Evaluation of Incorporating Hybrid Vehicles Use of HOV lanes

1
Evaluation of Incorporating Hybrid Vehicles
Use of HOV lanes
Task Order 5315
Demo
2
Objective Scope

• Objective
• To evaluate the impacts of allowing single
  occupant Hybrid vehicles to use HOV lanes
• Study network
• Orange County Freeways
• Study period
• Peak hour of AM peak period
• Microscopic simulation Method
• Paramics
• Investigate
• Operational effects
• Emission effects
• Demand modeling

3
Methodology
4
Study Network
5
Simualtion Network
6
Demand Estimation

• Obtain the pattern OD matrix from OCTAM
• OCTAM planning model of OC, obtained from OCTA
• extract the pattern matrix (265 by 265) using MMA
  analysis in TransCAD
• Fine-tune OD matrix using Paramics OD estimator
• Estimate final OD matrices SOV, HOV, Hybrid

7
Hybrid Demand Model

• Predicted number of hybrids originating from each
  zone in study area
• 2002 California Vehicle Survey 1000 respondents
  in Southern California.
• 2001 NHTS survey 2583 respondents in
  California.
• Multinomial logit model
• Stated preference for choice of vehicle (no used
  hybrids).
• Binomial logit model
• Predicts whether household purchased new vehicle
  last year.
• Combined model
• Household model used with Census PUMS data to
  predict hybrid demand for 62 census sub-regions
  in California.
• Regression model
• 62 synthetic zone data used to predict hybrid
  demand for TAZs  in study area.

8
Regression Model for Share of Hybrid Vehicles
9
HOV volume / total volume (based on 2005 D12 HOV
report)

• HOV volume / total volume percentage
• peak period 10.2 - 23.1
• peak hour 11.4 - 25

• Patterns
• Congested areas higher percentages
• HOV lane is faster

10
Model Calibration

• Route choices (Combination of the use of three
  routing models)
• for all SOV vehicles
• Fact solo vehicles can only drive on mix-flow
  lanes
• All-or-nothing based route choice
• for all HOV vehicles
• Fact HOV vehicles may pick HOV lane or mix-flow
  lanes based on their preference, and distance to
  their destinations
• Stochastic route choice
• Fact HOV vehicles choose HOV lane or mix-flow
  lanes based on traffic condition
• Dynamic feedback based route choice
• HOV Demand percentage
• NOT equal to planning HOV demand percentage
• Study period peak hour of AM peak period
• HOV lane is faster and thus throughput is higher
  (according to last page)
• Most carpoolers drive to freeways in the morning
  peak because HOV lane is faster
• Estimate the percentage
• Trial-and-error based on range from 14 to 25
• Calibrated value 21.7

11
Model Calibration/Validations
12
5NB HOV Speed Contour Observed
5NB HOV Speed Contour Simulated
13
5SB HOV Speed Contour Observed
5SB HOV Speed Contour Simulated
14
405NB HOV Speed Contour Observed
405NB HOV Speed Contour Simulated
15
405SB HOV Speed Contour Simulated
405SB HOV Speed Contour Observed
16
55NB HOV Speed Contour Observed
55NB HOV Speed Contour Simulated
17
55SB HOV Speed Contour Observed
55SB HOV Speed Contour Simulated
18
57SB HOV Speed Contour Observed
57SB HOV Speed Contour Simulated
19
Scenario Construction

• Base Case
• No Hybrids allowed on HOV lanes (before
  Californias bill AB 2628 passed)
• Scenario 1
• HOV 2 and current share of Hybrids are allowed
  in HOV lanes (Nov 2005)
• Scenario 2
• 50K cap on Hybrids (April 2006)
• Scenario 3
• 75K cap on Hybrids (Nov 2006)
• Scenario 4
• 100K cap on Hybrid (near future)
• Scenario 5
• 50K cap plus HOT
• Scenario 6
• 75K cap plus HOT

20
Performance Measures

• Overall network performance measures
• Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT)
• Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
• Average travel speed
• HOV Mainline performance measures
• Average corridor speed
• Speed distribution
• LOS
• Emissions Fuel consumptions

21
Overall Network Performance

• - Base case
• Average peed for all vehicles 34.3 mph
• VMT 1824909 miles
• VHT 49165 hours

22
HOV Segments for further analysis
23
Speed Distribution HOV lanes

• With more traffic allowed into HOV lanes, HOV
  lane performance degrades

24
Percentage of Sections Time periods with speed
greater than 45 mph
25
LOS Distribution HOV lanes
26
Percentage of Sections Time spent less than 26
veh/mile/lane (LOS C)
27
Comparison of HOV ML (I-405 NB)
28
Comparison of HOV ML (I-405 SB)
29
Comparison of HOV ML (I-5 NB)
30
Comparison of HOV ML (I-5 SB)
31
Comparison of HOV ML (I-55 NB)
32
Comparison of HOV ML (I-55 SB)
33
Comparison of HOV ML (I-57 NB)
34
Comparison of HOV ML (I-57 SB)
35
Comparison of Emissions

• Scenario 4 reduces emissions significantly
• due to high share of Hybrids
• CO HC increased in Scenario 6
• might be due to the increase in congestion or
  stop and go conditions

36
Findings

• Overall scenario 2 performs more effectively (50K
  cap on hybrid)
• HOV lane speed is reduced by less than 5 in
  scenario 2
• Scenario 3 through 6 degrades the performance of
  HOV lanes significantly by marginally improving
  the mainline speed
• From air quality perspective scenario 4
  outperforms - due to high share of Hybrid
  vehicles.

37
Is HOT Concept a Hot Deal in OC?

• HOV lane speed further drops when allowing HOT
  vehicles
• Restriction 3.04 HOT vehicles
• If less HOT vehicles, network performance may be
  better
• HOT should have changeable tolls and demands.

38
Policy Implications

• Hybrid HOV policy would likely degrade the HOV
  lane performance after 50k cap
• Hybrid HOV policy may have impacted sales of
  Hybrid vehicles
• Better HOV lane operation strategy
• HOT
• Priority based

39
Project team
UC Irvine Will Recker David Brownstone Tom
Golob K S Nesamani CCIT, UC Berkeley Lianyu
Chu Western Michigan University Jun Seok Oh
40
Thank you CommentsQuestions?