation
system performance is
the primary metric by
which the system is
operated.
Many strategies invoke
continuous assessment
and response in real
time to achieve performance
objectives, such as preventing
or delaying breakdown conditions,
ensuring travel times
and speeds, improving
safety, promoting
sustainable travel modes, reducing emissions,
or maximizing system efficiency. Implemented
actions are further monitored as they start to
affect system performance. This cyclical, real-
time monitoring and adjustment approach can
be carried out at various operational time-
scales, ranging from longer-term strategic
approaches to the short-term tactical decisions.
Defining Managed and Transit Priority Lanes
Since the deployment of the first managed
lanes in the early 1970’s, various types of
managed and transit priority lane systems have
been applied on limited access roadways.
Initial exclusive-use facilities for buses quickly
evolved to allow for high occupancy vehicles
(HOV) to optimize use of those lanes and
increase the number of travelers moved. Within
the past twenty years, electronic toll collection
on managed lanes have added the capability for
many to use the lanes with payment of a fee.
Managed Lanes also include the concepts of
intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and
active traffic management (ATM), which utilize
real-time transportation management
strategies to better inform travelers’ choices
and use of specific routes and lanes of travel.
This expansive use of technology is oriented
directly towards efficiency and safety
enhancement. Regardless of the specific
application, the ultimate purpose of Managed
lanes is the proactive management of traffic
within designated systems of corridors and
connecting facilities.
Managed lanes strategies are intended to
reduce traffic congestion, enhance mobility and
travel options, and improve safety, through the
introduction of controlled use of dedicated or
time-of-day highway capacity. The universe of
managed / transit priority lanes is illustrated in
the continuum of Managed Lanes graphic,
shown in Figure 4.
As can be seen in the figure, pricing, eligibility,
and access controls are combined with various
Figure 4: Universe of Managed Lanes Strategies, adapted from WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff, Texas Transportation Institute, and Federal Highway Administration
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 20
traffic technologies to form any number of
managed lanes strategies. Strategies combining
more combinations of control result in
increasing complexity but are also more flexible
in response to dynamic conditions. In general,
three basic categorizations comprise the
universe of managed lanes, wherein the much
broader diversity of strategies can emerge, as
shown in the figure above.
Dedicated Managed Lanes involves dedicating
lanes for use by any combination of high-
occupancy vehicles, buses, trucks, or any other
vehicle meeting eligibility requirements. Lanes
operate at a higher speed than adjacent general
purpose lanes, creating an incentive to utilize a
lane eligible mode. Dedicated managed lanes
may be oriented towards a particular mode
(such as buses) or they may involve the
reallocation of existing lanes (such as reversible
and contra-flow facilities).
Use of Shoulders either involves operating
buses on roadway shoulders in slower speed
application to bypass general purpose lane
traffic queuing during peak periods, or, using
the shoulders for general traffic during peak
periods to maintain or provide added capacity.
Either option may be deployed in conjunction
with the application of other managed lanes on
the inside of the roadway.
Active Traffic Management (ATM) denotes
application of advanced electronics to assign
traffic priority, lane assignment, speed control,
and flow control, and includes such systems as
ramp metering, speed harmonization, queue
warning, and dynamic re-routing. These
strategies may be deployed in conjunction with
dedicated managed lanes as well as shoulder
use applications.
Principal Components of Managed Lanes
Active management, as previously introduced
encompasses a range of strategies, with three
principal elements: Eligibility, Access Control
and Flow Control.
Eligibility Control Eligibility refers to the restriction of certain
vehicles and vehicle types from accessing a
given facility, which is most often based on
occupancy, vehicle type, or pricing.
Restrictions based on occupancy generally
stipulate that only vehicles carrying a certain
number of occupants – usually two or greater –
may enter a facility. For example, on traditional
HOV lanes, single occupant vehicles (SOV) are
barred completely from accessing such
facilities. By comparison, on priced dynamic
shoulder lane (PDSL) applications, all passenger
vehicles are eligible to access the facility, but
they are required to pay a fee for access (albeit,
free use may be offered to HOV’s).
Restrictions based on vehicle type generally bar
certain types of vehicles from entering a facility,
such as large commercial trucks, or provide free
access for others, such as buses, low emission
vehicles or motorcycles.
Eligibility may also vary by time of day or
change over the life of the facility in response to
changing volumes of various vehicle classes.
Shoulder lane facilities, for example, may
experience growth in the volume of users such
that congestion begins to occur and the level of
service on the facility is degraded. This
degradation of service may require a
restructuring of eligibility requirements so as to
reduce the number of eligible vehicles and thus
reduce congestion in the lane.
For eligibility controlled facilities a hierarchy of
user classifications should therefore be
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 21
established and eligibility requirements may be
adjusted so as to eliminate lower priority users.
Access Control If the desire is for managed traffic speeds in
certain lanes, then another management option
is to separate vehicles on managed facilities
(regardless of vehicle type or occupancy) from
adjacent general purpose lanes and restrict
physical access to those managed lanes.
Access control is often accomplished by
physically separating a managed facility from
other facilities via barrier, such as those
commonly found on express lanes where the
managed lanes are separated from general
purpose lanes by a barrier of plastic delineators.
In some situations, such as a bus-on-shoulder
program in a confined urban area, right of way
(ROW) may not be sufficient to construct a
barrier and a simple stripe has to suffice.
Flow Control Managing flow on any managed lanes system
involves metering of traffic demand.
Metering can occur with traffic signals (such as
ramp or mainline signals), or as a proxy through
variable pricing. Adaptive ramp metering is
commonly found in the United states, whereas
predictive and coordinated ramp metering are
the cornerstone of managed motorway
strategies, as found in Australia.
Most contemporary managed lanes strategies –
such as HOV facilities, queue bypasses, bus
rapid transit, managed motorways, and other
such facilities – do not feature a pricing
component. However, for the 30 facilities
nationally that do, pricing may be set on a
variable schedule, where rates change pursuant
to a pre-established schedule, or dynamic,
where the price for access increases during
times of day where volumes are the highest.
Table 2 illustrates how eligibility, access
management and metering may be used in
managed lanes applications. These are
illustrative examples only.
Strategy Examples Characteristics Techniques in Operation
ELIGIBILITY
Occupancy Lanes based on occupancy provide a priority to HOVs. Typically implemented in congested corridors to encourage shift to HOVs. Designed to provide travel time advantage and trip reliability.
California, Texas, Washington, Virginia, Minnesota, Colorado, Pennsylvania. Arizona, Florida, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Tennessee, Hawaii
Vehicle Management based on vehicle type. May provide a superior service as in the case of transit-only facilities. May seek to improve operations by separating vehicles types, like trucks.
Bus-only: Pittsburgh, Ottawa, Canada; Dual-Dual facility: New Jersey Turnpike. Bypass lanes: New Jersey, Hawaii, Texas, Illinois, Washington, California, Minnesota
ACCESS CONTROL
Express Lanes
Limited access points, reducing weaving and disruptions in traffic flow
I-90 and I-5, Seattle; Dan Ryan Expressway, Chicago
Shoulder Lanes
Limited access to shoulders during peak periods for vehicular travel.
Various cities throughout the US
FLOW CONTROL
Variable Speed Limits
Alter speed limits in real time, so as to avoid shockwave effects of queuing, resulting in smoother flow.
Minnesota, Washington, Utah, Colorado, and Missouri
Ramp Meters
Meters control the flow of traffic onto a facility to reduce turbulence, resulting in smoother flow.
Various cities throughout the US
Table 2: Managed Lanes Strategy, Examples, Characteristics, and Operations
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 22
Managed Lanes Objectives
Just as managed lanes strategies are most
effective when applied in the right
circumstances, they are also most effective
when developed with appropriate goals and
objectives, which may vary based on the
specifics of the project. These objectives are
usually informed by operational, financial and
user perspectives.
Operational Objectives Operational objectives seek to optimize the
utilization of the managed lanes facility.
However, optimal utilization may have different
meanings to different agencies.
For example, an agency might seek to optimize
utilization by keeping travel speeds in the
managed lane above a minimum threshold and
therefore maximize the number of vehicles
using the facility. Such an agency might
therefore impose pricing policies to manage
demand and associated congestion regardless
of vehicle type. Another agency might seek to
optimize utilization by maximizing the number
of people moved within the managed lane. Such
an agency might therefore impose eligibility
requires that favor vehicles carrying more
people such as HOVs, carpools and transit
vehicles.
Other agencies may take a broader view and
optimize utilization through overall congestion
management, meaning it will impose eligibility
requirements, access controls as well as pricing
policies to influence demand in given corridors
so that fluctuations in traffic flows are minimal
between peak and off peak periods of the day.
Reliability for users is thus insured regardless of
when they choose to travel.
Objectives aimed at throughput maximization
will ultimately lead to policies that maximize
either the number of vehicles or the number of
people traveling through a given corridor.
Achieving operational efficiency objectives
means maintaining both high levels of
throughput as well as high operating speeds for
vehicles on the facility.
Financial Objectives Financial objectives are those that set targets
for the level of revenue to be generated by a
facility.
In most managed lanes applications, there are
no financial objectives, as the goal of the facility
is to maximize person throughput on the
corridor. However, pricing-oriented managed
lanes strategies do generate revenue. Facility
operators may therefore choose to set pricing
policies so that potential revenues are
maintained at a specific level, generally one that
allows that operator to meet operations and
maintenance expenses, maintain debt service,
and develop future projects. Operators may
also choose to pursue economic efficiency with
their pricing mechanism, wherein fees are set at
a level equal to the marginal economic cost
imposed on the transportation system by each
new user on a given facility. This is most often
done through some form of congestion pricing,
with dynamic pricing applications being the
most effective at setting price closest to
marginal economic cost.
User Objectives User objectives are those that improve a
traveler’s experience on a given facility. This can
be done by adopting policies that increase
safety, improve reliability, or improve
convenience. These objectives often overlap
with a facility’s financial and operational
objectives. For example, improving traffic
throughput through pricing can address
congestion, thus meeting operational objectives
and improving the experience of drivers while
also generating revenue.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 23
Managed Lanes Alternatives
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 24
SECTION 4
Managed Lanes Alternatives Studied Nine primary managed lane strategies were
considered for implementation to improve the
performance of congested segments.
Examined managed lanes treatments are
characterized by proactive and dynamic
management, control, and influence of travel
demand, traffic demand, and traffic flow of
transportation facilities. With the managed
lanes strategies identified, the transportation
system performance is continuously assessed;
dynamic actions using contemporary
monitoring tools, algorithms and decision
support systems are constantly evaluated and
implemented in real time to achieve
performance objectives, such as preventing or
delaying breakdown conditions, improving
safety, promoting sustainable travel modes,
reducing emissions, or maximizing system
efficiency. Implemented actions are
continuously monitored as they start to affect
system performance. This cyclical, real-time
monitoring and adjustment approach can be
carried out at various operational time-scales,
ranging from longer-term strategic approaches
to short-term tactical decisions.
The nine managed lanes strategies evaluated in
this study are shown in Table 3 below. These
strategies can be deployed to improve recurring
congestion or safety issues at identified
locations, or deployed across a highway
corridor as a broader transportation
management strategy. In addition, the
strategies are often deployed in combinations
to maximize the benefits and make efficient use
of infrastructure.
Table 3: Managed Lanes Strategies Considered
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 25
Hard Shoulder Running
This strategy involves allowing vehicles, often
buses but sometimes passenger and other
vehicles as well, to utilize the shoulder of a
highway facility.
Allowing mixed traffic to utilize a shoulder
requires different designs and operational
strategies than bus only operations (discussed
later in this section) to ensure safety.
Additionally, shoulder design may warrant
restrictions on the vehicles eligible for hard
shoulder running but such restrictions are much
more often the result of the overall managed
lanes strategy. These restrictions may include
limiting the shoulder to use by certain vehicle
eligibility or other characteristics.
In allowing passenger vehicles (as opposed to
just buses), the assumption is that traffic will
operate at speeds up to free flow and that there
will be much higher volumes of traffic on the
shoulder than a bus only shoulder operation.
For traffic to operate safely in hard shoulder
operations, the shoulder
width should ideally be a
minimum of 11 feet for
the traffic, and an
additional width of
shoulder to the median or
edge of pavement of
three or more feet (see
Figure 5).
Also, for right side
shoulder lanes, merges for
entrances and exits must
conform to safe
standards. Hard shoulder
running can be
accomplished in
conjunction with Dynamic
Lane Assignment, which
usually takes the form of
overhead dynamic
message signs that inform drivers when the
shoulder is available and actively managing
access to the shoulder in response to
conditions. Alternatively, the shoulder can be
managed with time of day restrictions and static
signing. While a dynamic lane assignment
system in conjunction with mixed use Hard
Shoulder Running is preferred, systems using
static signing have been successfully
implemented.
Hard shoulder running effectively adds capacity
during peak periods but can increase safety
risks by removing shoulders that are used for
break downs, emergency response, incidents,
and for drivers to divert to avoid a rear end
collision. However, hard shoulders are
deployed in areas where congestion already
exists, and by utilizing the shoulder the overall
capacity of the corridor is expanded.
This reduces congestion and crashes due to
congestion, compared to conditions where the
shoulder is not utilized.
Figure 5: Hard Shoulder Running on I-66 in Virginia
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 26
Contra Flow and Reversible Lanes
Contra flow lanes involve taking one lane from
the off peak direction and converting it for use
in the peak direction, usually using a movable
center barrier. The barrier is moved utilizing
special equipment called “zipper trucks”. Contra
flow lanes are typically installed in corridors
where there is a significant difference in
directional flow during the peak
hours of travel and constraints exist
(physical or financial) that limit how
many lanes can be built in each
direction of traffic. Contra flow
lanes can also serve special event
traffic or be utilized for emergency
management and evacuations.
Reversible lanes are similar;
however, the barriers involved
remained fixed. Flow is usually
inbound to the central business
district in the morning and outbound
in the afternoon. Direction is
controlled using gates that open to
allow access to operating direction
of travel and then close when the
operation is reversed and different
access gates are opened. During the
reversal of flow, all entrance gates
are closed until the facility clears
completely.
Examples of Contra flow and
reversible lanes include:
I-30, Dallas
H-1, Honolulu
I-95, Boston
Tappan Zee Bridge, New York
Coronado Bay Bridge, San
Diego
Selmon Expressway, Tampa
Access points to contra flow and reversible
lanes vary by design. For these types of
operation, the number of access points is
typically limited, often with little or no mid-
point access between the beginning and end of
the facility. As described above, for safety
reasons the access points are usually controlled
by gating systems and electronic signs that
allow the facility to be closed for changing the
direction of operations.
Figure 6: Contraflow Lanes on I-30 in Dallas
Figure 7: Reversible Lanes on I-25 in Denver
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 27
Express Lanes
Express Lanes are a grouping of managed lane
types generally classified as being focused on
providing an expedited trip along a corridor,
thus the term “express.” The facility control
scheme determines the means by which drivers
receive the expedited trip. Each of these
control strategies is discussed below:
Access Controlled
Occupancy Controlled
Pricing Controlled
The type of express lane implemented in any
given region is often a policy decision. The
physical requirements in terms of construction
and operation for each type of express lane is
similar enough that construction and
operational requirements usually have little to
do with the decision regarding which variant of
express lanes to implement. In making this
decision, regional, and/or state policies are
often a key factor.
Access-Controlled Express Lanes Access-controlled express lanes, as the name
implies, limit the ability of drivers to move into
and out of the express lane. The
lanes have been developed as a
mechanism to separate through
traffic from local traffic on urban
expressways.
Although other types of express
lanes often include access-control,
the use of access-controlled
express lanes does not require any
other type of restriction. For
example, access-controlled
express lanes on the New Jersey
Turnpike only differentiate by end
destination, not be vehicle class or
eligibility (Figure 8).
Through traffic access the express lanes prior to
entering the urban core and exit after leaving
the urban core, thereby avoiding the turbulence
created by the multiple entrances and exits of
local traffic. Because of the lack of turbulence,
access controlled through lanes should have a
higher capacity than lanes being used by a
significant amount of local traffic. This can be
offset somewhat, as express lanes are often
single lane facilities, meaning that capacity is
reduced by the inability of traffic to effectively
maneuver.
With access controlled express lanes there is a
trade-off between the number and location of
access openings and throughput. Too few
access points will lower the number of vehicles
able to access the express lanes and might
result in sub-optimal volumes and throughput.
However, too many access points might result
in oversaturation of the lanes and could result
in congestion. Furthermore, the increased
number of access points increases the number
of vehicles maneuvering into and out of the
express lanes, which may impact travel speeds
and throughput.
Figure 8: New Jersey Turnpike Access-Controlled Express Lanes
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 28
This tradeoff in access versus throughput
capacity requires a significant understanding of
the traffic using the express lanes, particularly
the origins and destinations of that traffic.
While express lanes controlled only by access
are possible and is common in large
metropolitan areas throughout North America,
access control is often implemented along with
priced and/or occupancy controlled managed
express lanes to better manage the traffic
flows.
Occupancy-Controlled Express Lanes Occupancy-controlled express lanes are usually
referred to as high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes. In these lanes, the number of vehicle
occupants is the determining factor as to which
vehicles may access the lane. While the
majority of HOV lanes in the United States have
a two occupant minimum, three occupant
minimum lanes are becoming more common as
traffic and demand growth continue within
large metropolitan areas.
HOV lanes have a significant advantage in the
fact that they encourage more efficient use of
vehicles through carpooling. Their disadvantage
is that occupancy-controlled access, by itself,
does not allow for precise lane management
and it is possible for significant over or under
demand to exist.
The use of access-control with occupancy-
control is common, but limited. The majority of
HOV lanes in the U.S. utilize continuous access,
including those in Arizona, Washington,
northern California, Tennessee, and elsewhere.
However, access-control through use of
painted-buffer and dedicated ingress / egress
points are increasingly found, including in Texas
and southern California.
Despite the availability of electronic toll
collection, and increasing use of pricing for
providing access to express lanes, the total
number of lane miles of occupancy-controlled
express lanes dwarfs that of priced express
lanes. Furthermore, state DOTs continue to
construct new HOV lanes including most
recently in California, Michigan, and
Massachusetts.
Figure 9: US 75 (Dallas) Occupancy-Controlled Express Lane
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 29
Pricing-Controlled Express Lanes Pricing-controlled express lanes can exist either
as express lanes that require all vehicles to pay
a toll, or require vehicles to pay a toll that have
fewer than the number of occupants required
to be considered an HOV. In the latter case,
these are commonly referred to as High
Occupancy Toll (HOT) or priced managed lanes.
In the former case, the common terminology is
express toll lanes.
Pricing-controlled express lanes have the
advantage of being most able to maximize
vehicle throughput as the requirement for entry
(payment of a toll) can be controlled in a way to
fully utilize the capacity of a lane. The toll itself
acts as a meter upon traffic: higher demand
carries a higher likelihood of over-use, so the
price is raised in order to discourage that over-
use scenario from occurring.
Political and public acceptance is often a major
disadvantage for pricing-controlled express
lanes. The payment of a fee for use is a
significant barrier,
as media and the
general public
focus upon the
toll value as
opposed to the
congestion-free
benefits of a
pricing-controlled
express lanes.
Additionally,
social equity
issues are also
sometimes raised
as an issue; albeit,
how toll revenues
are used can
sometimes offset
both of these
concerns.
Pricing-controlled express lanes are in operation
on 32 facilities in the U.S. (as of summer 2016),
including extensive use in the Houston, Dallas,
and El Paso regions of Texas, and additional
facilities in Austin currently under construction.
Like occupancy-controlled express lanes, the
use of access-control concurrent with pricing-
control is common, but not required.
Minnesota and Washington have deployed
pricing-controlled express lanes with
continuous access; California, Colorado,
Georgia, and Utah have used a buffer-
separation without physical barrier; and
California, Texas, Florida, and Virginia have
deployed physical barriers – either concrete or
pylons – to fully separate traffic.
In all known cases, the use of access control
was driven by the local build environment and
traffic operations requirements, as opposed to
enforcement or policy concerns.
Figure 10: US 36 (Denver) Pricing-Controlled Express Lanes
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 30
Bus Only Shoulder Lanes
Allowing buses to operate on the existing
outside shoulder in congested areas improves
transit travel times and transit trip reliability.
These improvements can lead to increased
transit ridership. Given the limited number of
buses that will use the facility in any given hour
and the use of professionally trained drivers,
experience with this managed lanes strategy
has indicated no inherent impact on safety.
To operate a hard shoulder for buses, key
provisions must be in place to ensure that no
safety issues are created. These criteria include
limiting the maximum speed buses can travel
(typically 35 mph) and/or limiting the speed
that buses can travel relative to the adjacent
traffic speeds (typically no more than a 15 mph
difference).
Professional drivers can potentially operate
busses on shoulders with a width of 10 feet or
more, especially around bridge piers and other
impediments; however, for this study, a
minimum width of 11 feet is recommended.
Bus on shoulder operations exist in 13 states,
including Ohio, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina,
New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,
Minnesota, Illinois, Kansas, California, Colorado,
and Washington. Minnesota has the largest
system, with over 300 miles of bus shoulders.
Truck Only Lanes
Truck only lanes separate truck traffic from
general-purpose traffic to improve the flow of
goods movement and improve traffic flows in
general traffic lanes. While there are very few
truck only lanes in the United States, separating
trucks from general traffic is common through
the use of truck lane restrictions. Formally
separated trucks, however, yield safety
improvements as well as overall improved
traffic flow as measured on the corridors where
they are implemented.
The New Jersey Turnpike has a barrier
separated set of lanes and interchanges that
trucks are required to use. Cars are permitted
in the truck lanes but trucks are not allowed in
the car lanes.
Adding a pricing
component to the
concept, truck only
toll lanes have been
studied but not
implemented in
Georgia, Oregon,
California, Kansas,
and Missouri as a
way to improve
goods movement
and improve safety
for general traffic.
Figure 11: I-94 (Minneapolis) Bus Only Shoulder Lanes
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 31
Flow Control Corridors
Controlling the flow of traffic onto the mainline
freeway is oriented toward balancing traffic
demand with the capacity of the freeway.
Unlike the other strategies, this concept applies
the traffic management concept across all lanes
in a freeway corridor, which yields greater
efficiency and safety on the freeway as a whole.
The purpose of the flow control strategy is to
better regulate and manage
The most common application of flow control is
the use of ramp meters that control traffic flows
at specific locations. Ramp metering is in effect
in at least some locations in most metropolitan
areas. Active traffic management (ATM), as
implemented in Minnesota, California,
Colorado, and Washington, includes the use of
overhead gantries with lane control signals for
either smoothing traffic or diverting traffic in
times of incidents. Finally, a new approach to
flow control from Australia involves managing
traffic flows in a predictive, dynamic and system
wide manner.
Ramp Metering Ramp meters (or traffic signals on ramps)
control the rate at which vehicles enter a
freeway facility. Ramp
metering can be
operated in a variety of
methods, including
fixed time, real time
adaptive, and dynamic
coordinated.
Fixed time meters
apply a static metering
rate, based upon
historic volume
patterns. More
advanced metering
systems may maintain
a fixed time pattern as
a fallback system in
case of communications failure. Adaptive ramp
metering utilizes traffic responsive or adaptive
algorithms (as opposed to pre-timed or fixed
time rates) that can optimize either local or
clustered conditions. Dynamic coordinated
metering takes this concept further, and applies
in a systemwide context.
As a freeway management strategy, real-time
and anticipated traffic volumes on the freeway
facility control the rate that vehicles enter the
freeway itself. Based on the conditions, the
ramp meter rates are adjusted dynamically.
Ramp meters are utilized in nearly a third of the
largest 100 urban areas in the U.S. When
deployed as an adaptive, corridor wide
approach, ramp meters improve safety by
reducing the number of rear end crashes and
crash rates in merge zones and on the metered
freeway segment. Ramp meters also increase
the throughput of freeways and improve travel
time reliability.
Ramp meters do not change the number or
design of specialized access points; however, to
give travel time advantages for transit or
carpools, several cities have installed HOV
bypasses at metered ramps. This is another
Figure 12: I-15 (Salt Lake City) Entrance Ramp Meter
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 32
method of focusing on person throughput
versus simply increasing vehicular throughput.
Active Traffic Management ATM enhances freeway
operations by dynamically
managing traffic flow and lane
assignment based on prevailing
traffic conditions and presence
of collisions or other incidents.
ATM generally includes
traditional ITS strategies,
including metering, cameras for
incident and traffic
management, and changeable
messaging signs. ATM also
includes contemporary systems
oriented towards variable speed
limits, speed harmonization,
and dynamic lane assignment
through the use of overhead
signals spaced frequently
throughout the freeway
corridor (Figure 13).
Focusing on trip reliability,
ATM’s goal is to maximize the
effectiveness and efficiency of
the facility under recurring
congestion and non-recurring
incidents or road work. Through
the flexible use of the roadway,
it aims to increase system
performance as well as traveler throughput and
safety through the use of strategies that
actively regulate the flow of traffic on a facility
to match current operating conditions.
Managed Freeways The managed freeways concept is a new
operational model for controlling traffic flows
along an entire corridor, not just at key
junctures and along corridor segments. The
concept was created and first deployed in
Melbourne, Australia, under the moniker
“Managed Motorways” (Figure 14).
One of the most basic elements of the managed
freeways concept is extensive, dynamic and
coordinated ramp metering of on-ramps and
freeway interchanges. Access to the managed
freeway is controlled by ramp meters, the
timing and operation of which are informed by
vehicle detection and data collection systems,
incident detection systems, closed circuit
television surveillance and enabled by various
strategic design considerations.
Figure 13: I-94 (Minneapolis) Active Traffic Management System
Figure 14: M1 (Melbourne) Managed Freeway
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 33
The result is a coordinated ramp metering
network that synchronizes the flow of vehicles
entering a freeway with those that are already
on the freeway as opposed to simply managing
the flow of vehicles onto a roadway at certain
locations, as with traditional ramp metering.
Powered by the HERO algorithm developed by
the University of Crete, managed freeways take
collected data on corridor traffic volumes, travel
speeds and ramp queues to dynamically
optimize the phasing of ramp meters along the
entire length of the roadway. In addition to
these advance access control systems, managed
freeway systems can also integrate eligibility
and pricing controls. These may include variable
speed limits, dynamic lane management, hard
shoulder running, advanced traveler
information systems, variable/congestion
pricing, and priority vehicle queue bypass lanes.
Existing Managed Lanes in San Antonio
While most people think of lane
management using tolls, there are multiple
ways to manage capacity on the freeway
system. The San Antonio area is no stranger
to managed lanes, with many applications
throughout the metropolitan area.
This section covers the types of managed
lanes found in the Alamo region, including
use of vehicle eligibility or access control to
manage demand. Here are a few current
and historical examples of managed lanes in
San Antonio.
Ramp Metering A ramp meter typically consists of a traffic
signal or a two-section signal (red and green
only) that works with a signal controller to
regulate traffic flows entering a highway facility.
Although TxDOT no longer deploys ramp meters
in the San Antonio region, they have been
present in the past. TxDOT installed the first
ramp control signal in 1973 on the entrance
ramp from Culebra to eastbound I-10 (Figure
15). By 1980, there were nine locations
equipped with meter signals. All but one of
these were in the downtown area along I-10 or
I-35. The exception was the southbound US 281
entrance ramp from eastbound Basse.
San Antonio also had a meter signal on a
freeway-to-freeway ramp, specifically the
southbound US 281 ramp to southbound I-35.
In addition to the meter signals, there were also
two entrance ramp gates. TxDOT used these
gates to close the entrance ramps during the
morning rush hour to help reduce congestion
caused by traffic influx and weaving problems
due to the proximity of those entrances to
other ramps. The ramps along I-10 and I-35
were removed in the 1980s. The Basse
entrance ramp to US 281 was the last one
remaining in the city, but was subsequently
removed in June 2005.
Left Lane Truck Restriction Many states and regions have deployed
restrictions on truck use of interior freeway
lanes. The purpose of these restrictions is to
provide for greater speeds, reduced friction,
Figure 15: Historic Ramp Meter on I-10, Source:
TexasHighwayMan.com, 2015
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 34
and less weaving impacts resulting from truck /
passenger vehicle interface.
In 2004, the San Antonio City Council passed an
ordinance prohibiting trucks from using the left
lane of US 90 (both East and West) inside Loop
410 between 6am and 9pm Monday through
Friday. This was a trial project to determine
whether similar restrictions should be
implemented on other area highways. A
before-and-after study showed an overall 10%
reduction in crashes along the corridor with a
30% reduction in crashes involving trucks.
However, the restriction has not been
expanded to any other highways within the City
of San Antonio.
According to TxDOT, prohibiting large trucks
from sustained travel in the far left lane allows
passenger vehicles to move more quickly and
freely. It also reduces the number of lane
changes and passing maneuvers attempted by
passenger vehicles thereby reducing the
likelihood of crashes.
Hurricane Response Lanes Hurricane evacuation planning is necessary in
San Antonio, especially to prepare for the influx
of people coming from Corpus Christi, Victoria,
and Houston areas.
Two options are currently provided: contraflow
routing and shoulder lanes. Contraflow lanes
alter the normal flow of traffic to enhance
directional capacity. In order to help evacuate
the Texas Coastline safely and efficiently, TxDOT
identified a number of hurricane evacuation
contraflow routes including IH 10 in the
Houston/Galveston area and IH 37 from Corpus
Christi. When stage 2 of the evacuation plan is
activated, southbound lanes reverse to carry
two lanes of northbound traffic.
TxDOT also provided a plan for using both inside
and outside shoulder lanes as needed to help
with evacuations. Emergency shoulder
evacuation lanes are the first to be activated
during a stage of emergency. These lanes
include special pavement striping.
Arterial Treatments Probably the most frequent type of managed
lane in San Antonio is bus only lanes, or lanes
restricted to use by buses. Because of their
frequent stops, most drivers prefer to find a
way around buses, and bus drivers frequently
cite difficulty merging in and out of travel lanes
after bus stops. Bus lanes are designed to
resolve both issues, but largely depend on
enforcement to work.
There are a number of dedicated bus lanes in
the downtown area including Navarro, St.
Mary’s, Commerce, and Market St. to name a
few. The bus only lane that travels from San
Pedro / Main Street, on the north side of
Downtown to Alamo and south to Commerce is
a bus contraflow lane. It travels in the
southbound direction for a short distance on
Navarro to Alamo, past Alamo Plaza and ending
at Commerce Street. It was put in place to
allow VIA’s buses to access downtown from the
bus facility on San Pedro.
The City of San Antonio also has a reversible
lane system near the AT&T Center that includes
two reversible lane systems over a total 27
signals. Reversible lanes manage the flow of
traffic by maximizing the use of available traffic
lanes. This is done by reversing traffic flow to
meet travel demand. The city is also
considering a similar system for San Pedro and
Fredericksburg.
Applying Managed and Transit Priority Lanes
The Alamo area is not alone in recognizing there
are insufficient funds to undertake major
capacity improvement projects to meet
anticipated travel demand and population
growth.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 35
The region has identified a preference for
incorporating operations and management
strategies into its long range transportation
plan as a means of enhancing efficiency,
improving safety, and generating more
reliability on the region’s transportation system.
In many ways, this policy preference reflects a
more “21st Century” approach to traffic
management; indeed, metropolitan areas
throughout the U.S., Australia, and Europe are
also relying on management and operational
strategies to address anticipated traffic
congestion and growth in travel demand.
The primary difference between U.S.
implementation, including that of the Alamo
area, and the Australian / European experience
is the U.S. dedication of one or more managed
lanes of travel for free-flow condition
maintenance.
In the United States, common types of managed
lanes are HOV lanes, priced managed lanes,
bus-only shoulders, and limited-access express
lanes.
By comparison, Australia and Europe tend to
prefer a flow-control oriented system, where
the operational treatments apply to all lanes of
travel equally. Active traffic management as
deployed in Europe and Australia attempts to
regulate the flow of all vehicles across all lanes
of traffic through the implementation of speed
harmonization, queue warning, lane controls,
junction controls, dynamic rerouting, and
dynamic travel time information.
Despite this difference, the broad implication is
that urban areas across the developed world
are increasingly investing in demand and
system management strategies that emphasize
operational performance rather than broad
system capacity.
Table 4 shows the implementation of managed
lane strategies by state, with a qualitative
assessment as to how extensive the strategy
deployment has been throughout the state’s
urbanized areas. In the past decade, not only
are managed lanes becoming an increasingly
important component of U.S. freeway
operations, but for many regions, managed
lanes have become a featured component for
addressing long-term capacity constraints in a
corridor.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 36
State HOV lanes Bus Shoulders
Priced Express Lanes
Flow Metering
ATM
Arizona California Colorado Florida Georgia Hawaii Illinois Kansas Maryland Massachusetts Minnesota Nevada New Jersey New York North Carolina Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington Wisconsin
= Extensive = Moderate = Limited = None Table 4: Managed Lanes Strategies by State, 2016
Corridor/Strategy Selection Criteria The nature of managed lanes in certain
communities has evolved from a short-term,
corridor-specific, operationally-focused strategy
to a long-term, system-wide, mobility-focused
strategy. Although project development still
occurs at a corridor level for managed lanes,
capacity planning and systems integration are
increasingly conducted at a regional / system
level. In this context, managed lanes are often
considered side-by-side with active traffic
management.
For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area, a
comprehensive phasing plan has been
developed for the development of the
“Freeway Performance Initiative”. In a few
corridors, managed lanes are implemented
concurrent with flow-control strategies to
provide better traffic management. In this
context, the Bay Area generated a prioritized
list of system management and capital
investments for each corridor. From this list, a
comprehensive benefit / cost analysis was
conducted and prioritization / phasing
completed.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 37
For example, for a corridor with a long-term
projected need for managed lanes, a new
auxiliary lane along a portion of the eventual
managed lane corridor might have been
recommended as an initial measure to “buy
some time” until the fully realized managed
lane implementation was warranted and
funding was available.
By comparison, North Central Texas Council of
Governments’ policy endorsing toll road
viability has yielded a system-wide approach to
implementing priced managed lanes.
Both metropolitan regions envision managed
lanes as the principal capacity expansion
function for the 20-year long range plan.
Integration with Regional Transportation
Planning There is no established guidance for the
incorporation of managed lane strategies within
the context of the long-range plan, although a
current FHWA research project is developing
this guidance. Indeed, the development of the
long-range plan as a 20- or 30-year snapshot of
the future network is inherently biased towards
identifying capacity improvements independent
of their operational function.
Again referencing the San Francisco Bay Area,
the region has fundamentally changed the
development of the long range plan through the
Freeway Performance Initiative (FPI).
The FPI created a system-wide evaluation of
regional project priorities, but developed the
list of priorities in partnership with the project
sponsors. Thus, when projects were proposed
for development or inclusion with the long
range plan, the phasing of the project in the FPI
determined its suitability for inclusion. If
iterative steps (as identified in the FPI) were not
conducted first, the project was not included.
This prevents big-capacity projects from
absorbing regional funds. Furthermore, it
shows a preference for operational and
management treatments that maximize the use
of available capacity before new capacity is
added to the system.
An interesting development witnessed in
various metropolitan areas is the extensive use
of regional partnerships to implement and
deliver managed lanes strategies for congested
freeway corridors. Although financing is a key
consideration within the development, it should
be noted that this extends beyond financial
considerations. For example, partnerships with
regional / county authorities, as well as non-
profits (transportation management
associations) and private-sector enterprises,
have helped bring projects to fruition quicker
and with greater regional concurrence.
The current effort to assess the appropriateness
of various managed lane treatments for
application on San Antonio roadways is similar
to the processes undertaken in San Francisco.
Like San Francisco, the Alamo region is
interested in making the most efficient use of
current capacity and not undertaking a planning
process that prioritizes adding capacity. As will
be seen in subsequent sections, the evaluation
framework adopted for this exercise identifies
those corridors and associated managed lane
treatments that are not compatible given
existing roadway dimensions and right-of-way
and would therefore require significant
reconstruction. These facilities and treatments
are not recommended for further consideration
at this time. Furthermore, the scoring criteria
utilized in the evaluation framework was
developed with input from regional
transportation stakeholders, echoing the Bay
Area’s premium on regional partnerships in
implementing managed lanes projects.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 38
Tier 1 Screening
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 39
SECTION 5
Tier 1 Screening In order to concentrate upon those freeway
corridors that would most likely benefit from
manage lanes strategies, the Feasibility Study
project team conducted a high level screening
process known as “Tier 1 Screening”. There
were no preconceived assumptions as to which
corridors would move forward from Tier 1
screening, and all freeway corridors in
metropolitan San Antonio were included. Tier 1
study corridors are shown in Figure 16.
Figure 16: Tier 1 Screening Analysis Study Corridors
Existing Congestion
Two major elements were taken into account in
Tier 1 screening. The first was the presence of
congestion in the near to medium term.
Without congestion, the impact of the
improvements considered would have little to
no effect. Second, improvements on isolated
facilities will have much less benefit than
improvements that can be extended and
networked. For that reason, in Tier 1, the San
Antonio region was evaluated as a whole to
determine the existing patterns of congestion.
Information regarding existing recurring
congestion was obtained from TxDOT corridor
video as well as traffic counts. This information
was examined to identify existing recurring
congestion. The result of this examination as
well as traffic counts are shown in Figure 17.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 40
Figure 17: Existing Recurring Congestion and Traffic Counts
In this first step in Tier 1 screening,
consideration was only given to identifying
those corridor segments with existing
congestion. This approach, while a good initial
step, does not take into account the need for
continuity on the network.
As seen in Figure 17 above, there are multiple
short uncongested segments between
congested segments. Applying strategies only to
those segments specifically identified as being
congested would result in a piecemeal,
ineffective application of strategies.
Therefore, the second step in Tier 1 screening
was to identify logical connections between
congested segments so that strategies
considered would begin and end at reasonable
termini. The corridors were then reviewed with
the working group and further refined.
In this exercise logical connections between
congested segments were developed. The final
corridors taken into Tier 2 screening combined
the congested corridors with the logical
connections between them as well as corridors
that will likely become congested in the future
as described in the modeling discussion below.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 41
Modeling
Existing congestion is an important
consideration; however, San Antonio will
experience significant growth in the coming
years. If this growth is not taken into account in
the analysis, multiple corridors that will become
congested, and may therefore benefit from
managed lane improvements, could be
overlooked. For this reason, modeling runs
were made using the San Antonio multimodal
travel demand forecast model so that future
conditions could be taken into account in the
study.
Runs were made to simulate both 2020 and
2040 conditions. There were, however, two
decisions made that differ from how area wide
modeling is normally performed and utilized.
As discussed below, and as discussed with the
working group, the modeling methodology is, in
some ways, the reverse of how models of this
type are traditionally used.
Based on information contained in the AAMPO
2040 plan, it is known that many improvements
are planned to address congestion. These
improvements are included as part of the 2040
model. So that the impact of planned
improvements could be taken into account,
runs reflecting both 2020 and 2040 land use
were made on the on the 2040 network.
Normally, the modeling runs with 2020 land use
would use the existing network or only those
network improvements projected to be in place
by 2020. Areas of congestion would be
identified and appropriate mitigation measures
would be proposed. Modeling, as the study did,
based on the 2040 network would normally be
criticized for potentially overlooking problems
that could exist in 2020 if the additional
improvements planned to be in place by 2040
were used in the 2020 modeling. However, for
the purpose of this study, the methodology is
sound and useful.
In this study, if the traditional approach using
the existing network or a network with only
2020 improvements in place, had been used,
the project team might have spent resources
examining issues that would be solved with
improvements already planned between 2020
and 2040. In other words, the project team
designed this approach so that only congestion
existing in 2020 that would not be solved with
improvements in future years was revealed.
While significantly different than a traditional
modeling approach, this ensured that solutions
for problems that would not exist in the longer
term were not pursued. A more traditional
approach could have introduced significant
inefficiencies into the study.
The process was described as a “reverse”
process since the 2020 modeling was done in
such a way as to “mask” congestion that could
be solved with later improvements rather than
running the existing 2015 network to identify all
problems that might exist in 2020.
The purpose of this study does not include
completely redefining the AAMPO’s 2040 plan.
It does include evaluating managed lanes
strategies including various types of lane
management. To analyze managed lane
strategies, the project team wanted the analysis
to be performed with a “clean slate” from a
freeway management and improvement
standpoint. For this reason, changes were
made to the 2040 network to remove all
managed lanes included in the model.
This approach resulted in a network that
included all improvements in the AAMPO 2040
plan, except that managed lanes, none of which
currently exist, were removed. This allowed the
project team to begin its analysis including all
improvements other than those in the freeway
management realm without predetermining
any managed lanes solutions. The model
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 42
therefore included the effects of all non-
managed lanes strategies, such as the addition
of lanes, while revealing those areas where
these strategies could provide needed
improvements. In this way, the project team
knew that it was not attempting to solve issues
that were already being resolved in AAMPO’s
2040 plan, so that it could concentrate on areas
where freeway management strategies were
needed and useful.
Using a graphical representation of Volume /
Capacity ratios allowed the project team to
quickly identify areas with probable congestion
and expand the study area to encompass these
areas. In general, the 2020 modeling showed
potential “hot spots” where congestion is likely
to occur within five years. Not surprisingly, the
2040 model revealed much broader areas of
likely congestion. Modeling results for 2020
and 2040 are shown in Figure 18 and Figure 19.
Figure 18: 2020 Modeling Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 43
Figure 19: 2040 Modeling Results
Based on the results of the 2020 and 2040
modeling, the corridor segments taken into Tier
2 screening were significantly expanded beyond
existing areas of congestion and their related
connections previously identified. The results of
the 2020 and 2040 modeling were reviewed
with the project working group, and corridors
that were likely to become congested in the
midterm (2020) were added to Tier 2 screening.
Only limited access facilities were considered in
the study. However, two facilities that are not
limited access appear to become congested by
the year 2020 based on the modeling results.
These are US 87 to the east of I-410 and US 181
east of I-37. While these two roadways were
not taken into Tier 2 screening, if they are
converted to limited access facilities in the
future, some type of managed lane treatment
should likely be considered.
In addition to expanding the facilities moving
into Tier 2 analysis, potential congestion in the
year 2040 identified addition al corridors
showing a propensity to eventual congestion,
but not to the level for inclusion in Tier 2
screening. For this reason, a significant set of
roadways was identified as corridors for future
study.
The final corridor segments recommended for
advancement in the Tier 2 screening are shown
in Figure 20. As shown, there are some
corridors in the San Antonio area that are not
currently recommended for either Tier 2
screening or definitively identified for future
study. However, in the event that any of these
facilities undergo reconstruction, managed lane
strategies deserve full consideration in the
planning and design process.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 44
Figure 20: Corridors Recommended for Tier 2 Screening and for Future Study
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 45
Tier 2 Screening
Methodology
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 46
SECTION 6
Tier 2 Screening Methodology For Tier 2 screening, specific managed lanes
strategies were analyzed for use on the study
corridors advancing from Tier 1 screening. The
Tier 2 screening process involved several
iterative steps:
1. Safety screening - All managed lane
treatments considered for implementation
in San Antonio were first given a high-level
safety assessment without regard to
specific corridors in order to identify
treatments that could pose heightened
safety risks.
2. Corridor definition, segmentation and
analysis - San Antonio roadways advancing
from the Tier 1 assessment were broken
down into “micro segments” for a more
detailed assessment.
3. Assessment of strategy specific right-of-
way and/or pavement width requirements
– San Antonio micro-segments where
analyzed in order to establish available
right-of-way and existing pavement width.
Next, right-of-way and pavement width
requirements for each of the managed lane
treatments under consideration where
determined and compared to the available
right-of-way and pavement width the
selected corridor segments to determine
which strategies are feasible from a
footprint perspective.
4. Evaluation methodology development – In
order to determine selection criteria
appropriate for the region, the project team
convened a workshop of regional agencies
to identify transportation goals for the
region. These goals informed the selection
of qualitative and quantitative criteria that
were then ranked and weighted based on
their importance in terms of meeting
regional transportation goals.
5. Managed Lane Strategy Evaluation –
Finally, strategies and corridors where
combined and scored based on the selected
criteria and weighting. Segments were then
ranked within each strategy to show those
segments that would most likely benefit
from the selected managed lane strategy.
The overall process in arriving at recommended
managed lane treatments for San Antonio
roadways is shown in Figure 21.
Quantitative data was used when available.
However, at this level of screening, much of the
data available is qualitative. To allow both
qualitative and quantitative data in the analysis,
qualitative data was assigned a numerical value
based on observed conditions, deployments of
the strategy outside of San Antonio, academic
research, and professional judgment.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 47
Figure 21: Tier 2 Screening Process
Safety Assessment
If any of the alternatives considered had been
found to have a poor safety record based on
experience in other implementations, then the
alternative would not have been considered
further in this study. As such, the managed lane
treatments considered for this study were first
subject to an overall safety assessment without
regard to their application on any specific
facility.
No prohibitive safety concerns were found.
However, this is not meant to serve as a
definitive safety analysis of any alternative, as
this initial assessment occurred without
consideration of the various design features of
San Antonio’s roadway segments. As such,
significant additional analysis of safety and
other issues and benefits during subsequent
planning and design phases for specific facilities
will be required.
This high-level safety assessment is presented in
the following subsections.
Hard Shoulder Running Information available for two facilities, Virginia
I-66 and Minnesota I-35W, has been reviewed
for Hard Shoulder Running.
Virginia I-66: Based on a safety analysis using
crash data from 2002 to 2004, researchers
concluded that there was no evidence that the
HOV/Shoulder Lane managed-lane strategy had
a statistically significant effect on crash
frequency during peak hours.
Minnesota I-35W: The safety statistics are not
available at this time. However, MnDOT
personnel believe that the facility is operating
safely and as planned.
Express Lanes The safety benefits of operating an express lane
depends on how the system is implemented. If
the express lane is added to a corridor, thereby
increasing the overall capacity, then overall
corridor congestion and associated crashes are
expected to be reduced. The same is true if an
existing underutilized occupancy-controlled
express lane is converted to a price-controlled
express lane.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 48
A reduction in overall corridor congestion is
expected to reduce side swipe and rear end
crashes.
Regardless of type, an express lane introduces
new safety issues that would not exist if the
lane were a general purpose lane. Operation of
an express lane is expected to be at higher
speeds than adjacent general purpose lanes.
This speed differential creates potential safety
issues where traffic is merging into or out of the
express lane.
A variety of designs are available to deal with
this access issue and operate the lane safely. To
improve safety, express lanes often have
buffers between the lane and the adjacent
general purpose lane. The buffer can be a fixed
permanent barrier, pylons, or striping. Access
in or out of the lane is managed by direct
ramps, merge/diverge buffer lanes, or through
open access areas where drivers negotiate
merging.
With the wide variety of available designs for
express lanes, the expected safety outcome of
its implementation is dependent on the
circumstances and design of the express lane.
Operation of express lane in a variety of
locations (Seattle, San Diego, Minneapolis,
Denver, and Houston, among others) has been
accomplished within acceptable safety
thresholds.
Contra Flow Lanes As with express lanes, the safety impact of
contra flow lanes relate to how the system is
implemented. The increase in capacity that
results from the contra flow lanes reduces
congestion and thus improves the overall
corridor safety; however, care must be taken
that congestion in the opposite direction is not
adversely affected.
Contra flow lanes have many design options.
Freeway implementation of contra flow lanes
requires physical separation because of the
potential for very high speed head-on collisions
with opposing traffic.
In freeway applications, it is not recommended
that contra flow lanes be deployed without
positive access control using a barrier system.
Truck Only Lane Truck only lanes are intended to separate truck
traffic from general traffic to improve the flow
of the general traffic lanes. There is limited
experience with truck only lanes in the U.S.
Truck only toll lanes have been studied in
Georgia, Oregon, California and Missouri as a
way to improve goods movement and improve
safety for general traffic.
To date, no truck only toll lanes have been
implemented, so safety benefits of these
systems have not been verified. However, there
is an expected improvement in safety due to
improved traffic flow similar to that for express
lanes.
A summary of the safety assessment of the
strategies is shown in Table 5 below.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 49
Managed Lane Strategy
Reduction in severity and frequency of crashes
Proposed improvement has proven safety enhancement record
Hard Shoulder Running
Reduces congestion and related crashes. Reduction can be significant if corridor congestion is substantially reduced.
Existing information is limited, but no negative safety impacts have been documented.
Contra Flow Lanes and Reversible Lanes
Expands corridor capacity, reduces congestion and crashes.
Proven safety benefits when tied to overall reduction in congestion. Positive separation required to ensure that the possibility of head on collisions is mitigated
Express Lanes – All Types
Managed lane deployments have resulted in reductions in overall crashes as congestion is reduced
Proven safety benefits in US when tied to overall reduction in congestion.
Bus Only Shoulder Lanes
No impact on crashes Proven to have no negative or positive impact on safety (Minnesota study)
Truck Only Lane Removing trucks from general purpose lane can improve GP lane reliability and enhance safety. No documented cases.
Minimal US locations, no proven impact on safety
Flow-Controlled Corridors
ATM and ramp meters are proven to reduce both severity and frequency of crashes
Yes (multiple documented studies)
Table 5: Strategy Safety Assessment
Corridor Definition for Analysis
In analyzing strategies for various corridors
identified for Tier 2 screening, the corridors
were broken down into very short “micro”
segments. This allowed the analysis to take into
account changes in cross-section, particularly
those due to bridges and/or overpasses, as well
as other issues that can impact the desirability
of a particular strategy.
While the micro segments are useful for data
collection, the managed lanes strategies
examined in this study are best implemented
over a reasonable distance rather than in
multiple “spot” locations. For instance, adding
an additional lane as an express lane over a
short distance accomplishes little as the overall
capacity of the corridor will still be constrained
at either end of the express lane.
It was, therefore, necessary to reassemble the
segments into a meaningful corridor for
consideration of each strategy. For this reason,
study segments were reassembled and defined
based on interchanges with major facilities. The
resulting study corridors are shown graphically
in Figure 22 and in a tabular format in Table 6.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 50
Figure 22: Tier 2 Study Corridor Segmentation
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 51
Corridor-Segment
Corridor Limits Length (miles)
1A Loop 1604 Interstate 35 to US 281 9.72
1B Loop 1604 US 281 to Interstate 10 7.83
1C Loop 1604 Interstate 10 to SH 151 10.77
2A Loop 410 Interstate 35N to US 281 5.29
2B Loop 410 US 281 to Interstate 10 8.33
2C Loop 410 Interstate 10 to SH 151 7.88
2D Loop 410 SH 151 to US 90 2.60
2E Loop 410 US 90 to Interstate 35 4.71
2F Loop 410 Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd 1.00
3A Interstate 35 NE Division Ave to US 90 1.15
3B Interstate 35 NE US 90 to Interstate 10 2.48
3C Interstate 35 NE Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 2.21
3D Interstate 35 NE Interstate 37 to Loop 410 8.74
3E Interstate 35 NE Loop 410 to Loop 1604 4.77
3F Interstate 35 NE Loop 1604 to SH 46 17.18
4A Interstate 35 SW Loop 410 to SH 422 4.42
4B Interstate 35 SW SH 422 to Division Ave 3.10
5A Interstate 10 NW Loop 410 to Loop 1604 7.28
5B Interstate 10 NW Loop 1604 to SH 46 15.68
6A Interstate 10 I-35 to Loop 410 6.42
7A Interstate 10 E I-37 to Loop 410 5.92
7B Interstate 10 E Loop 410 to Loop 1604 6.70
8A US 281 Fair Ave to Interstate 10 0.92
8B US 281 Interstate 10 to interstate 35 2.53
8C US 281 Interstate 35 to Loop 410 6.01
8D US 281 Loop 410 to Loop 1604 6.43
8E US 281 Loop 1604 to SH 46 12.67
9A SH 151 Loop 1604 to Loop 410 5.68
9B SH 151 Loop 410 to US 90 4.44
10A US 90 SH 151 to Interstate 35 4.40
10B US 90 Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 2.29
11A US 90 W Loop 1604 to Loop 410 3.30
11B US 90 W Loop 410 to SH 151 3.94
12A Interstate 37 Loop 410 to US90 6.05 Table 6: Tier 2 Study Corridor Segmentation Descriptions
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 52
Detailed Geometric Features and Existing Cross-Sections
Corridors identified for Tier 2 screening were
assessed for existing right-of-way and existing
pavement width, which was then compared to
the requirements of each strategy being
evaluated. The assessment was completed in
the following steps:
Existing geometrics and cross-sections of
each study corridor were researched and
compiled.
The geometric and cross-section
information developed was compared with
the specific requirements of each of the
various alternatives.
Corridor/strategy combinations that would
require significant reconstruction of a major
portion of the corridor were identified.
Short gaps, such as might exist on a bridge
or an underpass, where sufficient cross-
section/right-of-way does not exist was
then identified.
This process is described further in the sections
below. The availability of sufficient right away
and/or the existing pavement is a critical factor
in determining the desirability of a particular
strategy for each corridor. Google Earth
imagery validated by field visit was used to
assess conditions, sufficient for secondary
screening, to determine a facility’s
appropriateness for the various strategies.
Special attention was given to areas around
bridges, overpasses, underpasses or ramps, as
available cross section is often reduced in these
areas. In addition, any areas where the road
width was observed to change were noted.
Figure 24 shows this process in detail.
Figure 23: Corridor Assessment Process
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 53
Figure 24: Right of Way Data Acquisition Methodology
Existing road geometrics and existing cross-
sections were measured using Google Earth
aerials. Information was developed for each
direction of traffic flow to likely right-of-way.
The available pavement and areas that could
relatively easily accept new pavement were also
determined.
A windshield survey of each of the corridors
was made to verify the reasonableness of
information obtained from Google Earth aerials.
For each of the corridor/strategy scenarios, the
available pavement width, as well as an
estimate of the available right-of-way was
compared with the footprint needed to
implement the particular strategy.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 54
While pavement width and right-of-way were
held static during this analysis, the use of the
right-of-way and/or pavement was assumed to
be flexible. In other words, it was assumed that
restriping could be done, and new pavement
could be added as needed if it would not
require major demolition of existing
infrastructure or incursion beyond the
identified right-or-way.
In establishing suitability for a strategy, it was
assumed that width for all travel lanes could be
reduced to a minimum of 11 feet and that
shoulder width could be reduced to a minimum
of 1 foot. For concurrent flow express lanes, it
was assumed that no buffer between the
express lane or lanes and the general-purpose
lanes was required.
It must be clearly stated that these minimums
are not desirable widths, but rather the
absolute minimum that would be needed to
implement a strategy without significant
reconstruction in the corridor. Design
exceptions will be needed to implement these
types of cross-sections, and a full design and
operational study will be needed to ensure that
the horizontal and vertical curvature would
allow such a reduced cross-section.
Available right-of-way for strategy development
was calculated using the right-of-way formula
below. Calculating available pavement width
used the pavement width formula also shown
below. The amount of right-of-way and/or
existing pavement width to accommodate a
strategy was calculated as:
Existing laneage (feet) = (11 feet X Existing number of lanes) + 2 feet
Available right-of-way (feet) = Total width (feet) – Existing laneage
Available pavement width (feet) = Total pavement width (feet) – Existing laneage
Strategy specific right-of-way and/or
pavement width requirements The required width for implementation of each
strategy was developed using the same
minimum widths described above.
Figure 25 maps the use of available right-of-
way, the available pavement width, and the
number of lanes in the considered strategies.
Table 7 describes the right-of-way requirement
for each strategy in detail.
As with available pavement width, the
minimums specified in the table are not
necessarily desirable, but serve to assess if a
corridor could possibly accommodate the
considered strategy.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 55
Figure 25: Use of Available Right-of-Way, Pavement Width, and/or Number of Lanes
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 56
Strategy
Minimum # of existing lanes (directional)
# lanes to be added
Minimum Inner Shoulder width*
Minimum Outer Shoulder width (ft)
Separating barriers from existing lanes (ft)
Total required footprint (ft)
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic
- 1 0 0 0 11
Bus on Shoulder Lanes
- 1 0 0 0 11
Contraflow Lanes
3 0 1 1 2 4
Reversible Lane
- 1
Total 4: 2 for Reversible + 1
in each direction of
GP lanes
8 4 27
Dual Reversible Lanes
- 2
Total 3: 1 for Reversible + 1
in each direction of
GP lanes
1 4 30
Access Controlled Express Lanes
- 1 1 1 0 13
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes
- 1 1 1 0 13
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes
- 1 1 1 0 13
Truck Only Lanes
- 1 1 1 0 13
Flow Controlled Corridors
- 0 0 0 0 0
Table 7: Right of Way Requirements for Strategies
Contraflow lanes and reversible lanes were
considered as special cases due to the nature of
their operation. Because of their special nature
the specific methodology for evaluating the
strategies is described below.
Contraflow
Contraflow lanes are called for in corridors that
cannot reasonably accommodate additional
pavement. Additional operational costs do exist
but they are less than the cost of new
construction and the cost of congestion to the
traveling public.
In contraflow operation, one lane in the off-
peak direction is temporarily assigned to flow in
peak direction. A movable barrier is used to
accomplish this transition. To maintain smooth
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 57
traffic operations, at least two operational lanes
in addition to the contraflow lane are needed in
the off-peak direction.
As a result, locations in San Antonio with fewer
than three existing lanes in each direction were
considered unable to accommodate contraflow
operation. Additionally, as a travel lane is
removed from the off peak direction, there
needs to be a significant directional split during
the peak hours of operation. A directional split
of 66% in the peak direction to 34% in the off
peak direction was considered to be a minimum
to consider contraflow operation.
No corridors in the study area met both
requirements, therefore contraflow lanes were
essentially eliminated from consideration.
Reversible Lanes
While movable barriers are not required for
reversible lanes, the nature of reversible lanes
means that there will be concurrent flow with
the general-purpose lanes in one direction and
opposing flow with the general-purpose lanes in
the other direction.
In general, the concurrent flow will be with the
peak direction and the opposing flow will be
with the off-peak direction. Over a 24 hour
period, directional flow will reverse as the peak
direction transitions from inbound to outbound
and vice versa.
For this reason, impenetrable barriers are
needed on both sides of the reversible lanes to
prevent the possibility of head on crashes. Since
this creates a situation where express lane
traffic cannot easily access the general-purpose
lanes to move around a disabled vehicle,
sufficient shoulder width is needed for the
express lane to enable this to occur. In general
this requires an 8 foot shoulder on one side of
the express Lane, and a 2 to 4 foot shoulder on
the other side of the express lane. This results in
a minimum of 21 feet between concrete
barriers (an 11 foot travel lane plus an 8 foot
shoulder plus a 2 foot shoulder) as well as
additional width to accommodate the barriers
themselves, generally 2 feet on each side. This
results in a 25 foot cross-section for the single
reversible lane alone. As concurrent flow
express lanes can be handled with a lesser
cross-section, a single reversible lane is not an
efficient choice.
The increased capacity of a lane in each
direction, and the reduced operating costs of
one lane in each direction (rather than a
reversible lane) created a scenario where a
single lane in each direction was felt by the
evaluation team to be superior in all respects to
a reversible lane. However, a two reversible
lane strategy can potentially be implemented in
a smaller footprint than two managed lanes in
each direction. For this reason, a strategy to
have one reversible lane was not pursued
further while the strategy to build two
reversible lanes remained in consideration. A
minimum directional traffic factor of 60% in the
peak direction and 40% in off-peak direction
was considered necessary to consider a two
reversible lanes strategy.
Right-of-way assessment The required footprint for the remaining
corridor/strategy combinations were next
compared to the available width currently in
the corridor. As the available width varied over
the corridor, the smaller sub-segments used in
geometric and cross-section data collection
were used to compare the required versus the
available pavement width and right-of-way.
Assessments for sub-segments of a corridor
were then re-integrated so to analyze overall
feasibility.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 58
Figure 26: Right of Way Assessment Process
It is unusual to find a corridor in any
metropolitan area where the strategies studied
in this project could be implemented with very
little or no reconstruction of the existing
conditions. The question becomes what is an
appropriate cutoff between mitigating relatively
minor deficiencies versus the need for major
reconstruction for a given strategy.
For this study, strategies that contemplated
new lanes, other than bus on shoulder, were
assumed to require major reconstruction for
corridors with insufficient pavement width that
could not be easily added or required additional
right-of-way for 10% or more of its length or if
the deficiency was brought about by a major
system to system type interchange. These
strategies include: Hard Shoulder Running for
Mixed traffic, Express Lanes of all types, Two
Reversible Lanes, and Truck Only Lanes. If
insufficient width existed in more than 10% of
the corridor’s length or involved a major
interchange, the strategy was deemed to
require major reconstruction of the corridor to
allow the strategy to be implemented.
In a Bus on Shoulder strategy, buses can merge
back into general traffic in areas with
insufficient shoulder width for operation.
Merging several dozen buses each hour in and
out of a shoulder lane creates far less disruption
than moving the 1200 to 1800 vehicles that a
mixed traffic shoulder lane would carry back
and forth from the shoulder to the general-
purpose lanes. Even with a Bus on Shoulder
strategy, overall, the corridor should be able to
accommodate operation for most of its length.
For this reason, corridors with insufficient
pavement width or right-of-way for 25% or
more of their length were assumed to require
major reconstruction.
Flow controlled corridors utilizing ramp
metering, are not dependent on the right-of-
way available on the corridor mainline.
Therefore, flow controlled strategies were
deemed to not require major reconstruction for
any of the considered corridors. Table 8
summarizes the results of the pavement
width/right-of-way assessment process for
corridor/strategy combinations.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 59
ID Corridor
Len
gth
Hard
Sho
uld
er
Ru
nn
ing
Bu
s on
Sho
uld
er
Lane
s
Co
ntra-flo
w Lan
es
Two
Re
versib
le
Lane
s
Expre
ss Lane
s (all typ
es)
Truck O
nly La
ne
s
Flow
Co
ntro
lled
Co
rrido
rs
1A Loop 1604 from Interstate 35 to US 281 9.72 1B Loop 1604 from US 281 to Interstate 10 7.83
1C Loop 1604 from Interstate 10 to SH 151 10.77
2A Loop 410 from Interstate 35N to US 281 5.29
2B Loop 410 from US 281 to Interstate 10 8.33
2C Loop 410 from Interstate 10 to SH 151 7.88
2D Loop 410 from SH 151 to US 90 2.6
2E Loop 410 from US 90 to Interstate 35 4.71
2F Loop 410 from Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd 1
3A Interstate 35 NE from Division Ave to US 90 1.15
3B Interstate 35 NE from US 90 to Interstate 10 2.48
3C Interstate 35 NE from Interstate 10 to Interstate 37
2.21
3D Interstate 35 NE from Interstate 37 to Loop 410
8.74
3E Interstate 35 NE from Loop 410 to Loop 1604 4.77
3F Interstate 35 NE from Loop 1604 to SH 46 17.18
4A Interstate 35 SW from Loop 410 to SH 422 4.42
4B Interstate 35 SW from SH 422 to Division Ave 3.1
5A Interstate 10 NW from Loop 410 to Loop 1604
7.28
5B Interstate 10 NW from Loop 1604 to SH 46 15.68
6A Interstate 10 from I-35 to Loop 410 6.42
7A Interstate 10 E from I-37 to Loop 410 5.92
7B Interstate 10 E from Loop 410 to Loop 1604 6.7
8A US 281 from Fair Ave to Interstate 10 0.92
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 60
ID Corridor
Len
gth
Hard
Sho
uld
er
Ru
nn
ing
Bu
s on
Sho
uld
er
Lane
s
Co
ntra-flo
w Lan
es
Two
Re
versib
le
Lane
s
Expre
ss Lane
s (all typ
es)
Truck O
nly La
ne
s
Flow
Co
ntro
lled
Co
rrido
rs
8B US 281 from Interstate 10 to interstate 35 2.53
8C US 281 from Interstate 35 to Loop 410 6.01
8D US 281 from Loop 410 to Loop 1604 6.43
8E US 281 from Loop 1604 to SH 46 12.67
9A SH 151 from Loop 1604 to Loop 410 5.68
9B SH 151 from Loop 410 to US 90 4.44
10A US 90 from SH 151 to Interstate 35 4.4
10B US 90 from Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 2.29
11A US 90 W from Loop 1604 to Loop 410 3.3
11B US 90 W from Loop 410 to SH 151 3.94
12A Interstate 37 from Loop 410 to US90 6.05
potentially not viable major reconstruction required potentially feasible
Table 8: Strategy-based Right of Way Assessment of Corridors
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 61
Figure 27: Evaluation Methodology
Evaluation Methodology
After establishing available and required right-
of-way and pavement, the next step was to
develop the evaluation methodology for scoring
facility segments relative to the managed lanes
strategies (Figure 27).
This began with the identification of regional
goals and associated objectives by facilitating a
San Antonio system stakeholder workshop.
Workshop participants articulated a high-level
vision for San Antonio’s transportation system
and then identified goals and objectives for
achieving that vision. Next, the project team
selected quantitative and qualitative metrics
aligning with those goals and objectives, which
were converted into criteria for the evaluation.
The initial workshop engaged representatives
from agencies throughout the San Antonio
region to identify and define the goals,
objectives, considerations, opportunities and
constraints with respect to managed lanes
strategies. The results from that exercise were
categorized and consolidated by the project
team into three broad goals and eleven
supporting objectives, as shown in Table 9.
Screening criteria were developed based on a
corridor/strategy combination’s ability to satisfy
the established goals and objectives.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 62
Goals Objectives
A Provide a Smart, Integrated Transportation System
1 Increase transit and carpool mode share
2 Accommodate future travel demand growth
3 Enhance connections and reliability between economic activity centers
4 Preserve and recapture available capacity
B Provide a Reliable and Efficient Transportation System
1 Improve travel time reliability in peak periods
2 Reduce travel time delay in peak periods
3 Increase person throughput
4 Increase vehicular throughput
C Provide Safe and Equitable Transportation Systems
1 Reduce crashes
2 Improve operations to minimize conflicts
3 Provide access to service for all income levels
Table 9: Goals and Objectives for Regional Managed Lanes Strategies
Subsequent stages of the screening process
relied on more detailed data than previous
stages of the process. In cases where
quantitative data was available, it was utilized.
Data from city, county, state and federal
transportation agencies as well as other data
resources where used in the development of
the screening criteria. As most criteria can help
assess the performance of each scenario for a
multitude of goals/objectives, a one-to-one
relationship between a specific criterion and a
specific objective does not exist.
The screening criteria developed apply to either
the regional corridors identified for valuation,
the strategies under consideration, or (for one
criterion) both corridors and strategies. For the
final stage of screening process corridors /
segments were paired with managed lanes
strategies and the sum of the corridor /
segment and strategy criterion yielded one
overall score for each combination. Each
criterion in each category was scored a zero (0),
one and a half (1.5), or three (3). While these
numbers may seem somewhat unusual, they
allow a reasonable differentiation between
corridor/strategy combinations without one
criterion dominating the selection. In general,
zero was assigned where the corridor / strategy
combination has little or no positive impact, or
even potentially a negative impact; one and a
half was assigned where there was a moderate
positive impact; and three was assigned where
there was a significant positive impact. In this
way, the highest ranking went to those
strategies that best achieve the project goals.
Each of the criteria was also weighted as either
one (1), three (3), or five (5). A rating of one
indicated the criterion would be tangentially
beneficial to the project; three was assigned
when the criterion was felt to be important, but
not critical; and five was assigned to those
criteria felt to be critical to the overall project
goals. A brief description and weighting of each
criterion is shown in Table 10 below. Additional
information on each criterion scoring and
weighting is provided in Appendix 1; whereas,
numerical rankings for each of the following
synthesis criteria ranking are in Appendix 2.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 63
Criteria Description Weight
Corridor or segment is featured in TxDOT’s listing of the 100 Most Congested Highways in Texas
5
Corridor / segment is identified in State and/or Regional plans 5
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for the corridor / segment as per TxDOT 5
Contains high crash locations 5
Ability of existing cross sections to accommodate Improvements 5
Ability to Use the ML to Develop Transit Networks to Facilitate Transit Travel 5
Annual Hours of Truck Delay per Mile 3
Trucks as a percentage of all traffic on the corridor/segment 3
Employment density along the corridor / segment as per the 2014 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data set from the US Census
3
Population density along the corridor / segment as per the US Census Bureau's 2010-2014 American Community Survey
3
Effective congestion (combination of data from TxDOT) 3
Annual Hours of Delay per Mile (combination of data from TxDOT) 3
Number of Existing Bus Routes along the corridor / segment 3
Potential for future expansion in addition to the proposed improvement based on available right-of-way
3
Presence of low income/low auto ownership areas served by Tier 2 corridors 3
Ability to improve transit connections between activity centers, and between activity centers and residential areas
3
Ability to Influence Mode Choice to More Efficient Modes 3
Ability to Implement Effective Lane Management 3
Improved System, Intermodal, and/or Multimodal Connectivity 3
Potential for Transit and Carpool Time Savings 3
Current park and ride facilities along the corridor / segment 1
Opportunities for transit feeder service or innovative solutions such as subscription transportation or ride-sourcing for last mile services
1
Potential for additional park and ride facilities based on land available at logical locations 1
Table 10: Description and Weighting of Criteria
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 64
Tier 2 Screening
Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 65
SECTION 7
Tier 2 Screening Results
Figure 28: Tier 2 Screening Evaluation Process
After the developing the evaluation
methodology, establishing criteria and assigning
scores and weights, the next step was to
conduct the actual scoring of corridor segments
and strategies. All combinations of strategies
and segments were paired together, with
differences in scores for segment-based criteria
and strategy-based criteria contributing to a
unique overall score for each segment /
strategy combination.
The following pages show the performance of
San Antonio area corridors for each strategy,
with figures and tables that summarize the
evaluation of corridors and their relative ranks
within each strategy.
How strategies work together in a network
setting will be more important than their
specific ranking with a specific corridor. For
instance, it would not be appropriate to
implement Flow Control on a corridor, Price
Controlled Express Lanes on the adjacent
corridor, and then Truck Only Lanes on the next
corridor. However, how each strategy fares in
each corridor is of interest, and Appendix 3
summarizes the performance of strategies for
each corridor.
Hard Shoulder Running – Mixed Traffic
Hard Shoulder Running scored well on most
corridors. However, there is one caveat that
should be kept in mind when considering Hard
Shoulder Running: it is only appropriate when
sufficient pavement width exists to
accommodate it without adding pavement. If
adding a full lane of pavement is necessary to
implement a strategy, some type of express
lane is likely a better choice.
Inside Shoulder Versus Outside Shoulder Either Bus on Shoulder (discussed in the next
section) or Mixed Traffic Hard Shoulder Running
as discussed below can be implemented on the
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 66
inside shoulder, next to the median, or on the
outside shoulder outside of the right-most lane
of traffic. There are advantages and
disadvantages to both approaches.
Outside shoulders allow priority traffic such as
busses and HOVs (if allowed) to access the
priority lane without having to merge across
multiple general purpose lanes. This reduces
weaving and is particularly beneficial when the
Hard Shoulder Running segments are fairly
short. In these shorter segments, the Hard
Shoulder may be underutilized if it is the inside
shoulder as the time necessary to access the
lane may not be fully offset by the relatively
short travel in the priority lane.
The main disadvantage of outside shoulder use,
particularly when used as a priority lane
restricted to certain vehicles, is interference
with entering and exiting traffic. This is most
common when Hard Shoulder use extends
through an interchange, however, it can also
occur to a lesser extent when Hard Shoulder
use extends to or from an exit or entrance.
Usually at entrances or exits, general purpose
traffic will mix with priority traffic to the extent
necessary to allow entry or exit to be
accomplished. This can degrade the
performance of the Hard Shoulder Running
where the shoulder is used for priority traffic.
This is especially problematic where traffic for
an exit backs up past the beginning of the exit
ramp. It can also significantly complicate
enforcement as it can be difficult to
differentiate between general purpose traffic in
the lane to make a needed maneuver and
drivers trying to illegally use the shoulder.
Using the inside shoulder for hard shoulder
running tends to allow the shoulder to operate
in a manner closer to an exclusive managed
lane. If the lane is intended for priority traffic,
there is no need for general purpose traffic to
travel on the hard shoulder. This eliminates
interference for and from entering and exiting
traffic.
As the majority of fully established Express
Lanes are on the inside lane(s), use of an inside
shoulder for hard shoulder running enables a
much better transition from the Express Lane
into the shoulder designated for hard shoulder
running or from the hard shoulder into the
Express Lane when the Express Lane and the
Hard Shoulder are contiguous. In situations
where this will occur, or is likely to occur in the
relatively near future, an inside shoulder is
preferred.
The main disadvantage of using an inside
shoulder for Hard Shoulder running is that
traffic must merge across several lanes to
access the shoulder. This is most
disadvantageous when the shoulder is being
used for priority traffic.
In any decision regarding whether to use the
inside or the outside shoulder, significant design
and operational issues must be examined. For
that reason, in this study, specific decisions
regarding whether the inside or outside
shoulder were not made. However, on facilities
where hard shoulders are likely to connect to
Express Lanes, the inside shoulder likely has an
advantage. This would include facilities such as
US 281 south of Loop 1604 and I-10 south of
Loop 1604, as both of these facilities could
connect to the Occupancy Controlled Express
Lanes being constructed on these facilities
north of Loop 1604.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 67
Figure 29: Hard Shoulder Running with Mixed Traffic – Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 68
Corridor Number
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Rating
3D Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410 Very good
2C Loop 410 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Very good
1C Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Good
2A Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Good
1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good
3E Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good
2B Loop 410 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good
5A Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good
8D US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good
3B Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10 Good
3C Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 Good
3F Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Good
8B US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Good
12A Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Good
10A US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Fair
3A Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 Fair
8C US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410 Fair
1A Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Fair
8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair
10B US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 Fair
6A Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410 Fair
4B Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave Fair
2D Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90 Fair
5B Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair
8A US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Fair
11B US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151 Fair
9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Fair
2E Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35 Fair
7B Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Fair
4A Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Fair
7A Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410 Poor
9B SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90 Poor
11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Poor
2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Poor Table 11: Corridor Ranking for Hard Shoulder Running with Mixed Traffic
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 69
Bus on Shoulder
Bus on Shoulder scored well on almost all
corridors, and very well on several corridors.
The differences in scoring for this strategy
relative to Mixed Use Hard Shoulder Running
are the result of the specific transit benefits of
Bus on Shoulder. The same caveat discussed for
Mixed Use Hard Shoulder Running regarding
lane addition also applies to Bus on Shoulder: it
is appropriate when there is sufficient existing
pavement to accommodate the strategy
without adding new pavement.
Figure 30: Bus on Shoulder Lanes – Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 70
Corridor Number
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Rating
3D Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410 Very good
2C Loop 410 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Very good
1C Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Very good
2A Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Very good
1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Very good
3E Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Very good
2B Loop 410 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good
5A Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good
3B Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10 Good
3C Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 Good
3F Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Good
8B US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Good
12A Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Good
10A US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Good
3A Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 Good
8D US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good
8C US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410 Good
1A Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Good
8A US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Good
8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Good
4B Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave Fair
2D Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90 Fair
5B Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair
10B US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 Fair
6A Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410 Fair
11B US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151 Fair
9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Fair
2E Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35 Fair
7B Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Fair
4A Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Fair
7A Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410 Fair
9B SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90 Fair
11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Fair
2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Poor Table 12: Corridor Ranking for Bus on Shoulder Lanes
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 71
Contraflow Lanes
Contraflow lanes are unlikely to be a viable
strategy for the San Antonio Metropolitan
region because no corridor in the region has
both the required directional split (66.7/33.3)
and the required number of lanes (three
minimum) in each direction. Nonetheless, the
strategy was evaluated based on the study
criteria, but was not ranked due to the
unlikelihood of implementation.
Figure 31: Contraflow Lanes – Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 72
Corridor Number
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Score
3D Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable
5A Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable
2C Loop 410 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Potentially not viable
3B Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10 Potentially not viable
3C Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 Potentially not viable
1C Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Potentially not viable
2A Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Potentially not viable
1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Potentially not viable
3E Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable
2B Loop 410 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Potentially not viable
8C US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable
8D US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable
8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Potentially not viable
3F Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Potentially not viable
3A Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 Potentially not viable
6A Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable
8B US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Potentially not viable
12A Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Potentially not viable
10A US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Potentially not viable
1A Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Potentially not viable
8A US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Potentially not viable
4B Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave Potentially not viable
2D Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90 Potentially not viable
5B Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Potentially not viable
10B US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 Potentially not viable
2E Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35 Potentially not viable
11B US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151 Potentially not viable
9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable
7B Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable
4A Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Potentially not viable
7A Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable
9B SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90 Potentially not viable
11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable
2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Potentially not viable Table 13: Corridor Ranking for Contraflow Lanes
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 73
Reversible Lanes
Reversible Lanes were required to have a
minimum of a 60% to 40% directional split and
only three segments in the region met this
criterion. Furthermore, due to this strategy’s
relatively low scores, the need for major
reconstruction, and the low continuity between
segments, reversible lanes are not a highly
ranked strategy for the San Antonio area.
Figure 32: Dual Reversible Lanes – Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 74
Corridor Number
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Rating
1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good
9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Poor
9B SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90 Poor
3D Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable
5A Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable
2C Loop 410 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Potentially not viable
3B Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10 Potentially not viable
3C Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 Potentially not viable
1C Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Potentially not viable
2A Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Potentially not viable
3E Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable
2B Loop 410 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Potentially not viable
8D US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable
8C US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable
8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Potentially not viable
3F Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Potentially not viable
3A Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 Potentially not viable
6A Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable
8B US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Potentially not viable
12A Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Potentially not viable
10A US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Potentially not viable
1A Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Potentially not viable
8A US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Potentially not viable
4B Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave Potentially not viable
2D Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90 Potentially not viable
5B Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Potentially not viable
10B US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 Potentially not viable
2E Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35 Potentially not viable
11B US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151 Potentially not viable
7B Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Potentially not viable
4A Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Potentially not viable
7A Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable
11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Potentially not viable
2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Potentially not viable Table 14: Corridor Ranking for Dual Reversible Lanes
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 75
Express Lanes
Express Lanes are part of the Mobility 2040 long
range plan, with projects on I-10, US 281, Loop
1604, and I-35 already in development. The
decision was made to proceed without any
consideration of previous decisions. This
eliminated the possibly of “predetermined
results”; however, the study’s analysis found all
of these projects are warranted.
Access Controlled Access Controlled Express Lanes rank well in
some corridors but did not score as well and as
broadly as other strategies. Segments that
perform well reflect similar opportunities with
other capacity oriented options.
Occupancy Controlled Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes scored well
over a broad area. They offer additional
flexibility compared to Access Controlled
Express Lanes and the ability to encourage
more efficient mode choice, which led to this
overall higher score.
Pricing Controlled Pricing Controlled Express Lanes also scored
well over a broad area. Combining pricing with
occupancy control operations, in particular,
maintains the ability to encourage more
efficient mode choice while the pricing element
allows for consistent maximization of overall
vehicle and person throughput in the lane.
Figure 33: Access Controlled Express Lanes – Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 76
Corridor Number
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Rating
3D Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410 Very good
2C Loop 410 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Good
1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good
3E Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good
5A Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good
1C Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Good
2A Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Good
3B Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10 Good
3C Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 Good
2B Loop 410 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good
8B US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Good
12A Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Good
10A US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Fair
3A Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 Fair
8D US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Fair
3F Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair
8C US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410 Fair
8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair
5B Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair
6A Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410 Fair
4B Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave Fair
2D Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90 Fair
10B US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 Fair
1A Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Fair
8A US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Fair
11B US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151 Fair
2E Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35 Fair
7B Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Fair
4A Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Fair
9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Fair
7A Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410 Poor
11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Poor
9B SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90 Poor
2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Poor Table 15: Corridor Ranking for Access Controlled Express Lanes
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 77
Figure 34: Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes - Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 78
Corridor Number
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Rating
3D Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410 Very good
2C Loop 410 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Very good
1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good
3E Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good
5A Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good
1C Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Good
2A Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Good
3B Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10 Good
3C Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 Good
2B Loop 410 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good
10A US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Good
8D US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good
8B US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Good
12A Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Good
3F Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Good
8C US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410 Good
1A Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Good
3A Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 Good
8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Good
4B Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave Fair
10B US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 Fair
8A US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Fair
6A Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410 Fair
2D Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90 Fair
2E Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35 Fair
5B Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair
11B US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151 Fair
7B Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Fair
4A Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Fair
9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Fair
7A Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410 Fair
11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Fair
9B SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90 Poor
2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Poor Table 16: Corridor Ranking for Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 79
Figure 35: Pricing Controlled Express Lanes – Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 80
Corridor Number
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Rating
3D Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410 Very good
2C Loop 410 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Very good
1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good
3E Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good
5A Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good
1C Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Good
2A Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Good
3B Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10 Good
3C Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 Good
2B Loop 410 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good
8D US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good
8B US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Good
12A Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Good
3F Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Good
8C US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410 Good
3A Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 Good
8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Good
10A US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Fair
6A Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410 Fair
4B Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave Fair
2D Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90 Fair
5B Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair
10B US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 Fair
1A Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Fair
8A US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Fair
11B US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151 Fair
2E Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35 Fair
7B Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Fair
4A Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Fair
9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Fair
7A Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410 Fair
11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Fair
9B SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90 Poor
2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Poor Table 17: Corridor Ranking for Pricing Controlled Express Lanes
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 81
Truck Only Lanes
Truck Only Lanes are a very specialized strategy
with a relatively small deployment in the United
States. While San Antonio does have a
significant amount of freight traffic, other types
of Express Lanes are likely to offer a greater
benefit to the transportation network as a
whole.
Figure 36: Truck Only Lanes – Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 82
Corridor Number
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Rating
3D Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410 Good
2C Loop 410 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Good
1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good
2B Loop 410 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good
3E Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good
1C Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Fair
5A Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Fair
2A Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Fair
3F Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair
3B Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10 Fair
3C Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 Fair
8D US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Fair
8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair
8B US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Fair
12A Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Fair
8C US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410 Fair
3A Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 Fair
10B US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 Fair
5B Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair
1A Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Fair
10A US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Fair
2D Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90 Fair
6A Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410 Fair
4B Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave Poor
8A US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Poor
11B US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151 Poor
2E Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35 Poor
7B Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Poor
4A Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Poor
9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Poor
11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Poor
7A Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410 Poor
9B SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90 Poor
2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Poor Table 18: Corridor Ranking for Truck Only Lanes
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 83
Flow Controlled Corridors
Due to their comparatively low cost and the fact
that no right-of-way on the actual mainline
facility is required, Flow Controlled Corridors
(adaptive ramp metering) scored well. This
strategy is also the only one that can be used
effectively on I-10 between 1604 and I-410, and
US 281 between 1604 and the Central Business
District without requiring a major investment in
the corridor.
Figure 37: Flow Controlled Corridors – Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 84
Corridor Number
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Rating
3D Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410 Very good
2C Loop 410 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Good
1C Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 to SH 151 Good
1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good
5A Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good
2A Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281 Good
3E Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good
3B Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10 Good
3C Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37 Good
2B Loop 410 between US 281 to Interstate 10 Good
3F Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Good
8D US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Good
8B US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35 Fair
12A Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90 Fair
8C US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410 Fair
8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair
10B US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37 Fair
3A Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 Fair
4B Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave Fair
10A US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35 Fair
5B Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 Fair
6A Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410 Fair
1A Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281 Fair
2D Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90 Fair
2E Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35 Fair
8A US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10 Fair
11B US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151 Fair
9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Fair
7B Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Poor
4A Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422 Poor
7A Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410 Poor
9B SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90 Poor
11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Poor
2F Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd Poor Table 19: Corridor Ranking for Flow Controlled Corridors
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 85
Recommendations
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 86
SECTION 8
Recommendations
Figure 38: Recommendations for Managed Lanes Strategies
Based on the Tier 2 screening, the project team
developed a set of recommended managed
lanes treatments for select corridors in the San
Antonio metropolitan region. The
recommendations in this section take into
account several factors, shown in Figure 39.
Figure 39: Strategy Recommendation Factors
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 87
Summary of Recommendations
Based on the above factors, implementing Bus
on Shoulder is the overall highest
recommended strategy. Bus on Shoulder scored
well throughout the Alamo region, so continuity
between various segments can be achieved.
Further, Bus on Shoulder Tier 2
strategy/corridor scores were high, it is
relatively easy to implement, it can be built
upon by other strategies, and it can be
implemented with other strategies. In fact, bus
on shoulder makes an excellent partner with
the HOV lanes already approved for US 281 and
I-10 north of the 1604 Loop. In total, and using
the vernacular, Bus on Shoulder provides an
excellent “Bang for the Buck”.
In terms of sequential strategy deployment,
Mixed-Use Shoulder Running can generally
follow Bus on Shoulder implementation where
appropriate. Implementation of one of several
express lanes can follow after that. By
implementing in this order, the performance of
each strategy informs the order in which
subsequent strategies should be implemented.
Flow-controlled corridors can be implemented
at any time and with any other strategy
examined in this study that is contemplated,
planned or already implemented. Therefore,
flow controlled corridors are discussed
separately from other strategies.
The next section presents specific corridors with
associated managed lanes strategies for
consideration. To facilitate better
comprehension of the recommendations
presented in the following pages, the corridor
identification graphic previously presented is
replicated in Figure 40 below.
Figure 40: Study Corridors and Segments
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 88
Strategy & Corridor Recommendations
Strategy: Bus on Shoulder Bus on Shoulder as a strategy scored very well
on almost all corridors and exceptionally well
on several (Figure 41). It is the simplest strategy
to implement of all under consideration.
Therefore, it is relatively inexpensive and can be
implemented relatively quickly. Further, the Bus
on Shoulder strategy complements the HOV
lanes that have been approved for construction
on I-10 north of 1604 Loop, and US 281 north of
the 1604 Loop.
For these reasons, it is the strategy
recommended for first implementation. The
next section describes a potential
implementation plan for Bus-on-Shoulders in
the San Antonio area.
Figure 41: Recommendation Factors for Bus on Shoulder Strategies
Numerous segments along I-410, specifically
those from Valley Hi Drive south of US 90 to I-
35 (corridors 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D and a portion of
2E), scored very well and, in total, represent a
significant continuous corridor.
Multiple VIA routes already exist on these
corridors and major trip generators and
attractors are located in the corridors, including
Lackland Air Force Base, Port San Antonio,
North Star Mall, and the San Antonio
International Airport.
Given these factors this section of I-410 is the
ideal corridor for initial deployment of Bus-on-
Shoulders.
Segments of I-35 and Loop 1604 are also
recommended for consideration for Bus-on-
Shoulder implementation. A map showing the
recommended corridors and associated
segments for the implementation of Bus-on-
Shoulder is shown below in Figure 42.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 89
Figure 42: Recommended Alamo Area Corridors and Associated Segments for Bus on Shoulder Implementation
Based on Strategy/Corridor Tier 2 Scoring, the
Loop 410 Corridor should receive the highest
priority for Bus-on-Shoulder implementation,
with prioritization of segments (based on
evaluation and continuity) as follows:
1. 2C - Loop 410 between I-10 to SH 151
2. 2A - Loop 410 between I-35 to US 281
3. 2B - Loop 410 between US 281 to I-10
4. 2D - Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90
5. 2E - Loop 410 between US 90 to I-35
I-35 between US 281 and Loop 1604 (corridors
3D and 3E) is the next logical implementation of
Bus on Shoulder. Both corridors scored
exceptionally well and the recommended
implementation order is:
1. 3D – I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410
2. 3E – I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604
Either corridor supports implementations that
are assumed to have already been completed
on I-410. Because of this, other factors can also
be considered regarding whether the corridors
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 90
are implemented simultaneously, or what the
actual implementation order will be.
Loop 1604 between SH-151 and I-35 is the next
logical implementation. All corridors, 1A, 1B,
and 1C all scored very highly, and there is
flexibility on the order that they would be
implemented. Based on continuity and Tier 2
scoring, the recommended implementation
order is:
1. 1B - Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10
2. 1C - Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151
3. 1A - Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281
The I-10 corridor from northwest of the city to
downtown San Antonio is a special case. This is
due to the HOV lanes planned north of Loop
1604, and with the potential for significant
investment that would be necessary to
implement the strategy between Loop 1604 and
I-410.
An HOV lane provides more benefit than bus on
shoulder. It allows better operating conditions,
and it also allows vehicles other than buses to
access the lane. The HOV status also
encourages the efficient use of the lane by
encouraging multiple occupant vehicles, either
buses or HOV’s. Because of the additional HOV
benefits, implementation of Bus on Shoulder on
I-10 north of Loop 1604 is not recommended at
this time.
Implementing Bus on Shoulder on segment 6A
allows premium bus service to bypass
congestion between the I-410 loop and I-35.
However, without the ability to implement Bus
on Shoulder between Loop 1604 and I-410, a
significant gap exists. Closing this gap would
provide a continuous bus route between the
areas north of Loop 1604 and downtown San
Antonio.
For this reason, a deeper analysis was made of
the segment of I-10 between Loop 1604 and I-
410. Given the HOV lanes being constructed
north of Loop 1604 and the ability to implement
bus on shoulder on the segment of I-10 south of
I-410, allowing flexibility in the implementation
evaluation criteria on this portion of I-10 is
appropriate. Bus on Shoulder should be
considered, and likely implemented on this
segment as the other improvements to either
side of the segment come online.
While the corridors described above are the
better corridors for initial pilot type
implementation, coordination between
AAMPO, VIA, and TxDOT should be undertaken
to establish the definitive order of
implementation. Furthermore, the majority of
corridors in Tier 2 screening scored well on the
Bus on Shoulder strategy. These corridors are
certainly good candidates for Bus on Shoulder
implementation. Therefore, as previously
discussed, it is recommended that AAMPO
coordinate with VIA and TxDOT to determine
which of these additional corridors should move
forward.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 91
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic
Mixed Traffic Hard Shoulder Running also
scored well overall (Figure 43). It is a logical
next step to Bus on Shoulder implementation
and therefore deserves consideration. As
discussed above, the decision to convert the
shoulder to Mixed Traffic or letting it remain
Bus on Shoulder should be informed based on
the operation of the shoulder as Bus on
Shoulder. Further, some corridors that can
accommodate Bus on Shoulder because of the
ability of transit traffic to more easily weave
onto general-purpose lanes when needed to
avoid a Pinch Point, cannot support Mixed-Use
Hard Shoulder Running due to the larger
number of vehicles that would need to be
accommodated.
Figure 43: Recommendation Factors for Hard Shoulder Running (Mixed Traffic)
Nine corridors scored over 60% of the available
points for Mixed-Use Hard Shoulder Running
and would not require major investment to
accommodate the strategy. These are shown
below as well as the map in Figure 44:
3D: I-35 NE between I-37 to Loop 410
2C: I-410 between I-10 to SH 151
1B: Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10
3E: I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604
1C: Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151
2A: I-410 between I-35 N to US 281
2B: I-410 between US 281 to I-10
3C: I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37
3F: I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46
These nine corridors are recommended for
consideration for initial deployment of Mixed-
Use Hard Shoulder Running. As with Bus on
Shoulder, other corridors that scored well for
the strategy can be considered for
implementation at an appropriate time. Again,
AAMPO should undertake coordination with
both VIA and TxDOT in making these decisions.
As part of this coordination, the benefits of
leaving a particular corridor as Bus on Shoulder
should also be evaluated.
Two other issues regarding Mixed-Use Hard
Shoulder Running deserve discussion: First, if
there is a driving need for congestion relief that
includes SOV’s, Mixed-Use Hard Shoulder
Running can be implemented as the first step
rather than converting from Bus on Shoulder.
Further, Mixed-Use Hard Shoulder Running can
be implemented in an occupancy controlled
manner. In other words, the same requirements
could be imposed on a Mixed-Use Hard
Shoulder Lane that are imposed on an
Occupancy Controlled Express Lane, with only
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 92
HOVs being able to use the shoulder in addition
to buses. This could allow greater use of the
capacity that the shoulder represents with little
to no degradation in transit performance.
Figure 44: Recommended Alamo Area and Associated Segments for Hard Shoulder Running (Mixed Traffic) Implementation
Express Lanes
Express lanes, regardless of the control
mechanism, scored well in the San Antonio
region (Figure 45). Furthermore, they can be
implemented with the other strategies in this
report and the strategy can be built upon.
However, in cases that require a significant
investment, they are more difficult to
implement, but they provide a significant
capacity increase.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 93
Figure 45: Recommendation Factors for Express Lanes
The development of a new lane, often on new
pavement represents a significant investment.
To protect the value of this investment, and to
improve mobility in the region, the
management of this added capacity is critical.
Without some type of management, it is
possible, if not probable, that congestion will
return with its severe reduction in travel speeds
and its reduction in vehicular throughput.
Each of these lane control strategies (access,
occupancy and price) require essentially the
same footprint, and operating conditions are
not so different that the implementation of one
is significantly easier to bring about than the
implementation of another. For this reason, the
type of lane demand management used in the
region is likely to be as much of a policy
decision as it is a planning and/or engineering
decision. The advantages, and in some cases the
disadvantages, of each of these lane demand
management strategies has been discussed
previously in this document.
Regardless of the type of demand management,
the addition of a new lane, particularly one
developed on new pavement, represents a
significant capacity increase. Further, there is
no doubt that an actual lane will operate at
least somewhat better, if not significantly
better, than operating on the shoulder in terms
of travel speed and capacity. For these reasons,
implementation of some type of express lanes,
where feasible, is believed to be superior to
shoulder operation. This means that if
additional pavement is needed to implement
some type of shoulder operation,
implementation of an express lane should be
strongly considered instead.
This should not be taken to mean that Bus on
Shoulder and Mixed-Use Hard Shoulder Running
should not be deployed as initial strategies. To
the contrary, these shoulder strategies are far
more easily deployed and, as previously
discussed, could assist in informing where any
eventual investment in new capacity should
take place. Of course, when the resources are
available, it is very reasonable to move directly
to new lanes, such as being done on I-10 and US
281.
Using Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes as
the example, the top 20 corridors in terms of
scoring definitively are shown below. Corridors
that would require a major investment are
shown in red and italicized:
3D - I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410
2C - I-410 between I-10 to SH 151
3E - I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604
5A - I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604
1C - Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151
2A - I-410 between I-35 N to US 281
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 94
1B - Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10
8E - US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46
3B - I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10
3C - I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37
2B - I-410 between US 281 to I-10
12A - I-37 between I-410 to US90
8D - US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604
8B - US 281 between I-10 to I-35
3F - I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46
8C - US 281 between I-35 to I-410
3A - I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90
6A - I-10 between I-35 to I-410
5B - I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46
4B - I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division
Ave
It should be noted that I-10 (from La Cantera to
FM 3351) and US 281 (north of Loop 1604) are
not shown in the above listing as requiring a
major investment, even though there is
currently a significant reconstruction plan to
add Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes (HOV
lanes) to these facilities. However, the planned
improvements to these corridors make
significant improvements beyond simply adding
one express lane in each direction. In fact, the
currently planned improvements on I-10 and US
281 are substantial improvements that should
yield significant benefits to regional mobility. As
such, the accommodation of occupancy
controlled express lanes on these facilities is not
deemed to require significant investment for
the purposes of this assessment.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 95
Figure 46: Recommended Alamo Area Corridors and Associated Segments for Express Lanes
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 96
Contraflow Lanes and Dual Reversible Lanes
Neither of these strategies scored well for
implementation in the San Antonio area (Figure
47). Specifically, for Contraflow lanes no
corridors met the dual requirements of three or
more lanes in the opposing direction and a
minimal directional split of 66% to 34%.
For reversible lanes, as previously discussed a
single reversible lane requires a larger footprint
than adding a concurrent flow managed lane in
both directions. For that reason, single
reversible lanes were removed from
consideration.
Only three corridors met the directional split
required to consider reversible lanes. All three
of these would have required a major
investment to implement dual reversible lanes.
Other alternatives are likely to be more
productive than either of these strategies.
Neither Contraflow Lanes nor Reversible Lanes
are recommended for implementation in the
San Antonio region.
Figure 47: Recommendation Factors for Contraflow and Dual Reversible Lanes
Truck Only Lanes
While truck only lanes are a viable alternative
for transportation improvement, the efficacy of
truck only lanes in the San Antonio region is not
as great as other add-a-lane solutions (Figure
48). The resources required to implement truck
only lanes are practically identical to those
required for other express lanes considered in
this study. With a lesser benefit and the same
general cost as other express lanes considered,
Truck Only Lanes are not recommended for San
Antonio region at this time.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 97
Figure 48: Recommendation Factors for Truck Only Lanes
Figure 49: Recommendation Factors for Flow Control Corridors
Flow Controlled Corridors
As noted earlier, flow-controlled corridors can
be implemented at any time and with any other
strategy examined in this study. They also
scored well over the whole region and can build
upon other strategies (Figure 49).
There are two types of congestion: recurring
and nonrecurring. Either robs roadways of three
critical factors: travel speed, vehicular
throughput, and travel time reliability.
Nonrecurring congestion, as the name implies,
is relatively unpredictable. It is caused by
crashes, vehicle breakdowns, weather, and
other factors that do not recur on a predictable
basis. Except that the strategies described in
this report can lead to improved safety, and
therefore fewer crashes, they do not specifically
address non-recurring congestion and are not
designed to do so. Non-recurring congestion is
best handled by improved incident response,
and other improvements besides those studied
in this project such as improved geometrics that
can reduce the number and severity of crashes.
Recurring congestion is relatively predictable in
terms of the time of day it will occur and the
location where it will occur. It is caused by
vehicle density on the roadway, defined by
vehicles per lane per mile, exceeding the critical
density at which point vehicles begin interfering
with each other to the extent that
maneuverability is significantly impaired. This
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 98
results in reduced speeds and reduced vehicular
throughput. Because the extent and impact of
recurring congestion differs from day-to-day, it
also impacts travel time reliability. Finally, the
congested conditions usually result in a higher
frequency of accidents.
Recurring congestion can be reduced by several
means. The strategies presented in this report,
such as express lanes of various types or hard
shoulder running, increase capacity which
reduces density and therefore congestion as
well as increasing the movement of persons.
Strategies that encourage mode changes from
SOVs to HOVs and/or transit can reduce the
number of vehicles on the road and therefore
density and congestion. The final method is to
control the number of vehicles accessing the
facility at any given time, and this is what flow
controlled corridors accomplish.
Flow control as discussed here is obtained by
ramp metering, in other words using a traffic
signal at the ramp stop bar to briefly hold a
vehicle in place prior to releasing it to access
the mainline facility. There are several types of
ramp metering.
Fixed time ramp metering uses ramp signal
timing that is based on having a certain set time
period between vehicles being released at any
given ramp. It is the least sophisticated type of
ramp metering, and generates limited benefits.
This is due to the fact that the system is not
capable of increasing the time period between
released vehicles when necessary, and
conversely may hold vehicles unnecessarily
when freeway densities are low enough to
accept additional vehicles.
Adaptive ramp metering has the capability or
reacting to real time traffic conditions and
adjusting the time period between released
vehicles accordingly. The time period between
releases would be increased in high density
conditions and decreased in low-density
conditions. Adaptive ramp metering is the most
common type currently deployed in the United
States and produces greater benefits than pre-
timed ramp metering.
Coordinated adaptive ramp metering combines
the capability of adaptive ramp metering with
the ability to coordinate with other ramp
meters at other entrances in real time. The
ramp meters not only react to conditions on the
mainline roadway, they also react to the queue
that is developed on the ramps themselves. As
an example, if a ramp is beginning to back up
significantly, it can “request” the ramp
upstream to slow its release rate so that the
downstream ramp can increase its release rate
and reduce its queue. The most sophisticated
systems have the ability to coordinate multiple
ramps to maintain the most efficient operation
of both the mainline and the ramps.
A system known as Managed Motorways
(sometimes called Managed Freeways) was first
deployed in Melbourne, Australia a
metropolitan area of over 4 ½ million residents.
In Melbourne, the Managed Motorways
concept was deployed on the M1, also known
as the Monash Motorway. After deployment,
congestion was significantly reduced.
Following implementation throughput on the
M1increased by 4.7% and 8.4%, travel speeds
increased by 34.9% and 58.7% and the
percentage of time with less than a 20% speed
variation (a measure of travel time reliability)
increased by 148.7% and 516.4% for the AM
peak and PM peak respectively. These
improvements where driven by the more
dynamic, predictive and holistic nature or the
manage motorways concept relative to the
fixed time metering that had previously been in
place.
Managed Motorways, or any type of flow-
control when applied to the freeway corridor,
can be implemented either by itself or with any
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 99
of the strategies examined in this study. If
AAMPO is interested in pursuing a ramp
metering or active traffic management strategy,
it is logical to first study the strategy in the
corridors that would require a major
investment for almost any type of other
strategy. US 281 south of Loop 1604 is a good
potential candidate. With the improvements
being made on US 281 north of Loop 1604,
increasing the capacity of segments south of
the Loop might be especially productive.
Strategies Not Currently Recommended
It must be stressed that strategies that are not
recommended for potential pilot projects in this
report are not “bad” strategies. Many of these
strategies may at some point in time be
considered for deployment in San Antonio. The
full rankings of individual corridor/strategy
combinations are shown in Appendix 2.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 100
Appendices
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 101
APPENDIX 1
Corridor / Strategy Ranking Criteria Corridor/Segment-Oriented Criteria
Corridor and segment-oriented criteria are those applied to the various San Antonio regional corridor
segments considered for managed lane treatments as part of this evaluation and refined in the Corridor
Definition phase of this evaluation. Data from city, county, state and federal transportation agencies as
well as other data resources where used in the development of these criteria, which include:
Corridor featured in TxDOT’s listing of 100 Most Congested Highways in Texas;
Corridor / Facility / Project Has Been Identified in State/Regional Planning;
Annual Hours of Truck Delay per Mile;
Percentage of Truck Traffic on the Corridor;
Population density on the corridor;
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT);
Effective congestion;
Annual Hours of Delay per Mile;
Number of Existing Bus Routes;
Potential for future expansion in addition to the proposed improvement;
Current park and ride facilities;
Opportunities for transit feeder service or innovative solutions such as subscription
transportation or ride-sourcing for last mile services;
Contains high crash locations;
Ability of existing cross sections to accommodate Improvements;
Potential for additional park and ride facilities based on land available at logical locations;
Presence of low income/low auto ownership areas served by Tier 2 corridors;
Ability to improve transit connections between activity centers, and between activity centers
and residential areas.
Each criterion and their associated scores and weighting are discussed in further detail below.
Criterion - Features in 100 Most Congested Highways in Texas: Weighting of 5. Texas DOT frequently releases a list of the top 100 most congested corridors in the state. It is calculated
based on a variety of performance measures such as auto/truck delay, congestion cost per person, and a
collection of travel time indices. This list was used to identify corridors in San Antonio with existing
severe congestion. If all or part of the corridor was a part of the top 100 list, it was given a score of 3. As
congestion is a major metric for determining corridor performance for essentially all transportation
agencies, this criterion was considered to be critical to regional goals and objectives and therefore given
a weighting of 5. San Antonio Corridors in the 100 Most Congested Highways in Texas are identified in
Table 20.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 102
Corridors Segments
Loop 1604 Interstate 35 to US 281 US 281 to Interstate
10 Interstate 10 to SH
151
Loop 410 Interstate 35N to US 281
US 281 to Interstate 10
Interstate 10 to SH 151
SH 151 to US 90
US 90 to Interstate
35
Interstate 35 to
Somerset Rd
Interstate 35 SH 46 to Loop 1604
Loop 1604 to
Loop 410
Loop 410 to
Interstate 37
Interstate 37 to
Interstate 10
Interstate 10 to US
90
US 90 to Division
Ave
Interstate 35 Division Ave to SH 422 SH 422 to Loop 410
Interstate 10 Loop 410 to Loop 1604 Loop 1604 to SH 46
Interstate 10 I-35 to Loop 410
Interstate 10 I-37 to Loop 410 Loop 410 to Loop 1604
US 281 Fair Ave to Interstate
10
Interstate 10 to
interstate 35
Interstate 35 to
Loop 410
Loop 410 to Loop
1604 Loop 1604 to SH 46
SH 151 Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Loop 410 to US 90
US 90 SH 151 to Interstate 35 Interstate 35 to Interstate 37
US 90 Loop 1604 to Loop 410 Loop 410 to SH 151
Interstate 37 Loop 410 to US 90
LEGEND - Features among
100 most congested
Corridors in Texas
Yes Partial Corridor No
Table 20: Corridors in 100 Most Congested Highways in Texas
Criterion - Project Has Been Identified in State/Regional Planning: Weighting of 5. Projects in a state or regional transportation plan are already identified as a corridor needing
improvement and were given a score of 3, otherwise it received a score of 0. Projects being identified in
planning documents also indicates the possibility of existing funding availability or likely funding.
Additionally, if the strategy has been included in a document that requires public adoption, it has the
benefit of having been seen by the public during the development and adoption of the document. As a
result, this criterion was considered to be critical to project goals and given a weighting of 5.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 103
Criterion - Percentage of Truck Traffic on the Corridor: Weighting of 3. As trucks that carry freight are impacted by the strategies contemplated in the corridors, the percentage
of trucks that will be impacted was used as the indicator of whether the corridor is a significant freight
movement corridor. Freight concerns are important but not critical to project goals and objectives, so
truck traffic percentages where given a weighting of 3. Specific scoring occurred as follows:
Corridors with percentage of trucks greater than 15% were given a score of 3,
Corridors with percentage of trucks between 10% to 15% were given a score of 1.5,
Corridors where trucks accounted for less than 10% of the traffic were given a score of 0.
Criterion - Annual Hours of Truck Delay per Mile: Weighting of 3. Reducing annual hours of truck delay per mile would help in providing reliable and efficient
transportation systems in the region. It was considered to be important but not critical to the overall
project goals and objectives and therefore given a weighting of 3. This criterion was scored based on a
combination of evidence of overall congestion in the corridor and observed truck traffic in the corridor.
The combination of these performance measures is likely to be an indicator of potential truck delay in
the corridor. The specific scoring criteria are as follows:
3 if the corridor featured in the 100 most congested corridor list and if the truck volume exceeded 10% or traffic.
1.5 if the corridor featured in the 100 most congested corridor list or the truck volume on the corridor exceeded 10% of traffic, but not both.
0 if corridor does not feature in the list and truck volume is under 10% of traffic.
Criterion - Employment density on the corridor: Weighting of 3. Greater employment density along the corridor indicates a greater opportunity to reduce person travel
time and is considered important but not critical to achieving project goals. Employment density on
corridors was therefore given a weighting of 3. Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics data (2014)
from the US Census was used to estimate number of jobs within one-half mile of the corridor. The
average employment density of the county or counties through which each corridor travels was also
developed and used in scoring. The specific scoring criteria are as follows:
A score of 3 was assigned if the employment density in the corridor exceeds 200% of the county average.
If the employment density within the corridor was between 100% and 200% of the county average, a score was 1.5 was given.
A score of 0 was given to the corridor if the employment density was lower than the county average.
Criterion - Population density on the corridor: Weighting of 3. As with employment density, greater population density along the corridor indicates a greater
opportunity to reduce person travel time and is considered important but not critical to achieving
project goals and therefore given a weighting of 3. American Community Survey (2010-2014) data from
the US Census Bureau was used to estimate population within one-half mile of the corridor. The specific
scoring criteria are as follows:
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 104
A score of 3 was assigned if the population density in the corridor exceeds 200% of the county average.
If the population density within the corridor was between 100% and 200% of the county average, a score was 1.5 was given.
A score of 0 was given to the corridor if the population density was lower than the county average.
Criterion – Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT): Weighting of 5. AADT is a primary metric for all roadway facilities. AADT also serves as a direct parameter to assess the
extent of the potential impact of improvements on each corridor. Hence, it was considered to be critical
in satisfying goals and objectives of the project and given a weighting of 5. AADT values for the corridors
were obtained from TxDOT. Scoring proceeded as follows:
Corridors, with AADT higher than 150,000, were given a score of 3.
Corridors with an AADT between 80,000 and 150,000 were given a score of 1.5.
Corridors with an AADT less than 80,000 were given a score of 0.
Criterion - Annual Hours of Delay per Mile: Weighting of 3. As other criteria consider the amount of congestion present on the corridor, Annual Hours of Delay per
Mile was felt to be important to include in the analysis, but with other congestion factors in the analysis
it was not considered critical so it was weighted at 3. It was rated based on a combination of observed
AADT in each corridor and if the corridor featured in the Top 100 Most Congested Roadways in Texas.
The specific scoring criteria are as follows:
3 if corridor is in Top 100 Most Congested Corridors and AADT was ranked as medium (1.5) or high (3).
1.5 if the corridor is in the Top 100 Most Congested Roadways or the AADT is medium or high, but not both.
0 if the corridor is not in the Top 100 Most Congested Roadways and AADT was scored 0.
Criterion – Effective Congestion: Weighting of 3. This criterion was considered as a proxy to the overall congestion experienced by users in San Antonio.
As with annual hours of delay per mile, effective congestion was rated based on a combination of
observed AADT in each corridor and whether the corridor featured in the Top 100 Most Congested
Roadways in Texas. The specific scoring criteria are as follows:
3 if corridor is in Top 100 Most Congested Corridors and AADT was ranked as medium (1.5) or high (3).
1.5 if the corridor is in the Top 100 Most Congested Roadways or the AADT is medium or high, but not both.
0 if the corridor is not in the Top 100 Most Congested Roadways and AADT was scored 0.
Criterion - Number of Existing Bus Routes on ML Candidates: Weighting of 3. As a higher number of bus routes on a corridor indicates a potentially larger benefit for transit
operations, this criterion was considered to be important but not critical, receiving a weighting of 3. The
number of VIA bus routes currently running on the corridor was considered in this process. As strategies
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 105
are implemented, additional routes are certainly possible and desirable, beyond those considered in this
ranking. Scoring was as follows:
Corridors with more than 2 routes were given a score of 3;
Corridors with one or two routes were given a score of 1.5; and
Corridors without any existing bus routes were given a score of 0.
Criterion - Potential for future expansion in addition to the proposed improvement: Weighting of
3. This measure assesses proposed strategies based on ROW availability once the proposed strategy is
implemented. For example, if Bus on Shoulder was implemented in a corridor with a 40 foot grass
median, it would have the capacity to implement an additional strategy, such as an Occupancy
Controlled Express Lane, without the need for expensive reconstruction. That would provide flexibility to
further upgrade the corridor in the future. For scoring, if a corridor had significant additional right-of-
way available after implementing the strategy under consideration, it was given a score of 3. If the
corridor did not have sufficient space for adding an additional strategy, it was given a score of 0.
Criterion - Current Park and Ride Facilities: Weighting of 1. While important, this is the first of a pair of park and ride criteria which led to a lower weighting of 1.
This measure was scored based on the number of park and ride lots near study corridors as follows:
Corridors with more than one park and ride facilities that could serve the corridor were given a score of 3;
Corridors with one park and ride facility in proximity were given a score of 1.5; and
Corridors which did not have any park and ride facilities located near them were given a score of 0.
Criterion - Potential for additional park and ride facilities based on land available at logical
locations: Weighting of 1. As the second of the two park-and-ride criteria, a weighting of 1 was also assigned to this criterion. It
was scored based on a qualitative review of satellite imagery. Available areas along a corridor and
connectivity to major activity centers in the region were assessed qualitatively based on the corridor’s
location and the potential for new park and ride facilities to be added. Scores were assigned as follows:
Corridors were given a score of 3 for good potential for adding park and ride facilities,
Corridors with a fair potential were scored 1.5; and
Corridors with poor potential for adding park and ride facilities were scored 0.
Criterion - Opportunities for transit feeder service or innovative solutions such as subscription
transportation or ride-sourcing for last mile services: Weighting of 1. This criterion was scored based on suitability of land use near each corridor for implementing
subscription/ride-sourcing for last mile services as follows:
Corridors with good suitability to improve transit connections between activity centers and between activity centers and residential areas were given a score of 3;
Corridors with fair suitability were given a score of 1.5; and
Corridors with poor suitability were given a score of 0.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 106
Criterion - Identify high crash locations: Weighting of 5. The frequency of crashes along corridors was considered very important and critical for project goals,
thus receiving a weighting of five. The number of crashes per mile on each corridor was determined
based on 2014 data available on San Antonio’s MPO’s data portal. To enable comparison of corridors of
different lengths, the number of crashes per mile on each corridor was calculated. Scoring of this
criterion occurred as follows:
If more than 45 crashes per mile were recorded on a corridor, it was assigned a score of 3;
If the number of crashes was between 22 and 45, a score of 1.5 was assigned; and
For corridors where the number of crashes per mile was lower than 22, a score of 0 was assigned.
Criterion - Ability of existing cross sections to accommodate Improvements: Weighting of 5. In addition to assessing the corridor as a whole, existing right-of-way and existing pavement width was
also assessed within the corridor at locations such as bridges, overpasses, and ramps. In some of these
locations, available width for an improvement is insufficient, usually due to the presence of bridge piers
in underpasses or a narrow bridge in overpasses. These “pinch points” were classified into two
categories: Major and Minor, based on visual inspection using Google Earth Imagery. Major and Minor
pinch points were assigned a weights of 1 and 2 respectively to calculate a weighted average of pinch
points per mile for each corridor. Scores were assigned to this criterion based on the values for average
pinch points per mile as follows:
Corridors with an average of 0.5 or fewer pinch points per mile were given a score of 3;
Corridors with more than an average of 0.5 pinch points per mile but less than 1.5 pinch points per mile received a score of 1.5; and
Corridors with an average of 1.5 or more pinch points per mile were given a score of 0.
In addition to providing an indication of the ability of a corridor to accommodate a particular improvement, this criterion also acts as a proxy for a cost factor for the corridor/strategy combination. While not an exact measure, in general, the higher the number of pinch points the more expense a corridor would be to upgrade.
Criterion - Low income/low auto ownership areas served by Tier 2 corridors: Weighting of 3. Low income families and families with no auto access were felt to potentially benefit greatly from some
strategies, particularly when transit services can be improved due to strategy implementation. “Low
Income” was defined as income below the poverty threshold for the county. The percent of low income
population within half mile of corridor was estimated using data from the US Census Bureau’s 2010 and
2014 American Community Survey and compared with the average percent population below poverty
threshold for the corresponding County/Counties. Similarly, the percentage of households with no
available vehicles was also compared with corresponding County/Counties averages. Scoring was
assigned as follows:
If both the percentage of low income population within a half mile of the corridor and the percentage of household with no available vehicles exceeded corresponding County average, a score of 3 was assigned;
If only one of these statistics exceeded the corresponding County average, a score of 1.5 was assigned; and
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 107
If neither percentage exceeded the County average, a score of 0 was assigned to the corridor.
Criterion - Ability to improve transit connections between activity centers, and between activity
centers and residential areas: Weighting of 3. The scoring of this criterion was primarily subjective and was based on a combination of the existing
transportation network and the suitability of land use near each corridor to form transit connections
between activity centers and residential areas. Scoring occurred as follows:
Corridors with good suitability to improve transit connections were given a score of 3;
Corridors with fair suitability were given a score of 1.5; and
Corridors with poor suitability were given a score of 0.
Strategy Oriented Criteria
Strategy-oriented criteria are those applied to the various managed lane strategies under consideration
for this exercise. Criteria were selected, scored and weighted based on the professional knowledge and
experience of the evaluation team. These assessments are therefore qualitative in nature; however,
they are informed by real world experience and results from other managed lanes system deployments
from around the US.
The strategy-oriented criteria used for this evaluation include the following:
Ability to Influence Mode Choice to More Efficient Modes;
Ability to Implement Effective Lane Management;
Improved System, Intermodal, and/or Multimodal Connectivity (BOTH);
Ability to Use the ML to Develop Transit Networks to Facilitate Transit Travel; and
Potential for Transit and Carpool Time Savings.
Criterion - Ability to Influence Mode Choice to More Efficient Modes: Weighting of 3. This criterion was considered important, but was not ranked as critical due to the relatively subjective
nature of the scoring. This criterion was scored based on the impact each strategy is expected to have
on shifting mode choices toward more efficient modes. Strategies such as Bus on Shoulder Lanes or
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes have a direct impact on modal choice by providing benefits to
transit or high occupancy vehicles and were therefore scored as 3. Strategies such as Price Controlled
Express Lanes have moderate impact on mode choice and received a score of 1.5 as the lane is managed
to free flow conditions and more efficient mode choices are able to access the lanes at a lower, or no,
toll. Strategies such as Hard Shoulder Running for Mixed Traffic, Access Controlled Express Lanes and
Truck Only Lanes are not necessarily managed to maintain free flow conditions and/or are not available
to HOVs or transit and are not likely to have a positive impact on mode choice. A score of 0 was assigned
to these strategies.
Criterion - Ability to Implement Effective Lane Management: Weighting of 3. This criterion has a significant impact on preserving and recapturing existing capacity and on increasing
person and/or vehicle throughput in the corridor. This criterion was scored based the ability of a
considered strategy to effectively manage peak demand and thereby maintain throughput capacity.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 108
Strategies able to do this efficiently received a score of 3. Strategies able to indirectly implement
effective lane management were given a score of 1.5. Strategies that do not impact effective lane
management were given a score of 0.
Criterion - Improved System, Intermodal, and/or Multimodal Connectivity: Weighting of 3. Improvement in intermodal or multimodal connectivity can directly reduce passenger travel time
through more efficient use of the network. While important, it is a relatively qualitative assessment and
was therefore weighted as 3 rather than 5. This measure was scored by looking at the transportation
infrastructure in the region in a holistic manner. As such, this is the only criterion in the framework
where scoring was based on the particulars of both the managed lane strategy as well as the corridor
under consideration. Modes such as Auto, Freight and Air were considered when scoring
corridor/strategy combinations. The Flow Controlled strategy received a 0. This is due to the fact that,
while flow control increases mobility by providing better operating conditions, it does not change
intermodal connectivity. On the other hand, truck only lane strategies on corridors outside of Loop 410
(including Loop 410 itself) were given a score of 3, as freight movement is significantly enhanced. For
truck only strategies, corridors inside the 410 loop were scored 1.5. The change in scoring for facilities
inside the 410 loop reflects the fact that through freight movements are best handled by circumferential
facilities such as the 410 loop. For other strategies, including all types of express lanes, mobility inside
the 410 loop increases multimodal connectivity by reducing congestion near the central business
district. These strategies on corridors within Loop 410 (including Loop 410) were scored at 3, while those
outside of 410 received a score of 1.5.
Criterion - Ability to Use the ML to Develop Transit Networks to Facilitate Transit Travel:
Weighting of 5. This criterion is critical in developing integrated, efficient transportation networks in the region and was
therefore given a weight of 5. Strategies that can support an integrated transit network, including all
types express lanes and hard shoulder running, received a score of 3. Strategies such as Truck Only
Lanes and Flow Controlled that have little to no direct benefit for transit network development and
were given a score of 0.
Criterion - Potential for Transit and Carpool Time Savings: Weighting of 3. Strategies that can provide a direct benefit to transit and carpool vehicles received a 3 on this criterion.
These included Bus on Shoulder Lanes, Occupancy Controlled Lanes, and Pricing Controlled Lanes.
Similarly, Flow Controlled Corridors can make use of technology such as queue jumps for transit vehicles
to provide a direct travel time benefit. Strategies such as Hard Shoulder Running for Mixed Traffic,
Contraflow or Reversible Lanes and Access Controlled Lanes can improve operations for transit and
carpool vehicles. However, these strategies provide the same benefit to general traffic and therefore
given a score of 1.5. Truck Only Lanes, assuming they are not available to HOVs and busses, do not
provide any major travel time benefit to transit vehicles and were scored 0.
Synthesis
As discussed in the text, the various strategies and corridors are diverse. To be able to compare strategy
corridor combinations, corridor/strategy scoring was performed as described above. To enable an
understandable scale, options were ranked on both the total points they achieved as well as the
percentage of total points available. Multiplying each criteria by the maximum score of three times the
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 109
weighting of that criteria and then summing the result of each criteria gives a maximum score of 225.
Because of the diversity of the strategies and corridors, it is not surprising that no strategy/corridor
combinations score a perfect, or even close to a perfect, score.
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 110
APPENDIX 2
Numerical Ranking Results Hard Shoulder Running in Mixed Traffic
Figure 50: Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic - Numerical Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 111
Corridor Number
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Total Points (Maximum
of 225)
Ranking Score
Rating Rank
within strategy
3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 180 80.0% Very good 1
2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 171 76.0% Very good 2
1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 165 73.3% Good 3
2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 165 73.3% Good 3
1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 163.5 72.7% Good 5
3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 163.5 72.7% Good 5
2B I-410 between US 281 to I-10 154.5 68.7% Good 7
5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 153 68.0% Good 8
8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 145.5 64.7% Good 9
3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 144 64.0% Good 10
3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 142.5 63.3% Good 11
3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 142.5 63.3% Good 11
8B US 281 between I-10 to I-35 138 61.3% Good 13
12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 136.5 60.7% Good 14
10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 133.5 59.3% Fair 15
3A I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 132 58.7% Fair 16
8C US 281 between I-35 to I-410 126 56.0% Fair 17
1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 124.5 55.3% Fair 18
8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 121.5 54.0% Fair 19
10B US 90 between I-35 to I-37 118.5 52.7% Fair 20
6A I-10 between I-35 to I-410 114 50.7% Fair 21
4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division 111 49.3% Fair 22
2D I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 109.5 48.7% Fair 23
5B I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 109.5 48.7% Fair 23
8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 106.5 47.3% Fair 25
11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 106.5 47.3% Fair 25
9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 102 45.3% Fair 27
2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 100.5 44.7% Fair 28
7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 99 44.0% Fair 29
4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 93 41.3% Fair 30
7A I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 87 38.7% Poor 31
9B SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 79.5 35.3% Poor 32
11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 76.5 34.0% Poor 33
2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 67.5 30.0% Poor 34 Table 21: Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic - Numerical Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 112
Bus on Shoulder
Figure 51: Bus on Shoulder - Numerical Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 113
Corridor Number
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Total Points (Maximum
of 225)
Ranking Score
Rating Rank
within strategy
3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 193.5 86.0% Very good 1
2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 184.5 82.0% Very good 2
1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 178.5 79.3% Very good 3
2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 178.5 79.3% Very good 3
1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 177 78.7% Very good 5
3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 177 78.7% Very good 5
2B I-410 between US 281 to I-10 168 74.7% Good 7
5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 166.5 74.0% Good 8
3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 157.5 70.0% Good 9
3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 156 69.3% Good 10
3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 156 69.3% Good 10
8B US 281 between I-10 to I-35 151.5 67.3% Good 12
12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 150 66.7% Good 13
10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 147 65.3% Good 14
3A I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 145.5 64.7% Good 15
8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 144 64.0% Good 16
8C US 281 between I-35 to I-410 139.5 62.0% Good 17
1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 138 61.3% Good 18
8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 136.5 60.7% Good 19
8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 135 60.0% Good 20
4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division 133.5 59.3% Fair 21
2D I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 132 58.7% Fair 22
5B I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 132 58.7% Fair 22
10B US 90 between I-35 to I-37 132 58.7% Fair 22
6A I-10 between I-35 to I-410 127.5 56.7% Fair 25
11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 120 53.3% Fair 26
9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 115.5 51.3% Fair 27
2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 114 50.7% Fair 28
7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 112.5 50.0% Fair 29
4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 106.5 47.3% Fair 30
7A I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 100.5 44.7% Fair 31
9B SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 93 41.3% Fair 32
11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 90 40.0% Fair 33
2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 81 36.0% Poor 34 Table 22: Bus on Shoulder - Numerical Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 114
Contraflow Lanes
Figure 52: Contraflow Lanes - Numerical Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 115
Corridor Number
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Total Points (Maximum
of 225)
Ranking Score
Rating Rank
within strategy
3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 180 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 177 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 171 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 168 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 166.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 165 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 165 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 163.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 163.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
2B I-410 between US 281 to I-10 154.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
8C US 281 between I-35 to I-410 150 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 147 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 145.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 142.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
3A I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 139.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
6A I-10 between I-35 to I-410 138 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
8B US 281 between I-10 to I-35 138 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 136.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 133.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 124.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 123 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division 120 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 116
Corridor Number
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Total Points (Maximum
of 225)
Ranking Score
Rating Rank
within strategy
2D I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 118.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
5B I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 118.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
10B US 90 between I-35 to I-37 118.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 109.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 106.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 102 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 99 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 93 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
7A I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 87 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
9B SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 79.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 76.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 67.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
Table 23: Contraflow Lanes - Numerical Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 117
Reversible Lanes
Figure 53: Dual Reversible Lanes - Numerical Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 118
Corridor Number
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Total Points (Maximum
of 225)
Ranking Score
Rating Rank
within strategy
1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 148.5 66.0% Good 1
9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 87 38.7% Poor 2
9B SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 64.5 28.7% Poor 3
3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 165 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 162 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 156 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 153 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 151.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 150 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 150 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 148.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
2B I-410 between US 281 to I-10 139.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 139.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
8C US 281 between I-35 to I-410 135 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 130.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 127.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
3A I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 124.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
6A I-10 between I-35 to I-410 123 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
8B US 281 between I-10 to I-35 123 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 121.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 118.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 109.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 108 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 119
Corridor Number
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Total Points (Maximum
of 225)
Ranking Score
Rating Rank
within strategy
4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division 105 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
2D I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 103.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
5B I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 103.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
10B US 90 between I-35 to I-37 103.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 94.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 91.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 84 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 78 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
7A I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 72 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 61.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 52.5 0.0% Potentially not viable
N/A
Table 24: Dual Reversible Lanes - Numerical Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 120
Access Controlled Express Lanes
Figure 54: Access Controlled Express Lanes - Numerical Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 121
Corridor Number
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Total Points (Maximum
of 225)
Ranking Score
Rating Rank
within strategy
3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 171 76.0% Very good 1
2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 162 72.0% Good 2
1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 154.5 68.7% Good 3
3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 154.5 68.7% Good 3
5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 153 68.0% Good 5
1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 148.5 66.0% Good 6
2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 148.5 66.0% Good 6
3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 144 64.0% Good 8
3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 142.5 63.3% Good 9
2B I-410 between US 281 to I-10 138 61.3% Good 10
8B US 281 between I-10 to I-35 138 61.3% Good 10
12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 136.5 60.7% Good 12
10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 133.5 59.3% Fair 13
3A I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 132 58.7% Fair 14
8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 130.5 58.0% Fair 15
3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 126 56.0% Fair 16
8C US 281 between I-35 to I-410 126 56.0% Fair 16
8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 121.5 54.0% Fair 18
5B I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 118.5 52.7% Fair 19
6A I-10 between I-35 to I-410 114 50.7% Fair 20
4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division 111 49.3% Fair 21
2D I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 109.5 48.7% Fair 22
10B US 90 between I-35 to I-37 109.5 48.7% Fair 22
1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 108 48.0% Fair 24
8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 106.5 47.3% Fair 25
11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 106.5 47.3% Fair 25
2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 100.5 44.7% Fair 27
7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 99 44.0% Fair 28
4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 93 41.3% Fair 29
9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 93 41.3% Fair 29
7A I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 78 34.7% Poor 31
11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 76.5 34.0% Poor 32
9B SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 70.5 31.3% Poor 33
2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 67.5 30.0% Poor 34 Table 25: Access Controlled Express Lanes - Numerical Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 122
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes
Figure 55: Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes - Numerical Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 123
Corridor Number
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List
Total Points
(Maximum of 225)
Ranking Score
Rating Rank
within strategy
3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 184.5 82.0% Very good 1
2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 175.5 78.0% Very good 2
1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 168 74.7% Good 3
3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 168 74.7% Good 3
5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 166.5 74.0% Good 5
1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 162 72.0% Good 6
2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 162 72.0% Good 6
3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 157.5 70.0% Good 8
3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 156 69.3% Good 9
2B I-410 between US 281 to I-10 151.5 67.3% Good 10
10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 147 65.3% Good 11
8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 144 64.0% Good 12
8B US 281 between I-10 to I-35 142.5 63.3% Good 13
12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 141 62.7% Good 14
3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 139.5 62.0% Good 15
8C US 281 between I-35 to I-410 139.5 62.0% Good 15
1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 138 61.3% Good 17
3A I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 136.5 60.7% Good 18
8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 135 60.0% Good 19
4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division 133.5 59.3% Fair 20
10B US 90 between I-35 to I-37 132 58.7% Fair 21
8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 129 57.3% Fair 22
6A I-10 between I-35 to I-410 127.5 56.7% Fair 23
2D I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 123 54.7% Fair 24
2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 123 54.7% Fair 24
5B I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 123 54.7% Fair 24
11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 120 53.3% Fair 27
7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 112.5 50.0% Fair 28
4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 106.5 47.3% Fair 29
9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 106.5 47.3% Fair 29
7A I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 91.5 40.7% Fair 31
11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 90 40.0% Fair 32
9B SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 84 37.3% Poor 33
2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 81 36.0% Poor 34 Table 26: Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes - Numerical Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 124
Price Controlled Express Lanes
Figure 56: Price Controlled Express Lanes - Numerical Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 125
Corridor Number
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List
Total Points
(Maximum of 225)
Ranking Score
Rating Rank
within strategy
3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 184.5 82.0% Very good 1
2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 175.5 78.0% Very good 2
1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 168 74.7% Good 3
3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 168 74.7% Good 3
5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 166.5 74.0% Good 5
1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 162 72.0% Good 6
2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 162 72.0% Good 6
3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 157.5 70.0% Good 8
3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 156 69.3% Good 9
2B I-410 between US 281 to I-10 151.5 67.3% Good 10
8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 144 64.0% Good 11
8B US 281 between I-10 to I-35 142.5 63.3% Good 12
12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 141 62.7% Good 13
3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 139.5 62.0% Good 14
8C US 281 between I-35 to I-410 139.5 62.0% Good 14
3A I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 136.5 60.7% Good 16
8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 135 60.0% Good 17
10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 130.5 58.0% Fair 18
6A I-10 between I-35 to I-410 127.5 56.7% Fair 19
4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division 124.5 55.3% Fair 20
2D I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 123 54.7% Fair 21
5B I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 123 54.7% Fair 21
10B US 90 between I-35 to I-37 123 54.7% Fair 21
1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 121.5 54.0% Fair 24
8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 120 53.3% Fair 25
11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 120 53.3% Fair 25
2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 114 50.7% Fair 27
7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 112.5 50.0% Fair 28
4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 106.5 47.3% Fair 29
9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 106.5 47.3% Fair 29
7A I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 91.5 40.7% Fair 31
11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 90 40.0% Fair 32
9B SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 84 37.3% Poor 33
2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 81 36.0% Poor 34 Table 27: Price Controlled Express Lanes - Numerical Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 126
Truck Only Lanes
Figure 57: Truck Only Lanes - Numerical Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 127
Corridor Number
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Total Points (Maximum of 225)
Ranking Score
Rating Rank
within strategy
3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 147 65.3% Good 1
2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 142.5 63.3% Good 2
1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 139.5 62.0% Good 3
2B I-410 between US 281 to I-10 135 60.0% Good 4
3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 135 60.0% Good 4
1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 133.5 59.3% Fair 6
5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 133.5 59.3% Fair 6
2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 129 57.3% Fair 8
3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 127.5 56.7% Fair 9
3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 120 53.3% Fair 10
3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 118.5 52.7% Fair 11
8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 111 49.3% Fair 12
8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 106.5 47.3% Fair 13
8B US 281 between I-10 to I-35 105 46.7% Fair 14
12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 103.5 46.0% Fair 15
8C US 281 between I-35 to I-410 102 45.3% Fair 16
3A I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 99 44.0% Fair 17
10B US 90 between I-35 to I-37 96 42.7% Fair 18
5B I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 94.5 42.0% Fair 19
1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 93 41.3% Fair 20
10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 93 41.3% Fair 20
2D I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 90 40.0% Fair 22
6A I-10 between I-35 to I-410 90 40.0% Fair 22
4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave 87 38.7% Poor 24
8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 82.5 36.7% Poor 25
11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 82.5 36.7% Poor 25
2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 81 36.0% Poor 27
7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 79.5 35.3% Poor 28
4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 69 30.7% Poor 29
9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 69 30.7% Poor 29
11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 57 25.3% Poor 31
7A I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 54 24.0% Poor 32
9B SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 51 22.7% Poor 33
2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 48 21.3% Poor 34 Table 28: Truck Only Lanes - Numerical Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 128
Flow Controlled Corridors
Due to their comparatively low cost and that no right-of-way on the actual mainline facility is required,
Flow Controlled Corridors (adaptive ramp metering) scored well. This strategy is also the only one that
can be used effectively on I-10 between 1604 and I-410, and US 281 between 1604 and the Central
Business District without requiring a significant investment in the corridor.
Figure 58: Flow Controlled Corridors - Numerical Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 129
Corridor Number
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Total Points (Maximum of 225)
Ranking Score
Rating Rank
within strategy
3D I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 169.5 75.3% Very good 1
2C I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 160.5 71.3% Good 2
1C Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 159 70.7% Good 3
1B Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 157.5 70.0% Good 4
5A I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 157.5 70.0% Good 4
2A I-410 between I-35N to US 281 154.5 68.7% Good 6
3E I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 153 68.0% Good 7
3B I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 148.5 66.0% Good 8
3C I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 147 65.3% Good 9
2B I-410 between US 281 to I-10 144 64.0% Good 10
3F I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 136.5 60.7% Good 11
8D US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 135 60.0% Good 12
8B US 281 between I-10 to I-35 118.5 52.7% Fair 13
12A I-37 between I-410 to US90 117 52.0% Fair 14
8C US 281 between I-35 to I-410 115.5 51.3% Fair 15
8E US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 115.5 51.3% Fair 15
10B US 90 between I-35 to I-37 114 50.7% Fair 17
3A I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 112.5 50.0% Fair 18
4B I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division 109.5 48.7% Fair 19
10A US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 106.5 47.3% Fair 20
5B I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 103.5 46.0% Fair 21
6A I-10 between I-35 to I-410 103.5 46.0% Fair 21
1A Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 102 45.3% Fair 23
2D I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 99 44.0% Fair 24
2E I-410 between US 90 to I-35 99 44.0% Fair 24
8A US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 96 42.7% Fair 26
11B US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 96 42.7% Fair 26
9A SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 91.5 40.7% Fair 28
7B I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 88.5 39.3% Poor 29
4A I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 82.5 36.7% Poor 30
7A I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 76.5 34.0% Poor 31
9B SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 69 30.7% Poor 32
11A US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 66 29.3% Poor 33
2F I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 57 25.3% Poor 34 Table 29: Flow Controlled Corridors - Numerical Results
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 130
APPENDIX 3
Strategy Performance by Corridor
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Total Points
(Maximum of 225) Ranking Score
Rank within corridor
Corridor - 1A: Loop 1604 between Interstate 35 to US 281
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 138 61.3% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 138 61.3% 1
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 124.5 55.3% 3
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 121.5 54.0% 4
Access Controlled Express Lanes 108 48.0% 5
Flow Controlled Corridors 102 45.3% 6
Truck Only Lanes 93 41.3% 7
Contraflow Lanes 124.5 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 109.5 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 1B: Loop 1604 between US 281 to Interstate 10
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 177 78.7% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 168 74.7% 2
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 168 74.7% 2
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 163.5 72.7% 4
Flow Controlled Corridors 157.5 70.0% 5
Access Controlled Express Lanes 154.5 68.7% 6
Reversible Lanes 148.5 66.0% 7
Truck Only Lanes 139.5 62.0% 8
Contraflow Lanes 163.5 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 1C: Loop 1604 between Interstate 10 to SH 151
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 178.5 79.3% 1
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 165 73.3% 2
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 162 72.0% 3
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 162 72.0% 3
Flow Controlled Corridors 159 70.7% 5
Access Controlled Express Lanes 148.5 66.0% 6
Truck Only Lanes 133.5 59.3% 7
Contraflow Lanes 165 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 150 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 2A: Loop 410 between Interstate 35N to US 281
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 178.5 79.3% 1
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 165 73.3% 2
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 162 72.0% 3
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 162 72.0% 3
Flow Controlled Corridors 154.5 68.7% 5
Access Controlled Express Lanes 148.5 66.0% 6
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 131
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Total Points
(Maximum of 225) Ranking Score
Rank within corridor
Truck Only Lanes 129 57.3% 7
Contraflow Lanes 165 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 150 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 2B: Loop 410 between US 281 to Interstate 10
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 168 74.7% 1
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 154.5 68.7% 2
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 151.5 67.3% 3
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 151.5 67.3% 3
Flow Controlled Corridors 144 64.0% 5
Access Controlled Express Lanes 138 61.3% 6
Truck Only Lanes 135 60.0% 7
Contraflow Lanes 154.5 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 139.5 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 2C: Loop 410 between Interstate 10 to SH 151
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 184.5 82.0% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 175.5 78.0% 2
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 175.5 78.0% 2
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 171 76.0% 4
Access Controlled Express Lanes 162 72.0% 5
Flow Controlled Corridors 160.5 71.3% 6
Truck Only Lanes 142.5 63.3% 7
Contraflow Lanes 171 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 156 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 2D: Loop 410 between SH 151 to US 90
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 132 58.7% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 123 54.7% 2
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 123 54.7% 2
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 109.5 48.7% 4
Access Controlled Express Lanes 109.5 48.7% 4
Flow Controlled Corridors 99 44.0% 6
Truck Only Lanes 90 40.0% 7
Contraflow Lanes 118.5 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 103.5 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 2E: Loop 410 between US 90 to Interstate 35
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 123 54.7% 1
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 114 50.7% 2
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 114 50.7% 2
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 100.5 44.7% 4
Access Controlled Express Lanes 100.5 44.7% 4
Flow Controlled Corridors 99 44.0% 6
Truck Only Lanes 81 36.0% 7
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 132
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Total Points
(Maximum of 225) Ranking Score
Rank within corridor
Contraflow Lanes 109.5 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 94.5 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 2F: Loop 410 between Interstate 35 to Somerset Rd
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 81 36.0% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 81 36.0% 1
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 81 36.0% 1
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 67.5 30.0% 4
Access Controlled Express Lanes 67.5 30.0% 4
Flow Controlled Corridors 57 25.3% 6
Truck Only Lanes 48 21.3% 7
Contraflow Lanes 67.5 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 52.5 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 3A: Interstate 35 NE between Division Ave to US 90
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 145.5 64.7% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 136.5 60.7% 2
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 136.5 60.7% 2
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 132 58.7% 4
Access Controlled Express Lanes 132 58.7% 4
Flow Controlled Corridors 112.5 50.0% 6
Truck Only Lanes 99 44.0% 7
Contraflow Lanes 139.5 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 124.5 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 3B: Interstate 35 NE between US 90 to Interstate 10
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 157.5 70.0% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 157.5 70.0% 1
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 157.5 70.0% 1
Flow Controlled Corridors 148.5 66.0% 4
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 144 64.0% 5
Access Controlled Express Lanes 144 64.0% 5
Truck Only Lanes 120 53.3% 7
Contraflow Lanes 168 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 153 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 3C: Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 10 to Interstate 37
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 156 69.3% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 156 69.3% 1
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 156 69.3% 1
Flow Controlled Corridors 147 65.3% 4
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 142.5 63.3% 5
Access Controlled Express Lanes 142.5 63.3% 5
Truck Only Lanes 118.5 52.7% 7
Contraflow Lanes 166.5 0.0% N/A
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 133
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Total Points
(Maximum of 225) Ranking Score
Rank within corridor
Reversible Lanes 151.5 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 3D: Interstate 35 NE between Interstate 37 to Loop 410
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 193.5 86.0% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 184.5 82.0% 2
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 184.5 82.0% 2
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 180 80.0% 4
Access Controlled Express Lanes 171 76.0% 5
Flow Controlled Corridors 169.5 75.3% 6
Truck Only Lanes 147 65.3% 7
Contraflow Lanes 180 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 165 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 3E: Interstate 35 NE between Loop 410 to Loop 1604
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 177 78.7% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 168 74.7% 2
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 168 74.7% 2
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 163.5 72.7% 4
Access Controlled Express Lanes 154.5 68.7% 5
Flow Controlled Corridors 153 68.0% 6
Truck Only Lanes 135 60.0% 7
Contraflow Lanes 163.5 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 148.5 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 3F: Interstate 35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 156 69.3% 1
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 142.5 63.3% 2
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 139.5 62.0% 3
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 139.5 62.0% 3
Flow Controlled Corridors 136.5 60.7% 5
Truck Only Lanes 127.5 56.7% 6
Access Controlled Express Lanes 126 56.0% 7
Contraflow Lanes 142.5 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 127.5 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 4A: Interstate 35 SW between Loop 410 to SH 422
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 106.5 47.3% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 106.5 47.3% 1
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 106.5 47.3% 1
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 93 41.3% 4
Access Controlled Express Lanes 93 41.3% 4
Flow Controlled Corridors 82.5 36.7% 6
Truck Only Lanes 69 30.7% 7
Contraflow Lanes 93 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 78 0.0% N/A
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 134
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Total Points
(Maximum of 225) Ranking Score
Rank within corridor
Corridor - 4B: Interstate 35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 133.5 59.3% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 133.5 59.3% 1
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 124.5 55.3% 3
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 111 49.3% 4
Access Controlled Express Lanes 111 49.3% 4
Flow Controlled Corridors 109.5 48.7% 6
Truck Only Lanes 87 38.7% 7
Contraflow Lanes 120 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 105 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 5A: Interstate 10 NW between Loop 410 to Loop 1604
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 166.5 74.0% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 166.5 74.0% 1
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 166.5 74.0% 1
Flow Controlled Corridors 157.5 70.0% 4
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 153 68.0% 5
Access Controlled Express Lanes 153 68.0% 5
Truck Only Lanes 133.5 59.3% 7
Contraflow Lanes 177 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 162 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 5B: Interstate 10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 132 58.7% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 123 54.7% 2
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 123 54.7% 2
Access Controlled Express Lanes 118.5 52.7% 4
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 109.5 48.7% 5
Flow Controlled Corridors 103.5 46.0% 6
Truck Only Lanes 94.5 42.0% 7
Contraflow Lanes 118.5 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 103.5 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 6A: Interstate 10 between I-35 to Loop 410
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 127.5 56.7% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 127.5 56.7% 1
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 127.5 56.7% 1
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 114 50.7% 4
Access Controlled Express Lanes 114 50.7% 4
Flow Controlled Corridors 103.5 46.0% 6
Truck Only Lanes 90 40.0% 7
Contraflow Lanes 138 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 123 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 7A: Interstate 10 E between I-37 to Loop 410
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 135
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Total Points
(Maximum of 225) Ranking Score
Rank within corridor
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 100.5 44.7% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 91.5 40.7% 2
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 91.5 40.7% 2
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 87 38.7% 4
Access Controlled Express Lanes 78 34.7% 5
Flow Controlled Corridors 76.5 34.0% 6
Truck Only Lanes 54 24.0% 7
Contraflow Lanes 87 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 72 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 7B: Interstate 10 E between Loop 410 to Loop 1604
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 112.5 50.0% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 112.5 50.0% 1
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 112.5 50.0% 1
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 99 44.0% 4
Access Controlled Express Lanes 99 44.0% 4
Flow Controlled Corridors 88.5 39.3% 6
Truck Only Lanes 79.5 35.3% 7
Contraflow Lanes 99 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 84 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 8A: US 281 between Fair Ave to Interstate 10
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 136.5 60.7% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 129 57.3% 2
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 120 53.3% 3
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 106.5 47.3% 4
Access Controlled Express Lanes 106.5 47.3% 4
Flow Controlled Corridors 96 42.7% 6
Truck Only Lanes 82.5 36.7% 7
Contraflow Lanes 123 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 108 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 8B: US 281 between Interstate 10 to interstate 35
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 151.5 67.3% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 142.5 63.3% 2
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 142.5 63.3% 2
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 138 61.3% 4
Access Controlled Express Lanes 138 61.3% 4
Flow Controlled Corridors 118.5 52.7% 6
Truck Only Lanes 105 46.7% 7
Contraflow Lanes 138 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 123 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 8C: US 281 between Interstate 35 to Loop 410
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 139.5 62.0% 1
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 136
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Total Points
(Maximum of 225) Ranking Score
Rank within corridor
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 139.5 62.0% 1
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 139.5 62.0% 1
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 126 56.0% 4
Access Controlled Express Lanes 126 56.0% 4
Flow Controlled Corridors 115.5 51.3% 6
Truck Only Lanes 102 45.3% 7
Contraflow Lanes 150 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 135 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 8D: US 281 between Loop 410 to Loop 1604
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 145.5 64.7% 1
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 144 64.0% 2
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 144 64.0% 2
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 144 64.0% 2
Flow Controlled Corridors 135 60.0% 5
Access Controlled Express Lanes 130.5 58.0% 6
Truck Only Lanes 111 49.3% 7
Contraflow Lanes 147 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 139.5 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 8E: US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 135 60.0% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 135 60.0% 1
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 135 60.0% 1
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 121.5 54.0% 4
Access Controlled Express Lanes 121.5 54.0% 4
Flow Controlled Corridors 115.5 51.3% 6
Truck Only Lanes 106.5 47.3% 7
Contraflow Lanes 145.5 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 130.5 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 9A: SH 151 between Loop 1604 to Loop 410
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 115.5 51.3% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 106.5 47.3% 2
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 106.5 47.3% 2
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 102 45.3% 4
Access Controlled Express Lanes 93 41.3% 5
Flow Controlled Corridors 91.5 40.7% 6
Reversible Lanes 87 38.7% 7
Truck Only Lanes 69 30.7% 8
Contraflow Lanes 102 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 9B: SH 151 between Loop 410 to US 90
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 93 41.3% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 84 37.3% 2
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 137
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Total Points
(Maximum of 225) Ranking Score
Rank within corridor
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 84 37.3% 2
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 79.5 35.3% 4
Access Controlled Express Lanes 70.5 31.3% 5
Flow Controlled Corridors 69 30.7% 6
Reversible Lanes 64.5 28.7% 7
Truck Only Lanes 51 22.7% 8
Contraflow Lanes 79.5 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 10A: US 90 between SH 151 to Interstate 35
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 147 65.3% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 147 65.3% 1
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 133.5 59.3% 3
Access Controlled Express Lanes 133.5 59.3% 3
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 130.5 58.0% 5
Flow Controlled Corridors 106.5 47.3% 6
Truck Only Lanes 93 41.3% 7
Contraflow Lanes 133.5 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 118.5 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 10B: US 90 between Interstate 35 to Interstate 37
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 132 58.7% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 132 58.7% 1
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 123 54.7% 3
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 118.5 52.7% 4
Flow Controlled Corridors 114 50.7% 5
Access Controlled Express Lanes 109.5 48.7% 6
Truck Only Lanes 96 42.7% 7
Contraflow Lanes 118.5 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 103.5 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 11A: US 90 W between Loop 1604 to Loop 410
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 90 40.0% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 90 40.0% 1
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 90 40.0% 1
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 76.5 34.0% 4
Access Controlled Express Lanes 76.5 34.0% 4
Flow Controlled Corridors 66 29.3% 6
Truck Only Lanes 57 25.3% 7
Contraflow Lanes 76.5 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 61.5 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 11B: US 90 W between Loop 410 to SH 151
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 120 53.3% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 120 53.3% 1
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 120 53.3% 1
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 138
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List Total Points
(Maximum of 225) Ranking Score
Rank within corridor
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 106.5 47.3% 4
Access Controlled Express Lanes 106.5 47.3% 4
Flow Controlled Corridors 96 42.7% 6
Truck Only Lanes 82.5 36.7% 7
Contraflow Lanes 106.5 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 91.5 0.0% N/A
Corridor - 12A: Interstate 37 between Loop 410 to US90
Bus on Shoulder Lanes 150 66.7% 1
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes 141 62.7% 2
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes 141 62.7% 2
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic 136.5 60.7% 4
Access Controlled Express Lanes 136.5 60.7% 4
Flow Controlled Corridors 117 52.0% 6
Truck Only Lanes 103.5 46.0% 7
Contraflow Lanes 136.5 0.0% N/A
Reversible Lanes 121.5 0.0% N/A
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 139
APPENDIX 4
Corridor Evaluation Results
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List
Total Points
(Maximum of 225)
Percentage of Total Points
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 193.5 86.0%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 184.5 82.0%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 184.5 82.0%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 184.5 82.0%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410
180 80.0%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 178.5 79.3%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-410 between I-35N to US 281 178.5 79.3%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 177 78.7%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 177 78.7%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 175.5 78.0%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 175.5 78.0%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 171 76.0%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 171 76.0%
Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 169.5 75.3%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10
168 74.7%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 168 74.7%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-410 between US 281 to I-10 168 74.7%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604
168 74.7%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604
168 74.7%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 166.5 74.0%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604
166.5 74.0%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604
166.5 74.0%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151
165 73.3%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-410 between I-35N to US 281
165 73.3%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10
163.5 72.7%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604
163.5 72.7%
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 140
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List
Total Points
(Maximum of 225)
Percentage of Total Points
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151
162 72.0%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 162 72.0%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-35N to US 281 162 72.0%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-35N to US 281 162 72.0%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 162 72.0%
Flow Controlled Corridors for I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 160.5 71.3%
Flow Controlled Corridors for Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 159 70.7%
Flow Controlled Corridors for Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 157.5 70.0%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 157.5 70.0%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 157.5 70.0%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 157.5 70.0%
Flow Controlled Corridors for I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 157.5 70.0%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 156 69.3%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 156 69.3%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 156 69.3%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 156 69.3%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 154.5 68.7%
Flow Controlled Corridors for I-410 between I-35N to US 281 154.5 68.7%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-410 between US 281 to I-10 154.5 68.7%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604
154.5 68.7%
Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 153 68.0%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604
153 68.0%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604
153 68.0%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between US 281 to I-10 151.5 67.3%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between US 281 to I-10 151.5 67.3%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 281 between I-10 to I-35 151.5 67.3%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-37 between I-410 to US90 150 66.7%
Two Reversible Lanes for Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 148.5 66.0%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 148.5 66.0%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-35N to US 281 148.5 66.0%
Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 148.5 66.0%
Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 147 65.3%
Truck Only Lanes for I-35 NE between I-37 to I-410 147 65.3%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 147 65.3%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 145.5 64.7%
Flow Controlled Corridors for I-410 between US 281 to I-10 144 64.0%
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 141
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List
Total Points
(Maximum of 225)
Percentage of Total Points
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10
144 64.0%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 144 64.0%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 144 64.0%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604
144 64.0%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604
144 64.0%
Truck Only Lanes for I-410 between I-10 to SH 151 142.5 63.3%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 142.5 63.3%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 142.5 63.3%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46
142.5 63.3%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-10 to I-35 142.5 63.3%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-10 to I-35 142.5 63.3%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-37 between I-410 to US90 141 62.7%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-37 between I-410 to US90 141 62.7%
Truck Only Lanes for Loop 1604 between US 281 to I-10 139.5 62.0%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46
139.5 62.0%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46
139.5 62.0%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 281 between I-35 to I-410 139.5 62.0%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-35 to I-410 139.5 62.0%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-35 to I-410 139.5 62.0%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 138 61.3%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between US 281 to I-10 138 61.3%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 281 between I-10 to I-35 138 61.3%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90
136.5 60.7%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90
136.5 60.7%
Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 136.5 60.7%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-37 between I-410 to US90 136.5 60.7%
Truck Only Lanes for I-35 NE between I-410 to Loop 1604 135 60.0%
Flow Controlled Corridors for US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 135 60.0%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46
135 60.0%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46
135 60.0%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 135 60.0%
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 142
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List
Total Points
(Maximum of 225)
Percentage of Total Points
Truck Only Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-10 to SH 151 133.5 59.3%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave 133.5 59.3%
Truck Only Lanes for I-10 NW between I-410 to Loop 1604 133.5 59.3%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 90 between SH 151 to I-35
133.5 59.3%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 132 58.7%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90
132 58.7%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 132 58.7%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 90 between I-35 to I-37 132 58.7%
Flow Controlled Corridors for US 281 between I-35 to I-410 115.5 51.3%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604
145.5 64.7%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604
130.5 58.0%
Flow Controlled Corridors for US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 115.5 51.3%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 147 65.3%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 130.5 58.0%
Truck Only Lanes for I-410 between I-35N to US 281 129 57.3%
Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 112.5 50.0%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 136.5 60.7%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-10 to I-35 138 61.3%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-10 between I-35 to I-410 127.5 56.7%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 between I-35 to I-410 127.5 56.7%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 between I-35 to I-410 127.5 56.7%
Flow Controlled Corridors for US 281 between I-10 to I-35 118.5 52.7%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-37 between I-410 to US90 136.5 60.7%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46
126 56.0%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 281 between I-35 to I-410 126 56.0%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between I-35 to I-410 126 56.0%
Flow Controlled Corridors for I-37 between I-410 to US90 117 52.0%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281
124.5 55.3%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave
133.5 59.3%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave
124.5 55.3%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between SH 151 to US 90
123 54.7%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 123 54.7%
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 143
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List
Total Points
(Maximum of 225)
Percentage of Total Points
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-410 between US 90 to I-35 114 50.7%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90
132 58.7%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46
123 54.7%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46
123 54.7%
Flow Controlled Corridors for US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 106.5 47.3%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 between I-35 to I-37 132 58.7%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 between I-35 to I-37 123 54.7%
Flow Controlled Corridors for US 90 between I-35 to I-37 114 50.7%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281
138 61.3%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 121.5 54.0%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46
121.5 54.0%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46
121.5 54.0%
Truck Only Lanes for I-35 NE between US 90 to I-10 120 53.3%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave
111 49.3%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10
129 57.3%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 120 53.3%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 120 53.3%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151
120 53.3%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 120 53.3%
Flow Controlled Corridors for Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 102 45.3%
Truck Only Lanes for I-410 between US 281 to I-10 135 60.0%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-410 between SH 151 to US 90
109.5 48.7%
Truck Only Lanes for I-35 NE between I-10 to I-37 118.5 52.7%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46
109.5 48.7%
Flow Controlled Corridors for I-10 between I-35 to I-410 103.5 46.0%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 90 between I-35 to I-37 118.5 52.7%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 133.5 59.3%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10
106.5 47.3%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 115.5 51.3%
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 144
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List
Total Points
(Maximum of 225)
Percentage of Total Points
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between US 90 to I-35 123 54.7%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between US 90 to I-35 114 50.7%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-10 between I-35 to I-410 114 50.7%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 between I-35 to I-410 114 50.7%
Flow Controlled Corridors for I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 103.5 46.0%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 112.5 50.0%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604
112.5 50.0%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 112.5 50.0%
Flow Controlled Corridors for US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 96 42.7%
Truck Only Lanes for I-35 NE between Loop 1604 to SH 46 127.5 56.7%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave
111 49.3%
Truck Only Lanes for US 281 between I-410 to Loop 1604 111 49.3%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 109.5 48.7%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-410 between US 90 to I-35 100.5 44.7%
Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave 109.5 48.7%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46
118.5 52.7%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 between I-35 to I-37 109.5 48.7%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 108 48.0%
Flow Controlled Corridors for I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 99 44.0%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 106.5 47.3%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422
106.5 47.3%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 106.5 47.3%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 106.5 47.3%
Truck Only Lanes for US 281 between Loop 1604 to SH 46 106.5 47.3%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410
106.5 47.3%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410
106.5 47.3%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151
106.5 47.3%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 106.5 47.3%
Truck Only Lanes for US 281 between I-10 to I-35 105 46.7%
Truck Only Lanes for I-37 between I-410 to US90 103.5 46.0%
Truck Only Lanes for US 281 between I-35 to I-410 102 45.3%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410
102 45.3%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between US 90 to I-35 100.5 44.7%
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 145
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List
Total Points
(Maximum of 225)
Percentage of Total Points
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 100.5 44.7%
Flow Controlled Corridors for I-410 between US 90 to I-35 99 44.0%
Truck Only Lanes for I-35 NE between Division Ave to US 90 99 44.0%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604
99 44.0%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 99 44.0%
Truck Only Lanes for US 90 between I-35 to I-37 96 42.7%
Flow Controlled Corridors for US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 96 42.7%
Truck Only Lanes for I-10 NW between Loop 1604 to SH 46 94.5 42.0%
Truck Only Lanes for Loop 1604 between I-35 to US 281 93 41.3%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422
93 41.3%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 93 41.3%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410
93 41.3%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 93 41.3%
Truck Only Lanes for US 90 between SH 151 to I-35 93 41.3%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 91.5 40.7%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 91.5 40.7%
Flow Controlled Corridors for SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 91.5 40.7%
Truck Only Lanes for I-410 between SH 151 to US 90 90 40.0%
Truck Only Lanes for I-10 between I-35 to I-410 90 40.0%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 90 40.0%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410
90 40.0%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410
90 40.0%
Flow Controlled Corridors for I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 88.5 39.3%
Truck Only Lanes for I-35 SW between SH 422 to Division Ave 87 38.7%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 87 38.7%
Two Reversible Lanes for SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 87 38.7%
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for SH 151 between I-410 to US 90
84 37.3%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 84 37.3%
Flow Controlled Corridors for I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 82.5 36.7%
Truck Only Lanes for US 281 between Fair Ave to I-10 82.5 36.7%
Truck Only Lanes for US 90 W between I-410 to SH 151 82.5 36.7%
Truck Only Lanes for I-410 between US 90 to I-35 81 36.0%
Bus on Shoulder Lanes for I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 81 36.0%
Regional Managed / Transit Priority Lanes Feasibility Study | Final Report
Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 146
Strategy/Corridor Ranking List
Total Points
(Maximum of 225)
Percentage of Total Points
Occupancy Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd
81 36.0%
Pricing Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 81 36.0%
Truck Only Lanes for I-10 E between I-410 to Loop 1604 79.5 35.3%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for SH 151 between I-410 to US 90
79.5 35.3%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 78 34.7%
Flow Controlled Corridors for I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 76.5 34.0%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410
76.5 34.0%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410
76.5 34.0%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 70.5 31.3%
Truck Only Lanes for I-35 SW between I-410 to SH 422 69 30.7%
Truck Only Lanes for SH 151 between Loop 1604 to I-410 69 30.7%
Flow Controlled Corridors for SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 69 30.7%
Hard Shoulder Running - Mixed Traffic for I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd
67.5 30.0%
Access Controlled Express Lanes for I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 67.5 30.0%
Flow Controlled Corridors for US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 66 29.3%
Two Reversible Lanes for SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 64.5 28.7%
Flow Controlled Corridors for I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 57 25.3%
Truck Only Lanes for US 90 W between Loop 1604 to I-410 57 25.3%
Truck Only Lanes for I-10 E between I-37 to I-410 54 24.0%
Truck Only Lanes for SH 151 between I-410 to US 90 51 22.7%
Truck Only Lanes for I-410 between I-35 to Somerset Rd 48 21.3%