Joe Rouse California Department of Transportation Division of Traffic Operations Office of System Management Operations

 Background ◦ Need and purpose for Policy Directive ◦ Lessons Learned/Special Studies/Research Findings  Changes To Technical/Procedural Expectations and Requirements ◦ Access type, location, spacing & design ◦ Operational & safety analyses ◦ Adoption of 2009 federal MUTCD ◦ Enforcement provisions  HOV Guidelines Update

 Need for the Policy Directive ◦ Traffic engineering research and "lessons learned" from our southern California HOV network identified :  A need for updated Intermediate Access design  A need for more specific guidance on operational analysis  Purpose of the Policy Directive ◦ Ensure that managed lanes will provide the performance that customers will expect: RELIABLE travel time savings ◦ Clarify and expand the traffic operational and safety analyses that are needed for managed lane facilities ◦ Address other issues, such as CHP policy changes and FHWA policies

 Intermediate Access Locations on Limited Access Managed Lanes ◦ Three types identified  Weave Zone – Combined ingress/egress  Weave Lane – Combined ingress/egress with a weaving lane  Merge Lane – An ingress or an egress with a merging lane ◦ New Performance Thresholds  Openings should operate at LOS “C” or “D”  Placed where recurrent congestion isn’t occurring or is expected  Stronger language than what is currently used in HOV Guidelines

 Intermediate Access Locations on Limited Access Managed Lanes (Cont’d) ◦ New Lengths  800 feet per lane change between opening and adjacent ramp (was 650 feet)  Openings should be 2000 feet (was 1300 feet) ◦ Lighting  Required for all access points  Recommended for major weaving areas

2003 HOV Guidelines Figure 4.2

Weave Zone Weave Lane Merge Lane

 Operational & Safety Analysis ◦ Required for all managed lane projects ◦ Performed during environmental phase ◦ Objective is to ensure facility meets operational thresholds ◦ Operational Analysis contents  Freeway mainline analysis  Merge/diverge analysis of drop ramps/direct connectors  Operational analysis of access points  Iterative process – try till you find one that works  Analytical method subject to approval of district operations

 Operational & Safety Analysis ◦ Safety Analysis  Performed by Caltrans-District Traffic staff  Ensures that projects will not result in new safety “hot spots” or increase potential for severe or serious collisions  Will recommend enhancements to the managed lane facility that are simple, practical to implement, and effective  Not intended to add other improvements to the scope of work

 Signing – Based on 2009 MUTCD ◦ “HOV” used instead of “CARPOOL”  Requires changes to many California signs, some new signs, some eliminated ◦ FHWA wants signing guidelines in MUTCD  Will not be in HOV Guidelines  Striping – Based on 2009 MUTCD ◦ FHWA has requested compliance with MUTCD ◦ Striping changes required amendment to Vehicle Code ◦ FHWA wants striping guidelines in MUTCD  Will not be in HOV Guidelines

Limited access striping – CURRENTLimited access striping – PROPOSED One set of yellow stripes One set of white stripes

Limited access striping – CURRENTLimited access striping – PROPOSED Two sets of yellow stripes Two sets of white stripes

 Enforcement ◦ CHP no longer using left shoulder  Barrier separation or channelizers required for left shoulder use ◦ Observation areas desirable  Similar in design to enforcement areas  Located downstream of toll readers  Other locations as desired by CHP

 Changes to be made to current Guidelines ◦ Convert to English units ◦ Updates to intermediate access design ◦ More cross referencing to MUTCD and HDM  Policy guidance document ◦ Update to DD-43 by end of 2012 ◦ More detailed policy guidance by April 2014  Will address issues such as increasing occupancy, adding capacity, and transponder requirements

Comments or Questions? Joe Rouse (916)