NEW JERSEY:Major Highways I-80, I-287 DeHOVLed

High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV lanes) lanes have effectively been killed in New Jersey, the policy establishment which extolled and sponsored them there earlier in the decade, having done a quick flip. NJ Gov Christie Whitman wrote the US Sec of Transp Rodney Slayter Oct 22 saying the state would terminate HOV operations on its two flagship carpool highways I-80 and I-287 effective Nov 30. Her way was prepared by NJ US congressmen Roukema, Frelinghuysen and Lautenberg who succeded in attaching a rider to the recent federal budget bill which requires the US Sec of Transp to waive normal repayment of $240m of federal funds used in construction of the HOVLs on the state making a finding that they are ineffective in reducing congestion and improving air quality.

The lanes in question total almost exactly 100 lane-km, or 50 route-km, 18 route-km (11mi) on I-80 between NJ-15 and I-287 opened in 1994 and 32 route-km (20mi) on I-287 between I-80 and I-78. The I-80 lanes are operated as simple concurrent flow lanes, with entry or exit allowed for HOV2s anywhere along their length. These have been moderately used by national standards, running 700 to 1200 veh/hr and 2.7k passengers/lane/hr compared to 1.8k in the unrestricted lanes during their period of operation in rush hours. The I-287 lanes, also HOV2 opened fully Jan 19 this year and operate as concurrent flow lanes northbound ams and southbound pms for the full 32 route-km and both ways am and pm for the 10km NJ-24 to I-80. The I-287 lanes were seriously underutilized at 200 to 400 veh/lane/hr, carrying far fewer people than the unrestricted lanes.

“Government By Tabloid” was the Tri-State Transp Campaign’s headline commenting on the decision. There’s much truth to that. The “tabloid” NEWARK-STAR LEDGER has led a sharp campaign against what it has dubbed the “Lanes of Pain” and for several months now there has been talk of NJ policy being in the hands of “Commissioner McLaughlin” a reference to the newspaper’s brilliant columnist John McLaughlin who has written many scathing reports on the shortcomings of the HOVLs. Back in June (see TRnl#30, Aug 98 p1) he ran a series which for sheer political megatonnage would have to win a Pulitzer prize for pamphleteering. His paper began a “Countdown to LOV-day” (Low Occupant Vehicle). A lively transp columnist for the RECORD Dan Goldfischer wrote well-informed stuff too against the HOVLs. McLaughlin and Goldfischer tapped a groundswell of anger about the poor operations of the HOV lanes and magnified it, and soon had politicians turning somersaults.

NJ Transp Commissioner John Haley said in response to the STAR-LEGDER series this July that HOV lanes were “sound public policy” and that it would be wrong to open the lanes to all traffic since this would provide only a short-term benefit. He did announce a plan to review their operation and said the government would make a decision on their future in a year— June 1999. But all that deliberation has been swept away.

The NJDOT did do a quick review of HOVL operations. Oct 22 the Governor’s office released an 8-page NJDOT report called “I-287 and I-80 Reassessment.” It is difficult to know the quality of analysis underlying the report but it is generally well written and makes a strong case that the HOVLs are not working.

HOVLs, it says, need to induce people to carpool who otherwise wouldn’t. By that criterion both HOVL’s failed. There was no increase in vehicle occupancy on I-287 and a slight increase followed by a drop in occupancy on I-80, so no net gain there either. Second they should carry at least 700 veh/hr/lane according to which the I-80-HOVL was working and the I-287-HOVL failing. Third they should maintain or not worsen congestion. The NJDOT paper is thoroughly muddled here. Since the HOVL lanes were additional capacity they had to reduce congestion below what it might have been had the capacity not been added. And clearly overall congestion is less if traffic is free to drive in whatever lane it wishes. On that basis no HOV lane should ever be built anywhere. The department appeared to be saying that the difference in level of service between the unrestricted and HOV lanes was too great, which is a political judgment.

Air quality modeling done by the department showed a slight improvement in air quality through ending HOV restrictions, the report says, but as with most such air quality exercises the differences are smaller than the modeling’s margins of error. It’s a wash, whether it’s HOVL or not.

The paper says freeing the HOVLs will reduce overall congestion a little. What is most disappointing is that NJDOT does not seem to have looked very hard at how to make better use of the lanes. I-80 traffic is so strongly directional (eastbound am, westbound pm) that moveable barriers and contraflow operations, with or without HOV, make sense — of the kind used in Boston on I-93 south of the city and on I-30 east of Dallas.

There is not a word about that possibility, or about making better use of the lanes with toll buy-in.

James Ahearn, a former editor wrote a thoughtful piece advocating toll buy-in the BERGEN RECORD Oct 21: “First, a large number of drivers would be diverted from regular lanes to the new toll lanes. That would ease congestion on regular lanes. Second, substantial toll revenue would be generated. It could be used to maintain roads or rebuild old bridges. Third, congestion pricing, as the experts call it, would give drivers a choice. They could sit in traffic or they could pay to avoid it. Lots would pay.”

Apparently enviro groups advocated that too. No serious response from NJDOT, just mutterings about enforcement difficulty.

The Whitman administration had lost the initiative and was losing control. State legislators were moving to legislate shorter HOV hours and to cut HOV enforcement. Violations were soaring as indignation spread and the police were reluctant to intensify enforcement. (Contact for NJDOT HOVL assessment: John Dourgarian 609 530 2124)

Comment: Maybe the only politically realistic thing in NJ was to let the anti-HOV forces have their way, wait a year or two until tempers have cooled and traffic reestablished new patterns, and then revisit the issue to see if some kind of managed lanes schemes make sense.

The NJ HOV meltdown should be of interest to transp policy people elsewhere. Some HOVLs work well and are generally accepted. Most could be improved with toll buy-in. Other HOVLs are dogs and should be put out of their misery or their failure will turn people against the entire concept of managed lanes. Some would best be converted to straight toll express lanes, others to general use.

Rah-Rah atmosphere

For too long there has been a rah-rah atmosphere among transp policy people in which the more-HOV-the-better seemed to be the theme, with greater energy going into simplistic pro-HOV propaganda than into serious analysis of what is working and what isn’t. NJ’s dramatic deHOVLing is a backlash against poorly designed, poorly implemented HOVLs. It could spread.

Some engineers have failed. The I-80/HOVL was poorly designed, aggravating the problems of an already defective freeway. And just last year a large report was produced for NJDOT by Parsons Brinckerhoff saying the I-80/HOVL was a success, acting as if it were a paid-mouth rather than an objective evaluator. (see TRnl#29 Aug 98 p1) How silly that PB report now looks!

USDOT has fallen down badly too. It still has HOVLs as a centerpiece of its urban highway program and channels billions into funding them, yet it does no analysis whatever of the results. It doesn’t even compile any statistics on the performance of HOVLs nationwide even though much raw data flows in to 400 7th St SW DC from state DOTs and MPOs as required by agreements for HOVL funding. The MPOs do varying amounts of statistical compilation and analysis of HOVLs themselves. But they often regard the subject as too sensitive for much candor. The result of this scarcity of HOVL data is that noone has a firm handle on what’s working, and what isn’t.

Good data on HOVL operations and some comprehensive nationwide analysis could be the basis for a serious program of targeted toll buy-in and priced express lanes. HOVLs with their crude occupancy requirement do work on some roads in some cities — in places with serious congestion, long commutes, large workplaces with rigid hours. And they can be made to work too in cities with serious express bus service like Houston, as busways with an HOV top-up. Where they can’t attract sufficient patrons and their emptiness just engenders anger and political activism among SOVs, then toll buy-in may be the only way managed lanes will be saved.