Bay Area High Occupancy Toll ( HOT) Network Study
December 2008 Update
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
December 2008
Bay Area HOT Network Study, December 2008 Update
MTC COMMISSIONERS
Bill Dodd, Chair
Napa County and Cities
Scott Haggerty, Vice Chair
Alameda County
Tom Azumbrado
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Tom Bates
Cities of Alameda County
Dean J. Chu
Cities of Santa Clara County
Dave Cortese
Association of Bay Area Governments
Dorene M. Giacopini
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal D. Glover
Contra Costa County
Anne W. Halsted
San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission
Steve Kinsey
Marin County and Cities
Sue Lempert
Cities of San Mateo County
Jake Mackenzie
Sonoma County and Cities
Jon Rubin
San Francisco Mayor’s Appointee
Bijan Sartipi
State Business, Transportation and Housing
Agency
James P. Spering
Solano County and Cities
Adrienne J. Tissier
San Mateo County
( Vacant)
City and County of San Francisco
Amy Worth
Cities of Contra Costa County
Ken Yeager
Santa Clara County
MANAGEMENT STAFF
Steve Heminger
Executive Director
Ann Flemer
Deputy Executive Director, Operations
Andrew B. Fremier,
Deputy Executive Director, Bay Area Toll
Authority
Therese W. McMillan
Deputy Executive Director, Policy
PROJECT STAFF
Doug Kimsey
Director, Planning
Lisa Klein
Project Manager
Harold Brazil, Carolyn Clevenger, Sean Co,
Stephen Wolf, Chuck Purvis
Project Staff
Peter Beeler, David Cooper, Michele Stone
Maps and graphics
CONSULTANT ASSISTANCE
PB Americas, ECONorthwest
Bay Area HOT Network Study, December 2008 Update
Table of Contents
Introduction to the Study
Why Pursue a Regional HOT Network? ........................................................................................ i
About This Report ........................................................................................................................ iv
Section I: Initial Feasibility Study ( Phase 1 and Phase 2, complete September 2007)
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... I- 1
2. Summary of Preliminary Findings ........................................................................................ I- 1
3. Bay Area HOT Network Overview ....................................................................................... I- 3
4. HOT Network Phasing ......................................................................................................... I- 5
5. HOT Network Cost, Revenue and Financing....................................................................... I- 8
6. Traffic and Air Quality Benefits .......................................................................................... I- 13
7. Governance and Related Policy Decisions........................................................................ I- 14
8. Next Steps ( Identified Following Phase 1 and 2 Studies) .................................................. I- 16
Section II: Updated Assessment ( Phase 2B Study, complete June 2008)
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... II- 1
2. “ Rapid Delivery” Design Approach...................................................................................... II- 2
3. “ Rapid Delivery” Implementation Schedule, Cost, Revenue and Financing ....................... II- 5
4. HOT Network Benefits: Travel Time and Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................. II- 9
5. Next Steps ........................................................................................................................ II- 12
Appendices
Section I: Initial Feasibility Study
Appendix 1: Regulatory Setting
Appendix 2: When HOV Lanes Get Full
Appendix 3: Cost Analysis
Appendix 4: Revenue Analysis and Revenue Compared to Cost
Appendix 5: Financing Assumptions
Appendix 6: List of Technical Memos ( MTC website and library)
Bay Area HOT Network Study, December 2008 Update
Appendices, cont.
Section II: Updated Assessment
Appendix 7: Rapid Delivery Design Principles ( Task 16 Technical Report)
Appendix 8: Methodology for Estimating Capital Cost - “ Rapid Delivery” Approach
Appendix 9: “ Rapid Delivery” Approach Costs, Revenue and Phasing by Corridor
Appendix 10: Carpool Pay- As- You- Go Implementation Scenario
Appendix 11: Analysis of Travel Time Savings
Appendix 12: Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
J:\ PROJECT\ Pricing Studies\ Regional HOT Lanes Feasibility\ HOT Network Study Final Report ( December 2008)\ Final Report\ 0_ Cover And Intro. Doc
Bay Area HOT Network Study, December 2008 Update Page i
Why Pursue a Regional HOT Network?
High occupancy toll ( HOT) lanes are a proven concept based on well- established technologies.
Individual HOT lane corridors have operated effectively in southern California since the mid-
1990s. Based on experience in Southern California and national trends, the California
Performance Review conducted in 2005 recognized HOT lanes as a useful tool to address the
state’s mobility and infrastructure challenges. Several HOT lane corridor projects are scheduled
to open in the Bay Area by
2015 under existing state
legislative authority. The first
of these will open on I- 680
over the Sunol Grade in 2010.
The other corridors include: I-
580 through the Tri- Valley,
and US 101 and State Route
85 in Santa Clara County. A
number of other cities in the
US have recently opened HOT
lane facilities or plan to do so
in the next five years.
This study advances the HOT
lanes concept from individual
corridors to a connected
network spanning the Bay
Area. A connected carpool
network has been a regional
goal 30 years in the making.
The Regional HOT Network
would accelerate completion
of the region’s carpool and bus
priority system, presently
incomplete due to lack of
funding. Completion of the
network would close gaps that
inhibit seamless travel for
carpools and buses and
relieve bottlenecks where
existing carpool lanes end.
In July 2008 MTC approved
inclusion of the Regional HOT
Network in the Draft
Transportation 2035 Plan. In
doing so, MTC endorsed a set
of principles to guide
implementation of the Network
in collaboration with partner
Six Reasons to Pursue a Regional HOT Network
1. Improve the efficiency of the freeway system by
making the best use of available capacity. HOT lanes
offer demonstrated reductions in person- hours of
delay and vehicle- hours of delay.
2. Offer congestion insurance. Experience shows
travelers from all income groups and professions
value having a reliable travel option when they most
need it.
3. Advance completion of the region’s priority
network for carpools and buses. By generating
revenue, the HOT network produces a revenue
stream that can be used to finance gap closures and
extensions to the region’s carpool system – key air
quality and congestion relief strategy 30 years in the
making. Without this revenue stream, completion of
the network would be delayed by decades. HOT
Network revenue would also be available for other
corridor improvements including new and enhanced
transit.
4. Introduce the region to user- fees, an emerging
funding and demand management strategy.
Transportation pricing is among the most effective
tools for reducing greenhouse gas and other vehicle
emissions, vehicle miles driven and delay. Further,
locally- controlled user- fees are likely to be an
increasingly important source for funding
transportation infrastructure and services needed to
serve a growing region and can free up highway
funds for other uses.
5. Provide a seamless system for users. Several
counties within the region are pursuing HOT lanes for
the reasons noted above. To best serve travelers,
these projects should be coordinated from a design
and operations standpoint. A network approach also
promises a more robust and connected system to
facilitate regional express bus service.
6. Partnership offer efficiencies. Coordination at the
regional level avoids duplication in areas including
design approach, toll collection, incident management
and enforcement.
Bay Area HOT Network Study Final Report Page ii
agencies. ( See sidebar below.)
Regional High Occupancy Toll ( HOT) Network Principles
( adopted by MTC in July 2008)
OBJECTIVES
• Manage the Bay Area’s freeways more effectively to increase throughput and reduce delays
• Provide an efficient and seamless system for travelers
• Provide benefits to travelers within each corridor in proportion to revenue collected in that
corridor
• Take advantage of existing highway right- of- way to implement the Regional HOT Network faster
• Use toll revenue collected from HOT lanes to finance, build, operate and maintain the network,
and to provide transit services and other improvements in the HOT lane corridors
IMPLEMENTATION
1. Collaboration and Cooperation – MTC and BATA will work in concert with county congestion
management agencies, Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol. A collaborative process
shall establish implementation policies, including phasing of the Regional HOT Network, tolling
and operations policies, and corridor investment plans.
2. Corridor- Based Focus & Implementation – The best model for implementation is a corridor-based
framework that reflects the distinct communities and commute patterns within each
corridor.
3. Reinvestment within the Corridor – Support for the Regional HOT Network will depend on
showing that revenues collected in a corridor benefit travelers in that same corridor – through
capital improvements on the freeway and parallel arterials, support for transit service and
operations, and enhanced operations and management of the corridor.
4. Corridor Investment Plans – Reinvestment of revenues in each HOT lane corridor will be
directed by Corridor Investment Plans developed by the stakeholder agencies within each
corridor.
5. Simple System – Travelers deserve an efficient and easy- to- use system that includes safe and
simple operations, consistent design and signage, common technology, and common public
information and marketing.
6. Toll Collection – The Bay Area Toll Authority shall be responsible for toll collection.
7. Financing – A collaborative process will determine the best financing mechanism, which could
include using the state- owned toll bridge enterprise as a financing pledge to construct the
network.
The approach is to convert to HOT lanes approximately 5001 miles of carpool lanes that exist
today or will be built in the next four years with dedicated local sales tax, state and federal
funding. The revenue generated would then be used to construct approximately 300 new miles
of HOT lanes that close gaps and extend the system. ( See map next page.)
1 400 lane miles exist today or are under construction and 100 are fully funded but not yet under construction.
Bay Area HOT Network Study Final Report Page iii
Bay Area HOT Network2
This analysis suggests the region’s carpool system can incorporate HOT lane functions and
continue to offer priority for carpoolers and express buses, while improving overall freeway
2 Some additional segments, including I- 580 and I- 238 west of I- 680 in Alameda County and I- 880 and Route 17
south of US 101 in Santa Clara County, are under study as part of continuing technical analysis. These may
ultimately be incorporated into the regional network.
Bay Area HOT Network Study Final Report Page iv
efficiency. It suggests there are enormous benefits in terms of reduced greenhouse gas
emissions and delay associated with the Regional HOT Network because it generates revenue
that allows the system to be completed decades sooner than a traditional carpool network,
which would be funded through traditional sources. The study outlines a range of approaches to
design and delivery, with associated delivery time frames and costs.
While current state law authorizes HOT lane projects in four Bay Area corridors, additional
authority will be required to develop the complete network. Further, many policy considerations
must be addressed before the region can develop a detailed HOT Network implementation plan.
These include: governance, financing, specific corridor investment programs ( including transit
and other transportation improvements), and operations policies. These, as well as further
technical studies, are underway or lie on the horizon.
About this Report
This report documents the analysis and assumptions underlying the Regional HOT Network
adopted as part of the Draft Transportation 2035 Plan. Analysis completed to date consists of
two major study efforts:
􀂃 Initial Feasibility Study ( Phase 1 and Phase 2, complete September 2007) and
documented in Section I. This effort defined the Regional HOT network, assessed
general feasibility, defined a “ full feature” design approach and phasing, and estimated
associated revenues and costs.
􀂃 Updated Assessment ( Phase 2B Study, complete June 2008) and documented in
Section II. This effort defined a “ rapid delivery” design approach and phasing, and
revised the revenue, cost projections and financing analysis accordingly. The analysis
from this effort is the basis for assumptions in the Draft Transportation 2035 Plan
( anticipated release in December 2008). As part of this work, MTC also developed a
preliminary estimate of travel time and greenhouse gas emissions associated savings
with the Regional HOT Network.
The studies documented here are part of a broader, ongoing effort to develop the Regional HOT
Network. Technical studies for an undertaking of this scale are necessarily iterative, starting with
relatively broad analyses ( such as those documented here) and refining the analyses over time.
Current and future work to this end includes, but likely will not be limited to:
􀂃 Phase 3 Study ( anticipated completion, February 2009). This effort will refine capital
cost estimates for the Regional HOT Network. It will find a middle- ground between the
“ full feature” and “ rapid delivery” design approaches based on a more detailed review of
opportunities and constraints in selected corridors. In all likelihood, the HOT Network will
include some elements of both design approaches: the “ full feature” approach will likely
be accommodated where it can be accommodated readily and the “ rapid delivery”
approach may be used in more constrained settings.
􀂃 Revised Demand and Revenue ( 2009). This effort is expected to revise demand and
revenue forecasts based on the updated design and phasing assumptions. It will employ
more resource- intensive forecasting approaches, including iteration between the travel
and tolling models, and will provide a basis for associated analyses described below.
Bay Area HOT Network Study Final Report Page v
􀂃 Associated Analyses: Equity and Emissions ( 2009). Updated demand and revenue
forecasts will generate refined forecasts of traffic, travel behavior and revenue. As such,
they will provide a basis to review of the equity implications of the HOT Network ( social
and geographic) and to update analysis of vehicle emissions, including greenhouse
gases.
􀂃 Policy Discussions ( ongoing). In fall 2008, executives from the region’s county
congestion management agencies, Caltrans, California Highway Patrol and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission ( MTC) began to meet regularly to address
major policy considerations associated with the Regional HOT Network. These include:
governance, financing, corridor investment programs, education and outreach, and
operations. These discussions will inform future legislation related to a Bay Area HOT
Network.
􀂃 Project- Level Design and Operations. It will be necessary to complete a Project Study
Report or Project Report for each major component of the network. This effort will
include detailed operations analysis and refined design based on a much more detailed
review of the project area.
􀂃 Project- Level Environmental Review. Each component of the HOT Network will
undergo full, project- level environmental review, consistent with state and federal
environmental review requirements.
Section I:
Initial Feasibility Study ( Phase 1 and Phase 2)
Complete September 2007
Conducted by
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
in cooperation with Caltrans
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page I- 1
Initial Feasibility Study ( September 2007)
1. Introduction
This first- order analysis suggests the region’s HOV system can incorporate HOT lane functions
and continue to offer priority for carpoolers and express buses, while improving overall freeway
efficiency. Further, the Bay Area HOT network could be delivered by 2025 and could be self-financing
over a 30- year period if developed and financed as a regional system rather than a
corridor- by- corridor endeavor. Current state law does not, however, provide a governance
framework for a truly regional network. Further discussions with state, regional and local
stakeholders are necessary to define a workable governance structure.
This feasibility assessment should be viewed as a first step toward delivering a regional HOT
network. In addition to assessing general financial feasibility, the study proposes a phased
implementation plan, reviews travel and air quality benefits and identifies policy and governance
considerations. As such it lays the groundwork for subsequent, more detailed analyses needed
to address both technical and policy matters.
2. Summary of Preliminary Findings
The region’s HOV system can incorporate HOT lane functions and continue to offer
priority for carpoolers and express buses. As recent federal and state reviews show,
California’s HOV system will need to be managed to preserve timesavings as carpooling grows
over time. A variety of strategies from increased enforcement to integrated corridor
management can help HOV lanes operate more effectively as they become crowded over time
and forestall more involved measures such as increasing carpool vehicle occupancy
requirements or adding a second lane through dynamic lane management or widening, where
possible. Even without introducing HOT lanes, carpool volumes in approximately six of the
region’s HOV corridors are projected to grow the point of crowding over significant distances
between 2020 and 2030. Conditions are projected to become crowded in another nine HOV
corridors between 2030 and 2040. When steps such as increasing carpool occupancy
requirements or adding a second lane become necessary, HOT lanes can be introduced as a
tool to ensure freeway capacity is used efficiently and to manage continuing operation.
A regional network of HOT lanes completed by 2025 can pay for itself over 30 years.
Based on conservative cost and revenue estimates and a conservative approach to financing,
revenues should be sufficient to cover operations costs and guarantee bond financing for
conversion of existing HOV lanes and construction of gap closures and extensions to complete
the network. ( See Bay Area HOT Network Map, next page.)
The HOT network that operates full time or close to full time could generate net revenue
to fund complementary transportation improvements while sustaining a high level of
borrowing. Developing the network by 2025 requires several years of major capital outlays; the
borrowing need is approximately $ 4.7 billion and requires 30- year financing to cover capital
costs. However, revenue growth is robust in later years, and the network would generate
positive cash flow, even accounting for financing costs, prior to 2030. Over 20 years, the
regional network could generate net revenue up to $ 3 billion, after accounting for debt service
payments. Restricting HOT lane operation to the most congested peak periods would likely
dampen revenue generation to a point that would not sustain the borrowing required to deliver
the complete network by 2025.
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page I- 2
Initial Feasibility Study ( September 2007)
Bay Area HOT Network3
3 Map updated in September 2008 to more reflect projects under construction as of that date. Some additional
segments, including I- 580 and I- 238 west of I- 680 in Alameda County and I- 880 and Route 17 south of US 101 in
Santa Clara County, are under study as part of continuing technical analysis. These may ultimately be incorporated
into the regional network.
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page I- 3
Initial Feasibility Study ( September 2007)
Because the HOT network generates a revenue stream that permits bond financing, the network
can be completed much more quickly than if developed using traditional funding sources. This
itself offers benefits in the form of travel timesavings.
By more efficiently using freeway capacity and thereby reducing congestion, HOT lanes
can reduce the cumulative amount of driving time for drivers in the regular, general-purpose
lanes as well as those who choose to pay the toll for a faster, more reliable trip.
Preliminary analysis suggests the regional HOT network could reduce the amount of freeway
driving time ( measured in vehicle hours) in the morning peak period by 21 percent in the
adjacent general- purpose lanes. Further, by maintaining level of service standards in existing
state law, average travel speeds of 54 miles per hour could be maintained in the HOT lane.
Even if the HOT network were merely to break even in the first 30 years, the region would gain
tremendously by developing the HOT network. Revenue from the HOT network would free
up for other investments a total $ 2.6 billion ( 2006$) that would otherwise be spent to
expand the HOV system. Of this, nearly $ 1 billion is in region’s current long- range
transportation plan, Transportation 2030, and the remainder lies beyond the plans financial
capacity.
It is critical to approach Bay Area HOV and HOT lanes from the perspective of a regional
network. Tremendous benefits can accrue from a connected system. A 2003 performance audit
of the Los Angeles HOV system found that fully two- thirds of the travel benefits are lost at gaps
in the system where HOV traffic is forced to merge into remaining travel lanes. 4 From a
financing and deliverability standpoint, too, the complete system can be achieved only by
considering a network as a whole. Pooling revenues significantly increases bonding capacity
and makes it possible to finance development of some corridors that are unlikely to generate the
level of revenue required to be financeable on their own. Prior to 2030, most corridors
essentially break even ( i. e., their revenues cover their costs) and just a few corridors generate
net revenue on the order required to secure the bonds. After 2030, a number of corridors begin
to generate significant net revenues.
A governance structure must be put in place to deliver a regional HOT network. The
governance structure needs to facilitate the development and operation of a network that
provides a seamless experience for travelers while balancing state, regional and local interests.
The current statutory framework approaches HOT lanes on a corridor- by- corridor basis and
likely is not adequate to address the considerations involved in implementing a regional
network.
3. Bay Area HOT Network Overview
The Network
The Bay Area’s existing HOV system comprises approximately 400 miles of HOV lanes.
Another 100 miles are currently under construction or fully funded and expected to open before
2015. The regional HOT network would be developed first by converting to HOT lanes the HOV
lanes in place by 2015 and subsequently constructing direct connectors and approximately 300
miles of new HOT lanes to close gaps and extend the system. ( See Bay Area HOT Network
4 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. HOV Performance Program Evaluation Report
( November 22, 2002).
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page I- 4
Initial Feasibility Study ( September 2007)
map.) The network considered in this study would ultimately provide priority lanes on nearly 800
of the region’s 1,200 directional miles of freeway.
Admittedly, this network leaves two considerable gaps in the HOV network where
environmental, structural and traffic considerations pose exceptional challenges. One gap lies
on the U. S. 101 corridor between San Francisco International Airport and San Francisco. A
second lies on the I- 880 corridor between the Oakland International Airport and the Bay Bridge
approach. These segments are being evaluated in separate corridor studies.
Design
The design anticipated for the regional HOT network is similar in concept to that in place in
Minneapolis, as shown below. A single HOT lane in each direction would be separated from its
adjacent travel lanes by a painted double yellow stripes and four- foot buffer. In contrast to the
existing, continuous access HOV lanes in the Bay Area, drivers would be able to enter and exit
the lanes only at designated locations. This study assumes merge lanes to facilitate merging at
those locations. ( See example of merge lane, below.) The limited access design is a function of
current electronic toll collection technologies, which use roadside toll readers to collect tolls
based on use of the HOT lane.
Minneapolis I- 394 HOT Lane Example of Merge Lane at Carpool Lane Ingress
Location
Tolls
As with existing carpool lanes, qualifying carpool and buses would use the lanes for free. Other
vehicles would pay tolls collected using FasTrak ® toll technology. Tolls would vary with traffic
congestion, rising as traffic increases ( in effect charging more when the HOT lane offers more
travel time savings). To maintain priority for carpools and express buses, tolls would be set so
the HOT lane operates at level of service C conditions or better, as required by current law. As
traffic approaches the threshold, high toll rates would discourage tolled vehicles from entering
the lane. Qualifying carpools and buses would always have priority access over toll- paying
vehicles at no charge. Advance signage would allow other drivers to decide whether they want
to enter the HOT lane given the toll rate in effect at the time. Travelers would typically pay 20 to
60 cents per mile in 2015 and 50 cents to $ 1 per mile in 2030 to bypass peak period traffic
congestion ( 2006$). As space becomes very scarce in some corridors, posted toll rates may be
higher to prevent the HOT lanes from becoming over crowded.
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page I- 5
Initial Feasibility Study ( September 2007)
Enforcement
Revenues from the HOT lanes would be used to fund expanded enforcement by the California
Highway Patrol ( CHP). CHP officers would enforce both toll violations and HOV occupancy
requirements. Technology is available identify vehicles that do not pay tolls. Currently, no
technology exists to aid CHP officers in verifying vehicle occupancy, and visual verification is
likely to be necessary at least in the near- term.
4. HOT Network Phasing
This study outlines a phasing plan to develop the regional HOT network by 2025. ( See Bay Area
HOT Network Phased Implementation maps, next page.) The four existing HOT lane
demonstration projects will be in operation by 2015 and comprise the first pieces of the regional
HOT network. Following this, the general strategy is to begin by converting to HOT those HOV
lanes in place in 2015. As a second step, new HOT lanes would be constructed to close gaps.
System extensions would tend to be the last pieces developed. A focused program
management effort for project development, environmental and design would likely be required
to undertake this effort.
A number of other important factors are considered in combination with the general strategy.
These include: travel time savings and revenue generation, which will be highly correlated;
benefits for HOT lane and transit operations; geographic balance so that portions of the region
are not left behind for long periods of time; and consideration of actions needed to preserve
HOV lane functionality, which is discussed further below. Project development and construction
time requirements are also a consideration. Under current Caltrans protocols, project
development and environmental process might take up to five years for segments where
existing HOV lanes are converted to HOT lanes and closer to ten years for segments where
new lanes must be constructed.
While it is important to think of the regional network as a single system, there are five
geographic sub- areas ( listed below) where sequencing and staging decisions have clear effects
on other projects and so provide a framework for a phasing strategy.
Bay Area HOT Network Sub- Area Groupings
Associated
with I- 680
Santa Clara/
San Mateo
Associated
with I- 80
Marin/
Sonoma
Associated
with I- 880
I- 680
SR 4
I- 580
US 101
SR 85
SR 87
SR 237
I- 280
I- 880 [ 1]
I- 80 [ 2] US 101 I- 880 [ 3]
SR 84
SR 92
[ 1] SR 237 to US 101 in Santa Clara County
[ 2] Bay Bridge to Yolo County Line
[ 3] Oakland to SR 237 in Santa Clara County
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page I- 6
Initial Feasibility Study ( September 2007)
Bay Area HOT Network Phased Implementation
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page I- 7
Initial Feasibility Study ( September 2007)
HOV Crowding and HOT Implementation
Analysis shows the region’s HOV lanes will become increasingly crowded over time and will
eventually jeopardize their ability to serve their very purpose – providing travel time advantages
and reliable trips for carpools and express buses. Caltrans is currently developing a managed
lanes business plan that will outline near- term and longer- term measures to address this
concern. Near- term measures, such as better enforcement, incident management and freeway
management strategies, can address spot crowding and slow its spread.
HOV Volumes Grow to the Point of Crowding Over Time With the HOV/ HOT Business Plan
still under development, this study
assumes the longer- term approach
to preserve HOV lane function will
be to increase carpool occupancy
requirements. This is by no means
the only solution, but it is likely to
be the most cost- effective, longer-term
solution in most Bay Area
corridors. Other solutions would
provide two HOV travel lanes
either by widening to add a second
HOV or HOT lane or by converting
one adjacent general purpose lane
to a dynamic dual lane that would
operate as an HOV or HOT lane
during the most congested periods
only. While dual HOT lanes have
many operational and safety
advantages, this approach is likely
to be feasible or cost- effective on a
corridor basis in few Bay Area
locations; however, it may be
possible to create dual lanes in
spot locations to alleviate choke
points. HOT lanes complement all
of these longer- term strategies by
ensuring any new or “ freed up”
capacity created by the new
strategy is fully utilized from the
start.
In many Bay Area corridors, longer- term solutions will not need to come into play until 2030 or
later. ( See map above.) The phasing plan begins HOT lane operations much earlier in many of
these corridors under existing carpool occupancy requirements. The lanes can continue to work
as HOT lanes as long as carpool occupancy requirements are increased as the lane begins to
crowd over significant distances.
In a few corridors, crowding is more imminent. In these corridors, HOT lane operation might be
deferred until occupancy requirements need to be increased to preserve carpool and express
bus function. This avoids the perception that the objective is to squeeze out carpools to make
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page I- 8
Initial Feasibility Study ( September 2007)
room for tolled vehicles and avoids offering toll paying customers an option that is only short-lived.
Interstate 80 is a case of particular interest because the HOV lane is already experiencing
crowding on a regular basis and is already restricted to carpools carrying three or more people.
The HOV lane also serves a high volume of express buses, providing a reliable and fast trip
through this top- ranked congested corridor. Conditions call for implementing near- term
strategies very soon to preserve the function of this carpool lane. As in other corridors, these
strategies will improve HOV lane operations and buy some time; however, a more far- reaching
solution will be required in the not- too distant future. Possibilities include: restricting access to
vehicles with four or more people or to buses and vanpools only or adding a dynamic dual lane
that would operate as an HOV or HOT lane during the most congested periods only. A HOT
lane function makes sense in any of these approaches because it ensures the lane or lanes are
fully utilized.
5. HOT Network Cost, Revenue and Financing
Study Approach and Methodology Overview
This report reflects work undertaken over 18 months in two initial HOT network study phases
that, together, comprise a first- order feasibility analysis and implementation plan. Phase 1
involved an assessment of the feasibility, costs and revenue associated with two distinct Bay
Area HOT network configurations: ( 1) a partial network developed by converting only existing
HOV lanes and those fully funded through year 2015; and ( 2) the complete network proposed in
this report. Phase 1 suggested 30- year net revenue from the partial HOT network, if all corridors
were converted in 2015, could cover most of the cost to complete the network. Phase 2
expanded the analysis of the complete network, refined cost estimates based on further
experience with the I- 680 Sunol HOT lane, and developed preliminary implementation and
financing plans for phased development of the entire network by 2025.
As appropriate for a first- order assessment of a HOT network of this scale, the initial study
phases use simplified, yet conservative, approaches to estimating costs and revenues. Capital
costs are based on a range of unit costs that include contingencies of 40 to 60 percent.
Revenue estimates are generated by a tolling model that builds on forecasts from the regional
travel demand model. This preliminary analysis does not include, as a more detailed analysis
would, feedback between the travel demand and revenue models or consideration of
operational constraints. The revenue analysis includes several provisions that make revenue
estimates conservative notwithstanding this simplification: ( 1) revenue is presented in a range
where the low- end represents a 30 percent reduction from the toll model forecast; ( 2) revenue
estimates assume a tolling policy that would maximize travel time savings rather than revenue;
and, ( 3) a cautious approach is used to estimate revenue from the evening peak period. ( See
the appendices to this report for more detail on the study assumptions and methodology.)
Cost
The total capital cost to develop the regional HOT network is $ 4.8 billion dollars ( 2006$). This
total includes conversion of HOV lanes that exist today and those that are fully funded ($ 1.4
billion) as well as widening to close gaps and extend the system ($ 3.4 billion). At the low cost
end, converting HOV lanes to HOT lanes involves adding toll tag readers and signs and
restriping the roadway. To be conservative, higher per mile costs are assumed in most
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page I- 9
Initial Feasibility Study ( September 2007)
corridors, to reflect the likely need to add new pavement and right- of- way and, in some
corridors, to modify existing structures to achieve a design consistent with Caltrans principles for
the I- 680 HOT lane demonstration project over the Sunol Grade:
􀂃 A single HOT lane in each direction would be separated from the adjacent general
purpose lanes by a painted double- striped line and a four- foot buffer;
􀂃 Access and ingress locations would be separate and would include a weaving lane
to allow traffic to transition between the faster HOT lane and slower adjacent lanes;
and
􀂃 Space would be provided in the median for CHP patrols to provide enforcement.
It would be helpful to explore where modifications of this “ ultimate” design protocol would be
both operationally viable and less costly.
For segments where HOV lanes do not exist or are not otherwise funded, the capital cost
estimate reflects the cost of widening to accommodate an additional travel lane in each direction
as well as toll- related equipment and signs. The network cost also includes new, direct HOT
lane to HOT lane connectors at major interchanges, including I- 80/ I- 680, I- 680/ SR 4 and I- 680/ I-
580. The cost estimate does not include direct access ramps or complementary express bus
system enhancements, which should be considered among the possible investments for
positive net toll revenue.
The operating and maintenance cost for the Bay Area HOT network is estimated to total $ 1.5
billion over 20 years. This includes CHP enforcement, toll equipment maintenance,
communications, utilities, administration, FasTrak ® toll tags and costs of processing toll
transactions. This estimate does not include the cost to maintain the roadway itself. ( See
discussion below.)
Revenue and Financing
Revenue potential of the Bay Area HOT network depends on four principal factors: tolling
policies, congestion levels, carpooling policies and demand, and the willingness of travelers to
pay for a faster, more reliable trip.
With the phased plan
developed in this study, the
regional HOT network could
generate between $ 8 and $ 11
billion in gross revenue
between 2015 and 2035,
assuming full time operation ( 24
hours per day, seven days per
week). Analysis suggests
revenue would grow steeply in
the years beyond 2035, as real
income rises ( and travelers are
willing to pay more for speed
and reliability) and congestion
levels and the length of
congested peak periods grow.
( See graph at right.)
Revenue Growth is Robust Over Time
$ 0
$ 10
$ 20
$ 30
$ 40
2015- 19 2020- 24 2025- 29 2030- 34 2035- 39 2040- 45 2046- 50
Gross Revenue
( billions, 2006$)
Low range revenue estimate High range revenue estimate
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page I- 10
Initial Feasibility Study ( September 2007)
Developing the regional HOT network by 2025 would require 30- year bond financing to cover
approximately $ 4.7 billion in capital outlays. Debt service over 30 years would total $ 9.4 billion.
With the phased plan from this study, revenues from the HOT network are likely to cover costs
over the 20 years between 2015 and 2035. If HOT revenues reach the high end of estimates to
date, HOT network revenues could exceed costs, including debt service, by approximately $ 3.1
billion over that time. If revenues lie at the low end of current estimates, HOT network revenues
are approximately equal to costs over the 20- year period. 5 ( See table, below.)
Modest adjustments
to the phased plan
can be expected to
improve the outlook
at the low end of the
revenue estimate
range while refined
approaches to costs
and revenues will
eventually narrow
the range over all.
In order to finance and deliver the regional network, it will be necessary to pool revenues and
costs. Not surprisingly, some corridors are stronger than others in terms of revenue generation.
( See Net Revenue Potential by Corridor table, next page.) The primary factors that affect net
revenue generating potential over this period include:
􀂃 Extent of widening required to implement the HOT segment ( HOT revenue from
corridors that do not have an HOV lane that can be converted to HOT must cover
costs of a new travel lane);
􀂃 Assumed HOT lane opening date;
􀂃 HOV volumes and date at which the carpool occupancy requirement for free
passage increases due to growth in HOV volumes; and
􀂃 Congestion levels and willingness of travelers to pay for faster, more reliable travel.
While most corridors do break even over the 2015 to 2035 period, revenues from the high
generation corridors are needed to ensure favorable financing and operate the network in the
early and middle years. Further, a few corridors – especially those that start operation later –
may require a longer period of time before revenues cover costs.
5 Given the level of detail in this analysis a net revenue figure of plus or minus $ 300,000 million over 20 years can be
considered breaking even.
HOT Network Cost and Revenues
2015 to 2035 ( billions of 2006$)
Low Estimate High Estimate
Gross revenue $ 8.0 $ 11.4
Operations and maintenance cost -$ 1.6 -$ 1.6
Debt service [ 1] -$ 6.7 -$ 6.7
Net revenue -$ 0.3 $ 3.1
[ 1] Based on borrowing $ 4.7 billion over 30- years. Debt service repayment continues
through 2045 for a 30- year total of $ 9.4 billion.
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page I- 11
Initial Feasibility Study ( September 2007)
Net Revenue Potential by Corridor, 2015 - 2035
Corridor [ 1]
Year HOT Lane
Opens [ 2]
Year Carpool
Occupancy
Requirement
Increases to 3+
Generates $ 1 Billion or More in Net Revenue [ 3]
I- 880 from 98th Ave. to SR 237
and northbound Bay Bridge approach
2015/ 2020 2025
I- 680 from SR 84 to Calaveras 2010/ 2015 2035
US 101 from San Mateo County Line to Cochrane 2015/ 2025 2035
I- 680 from SR 84 to I- 80 2020/ 2025 2030/ 2040
Covers Costs
SR 85 2013 2020
I- 580 2013/ 2015 2035
SR 87 2015 2040
I- 80 from Bay Bridge to Carquinez Bridge 2015 2015
SR 237 2020/ 2035 2035
SR 84 westbound Dumbarton Bridge Approach only 2015 2025
I- 280 2020/ 2025 2035
SR 92
westbound San Mateo- Hayward Bridge Approach only
2015
US 101 Millbrae to Santa Clara County Line 2020/ 2025 2035
I- 80 from Carquinez Bridge to Yolo County line 2015/ 2020/ 2025 2040
SR 4 from SR 160 to I- 680 2020 2020
Fails to Cover Costs
US 101 from Windsor River Road to Corte Madera 2025/ 2030 2025/ 2030
[ 1] HOT lane corridors are bi- directional unless noted.
[ 2] First date indicates opening date for initial section; second date is opening date for later extension, if any.
[ 3] Each corridor projected to generate at least $ 1 billion in net revenue.
Impact of Tolling Policies on Revenue
Tolling policies also clearly influence revenue. Variations on tolling policies could affect the
revenue outlook as follows:
􀂃 Tolling objective. The estimates above assume tolls are set to maximize freeway
efficiency ( measured by the value of time saved for all freeway users) as opposed to
maximizing revenue. This is assumption consistent with a policy objective to improve
freeway efficiency and makes revenue projections for this initial analysis more
conservative. Policies that maximize revenue have been shown to increase revenue by
at least 20 percent. However, these policies also result in higher tolls and lower HOT
lane usage.
􀂃 Full time versus part- time tolling. Full time HOT network operation ( 24- hours per day,
seven days per week) would represent a significant change in the Bay Area where the
carpool lanes currently operate during peak commute hours only. Because HOT lanes
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page I- 12
Initial Feasibility Study ( September 2007)
more effectively utilize freeway capacity, they can operate very effectively in the
shoulder periods as well. Revenue generation during the shoulder periods is not
insignificant, reflecting travelers’ willingness to pay to bypass congestion in these
periods.
Restricting HOT lane operations to the most congested peak periods only would likely
dampen revenue generation to the point that borrowing requirements would need to be
reduced. In- depth analysis for the I- 680 Sunol corridor suggests that by limiting HOT
lane operation to eight peak hours on weekdays and four peak hours on weekends
yields 71 percent of the revenue generated by full time operation. Assuming a similar
pattern holds for other corridors, the network would fail to cover 20- year costs ( including
financing) even under high revenue estimates for this study. Thus, developing the
regional network might necessitate using a combination of state highway funding
sources and bonding or slowing down implementation.
A less restrictive part time tolling policy that included operation over peak and shoulder
periods would have much less significant impacts. By capturing peak and shoulder
twelve hours on weekdays and 4 peak hours on weekends, revenue generation is
roughly sufficient to cover costs at the high- range estimate.
􀂃 Hybrid vehicles. Revenue estimates for this study assume no special treatment for
hybrid vehicles. Exempting hybrid vehicles from HOT lane tolls reduces the space
available for free vehicles and could reduce revenues by 5 to 40 percent depending on
the corridor.
Complementary Investments – Candidates for Net Revenue
While the first call on HOT network revenue should be operating and completing the system,
revenue projection trends suggest a Bay Area HOT network will generate positive net revenue
over time. The point at which net revenue is available for other investments depends both on
tolling policies and financing terms. When the time comes, it will be important to make careful
trade- offs between potential investments. The discussion among key stakeholders will need to
consider regional and state transportation goals and policies, overall investment needs, and
notions of equity. Some potential investments include:
􀂃 Express transit. Many regions use HOT lane revenue to provide enhanced express bus
service, which both increases the number of people carried during peak periods and
extends the benefits of the HOT lane directly to those who may not be able to pay the
toll. The 20- year cost ( 2015 – 2035) for a full complement of enhancements to regional
express bus service in HOT network corridors could reach $ 3.4 billion, though significant
benefits could likely be achieved by implementing selected elements. 6 The time at which
net revenue is available for expenditure is particularly significant when considering
express bus services because toll revenue is likely the only funding resource available
for funding operation of significant service enhancements.
􀂃 Roadway maintenance. Caltrans asked that the roadway maintenance costs of the HOT
network be enumerated as part of this analysis. Using HOT network toll revenue to fund
roadway maintenance would be a departure from current policy, under which the state
6 Based on cost estimates for the express bus portion of the HOT/ Bus scenario MTC is analyzing in the
Transportation 2035 Vision.
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page I- 13
Initial Feasibility Study ( September 2007)
funds roadway maintenance for state- owned roadways, including the existing HOT lanes
in San Diego and Orange County toll roads. It is also true that those paying to use the
HOT lanes will expect a high ride quality for their trip. The estimated 20- year cost ( 2015
– 2035) to maintain the HOT network roadway, including existing HOV lanes that are
converted to HOT lanes, is $ 1.2 billion.
􀂃 Other mobility investments. While HOT lanes are important tool, other investments also
will be needed to manage delay and improve mobility in each HOT corridor. These
investments are identified in the Transportation 2030 Plan and could include ramp
metering, auxiliary lanes and other freeway operational improvements, interchange
improvements, and rail transit extensions and upgrades. HOT lanes would work in
tandem with such improvements.
6. Traffic and Air Quality Benefits
Findings from this analysis are consistent with before and after studies showing HOT lanes
improve overall traffic conditions by increasing congested travel speeds and vehicle throughput,
while only modestly slowing travel for carpools and buses. The preliminary forecasts from this
analysis suggest that, with build out of the regional HOT network, average travel speeds in 2035
could reach 39 miles per hour in the general purpose lanes during the AM peak period while
maintaining average speeds in the range of 54 miles per hour in the HOT lane, consistent with
level of service C operating standards. This sounds relatively unimpressive until compared with
a system of HOV lanes over the same facilities for which forecasts show substantially reduced
speeds in the general purpose lanes ( 32 miles per hour) but only modestly higher speeds in the
HOV lane ( 56 miles per hour). Similarly, the regional HOT network could reduce total vehicle
hours of travel during the morning peak hour by up to 13 percent compared to an HOV only
network on the same freeway facilities. ( See Traffic Characteristics table below.)
Traffic Characteristics of Bay Area HOT Network Compared to HOV Network in Year 2030 [ 1]
HOV/ HOT
Lanes
General
Purpose Lanes
Total/ Average
All Lanes
AM Peak Hour Vehicle Hours Traveled ( VHT)
HOV network 10,410 120,890 131,290
HOT network 17,960 95,615 113,575
Percent change 73% - 21% - 13%
AM Peak Hour Average Speed ( miles per hour) [ 2]
HOV network 56 32 34
HOT network 54 39 41
Percent change - 3% 20% 21%
[ 1] Figures are for freeways with HOV or HOT lanes only and reflect results of analysis
assuming existing HOV occupancy requirements for HOV and HOT lanes.
[ 2] Reflects travel in the peak and reverse peak direction.
Because HOT lanes reduce congestion and increase travel speeds, they reduce vehicle tailpipe
emissions. In particular, preliminary analysis suggests that compared to a regional HOV
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page I- 14
Initial Feasibility Study ( September 2007)
network, a regional HOT network could reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the morning peak
period by about seven percent. ( See Emissions table below.)
Emissions Associated with Bay Area HOT Network Compared to HOV Network in Year 2030 [ 1]
Reactive
Organic
Gasses ( ROG)
( tons)
Nitrogen
Oxide ( NOx)
( tons)
Particulate
Matter ( PM 10)
( tons) [ 2]
Carbon
Dioxide ( CO2)
( thousands of
tons)
AM Peak Period Emissions - Two peak hours from 7 to 9 AM
HOV network 2.10 2.18 0.20 4.65
HOT network 2.06 2.11 0.18 4.32
Percent change - 2% - 3% - 10% - 7%
[ 1] Figures are for emissions on freeways with HOV or HOT lanes only and reflect results of analysis assuming
existing HOV occupancy requirements for HOV and HOT lanes.
[ 2] PM10 emissions reflect exhaust only and do not include tire and brake wear emissions.
It is important to acknowledge this simplified first- order analysis may overstate performance to
some degree by not accounting fully for changes travelers might make in response to the
improved travel speeds associated with the HOT lanes. For example, travelers who would
otherwise choose to drive in the shoulder period might shift into the peak, resulting in somewhat
slower travel speeds and potentially higher emissions. However, the comparison above
between identical HOV and HOT networks in year 2030 likely understates the true benefits of a
HOT network because funding simply is not available to complete the HOV network by that
date. Further analysis comparing the regional HOT network and a smaller, less complete HOV
system that could be constructed by 2030 likely would show equal or greater performance
improvements.
7. Governance and Related Policy Decisions
Governance Structure
A central question for a regional HOT network relates to how it would be governed. Will the
regional network be governed through a series of independent tolling authorities, much as the
region’s transit service is provided today? Or will it be governed through a single multi-jurisdictional
authority charged with coordinating and balancing local, regional and state
interests?
The framework established under current state law addresses HOT lanes as a corridor by
corridor consideration in so far as it: permits limited projects in six corridors in northern
California; provides governance structures reflecting corridor interests; and requires net toll
revenue to be expended within the corridor of generation. The legislative framework recognizes
a few important state and regional roles based on well established roles and responsibilities:
design and construction of HOT lanes must be coordinated with Caltrans; CHP will provide
enforcement; and the Bay Area Toll Authority will manage and operate the toll collection system.
But it does not go far enough in reflecting the full range of coordination required for a regional
network.
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page I- 15
Initial Feasibility Study ( September 2007)
New legislation will be needed to establish a governance framework to deliver a true connected
Bay Area HOT network. The framework will need to recognize a balance between local interests
with the strong regional and state roles required to deliver a complete regional network. Local
interests are based on the responsibility to deliver benefits to constituents as well as prior
investment of sales tax revenue and “ county share” state funding in the HOV system and, in the
cases of Alameda and Santa Clara counties, demonstration HOT lane corridors. Regional and
state roles relate not only to those outlined in current state statute, but also to financing a
complete network and operating it in a manner that is seamless and safe for travelers as they
move among corridors and across county lines.
Governance arrangements for a regional network exist on a continuum from highly
decentralized to highly centralized structures. On the most decentralized end, a series of
independent county or corridor tolling authorities would coordinate with each other and regional
and state interests through consultations or contractual agreements. On the most centralized
end, the state itself would be the tolling authority and would set policy in consultation with local
and regional entities. Regional entities empowered under state ( SB 45, statues establishing the
Bay Area Toll Authority) and federal law ( SAFETEA- LU) provide models that lie in the middle of
the continuum. In establishing a governance structure the strengths and weakness of each
model must be considered in light of the policy decisions to be made and the goals of a regional
HOT network.
Related Policy Decisions
Some governance related- questions may be addressed explicitly in revisions to state law that
will establish the governance structure. Others will need to be addressed through coordinated
decision- making under the established governance structure. The main governance- related
responsibilities can be grouped under four main areas.
􀂃 Costs, revenues and financing. Where a HOT lane can generate significant revenue, its
value is apparent to local, regional, and state organizations. With all such jurisdictions
having more needs than can be funded from known sources, having a potentially
significant on going and growing funding source become available is very significant.
Key governance decisions address how HOT lane revenues may be reinvested in the
transportation system, what types of investments are eligible, how they will be prioritized,
and which entities have jurisdiction over various specific investment choices. The
governance system will need to recognize the advantages to be gained by leveraging
revenues to finance completion of the system while providing for an equitable way to
reinvest revenues in complementary transit services and other roadway improvements
within the corridor of origin. This may not result in the transitional county- based “ return to
source” model that characterizes a majority of transportation and highway funding.
􀂃 Tolling policies. This category includes a range of decisions that directly affect revenue,
operations, and customer satisfaction. The governance structure must provide for
decisions about how tolls will be set, for example tolls may be set to maximize travel
time savings or to maximize revenue; procedures for increasing tolls; and how carpools,
clean- fuel vehicles and hybrid vehicles will be tolled. The question of how many people
must be in a carpool in order to qualify for free passage or reduced toll rates falls into
this category. Consistency in tolling policies may be more important for some decisions
than others.
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page I- 16
Initial Feasibility Study ( September 2007)
􀂃 Operations & Design. Decisions in these categories similarly affect revenue and
customer satisfaction, and they also have direct bearing on cost and safety. Operations
decisions relate to the hours of HOT lane operation and enforcement practices including
the level of enforcement provided. Design decisions include separation of the HOT lane
from the general- purpose lanes, provisions for ingress and egress and enforcement,
need for design exceptions, and signage.
􀂃 Private sector role. Private sector roles could vary from simple financing, as presumed in
this implementation plan and allowed by current law, to a variety of public private
partnership models. The latter could range from an operating concession to private
development and/ or ownership and could also include arrangements to expedite project
delivery, such as design build approaches. The options here are closely tied to state law
governing public- private ventures and are not explored in this study.
8. Next Steps ( Identified Following Phase 1 and 2 Studies)
This initial assessment suggests a Bay Area HOT network can accelerate completion of a
priority network for carpools and buses and improve freeway efficiency. Further because a HOT
network is self- financing, its development could free close to two billion dollars that would
otherwise be needed to complete the region’s HOV system.
These findings suggest it is worthwhile to pursue the next steps on a path toward developing a
regional HOT network. The conservative assumptions, large benefits and projected steep
revenue growth curve in this analysis suggest cost may be even less of a constraint and, it may
be worthwhile and feasible to deliver the network on an even more accelerated schedule.
Further analysis could include an assessment of new project delivery staffing structures and
review of design principles, to see if it is possible and beneficial to deliver a complete network
before 2025. MTC wishes to pursue this additional analysis.
A general roadmap for advancing the HOT network includes the following next steps, some of
which would need to proceed in parallel:
1. Refined analysis. Initial steps would consist of more detailed analysis to refine cost and
revenue estimates and review operational concerns. Refining the cost estimates requires a
more thorough review of the network’s physical design, existing constraints and
opportunities for ingress, egress and enforcement locations. Design refinements allow
refined demand and revenue forecasts, which in turn permit a more detailed assessment of
operations considerations. At each stage, it will be important to reconsider the basic
parameters of the phasing and financing plans. A first pass would be more involved than the
analysis conducted to date but still fairly general. Some specific areas requiring further
review include:
􀂃 Closing identified gaps in the network. The network studied to date leaves two significant
gaps in the HOV network in two extremely constrained corridors: ( 1) the U. S. 101
corridor between San Francisco International Airport and San Francisco and ( 2) the I-
880 corridor between the Oakland International Airport and the Bay Bridge approach.
These segments deserve a closer look given the significance of these segments for
regional mobility and the projected revenue growth potential for the regional HOT
network. An initial assessment should compare the cost, traffic and environmental
considerations of two admittedly controversial approaches to close the gap: ( 1) a low-cost,
possibly near- term approach of converting an existing travel lane; and ( 2) a high-
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page I- 17
Initial Feasibility Study ( September 2007)
cost, longer- term solution that would likely involve substantially rebuilding these corridors
with HOT lanes.
􀂃 Interstate 80. Opportunities for incorporating HOT lanes in the I- 80 corridor through
Alameda and Contra Costa counties in conjunction with steps to preserve and improve
the HOV function and overall traffic flow in the corridor.
􀂃 Toll plaza operations. Assessment of how to integrate HOT lanes at the toll plazas of
Bay Area toll bridges. The existing toll plazas are designed to accommodate carpools,
that do not pay a toll, and FasTrak ® users and cash customers, that pay a uniform rate.
Operational analysis will be needed to determine how to accommodate a fourth
customer class, those who pay a premium rate to avoid a backup.
􀂃 Interface with other planned improvements. This means putting in place procedures so
projects under development do not unwittingly preclude the option to provide a HOT lane
in the future. It also means considering the potential traffic impacts of HOT lanes in
freeway corridor management planning. Integration with other planned improvements
could streamline project development and accelerate implementation of the HOT
network.
Subsequent, even more detailed analysis would be conducted as part of the formal
documents required in the Caltrans project development process ( project study reports and
project initiation documents). MTC and Caltrans are poised to kick off a planning- level
review of design and refinements to cost estimates later this year.
2. Review of equity considerations. As refined design, demand and revenue analyses become
available, it will be possible to assess the equity implications of the regional HOT network.
This assessment will consider the distribution of benefits and impacts relative to geography
and income level. The assessment will also document the benefits and impacts to transit
users and carpoolers.
3. Governance. The region and state need to map out a governance structure for the regional
HOT network. The governance structure must provide a means to establish a host of
policies governing, design, tolling and operations practices, and revenue allocation. Several
models are possible. These initial study results provide a sufficient basis to begin a dialogue
among key regional and state stakeholders about governance. Participants will need to find
a solution that allows regional objectives to be achieved ( e. g., completion of a regional
network) while respecting consideration of local interests ( some degree of equity based on
past investment and system use). Governance discussions also should address potential
roles for the private sector. Ultimately, legislative action would be required to enable
development of a regional network and, most likely, to transition the current authorized
corridor demonstration projects into a regional governance structure.
4. Public dialog. A certain degree of public dialog and education about HOT lanes has already
begun in conjunction with the Alameda and Santa Clara county demonstration projects. This
will ramp up over the next year with advancements in project development, the kick off of I-
680 HOT lane marketing and education campaign, and the update of the regional long-range
transportation plan. The region should expand and piggyback on these efforts over
time in conjunction with the steps described here to advance the regional network. However,
the biggest opportunity to engage the public in a broad discussion about a regional network
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page I- 18
Initial Feasibility Study ( September 2007)
will be when Bay Area residents get their first hands on experience with the opening of the I-
680 HOT lane in 2010.
5. Financing. The HOT network financing plan will need to be updated as cost and revenue
projections are refined. Potential financiers will require investment grade analyses before
underwriting bonds. However, it is wise to initiate discussions with potential financiers fairly
early to better understand their assessment of risks relative to key governance and policy
decisions. For example, financiers will be keenly interested in policies that govern tolling
rates, treatment of carpools, and hours of operation. Reducing the uncertainties likely to be
seen by financiers may enable the region to use a lower coverage ratio ( the ratio between
available revenues and the debt repayment amounts).
Section II:
Updated Assessment ( Phase 2B)
Complete June 2008
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section II Page II- 1
Updated Assessment ( June 2008)
1. Introduction
Subsequent to the Phase 1 and Phase 2 analysis completed in September 2007 ( see Section I),
MTC staff considered whether it might be possible to complete the Regional HOT Network even
faster by pursuing a less capital- intensive, interim, design approach. Those queries gave rise to
analysis conducted between September 2007 and June 2008 and summarized here. The
principle components include:
• Comparison of design approaches and definition of a “ rapid delivery” design intended to
minimize the need for new pavement and right- of- way
• Revised phasing plan7
• Revised capital and operating costs and financing analysis
• Preliminary estimates of delay and greenhouse gas emissions savings
The results of this revised analysis form the basis for the phasing, cost and revenue
assumptions for the Regional HOT Network in the Draft Transportation 2035 Plan. As such,
costs and revenues in this section are presented in escalated dollars for the period between
2009 and 2033.
Key findings include:
There are significant benefits to speeding completion of the Regional HOT Network. A
“ rapid delivery” approach, compared to the “ full feature” design approach assumed in the Phase
1 and 2 studies, could advance completion of the Regional HOT Network by up to 10 years.
Benefits include savings in construction costs ($ 4.6 billion) and travel time ( 80 million person
hours of travel through 2050), and reduced greenhouse gas emissions ( 10 million tons through
2050). The specific rapid delivery design principles outlined here may not be where the region
ultimately wishes to land; however, the magnitude of the potential savings suggests it makes
sense to look at alternative approaches to design and delivery.
Earlier implementation of the Regional HOT Network does not generate significant
additional gross revenue but does produce more net revenue, due to capital cost
savings. Revenue potential is highest in later years, as congestion grows and after carpool
demand has increased to the point at which it is necessary to increase carpool occupancy
requirements to keep the lanes free flowing.
There are precedents within California and nationally for a “ rapid delivery” approach,
which aims to speed delivery and reduce costs. Examples include carpool lanes in southern
California on Route 91 and Route 55 and in the Bay Area on Interstate I- 680, which were initially
opened with designs reflecting exceptions to Caltrans standards. These corridors were widened
and reconstructed to accommodate full design attributes as funding became available. HOT
lanes on I- 95 in Miami provide another example. In 2007, the U. S. Department of Transportation
awarded funding for this project, which will open at the end of 2008. Because it is not feasible to
widen the freeway, the typical section will include several design exceptions to fit two directional
HOT lanes within the existing paved area: no inside shoulder, narrow ( 10.5- to 11- foot) travel
lanes and a reduced one- to two- foot buffer between the HOT lanes and adjacent general
purpose lanes.
7 Note that the Regional HOT Network definition is unchanged from earlier analysis. See map in Section I ( page I- 2).
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page II- 2
Updated Assessment ( June 2008)
2. “ Rapid Delivery” Design Approach
The principle goal in considering “ rapid delivery” approach is to further accelerate completion of
the HOT network in order to deliver congestion and emissions relief sooner. A secondary goal
includes taking advantage of a window of opportunity presented by the prevailing philosophy in
the U. S. Department of Transportation and State of California, both of which have expressed
strong support for innovative financing and demand management approaches involving
congestion pricing.
In Section I of this report, MTC estimated the Regional HOT Network could be complete by
2025 assuming a “ full- feature” HOT Network: all improvements built to full Caltrans design
standards for shoulder and lane widths; buffer separation between the HOT and adjacent
general- purpose lane; and separated ingress and egress locations with merge lanes ( See figure
on page I- 4 for an example of a merge lane). This approach would require significant widening.
Widening would be required to accommodate new travel lanes and full shoulders in many
places where carpool lanes do not currently exist. Widening would also likely be required
throughout the existing carpool network to accommodate the merge lanes required at access
and egress locations. This “ full feature” approach can be said to represent an ultimate build out
or high- end cost estimate. Further, this approach has potentially significant environmental
impacts requiring detailed environmental review and long construction times.
What if the region aimed to complete the HOT network must faster by pursuing a strategy to fit
the HOT lanes within existing pavement and minimize widening wherever possible and safe?
MTC estimates it might be possible to complete the network eight to ten years faster using a
“ rapid delivery” approach assuming design exceptions where needed, consistent with past
practice to develop carpool lanes in California. 8 Carpool systems in California have often been
created by converting the inside shoulder to a carpool lane and narrowing adjacent lanes with a
goal to provide the greatest system level mileage of carpool lane benefits early and fill in the
harder- to- implement gaps as funding became available.
Design principles assumed for the “ rapid delivery” approach are listed below ( see next page).
The approach to convert existing carpool lanes would be to install toll collection equipment and
signs and re- stripe travel lanes to provide a buffer between the HOT lane and adjacent general-purpose
lane; no widening would be undertaken. 9 For new HOT lanes, where no carpool lanes
exist, widening would be minimized as much as possible to stay within the existing paved right-of-
way. If needed, travel lanes and the inside shoulder would be narrowed, assuming they have
not been narrowed for a prior project. In some cases, it may be necessary to add pavement in
existing median or on the right side. In extreme cases, there simply is not enough space within
the existing right- of- way to allow for a new HOT lane, and new right- of- way would need to be
acquired. The end result would be a slimmed- down cross section in the many constrained parts
of the Bay Area freeway system. The figure ( page II- 4 below) compares a typical cross section
under the “ full feature” approach from Section I with a “ minimum” cross section that would be
developed on constrained freeway segments under the “ rapid delivery” approach.
8 See Appendix 7 for specific examples.
9 This is the approach pursued for the Minneapolis I- 394 and Seattle SR- 167 HOT lanes.
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page II- 3
Updated Assessment ( June 2008)
“ Rapid Delivery” Design Principles10
Converting Existing Carpool lanes to HOT lanes
• To achieve a 4 foot buffer between the HOT and adjacent general- purpose lane, either
reduce the inside shoulder to between 8 and 2 feet or narrow existing travel lanes from 12
to 11 feet. However, the right most mixed lane, which serves truck traffic, would not be
narrowed.
• If the existing carpool and general- purpose lanes are already 11 feet in width and there is
no room to spare in the inside shoulder, then no buffer would be provided between the HOT
and general- purpose lanes. The right shoulder would not be narrowed.
Widening for New Travel Lanes
• Widen into the median where space exists. The total space needed is 18 to 24 feet in each
direction to accommodate a 12- foot travel lane, 4- foot buffer and 2 to 8 foot median
shoulder.
• If the area in the median is not sufficient, narrow the HOT and mixed use lanes from 12 to
11 feet. However, the right most mixed lane, which serves truck traffic, would not be
narrowed.
• If narrowing of lanes would not provide the needed width, outside widening would be
required. Right shoulders would be narrowed only at bridges to avoid structural widening or
replacement.
• If there is not sufficient space within the existing right- of- way based on the above criteria,
review potential to provide a 14- foot cross section ( 12 foot travel lane plus 2 foot median
shoulder) in each direction by making the same trade- offs.
• As a last resort, new right- of- way would need to be acquired.
Conversions and Widenings
• Ingress/ egress areas would be combined ( rather than separate) and designated with broken
striping only. No merge lanes would be provided.
• Signing would be minimized to one dynamic sign at each ingress/ egress area with periodic
static signing mounted on the median barrier.
• No additional enforcement areas would be provided beyond those already existing.
10 See Appendix 8 for more detail and drawings. These principles are consistent with guidelines from the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page II- 4
Updated Assessment ( June 2008)
To minimize needed widening, access and
egress design would be modeled on the
approach used for carpool lanes in southern
California ( see right). HOT lanes in Seattle on
SR- 167 and Minneapolis on I- 394 employ a
similar access design. The “ rapid delivery”
approach assumes does not include merge
lanes at access or egress locations.
This approach enables build out in a much
shorter time frame by minimizing freeway
widening and the associated environmental
impacts ( hence minimizing the time needed
for environmental review) and construction
time. It also would deliver the initial HOT network at a lower cost, leaving additional revenue for
a range of potential improvements including enhanced incident management, corridor transit
enhancements, expanded maintenance or eventually restoring portions of the HOT network to
standards.
The “ rapid delivery” approach requires, in addition to design exceptions, an accelerated
approach to project design and delivery. This would include, at a minimum: concurrent project-
“ Rapid Delivery” HOT Design
“ Full Feature” HOT Design
Comparison of Typical Sections
Southern California Carpool Lane
Access/ Egress Design ( I- 210, Pasadena)
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page II- 5
Updated Assessment ( June 2008)
level studies such as project study reports and environmental assessments, accelerated
approval of project development documents and simultaneous construction of multiple corridors.
Such an effort would require dedicating personnel and resources above and beyond those
currently available at MTC and Caltrans. There are existing models for such efforts. One is the
Santa Clara County Measure A sales tax program, for which Caltrans provided dedicated staff
at a satellite office. Alternative project delivery model also merit review. These include:
accelerated design- bid- build, design- build ( applied for the SR 73 and SR 125 toll roads in
Southern California), design- build operate maintain ( applied for the I- 95 HOT lanes in Miami),
and public private partnerships ( applied for the I- 495 HOT lanes in Virginia).
3. “ Rapid Delivery” Implementation Schedule, Cost, Revenue and Financing
This section presents an overview of the Regional HOT Network implementation schedule,
costs, revenue and financing approach. More detail on cost methodology and on the
implementation schedule, costs and revenue for individual corridors is presented in Appendices
8 and 9.
Implementation Schedule
By minimizing the need for new construction and associated environmental review through the
“ rapid delivery” approach, it might be possible to complete the Regional HOT Network as early
as 2016. This assumes project design and development would begin in 2009. All existing and
funded carpool lanes would open as HOT lanes in 2011. New lanes where median or right- side
widening would be required would open in 2013 or 2014. The most constrained segments,
where new right- of- way would be required, would open last in 2016. These time lines are
admittedly aggressive and assume the expedited project delivery approaches as described
above. The graph below compares the implementation schedules for the “ full feature” and “ rapid
delivery” approaches.
Comparison of HOT Network Build Out Schedule
Under “ Rapid Delivery” and “ Full Feature” Design Approach
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2020 2025 2030 2035
HOT Network Lane- Miles
HOT Lanes
“ rapid delivery”
HOT Lanes
“ Full Feature”
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page II- 6
Updated Assessment ( June 2008)
Cost and Revenue
Approach
The general approach to estimate capital costs for the ” rapid delivery” design is similar in
concept to that used to estimate costs for the “ full feature” design in Section I. Capital costs are
based on a range of unit costs that include contingencies of 40 to 60 percent. For costing
purposes, network segments are classified in one of five unit- cost categories11:
• Conversion of existing ( or funded) carpool lanes. No widening required
• Low cost widening. Sufficient right- of- way exists in the median to allow for a new 12- foot
HOT lane plus a 4- foot buffer and minimum 2- foot median shoulder.
• Medium cost left- side widening. Sufficient right- of- way exists to create a new 12- foot
HOT lane plus a minimum 2- foot median shoulder by widening in the median and
possibly by narrowing the median shoulder width and some travel lanes.
• Medium cost right- side widening. Sufficient right- of- way exists to create a new 12- foot
HOT lane plus a minimum 2- foot median shoulder by widening to the right and possibly
narrowing some travel lanes.
• High cost. There is not sufficient right- of- way to allow for a 12- foot travel lane and 2- foot
shoulder. New right- of- way would have to be acquired.
Annual operating and maintenance costs under the “ rapid delivery” approach are assumed to be
the same on a per mile basis as for the “ full feature” approach. Operating and maintenance
costs include enforcement by the California Highway Patrol, toll equipment maintenance,
communications, utilities, administration, FasTrak ® toll tags and processing of toll transactions. 12
The operating and maintenance cost estimate does not include the costs of roadway
maintenance or enhanced incident management, though both could be considered potential
expenditures for new revenue or could be included in future cost estimates as a result of future
policy decisions as they directly affect customer experience.
Revenue estimates for the “ rapid delivery” HOT Network are based on those developed for the
“ full feature” approach documented in Section I of this report. Interpolation was used to project
annual revenues associated with earlier opening of various network segments. Revenue
estimates for the “ rapid delivery” and “ full featured” roll- out reflect identical assumptions about
the year in which carpool occupancy requirements would be increased from 2- person to 3-
person. 13
“ Rapid Delivery” Network Costs
The total capital cost for the Regional HOT Network under the “ rapid delivery” approach is
estimated to be $ 3.7 billion in escalated dollars ($ 3 billion in 2006 dollars). Roughly 20 percent
of the cost is associated with conversion of existing or funded carpool lanes, which accounts for
more than half the network lane miles. The remaining 80 percent of the cost is associated with
widening to close gaps and extend the system. Significantly, though just 3 percent of the total
11 Appendix 8 shows the unit cost for each category with breakdown by major cost component. The appendix also
includes maps showing each network segment by cost category.
12 See Section I and Appendix 3 for the methodology and assumptions for operating and maintenance cost estimates.
13 See Section 1 ( page I- 7 and I- 11) and Appendix 2.
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page II- 7
Updated Assessment ( June 2008)
mileage falls into the “ high cost” category, this category accounts for about one quarter of the
total capital cost, as shown in the graph below.
Not surprisingly, the capital cost for the “ rapid delivery” approach is considerably lower than for
the “ full feature” approach. The “ full feature” approach is estimated to cost $ 8.3 billion
( escalated). Approximately $ 3.2 billion of the total $ 4.6 billion in savings from the “ rapid delivery
approach results from building the network faster and avoiding inflation- related cost increases.
The remaining $ 1.4 billion in savings comes from the less capital intensive design.
The total operating and maintenance cost for the period between 2009 and 2033 is estimated to
be $ 1.9 billion ( escalated).
Regional HOT Network by Cost Category – “ Rapid Delivery” Approach
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Lane Miles
Cost
Convert HOV Widen - Low Cost Widen - Medium Cost ( left)
Widen - Medium Cost ( right) Widen - High Cost
“ Rapid Delivery” Network Revenue Estimates
Gross revenue for the Regional HOT Network under the rapid delivery approach is estimated to
range between $ 13.7 and $ 18.8 billion in escalated dollars for the period between 2009 and
2033. This compares to estimated gross revenue ranging from $ 11.9 to $ 16.8 billion ( escalated)
under the “ full feature” design approach. Completing the network sooner provides a relatively
limited revenue boost for two reasons: 1) carpool volumes are expected grow faster under the
“ rapid delivery” approach, as a result of closing gaps and extending the system and this leaves
less room for tolled vehicles 2) revenue growth is more modest in the early years than later
years as overall congestion is less severe; further in the later years, the networks are identical
after 2025, when the “ full feature” network is projected to be complete.
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page II- 8
Updated Assessment ( June 2008)
The low- end revenue estimate ($ 13.7 billion) is used for all subsequent analysis. Using this
estimate, the “ rapid delivery” Regional HOT Network is projected to generate revenue of $ 8.1
billion net of operating and maintenance and capital costs14. The cost of financing the Regional
HOT Network is discussed below.
Financing Analysis
As with the “ full feature” network, revenue in the early years is relatively modest; big jumps in
revenue occur after 2025 when congestion levels become more severe and carpool levels are
high enough to merit increasing carpool occupancy requirements from two- persons to three-persons
in some corridors. As a result, a pay- as- you- go option is not feasible and bond
financing is required to build the Regional HOT Network, even under the lower- cost “ rapid
delivery” approach.
Assuming a 6.5 percent interest rate, the total cost to finance the Regional HOT Network with
the “ rapid delivery” approach is estimated to be $ 2.0 billion between 2009 and 2033. The bonds
are assumed to be 40- year term, and debt service payments would continue beyond the year
2033.
After capital cost, debt service and operating and maintenance cost, the estimated net revenue
over the period 2009 – 2033 is $ 6.1 billion in escalated dollars ( see table below). This is the
amount of discretionary funding included in the Transportation 2035 Plan from the Regional
HOT Network.
Revenue and Costs for “ Rapid Delivery” Approach
Years 2009 – 2033
escalated dollars
Gross Revenue* $ 13.7 billion
Operating and maintenance costs $ 1.9 billion
Capital Cost $ 3.7 billion
Financing Cost $ 2.0 billion
Net Revenue $ 6.1 billion
* Reflects low- end revenue estimate
As part of the financing assessment, MTC conducted series of “ stress tests” to test financing
viability if costs were to be higher or revenues lower than current estimates. The stress test
considered the following scenarios ( see chart below):
• Costs increase by 25 percent
• Revenues decrease by 25 percent
• Costs increase by 25% and revenues decrease by 25%
Notably, the net revenue for the period between 2009 and 2033 could fall to as low as $ 1.5
billion, should the worst stress test case materialize. However, even under these circumstances,
the network is judged to be financeable if the Bay Area Toll Authority were authorized to provide
back up through the short period projected to have negative cash flows ( approximately 2010
through 2015).
14 Financing costs would further decrease net revenue.
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page II- 9
Updated Assessment ( June 2008)
Financing Analysis Stress Tests
4. HOT Network Benefits: Travel Time and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
To understand the potential benefits of the Regional HOT Network, and of faster implementation
in particular, MTC compared projected person hours of travel and greenhouse gas emissions
under three scenarios:
1. Carpool Pay- As- You- Go Network. Complete the 800- mile network as a system of
carpool lanes, funded principally through State Transportation Improvement Program
( STIP) funds and local sales tax contributions. The implementation schedule is driven by
available funding, and does not assume advances through Grant Anticipation Revenue
Vehicles ( GARVEE) or bond financing. Under this funding approach, the network could
be completed in year 2050 at a capital cost of $ 8.8 billion ( escalated). 15
2. “ Full Feature” HOT Network. Complete the network as a system of HOT lanes based
on the design and phasing described in Section I of this report. Under this approach the
network could be completed by 2026 at a capital cost of $ 8.3 billion ( escalated, does not
reflect cost of debt service).
3. “ Rapid Delivery” HOT Network. Complete the network as a system of HOT lanes
based on the design and phasing described above in Section II of this report. Under this
approach the network could be completed as soon as 2016 at a capital cost of $ 3.7
billion ( escalated, does not reflect cost of debt service).
15 Note that this is a different approach than in the comparison in Section 1 between a carpool network and HOT
network. The analysis in Section I compares HOT and carpool systems assuming the same number of lane miles in
both scenarios in any given year. This Section II analysis assumes the carpool system is built out more slowly so the
number of lane miles in the carpool system is smaller than that in the HOT system in any given year. See Appendix
10.
($ 100)
$ 0
$ 100
$ 200
$ 300
$ 400
$ 500
$ 600
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040
Nominal Value
Cost + 25%
Revenue - 25%
Cost + 25% / Revenue - 25%
Cumulative Net Revenue
in Year 2020
1.7B
6.1B
9.3B
1.0B
4.2B
6.8B
0.8B
3.4B
5.4B
0.1B
1.5B 2.8B
Year 2033
Year 2040
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page II- 10
Updated Assessment ( June 2008)
The graph below compares the timelines for completing the network under each of the three
scenarios.
As with other results presented in this report, estimates are based on a first- order analysis and
should be considered preliminary. This analysis does not reflect, as more detailed forecasts in
the future will, feedback between the travel demand and tolling models that would project
changes in travel modes or routes. In addition, estimates of travel time and emissions presented
here reflect travel only on that portion of the freeway system associated with the regional HOT
network ( approximately 800 directional miles). For example, travel on parallel arterials or
freeways that do not have carpool or HOT lanes is not included in the totals. In effect, this
approach holds vehicle miles of travel constant. Future, more detailed analysis will reflect
feedback between the tolling and travel demand models; it will address impacts on mode of
travel and vehicle miles traveled and will also revisit travel time and greenhouse gas emissions,
as described under “ Next Steps” at the end of this report.
Comparison of Schedules for Regional HOT Network and Carpool Network
Travel Time
Compared to building the carpool system on a pay- as- you- go basis, the Regional HOT Network
reduces aggregate travel time for two reasons. First, as described above, the Regional HOT
Network can be completed 25 to 35 years faster than the carpool network, eliminating
bottlenecks and offering congestion relief sooner on segments where carpool lanes do not
currently exist. Second, the HOT Network makes more efficient use of freeway capacity by
ensuring carpool lanes are well- used; this tends to increase speeds in the general- purpose
lanes and reduce aggregate travel time.
The potential savings are tremendous. In 2030, the HOT Network would reduce person hours of
travel by 78 to 86 million hours compared to the less- complete carpool system. Between 2010
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
lane- miles
HOT Lanes
Rapid Delivery
Carpool Lanes
Pay- As- You- Go
HOT Lanes
Full Feature
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page II- 11
Updated Assessment ( June 2008)
and 2050, the Regional HOT Network could generate cumulative travel time savings between
2.5 to 3.4 billion person hours. This travel time savings has an estimated economic value of $ 97
to $ 155 billion dollars. 16
The travel time savings offered by the “ rapid delivery” HOT Network compared to the “ full
feature” HOT network are smaller but still significant, totaling nearly 800 million person hours
between 2010 and 2050. The economic value of this savings is estimated to be roughly $ 18
billion. Most of travel time savings occur between 2015, as the “ rapid delivery” network nears
completion, and 2025, when the “ full feature” network can be completed.
Savings in Person Hours of Travel
Millions of Person Hours of Travel
Annual Cumulative
In Year
2010
In Year
2015
In Year
2030
In Year
2050
2010 through
2050
Compared to Carpool Pay- As- You- Go Network
“ Full Feature” HOT Network 0 16 78 106 2,567
“ Rapid Delivery” HOT Network 0 51 86 106 3,361
Compared to “ Full Feature” HOT Network
“ Rapid Delivery” HOT Network 0 35 8 0 795
Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Preliminary analysis conducted in fall 2007 shows the Regional HOT Network also would
reduce carbon dioxide emissions compared to a scenario in which the carpool network is
completed on a pay- as- you- go basis. By completing the network sooner, thereby expanding
capacity and using existing lanes more efficiently, the Regional HOT Network improves
congested travel speeds and reduces carbon dioxide emissions.
The analysis indicates that building out the carpool network on a pay- as- you- go basis would
result in approximately 10 million tons more carbon dioxide emissions from 2009 to 2050 than
building the Regional HOT Network ( see table, below). Emissions savings are projected to grow
rapidly between 2015 and 2030, when the carpool network would be expanding very slowly but
the HOT Network would be complete ( under the “ rapid delivery” approach) or expanding quickly
( under the “ full feature” approach). After 2030, emissions savings are projected to decline as the
fleet becomes significantly more fuel efficient. 17
The difference in carbon dioxide emissions between the two approaches to delivering the
Regional HOT Network is much less pronounced. The “ rapid delivery” approach is projected to
16 See Appendix 11 for forecasts for each scenario. The economic value of travel time savings is based on the
average Bay Area wage rate and estimated value of time for trucks, as documented in Appendix 11.
17 This analysis assumes implementation of Phase I of the Pavley legislation ( AB 1493), which translates to an
average fuel economy for the Bay Area passenger vehicle fleet of approximately 27 miles per gallon in year 2035.
Note that with implementation of the Pavley Phase II fuel economy standards, which translate to an average fuel
economy of approximately 32 miles per gallon, the carbon dioxide emissions savings from the Regional HOT Network
would likely be smaller.
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page II- 12
Updated Assessment ( June 2008)
save approximately 600,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions over the period between 2009
and 2050. Nearly all the savings would accrue in 2030 or earlier.
Savings in Greenhouse Gas Emission
Carbon Dioxide Emissions ( Thousands on tons)
Annual Cumulative
In Year
2010
In Year
2015
In Year
2030
In Year
2050
2010 through
2050
Compared to Carpool Pay- As- You- Go Network
“ Full Feature” HOT Network 0 0 372 298 9,643
“ Rapid Delivery” HOT Network 53 40 372 298 10,261
Compared to “ Full Feature” HOT Network
“ Rapid Delivery” HOT Network 53 40 0 0 617
Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding
5. Next Steps
It is important to recognize the analysis summarized here represents the first stage in a series of
technical reviews that will successively refine and update our understanding of the Regional
HOT Network.
The “ rapid delivery” approach represents one end of a spectrum of approaches to designing and
delivering the Regional HOT Network, while the “ full feature” approach represents the other end
of the spectrum. In all likelihood, the Regional HOT Network ultimately will land somewhere in
the middle and include design features of both. Current and future work includes, but likely will
not be limited to:
􀂃 Phase 3 Study ( anticipated completion, February 2009). This effort will attempt to
find a middle- ground between the “ full feature” and “ rapid delivery” design approaches
based on a more detailed review of opportunities and constraints in selected corridors. It
will further refine HOT Network cost estimates. In all likelihood, the HOT Network will
include some elements of both design approaches: the “ full feature” approach will likely
be accommodated where it can be accommodated readily and the “ rapid delivery”
approach may be used in more constrained settings.
􀂃 Revised Demand and Revenue ( 2009). This effort is expected to revise demand and
revenue forecasts based on the updated design and phasing assumptions. It will employ
more resource- intensive forecasting approaches, including feedback between the tolling
and travel demand models, and will provide a basis for associated analyses described
below.
􀂃 Associated Analyses: Equity and Emissions ( 2009). Updated demand and revenue
forecasts will generate refined forecasts of traffic, travel behavior and revenue. As such,
they will provide a basis to review of the equity implications of the HOT Network ( social
and geographic) and to update analysis of vehicle emissions, including greenhouse
gases.
Bay Area HOT Network Study, Section I Page II- 13
Updated Assessment ( June 2008)
􀂃 Project- Level Design and Operations. It will be necessary to complete a Project Study
Report or Project Report for the network. This effort will include detailed operations
analysis and refined design based on a much more detailed review of the project area.
􀂃 Project- Level Environmental Review. The HOT Network will undergo full, project- level
environmental review, consistent with state and federal environmental review
requirements.
At the same time, partner agencies throughout the region will need to tackle a series of policy
issues. These include: governance, financing, corridor investment programs, education and
outreach, and operations. These discussions will inform any future legislation related to a Bay
Area HOT Network.