Logic is devised for a needs test for new general-purpose lane (GPL) highway capacity in urban areas that have limited funding available for new infrastructure investments. GPL capacity is defined as mixed-flow lanes on which both single-occupant and high-occupancy vehicles are permitted. Methodologies to apply the needs test and to evaluate the options in urban areas facing limitations on new GPL capacity are developed. A case study is used to demonstrate the methodologies to evaluate the air quality and cost-effectiveness impacts of transportation system alternatives, illustrating how planners may develop the type of information that policy makers will need to help them make informed decisions about long-term options.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KaneA., and DeCorla-SouzaP.Regionwide Toll Pricing: Impacts on Urban Mobility, Environment and Transportation Financing. Proc., Congestion Pricing Symposium. FHWA-PL-93-003. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Dec. 1992.
2.
Market-Based Solutions to the Transportation Crisis: An Executive Summary and Application.Bay Area Economic Forum's Transportation Task Force, California, Feb. 1990.
3.
CameronM.Transportation Efficiency: Tackling Southern California's Air Pollution and Congestion.Environmental Defense Fund and Regional Institute of Southern California, Oakland, March 1991.
4.
Apogee Research, Inc.Costs and Effectiveness of Transportation Control Measures: A Review and Analysis of the Literature.National Association of Regional Councils, Washington, D.C., Jan. 1994.
5.
Apogee Research, Inc.The Costs of Transportation: Final Report.Conservation Law Foundation, Washington, D.C., March 1994.
6.
LitmanT.Transportation Cost Analysis: Techniques, Estimates and Implications.Victoria Transport Policy Institute, British Columbia, Canada, Dec. 1994.
7.
MacKenzieJ. J., DowerR. C., and ChenD. D. T.The Going Rate: What It Really Costs to Drive.World Resources Institute, New York, 1992.
8.
MillerP., and MoffetJ.The Price of Mobility: Uncovering the Hidden Cost of Transportation.National Resources Defense Council, New York, 1993.
9.
LeeD. B.Full Cost Pricing of Highways. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, U.S. Department of Transportation, Nov. 1994.
10.
Special Report 242: Curbing Gridlock: Peak-Period Fees To Relieve Traffic Congestion, Vol. 1. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994.
11.
Introduction to Travel Demand Forecasting: Course Notebook.National Highway Institute, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1993.
12.
WinnickR., and AllenW.Jr.Model Enhancements for Evaluation of Pricing Strategies in Support of CAA 1990 Requirements. 1994 Compendium of Technical Papers, ITE, Washington, D.C., 1994.
13.
COMSIS Corporation. Users Guide: Travel Demand Management Evaluation Model.FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, June 1993.
14.
DeCorla-SouzaP.A Trip-Based Approach to Estimate Emissions with EPA's MOBILE Model. In Transportation Research Record 1444, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994.
15.
Public Use Tapes for the 1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS).U.S. Department of Transportation.
16.
DeCorla-SouzaP., and Jensen-FisherR.Comparing Multimodal Alternatives in Major Travel Corridors. In Transportation Research Record 1429, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994.
17.
Estimating the Impacts of Transportation Alternatives: Course Notebook. Course 15257. National Highway Institute, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1995.
18.
LewisD.The Future of Forecasting: Risk Analysis as a Philosophy of Transportation Planning. TR News, No. 177, March–April 1995.
19.
Battelle Institute. Incorporation of External Cost Considerations in Highway Cost Allocation.FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Sept. 1994.
20.
DelucchiM.The Social Cost of Motor Vehicle Use: Models and Estimates for Least Cost Planning and Cost Allocation.FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, in progress.
21.
Cambridge Systematics et al.Guidance on the Use of Market Mechanisms to Reduce Transportation Emissions. Draft Report. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1995.
22.
Cambridge Systematics et al.Advanced Travel Demand Forecasting: Participants’ Notebook. Course 15260. Draft. National Highway Institute, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1995.
23.
DeCorla-SouzaP.A Simplified and Rational Approach To Address New Modeling Requirements for Air Quality Analysis. In Transportation Research Record 1472, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995.
24.
COMSIS Corporation.Feedback in Travel Forecasting: Requirements, Prototypical Methods, and Guidance. Executive Summary.FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Oct. 1995.
25.
DeCorla-SouzaP.Simplified Models to Address Conformity Requirements Related to Network Speeds. Transportation Congress, ASCE, Oct. 1995.
