Proposed I-95 Managed Lanes

Table of Contents

Executive Summary Study Overview Current Conditions Preferred Alternatives Estimated Traffic and Revenue Summary Chapter 1 Study Objective Project Corridor Scope of Work Description of Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Access Assumptions Order of Presentation Chapter 2 Average Daily Traffic I-95 Weekday Traffic Profile Historical Traffic Trends Hourly Traffic Variations Peak Period Profile Vehicle Class Distributions Travel Patterns Vehicle Occupancy Distribution Trip Characteristics Travel Speed Profiles Miami-Dade Speed Profiles Broward County Speed Profiles Chapter 3 Population, Household and Employment Projections Forecasts by Regional Area Summary Chapter 4 Stated Preference Surveys Survey Administration Plan Survey Approach Survey Questionnaire Survey Results Income and Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents Time of Day and Purpose Trip Duration Trip Frequency HOV Lanes Current Sunpass® Usage Stated Preference Debrief Questions Modeling Traveler Segmentation General Model Structure Model Coefficients and Value-of-Time Focus Groups Focus Group Administration Plan Focus Group Survey Methodology Summary of Focus Groups Results

Chapter 5 Modeling Approach Global Demand Estimates Travel Time Simulation Model (VISSIM) Market Share Micro-Model Vehicle Categories Alternatives Evaluated Optimum Toll Rates Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Comparison of Alternatives Overall Operational Viability Capacity Impacts Congestion Relief Demand Management Ability Reasonableness of Toll Rates Revenue Potential Capital Cost Overall Ranking Chapter 6 Recap of Preferred Alternatives Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Basic Assumptions Alternative 5 Traffic and Revenue Analysis Refined Optimum Rate Analysis Estimated Weekday Traffic Estimated Operational Impacts Typical Time Savings via Managed Lanes Estimated Transactions and Revenue Estimated Daily Transactions and Annual Toll Revenue Alternative 6 Refined Optimum Rate Analysis Estimated Weekday Traffic Estimated Operational Impacts Estimated Transactions and Revenue Estimated Daily Transactions and Annual Toll Revenue Toll Operations Concept Overall System Configuration Estimated Capital Cost Estimated Toll Collection, Operation and Maintenance Costs Estimated Annual Net Revenue Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Summary Sensitivity Tests Disclaimer Appendix

Back to Top

I-95 between downtown Miami and I-595 near Fort Lauderdale is one of the most heavily traveled portions of urban interstate highway in America. Weekday traffic volumes between the Golden Glades Interchange and S.R. 112 reach as high as 300,000 vehicles per day, resulting in high levels of congestion in morning and afternoon peak hours.

In an attempt to examine means of possibly improving capacity and operating conditions on this heavily traveled section of I-95, the Florida Department of Transportation selected Wilbur Smith Associates to perform a comprehensive traffic and revenue study of proposed managed lanes in the corridor. This report documents the results of that study, which was conducted in phases primarily in 2005 and 2006.

Figure ES-1 shows the corridor covered by the analysis. Between I-595 to the north and the Golden Glades Interchange in northern Miami-Dade County, the project would involve simple conversion of existing single-HOV lanes in each direction to high-occupancy toll (HOT) operation. South of the Golden Glades Interchange, six different project configurations and operational scenarios were tested as part of the alternatives analysis. These ranged from simple conversion of existing HOV lanes to HOT to deployment of reversible HOT lanes to construction of an elevated roadway with up to four lanes of additional high-speed traffic.

Managed lanes involve the creation and preservation of a portion of total capacity which would be generally free from congestion. Depending on operating scenario, the managed lanes may be open toll-free to high-occupant vehicles, while non-HOVs would be permitted to use the lanes for a toll charge. Tolls would not be charged on existing toll-free general purpose lanes. All tolls would be collected electronically, and demand and congestion in the managed lanes would be managed by raising or lowering toll rates depending on time and direction of travel.

Study Overview

The study included the development of a detailed operations profile, including quantification of average travel speeds and bottleneck areas. Extensive surveys were undertaken, including both origin-destination and extensive stated preference surveys. These surveys provide useful information regarding values of time and propensity to use the toll lanes from among travelers currently using I-95.

Several focus groups were also undertaken to gauge citizen reaction to the proposed managed lane concept. A detailed economic review was also completed culminating in the development of updated socioeconomic forecasts and new trip tables for use in the analysis.

Three levels of models were developed to analyze the different alternatives:

• The regional SERPM model was used to estimate total demand in the future in the I-95 corridor;
• A micro-model, calibrated by hour and travel direction, was used to estimate the share of traffic such that could be expected to use the managed lanes versus the toll-free general purpose lanes; and
• A detailed microsimulation model of the entire 20-mile corridor was used to identify pockets of congestion and bottleneck locations.

Six different project options were analyzed in the study. This included development of preliminary traffic and revenue estimates, optimum tolls and impacts on operating conditions along the corridor. After review of these, FDOT selected two alternatives as the most promising. These were then subjected to a refined traffic and revenue analysis, culminating in forecasts of annual net revenue.

Current Conditions

Traffic volumes along portions of I-95 are extremely high, reaching as much as 300,000 per typical weekday. The entire section of the corridor between S.R. 112 and the Golden Glades Interchange has average weekday volumes of 290,000 or more. North of the Golden Glades Interchange, average daily traffic ranges from 192,000 to 285,000, just south of the I-595 Interchange.

Essentially, this entire portion of I-95 includes eight general purpose lanes, four in each direction, plus two HOV lanes, one in each direction. Vehicles with two or more occupants are currently allowed to use HOV lanes during peak periods.

Traffic is heavily constrained during peak periods and even during midday hours volumes decline only marginally from their peak levels. Morning peak hour speeds were found to be as low as 21.3 MPH in speed and delay runs conducted in 2005. Afternoon peak congested speeds averaged 27.6 MPH during peak hours.

Focus groups were conducted early in the study to assess I-95 traveler reactions to the potential managed lanes. Almost 200 people participated in different groups. A majority of single-occupant vehicle operators and transit participants like the idea of managed lanes, while HOV users were less positive. However, 76 percent of both SOV and HOV participants acknowledged they would use the managed lanes at least occasionally, with at least 20 percent saying they would use them all the time. Only 11 percent of the focus group participants said they expected to never use the managed lanes because they did not want to pay tolls.

Preferred Alternatives

Each of the six alternatives was subjected to preliminary analysis under two alternative operating assumptions:

• A definition of carpools equal to two or more occupants; and
• A definition of carpools equal to three or more occupants.

This carpool definition was found to significantly influence traffic and revenue potential.

Based on the preliminary analysis, it was clear that some of the options would not be operationally viable unless the definition of carpool was changed from two to three. Vehicles with two or more occupants simply make up a significantly high proportion of total traffic that essentially fill the managed lanes under certain scenarios leaving little or no room to sell to non-HOV traffic.

The preliminary analysis also showed that the directional imbalance over most sections of I-95 was not sufficient to support full reversible managed lane operations. Scenarios which would simply convert two single directional HOV lanes to reversible operations were found to negatively impact operations on I-95 by taking away an HOV lane in the minor travel direction while demand necessitated this additional capacity. The study also found that directionality is opposite at the northern end of the corridor, in Broward County, and the southern portion of the corridor, south of the Golden Glades Interchange. In the morning peak hour, for example, heavy traffic is northbound in the Broward County portion of the corridor and southbound in most of the Miami-Dade County portion of the corridor.

Based on the results of the alternatives analysis, FDOT selected two alternatives as most promising. These included Alternatives 5 and 6. As shown in Figure ES-2, Alternative 5 would involve the simple conversion of existing HOV lanes to HOT operation north of the Golden Glades Interchange. South of the interchange, a three-lane elevated roadway would be constructed. The elevated roadway would operate as express toll lanes and all traffic using these lanes would be required to pay a toll. Existing HOV lanes at current roadway level would be retained for carpool traffic. A moveable barrier would be provided on the elevated roadway to permit two lanes to be operated in the major travel direction and one lane in the minor direction.

As shown in Figure ES-3, Alternative 6 would be similar to Alternative 5 except the elevated roadway would have a full four-lane cross section. Two lanes would be operated in each direction at all times and a fixed median barrier would be provided. Once again, the existing HOV lanes, and all four general purpose lanes in each direction would be retained south of the Golden Glades Interchange.

Under either alternative, tolls would be collected using SUNPASS electronic toll collection only. Electronic toll gantries would be constructed at several locations along the project corridor. In the single-lane sections of the project, separate lanes would be provided in electronic toll zones to distinguish between toll-free carpool and toll paying non-carpool traffic.

Variable tolls would be used, with highest toll rates assessed during peak travel periods. The project was analyzed assuming tolls would vary by distance traveled, with a per mile rate assigned for each hour of the day for each travel direction.

In 2010, the assumed opening year of the project, morning peak-hour toll rates were estimated at $0.40 per mile in the southbound direction under both project alternatives and $0.45 and $0.40 per mile in the northbound direction under Alternatives 5 and 6, respectively. Rates as low as $0.15 per mile were used in midday and other off-peak hours. Optimum toll rates were based on those which would produce maximum revenue potential while still ensuring free-flow conditions in the managed lanes. As congestion would grow in future years, optimum toll rates would also increase in future analysis years, such as 2020 and 2030.

 

Estimated Traffic and Revenue

The managed lanes were estimated to serve as much as 38,000 vehicles per typical weekday along the elevated roadway section, generally in the vicinity of 103rd Street, in 2010 under Alternative 5. This would increase to as much as 49,000 vehicles per weekday by 2020 and beyond.

Weekday traffic estimates in the single-lane northern portion of the project reached as much as 22,000 toll paying vehicles per day, in addition to toll-free vehicles with three or more occupants under Alternative 5. Slightly higher volumes were found under Alternative 6, although more capacity would be provided under this option. In general, traffic on the elevated section of the project was constrained based on relatively high toll rates which were needed to manage demand on the single lane portions of the project.

Table ES-1 shows estimated net revenues for Alternative 5. Annual toll revenues have been adjusted to reflect ramp-up over the first three years of operation. They have been further adjusted to reflect inflation, nominally assumed at 2.5 percent per year from 2005 on.

Annual toll revenue under Alternative 5 would be expected to increase from $17.7 million in 2010 to $77.6 million in 2020 and $130.3 million in 2030. Operations and maintenance costs associated with toll collection only would be expected to increase from just under $5 million in the opening year to just under $10 million by 2030. This would result in annual net revenue ranging from $12.8 million in 2010 to $120.9 million by 2030.

Table ES-2 shows estimated annual net revenue for Alternative 6. This scenario is found to have slightly higher toll revenue potential and slightly lower operating costs. The lower operating cost was due to the elimination of the need for management of reversible operations of the elevated roadway section.

Annual toll revenue under Alternative 6 would increase from just under $20 million in 2010 to more than $137 million by 2030. Net revenue would increase from about $15 million in 2010 to $129 million by 2030.

Table ES-1 Estimated Annual Net Revenue Alternative 5 Year Annual Revenue in Future Year Total Operating & Maintenance Costs (1) Annual Net Revenue 2010(2) 2011(2) 2012(2) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 $17,738,000 26,078,000 33,436,000 39,029,000 43,052,000 47,490,000 52,385,000 57,785,000 63,741,000 70,312,000 77,559,000 81,691,000 86,043,000 90,626,000 95,454,000 100,539,000 105,895,000 111,536,000 117,477,000 123,735,000 130,327,000 $4,929,000 5,289,000 5,597,000 5,835,000 6,016,000 6,204,000 6,399,000 6,600,000 6,809,000 7,025,000 7,250,000 7,446,000 7,647,000 7,853,000 8,065,000 8,282,000 8,506,000 8,736,000 8,973,000 9,216,000 9,465,000 $12,809,000 20,789,000 27,839,000 33,194,000 37,036,000 41,286,000 45,986,000 51,185,000 56,932,000 63,287,000 70,309,000 74,245,000 78,396,000 82,773,000 87,389,000 92,257,000 97,389,000 102,800,000 108,504,000 114,519,000 120,862,000 (1) Operating and Maintenance Costs are in (2) Annual transactions and revenue estimates have been adjusted to reflect ramp-up during the first three years of operation.

Table ES-2 Estimated Annual Net Revenue Alternative 6 Year Annual Revenue in Future Year Total Operating & Maintenance Costs (1) Annual Net Revenue 2010(2) 2011(2) 2012(2) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 $19,280,000 28,385,000 36,446,000 42,603,000 47,061,000 51,986,000 57,426,000 63,436,000 70,074,000 77,407,000 85,508,000 89,665,000 94,025,000 98,596,000 103,390,000 108,417,000 113,688,000 119,216,000 125,012,000 131,091,000 137,464,000 $4,285,000 4,650,000 4,964,000 5,203,000 5,383,000 5,571,000 5,766,000 5,970,000 6,183,000 6,406,000 6,638,000 6,810,000 6,987,000 7,169,000 7,355,000 7,546,000 7,742,000 7,944,000 8,150,000 8,362,000 8,580,000 $14,995,000 23,735,000 31,482,000 37,400,000 41,678,000 46,415,000 51,660,000 57,466,000 63,891,000 71,001,000 78,870,000 82,855,000 87,038,000 91,427,000 96,035,000 100,871,000 105,946,000 111,272,000 116,862,000 122,729,000 128,884,000 (1) Operating and Maintenance Costs are in (2) Annual transactions and revenue estimates have been adjusted to reflect ramp-up during the first three years of operation.

Summary

In conclusion, this comprehensive traffic and revenue study showed that managed lanes can have a significant positive impact on meeting future traffic growth and reducing congestion levels on this heavily used segment of urban interstate. Among other conclusions, the study showed:

• Single-lane HOT options or sections are less viable than multi-lane options; the single-lane sections on the northern end of the project often dictate high toll rates to manage demand;
• Traffic and revenue potential on the managed lanes would be enhanced with the change in the definition of carpools from two to three occupants;
• There appears to be insufficient directionality of demand during peak hours to warrant full reversible express roadways;
• The managed lanes would provide significant time savings of as much as 38 minutes for a through trip between I-595 and downtown Miami;
• The managed lanes would improve operating speeds in the general purpose lanes, particularly in the later years such as 2030;
• The most viable portions of the project would appear to be between the Golden Glades Interchange and downtown Miami – FDOT may wish to give consideration to constructing only a partial alternative since the two most promising options involve construction of an elevated roadway south of this location and retention of only single-lane HOT lanes north;
• The construction of managed lanes on I-95 would provide enhanced opportunities for express bus service in the corridor, which appeared to engender significant support during focus group discussions;
• Traffic and revenue needs on the lanes, as with most managed lanes projects, are extremely sensitive to small changes in basic assumptions, overall demand in the corridor, values of time and other parameters; and
• The preferred project alternatives would generate substantial net revenues which would be able to support a significant portion of project cost.

Back to Top

I-95 is a critical north-south freeway serving Miami-Dade, Broward and other counties along the east coast of Florida. The route extends from a southern terminus at U.S. Route 1 in Miami north as far as the Canadian border, and is one of the most heavily traveled corridors in America. Within South Florida, it provides an important backbone for commuter and recreational traffic, with traffic volumes exceeding 200,000 vehicles per day in many locations.
 
Over the years, traffic growth on I-95 has been strong, and congestion has continued to grow. This is in spite of major improvement programs along I-95, including the addition of one High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane along the entire length between Miami and Fort Lauderdale and points north.

Nonetheless, congestion has continued to worsen, consistent with trends in major urban areas throughout the U.S. It is increasingly difficult to widen roadways such as I-95 due to right-of-way constraints, environmental and other factors.
 
Managed lanes, such as HOT lanes or express toll lanes, are rapidly emerging as a potential solution to congestion in several urban areas around the country. The first project of this nature, the S.R. 91 Express Lanes in Orange County, California, has been an overwhelming success, providing significant congestion relief and an opportunity for motorists to get out of congestion by paying a variable toll. HOT lane projects have also been successful in San Diego, California; Minneapolis, Minnesota and Houston, Texas with other projects recently opening in Denver and elsewhere.

With minimal opportunity for future widening of I-95 in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) submitted an application to the FHWA Value Pricing Pilot Program for a comprehensive traffic and revenue study of possible managed lanes along portions of I-95. That study was approved and a team headed by Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) was selected to undertake the study in mid-2004.
 
This report summarizes the results of that study, and the numerous aspects of the analysis undertaken. It incorporates the results of several interim reports and technical memoranda which have been submitted throughout the course of the study.

Study Objective

The objective of the study was to make a comprehensive examination of traffic and revenue potential of proposed managed lanes on I-95, generally between Fort Lauderdale and Miami, under a variety of physical and operational alternatives. The study was performed at a level of detail consistent with that expected for a study intended for use in project financing. However, in this case, more detailed PD&E studies will be needed in advance, hence ultimate project financing is probably some time away.

The study included an extensive program of market research, including focus groups, stated preference surveys and a limited travel pattern survey. A detailed operations profile was developed for the I-95 corridor since motorists’ willingness to pay tolls to use managed lanes is dependent on operating conditions in the adjacent toll-free general purpose lanes. Six project alternatives were analyzed, using a corridor “micro-model,” and operations simulation model. From the six primary alternatives, two preferred options were selected and refined estimates of traffic and revenue potential were developed.

Project corridor

As shown in Figure 1-1, the proposed managed lanes were evaluated in a corridor on I-95 extending from just south of I-595 in Fort Lauderdale to just south of the I-95 junction with S.R. 836 and I-395, near downtown Miami. This covers a total length of 18.4 miles, about 12 miles of which would be located in Miami-Dade County and the remainder in Broward County.

Along this stretch, I-95 carries well over 200,000 vehicles per day, with weekday traffic approaching 300,000 on several sections. Heaviest traffic is generally immediately south of the Golden Glades Interchange; the junction of Florida’s Turnpike, I-95 and the Palmetto Expressway (S.R. 826). Immediately north of the Golden Glades Interchange traffic is somewhat lower on I-95 but increases again to more than 275,000 vehicles per day south of I-595.

For the most part, as shown in Figure 1-2, this section of I-95 includes a total of ten travel lanes, five in each direction. Four of these lanes in each direction are full-time general purpose lanes, while the leftmost lane in each direction is reserved for high-occupant vehicles, currently defined as vehicles with two or more occupants, during peak periods. An HOV treatment is used, which permits continuous access and egress to the HOV lanes and full general purpose use during off-peak hours and on weekends.

In the Broward County portion of the corridor, directional demands are relatively balanced during the morning and afternoon peak period and may slightly favor the northbound direction in the A.M. peak close to Fort Lauderdale. In the southern portions of the project, in Miami-Dade County, there is a slightly greater directional split, favoring the southbound direction in the morning peak and the northbound in the afternoon peak. However, there are very high levels of demand in the off-peak direction as well, in both counties.

The existing HOV lanes operate continuously over the entire length of the study corridor. An HOV bypass elevated section has been constructed through the Golden Glades Interchange. Currently, the HOV lanes end at S.R. 112 on the south, with a direct connection to and from the west on S.R. 112. There are no HOV lanes in the short section between S.R. 112 and S.R. 836 on I-95.

Chapter 2 of this report presents a detailed description of current traffic levels and the traffic operational profile on I-95. While traffic is especially heavy during peak periods, high levels of traffic exist almost throughout the daylight hours, making the corridor a potentially good candidate for managed lanes or other form of tolled express lane facilities.

 

Scope of Work

The comprehensive study included an extensive program of market research and outreach. This included computer based stated preference surveys, which were intended to measure motorists’ willingness to pay tolls and general propensity to use the proposed managed lanes. A series of focus groups were undertaken, targeted to represent different segments of the travel population in the I-95 corridor, to assess public opinion and general acceptability of the concept. A limited origin-destination survey was undertaken, using digital imaging of vehicle license plates, and a mailback survey technique. The survey resulted in a relatively small sample of observed travel patterns on the corridor; this was supplemented by a detailed select link analysis of the trip patterns in the regional travel demand model to get a clear understanding of travel patterns and characteristics.

A detailed traffic operations profile was compiled over the entire length of the study corridor. Two permanent automatic traffic recorder stations were located in the corridor, and these provided a full array of daily, seasonal, and hourly traffic variations by travel direction. In addition, hourly ramp counts were obtained from FDOT at all interchanges, and complete peak versus off-peak operating profiles were established over the entire length of the corridor.

Speed and delay runs were operated, using GPS technology, along I-95 at various times of day to measure current patterns of delay, congestion points and to provide a basis for calibration of the detailed traffic simulation models used in the study.

Future-year global travel demand estimates along the I-95 corridor were developed using the Tri-County Southeastern Regional Planning Model (SERPM). Included with this model was a set of socioeconomic growth forecasts for Miami Dade, Broward County and the overall modeling area. Given the comprehensive nature of this study, WSA retained an independent economic subconsultant, Washington Economics Group, Inc. (WEG) to conduct an independent review of the underlying socioeconomic forecast. Some minor revisions were made in the socioeconomic estimates and new trip tables developed for use in the analysis.

A three-tiered modeling approach was used. The SERPM model was used to estimate total demand in the corridor; that is the total amount of traffic demand on I-95 itself. A market share “micro-model” was developed, using a tight “window” of the SERPM model, to estimate the share of traffic between the toll-free general purpose and the tolled managed lanes for each project configuration. A third model was a VISSIM micro-simulation program to estimate changes in travel speeds and travel times under varying shares of traffic between the toll-free and tolled managed lanes.

Six project alternatives were evaluated ranging from simple conversion of the existing HOV lanes to HOT operation, to a possible multi-lane elevated roadway to be constructed south of the Golden Glades Interchange. A more detailed description of each option is provided later in this chapter.
 
For each of the six physical alternatives, two operational alternatives were considered, one assuming the definition of carpools remains at two or more occupants and a second scenario assuming the regional definition of carpools is increased to vehicles with three or more occupants. Because existing HOV lanes are growing increasingly full, it may be necessary to redefine HOV traffic in the future to ensure free-flow conditions will continue in HOV lanes, regardless of what changes may be introduced on I-95.

After the initial traffic and revenue analysis for all six options, two preferred alternatives were identified. Refined traffic and revenue estimates were developed for these alternatives and are presented later in this full report. A limited number of sensitivity tests were performed, such as reduced growth or alternative values of time, to estimate the potential impact of changes in certain basic study assumptions. Finally, the work was documented in a series of interim submittals, including WSA and subconsultant reports and technical memoranda, and finally compiled into this report.

Description of Alternatives

As noted above, six alternative configurations were fully evaluated in the study. These are briefly described below.

Alternative 1

As shown in Figure 1-3, Alternative 1 would involve simply converting the existing single HOV lanes in each direction to HOT operation from I-595 on the north to S.R. 112 on the south. The lanes would be operated in their current locations, but for purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that they would be converted to HOT operations 24 hours per day. In addition, there would be limited points of access and egress, unlike the open access system in use with the HOV lanes today. Specific access point assumptions for each alternative are described subsequently.

South of S.R. 112, new HOV lanes would be constructed through the I-195 and I-395 Interchanges. This would likely take the form of elevated HOT lanes over this relatively short distance. The new section of elevated lanes would be operated in the same way as the remaining portions of the HOT lanes.

As noted above, this alternative was considered under two operating scenarios, one assuming HOV was defined as two or more persons, while the second option defined as HOV with having three or more occupants. This has a significant impact on operational viability, since there are considerably less three-occupant vehicles in the traffic stream than two-occupant vehicles. In fact, the study found that if the definition of HOV is not increased above two occupants, there will be little or no capacity available in the HOV lane to sell to non-HOV traffic; hence, this alternative may not be practical under the HOV-2 scenario.

�  

Alternative 2

As shown in Figure 1-4, Alternative 2, north of the Golden Glades Interchange, would be identical to Alternative 1. In fact, for the most part, all six scenarios were assumed to be the same north of the Golden Glades Interchange; that is two single HOT lanes, one in each direction, with controlled points of access. South of the Golden Glades Interchange, the two HOT lanes would be converted to reversible operation, with two lanes operating southbound in the morning peak and the two lanes operating northbound in the afternoon peak. Under this scenario, there would be no HOV or HOT lane provided in the minor travel direction during peak hours or in either direction during off-peak hours.

Similar to Alternative 1, the HOT lanes would be extended south of S.R. 112 and into the northern periphery of downtown Miami, presumably on an elevated section. This section, too, would include two reversible lanes operated northbound or southbound during the different peak periods.

� 

Alternative 3

Figure 1-5 shows the proposed configuration for Alternative 3. Again, north of the Golden Glades Interchange, only a single HOT lane in each direction would be operated. South of the Golden Glades Interchange, a third lane would be added in the median, together with a moveable barrier wall. This would permit two HOT lanes operating in the major direction and one major HOT lane operating in the minor direction. Figure 1-5 shows a typical morning peak condition, with two lanes operating southbound and one operating northbound. This would be reversed in the afternoon peak.

South of S.R. 112, an elevated extension of the lanes was assumed, also to be three lanes, the center lane of which would be reversible. This alternative has the advantage of providing additional HOT lane capacity in the major direction, while not taking away any capacity in the minor direction or during off-peak hours.

�  

Alternative 4

As shown in Figure 1-6, Alternative 4 would feature construction of a new elevated roadway south of the Golden Glades Interchange. In this case, the new lanes would be in addition to the existing two HOV lanes on the lower roadway. Hence, the existing 10-lane cross section would be retained, with the leftmost lanes reserved for HOV operation, at least during peak periods. The elevated lanes, which are assumed to be reversible in Alternative 4, would be tolled express lanes. All vehicles using these lanes would be required to pay a toll, regardless of vehicle occupancy. However, carpools could still continue to use toll-free the existing HOV lanes south of the Golden Glades Interchange.

North of the Golden Glades Interchange, Alternative 4 would operate the same as all alternatives; a single HOT lane in each direction as far north as I-595. The elevated roadway would extend into downtown Miami, with fixed points of access between the express lane roadway and the general purpose lanes. For purposes of analysis, it was assumed that the toll-free HOV lanes would also be extended south of S.R. 112, into the northern edge of downtown Miami.

�  

Alternative 5

Figure 1-7 shows the hypothetical proposed configuration for Alternative 5. This is the same as Alternative 4, except that the elevated roadway would be constructed with three lanes, two operating in the major direction and one operating in the minor direction. Again, all traffic using the elevated roadway would be required to pay a toll, regardless of occupancy. However, the existing toll-free HOV lanes located on the existing general roadway would remain available for carpool traffic.

�   

Alternative 6

As shown in Figure 1-8, Alternative 6 would be identical to Alternative 5, except that the elevated roadway would be constructed with a total of four lanes, two in each direction. A fixed barrier would be provided on the elevated roadway, together with fixed points of transition between the tolled express lanes and the general purpose lanes at various locations between the Golden Glades Interchange and downtown Miami. Where the express lanes were constructed, the HOV lanes would also remain available, toll free for carpools and buses. North of the Golden Glades Interchange, the same two HOT lanes would be operated, as with all project alternatives.

��
Figure 1-8
Conceptual Project Configuration – Alternative 6

Access Assumptions

Figure 1-9 shows the proposed HOT/express lanes access assumptions for each project alternative. As noted above, the northern portion of the project would be identical under all six of the operational alternatives. In this section, single HOV lanes would be converted to HOT operation, with one lane operating in each direction. Fixed points of access and egress would be constructed immediately south of I-595, between Sheraton Street and Hollywood Boulevard and between Ives Dairy Road and Miami Gardens Drive. Fixed access and egress slip ramps, probably delineated simply with striping, would be provided at these locations.

The lower portion of Figure 1-9 shows access assumptions for the southern part of the proposed project. Different access assumptions were used for different project alternatives, as shown.

Alternative 1 would involve conversion of the existing HOV lanes to HOT operation, with a limited number of fixed access points. Also note, shown in green, is the extension of the HOT lanes south of S.R. 112 to a point just to and slightly beyond the I-395/S.R. 836 Interchange. Intermediate access points would be constructed to and from the north at NW 135th Street and NW 95th Street. Access to and from the south would be implemented at NW 103rd Street and NW 69th Street. Note that there would be no immediate access at Florida’s Turnpike, due to potential weaving problems in the immediate vicinity of that interchange.

�

Alternative 2 would involve reconstruction of the HOV lanes south of Florida’s Turnpike to reversible HOT operation. This scenario would also include the southerly extension to I-395 and beyond. In this case, it would be necessary to add intermediate access points in the vicinity of Florida’s Turnpike, since the lanes north of Florida’s Turnpike would not be reversible. This additional access would provide access to and from the reversible lanes and bi-directional lanes.
 
Alternative 3 would include similar access arrangements, although no access to and from the north just south of Florida’s Turnpike. This is because under this scenario, the HOT lanes south of the Golden Glades Interchange will always be operated in both directions, although with one additional lane in the major travel direction.

Finally, access for Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 are shown at the bottom of Figure 1-9. In this case, south of the Golden Glades Interchange, the existing HOV lanes would remain in use, and actually be extended to I-395. These toll-free lanes, shown in purple in the figure, would continue to be available, in addition to the elevated toll lanes. The elevated lane configuration is shown in green, including direct access points to and from Florida’s Turnpike, as well as the vicinity of 119th /125th Street and 79th/82nd Street. The middle access points would be designed to provide transition between the main lanes and the elevated express lanes as well as a local ramp option direct on to existing interchange ramps. Full direct access would also be provided, in both directions, at I-195/S.R. 112 and I-395/S.R. 836, to and from the elevated express toll lanes.

Order of Presentation

Chapter 2 provides a description of the existing operating traffic profile along I-95 within the project limits. Chapter 3 summarizes the corridor growth potential and the results of the independent economic review. A summary of the market research program, included the stated preference surveys and focus group results, is provided in Chapter 4. Preliminary traffic and revenue estimates for the various project alternatives are summarized in Chapter 5 while more detailed information for the preferred options are presented in Chapter 6, together with sensitivity test results.

Back to Top

The evaluation of traffic and revenue potential for managed lanes such as those proposed for I-95 requires the development of a detailed traffic and operations profile. Motorists’ willingness to pay a toll to use managed lanes, or HOT lanes, is, of course, dependent on levels of congestion in the competing toll-free general purpose lanes. Hence, it is important to consider not only daily traffic levels but also hourly traffic distributions, directional splits and vehicle composition.

This chapter presents a summary of the detailed traffic and operations profile developed for I-95 for use in this study. It includes an analysis of daily and hourly traffic variations, vehicle occupancy rates, a general assessment of travel patterns and characteristics and historical traffic trends. In addition, extensive speed-delay runs were made during peak, off-peak and shoulder hour conditions along I-95; a summary of this is also included.

Figure 2-1
2004 Average Daily Traffic

Average Daily Traffic

Average daily traffic for I-95 and other major freeway facilities in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties were obtained from the FDOT traffic data base. Figure 2-1 displays typical average daily traffic volumes from the year 2004 at selected locations throughout the region.
 
On I-95, average daily traffic volumes range from just over 150,000 south of S.R. 836 near downtown Miami, to over 283,000 just south of the Golden Glades Interchange junction with Florida’s Turnpike. These reflect average daily volumes; weekday traffic levels are somewhat higher.
 
In general, the highest traffic levels were found between S.R. 112 and Florida’s Turnpike and just south of I-595 in Broward County. Traffic on I-95 drops below 200,000 in extreme northern Miami-Dade County; just north of the split with Florida’s Turnpike.

Figure 2-1 shows daily traffic volumes on other freeway facilities as well. At the north end of the project corridor, I-595 carries as much as 185,000 vehicles per day while Florida’s Turnpike carries between 62,100 and 105,400 vehicles per day. The Palmetto Expressway, S.R. 826, carries between 135,000 and 216,000, depending on location. S.R. 836 and S.R. 112, both of which are tolled facilities operated by the Miami-Dade Expressway Authority, carry heavy volumes near or well above 100,000 vehicles per day; both facilities intersect with I-95 near the south end of the corridor.

Both the I-195 and I-395 causeway corridors to Miami Beach carry roughly 100,000 vehicles per day. In short, freeway traffic levels in Southeast Florida are exceptionally high; and the I-95 corridor is highest among these.

I-95 Weekday Traffic Profile

Traffic counts were obtained from FDOT at selected locations along I-95 and on all interchange ramps within the project limits. In a few cases, FDOT counts were supplemented by machine counts performed by the WSA Team. This enabled the development of a balanced weekday traffic profile from the south end of the corridor to the north end of the corridor along I-95.
 
The weekday traffic profile, at 2004 levels, is shown in Figure 2-2. Two control count locations were used to anchor the traffic profiles;

• A continuous count station south of Pembroke Road in Broward County; and
• A portable count location south of NW 151st Street in Miami Dade.

Beginning at the north end of the project, weekday traffic levels reached 285,000 just south of Griffin Road. This volume decreases to just over 246,000 at the Miami-Dade County line. Weekday traffic further decreases to about 193,000 just north of the Golden Glades Interchange, but then increases again to 290,000 just south of 151st Street.
 
The heaviest traffic volumes were found between NW 95th Street and S.R. 924 (119th Street), at approximately 302,000 vehicles per weekday. While volumes remain over 275,000 as far south as S.R. 112, dropping to 242,000 north of S.R. 836 and to about 191,000 south of S.R. 836.
 
Weekday ramp volumes are also shown in Figure 2-2. For purposes of this presentation, directional ramp volumes were summed and then averaged by northbound and southbound directions, to achieve balanced flows.

� 

Table 2-1 Annual Traffic Trends I-95 South of Pembroke Road Year Average Daily Traffic Percent Change 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 205,600 212,800 214,100 214,900 213,700 228,500 232,600 233,200 239,400 243,300 252,000 --- 3.5% 0.6% 0.4% -0.6% 6.9% 1.8% 0.3% 2.7% 1.6% 3.6% Average Annual Percent Change: 1995-2000 - 2.1% 2000-2005 - 2.0% 1995-2005 - 2.1%

Historical Traffic Trends

Historical traffic trends are shown in Table 2-1 for a location south of Pembroke Road. FDOT operates a continuous count station at this location, which shows that average daily traffic increased from 205,600 in 1995 to 252,000 in 2005, an average annual increase over the 10-year period of 2.1 percent. Annual traffic growth has been relatively stable over the 10 years, with year-to-year fluctuation but five-year average growths virtually the same between 1995 and 2005.

The nominal 2 percent average annual rate of traffic growth in Broward County is considered typical of the overall corridor. This rate of growth is lower than some other facilities in the region, likely due to the fact that traffic volumes are already exceptionally high and congestion routinely occurs, especially south of the Golden Glades Interchange.

Hourly Traffic Variations

Hourly traffic variations are shown in Figure 2-3 at two locations along I-95; south of Pembroke Road and south of 151st Street. Hourly traffic is shown for a typical weekday condition, separately by northbound and southbound directions.
 
At the northern location (south of Pembroke Road) in Broward County, peak hour traffic in both directions is relatively balanced, with slightly heavier southbound volumes in some hours, but only by a small margin. Peak hour volumes reach about 8,600, per direction, close to the capacity of I-95 at that location, which includes four general purpose and one HOV lane in each direction.
 
It is interesting to note, however, that hourly demands decrease only a small amount during shoulder and even mid-day hours. In fact, in the southbound direction, all hours between 7:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. were found to be in the range of 7,500 to 8,600 vehicles per hour.
 
At the Miami-Dade County selected location, south of 151st Street, slightly more directional peaking is shown, with slightly heavier volumes southbound in the morning peak and northbound in the afternoon peak. Total hourly traffic flows are also slightly higher, with peak direction/peak hour volumes reaching as much as 9,600 vehicles per hour, at or above the nominal capacity of this section of road.
 
Once again, traffic in the southbound direction shows relatively small variations between hours of the day. Northbound traffic does show a late morning dip prior to a steady increase in traffic during the afternoon hours.

Perhaps most important to note is the lack of pronounced directional splits at either of these locations. Some of the options studied for the managed lanes included use of reversible or variable lanes, northbound versus southbound. The relatively small directional imbalances may tend to make these options less effective.

�  

Peak Period Profile

Figures 2-4 and 2-5 show A.M. and P.M. peak period traffic profiles along all mainline sections and ramps of I-95 within the project limits. Hourly volumes are shown by direction at all locations. Figure 2-4 shows A.M. peak period (6:00-9:00 A.M. - 3 hours) traffic volumes along I-95. As noted above, directional imbalances are relatively small, but would favor the southbound direction in the A.M. peak period south of the Golden Glades Interchange. Interestingly, within Broward County the major direction is northbound in the A.M. peak period, although relatively small directional imbalances are shown.

This is another important finding of the study, inasmuch as the north and south ends of the proposed managed lanes would have opposite directional peaking characteristics. This further complicates potential pricing strategies needed to manage demand along the full length of the facility and add further question regarding the viability of reversible lanes. It is noted that none of the six alternatives studied included reversible lanes in the Broward County portion of the project.

Figure 2-5 provides the P.M. traffic profile, again at 2004 levels. This covers the three-hour P.M. peak period from 3:00 – 6:00 P.M. In this case, directional flows are slightly higher in the northbound direction, south of the Golden Glades Interchange, and relatively balanced in the Broward County section. Three-hour volumes currently reach 27,000 – 29,000 in some locations, reflecting an average of 9,000 – 10,000 vehicles per hour per direction. These are exceptionally high traffic levels, and are indicative of the levels of congestion which were found in extensive speed studies performed as part of the analysis.

Figure 2-6 presents the profile information on a single hour basis for A.M. peak, mid-day and P.M. peak conditions. Northbound and southbound traffic volumes are shown in separate colors. This is a convenient way of showing the distribution of peak traffic loadings over the length of the facility, while also pointing out directional splits wherever these may exist.
 
In the A.M. peak hour, southbound volumes south of the Golden Glades Interchange are shown to be between 9,000 and 10,000 per hour at most locations. Northbound volumes in the A.M. peak are considerably lower. The nominal capacity of the general purpose lanes in this area would be in the range of 8,000 vehicles per hour, recognizing the presence of trucks in the traffic stream. Traffic volumes above 8,000 need to be accommodated in the HOV lane; it is clearly shown that for many sections, the HOV lanes and general purpose lanes would likely be at capacity, south of the Golden Glades Interchange.

�  

Immediately north of the Golden Glades Interchange, traffic levels drop off considerably, to as low as 5,000 vehicles per hour per direction. This is due to the significant amount of traffic which leaves I-95 for Florida’s Turnpike and Palmetto Expressway. Traffic levels build steadily moving north, with the increased commuting demand to and from Fort Lauderdale.

Similar patterns are shown in the P.M. peak hour, although slightly lower peaking levels are experienced. Also, the directional imbalance south of the Golden Glades Interchange is not as pronounced as in the A.M. peak hour. Traffic is shown to be quite balanced directionally in the Broward County section.

Hourly traffic volumes in the mid-day hours are also shown to be quite high, particularly south of the Golden Glades Interchange. Even in mid-day hours, total southbound volumes, for example, exceed 8,000 vehicles per hour on several sections. The leftmost lane is not restricted to HOV during these hours; hence the total roadway capacity is close to 10,000 per hour per direction. Nonetheless, these relatively high volumes even during mid-day hours suggest that with future traffic growth, there may well be a need for managing demand even in off-peak hours.

Vehicle Class Distributions

FDOT maintains vehicle classification counts at its continuous count stations. One of these stations is located on I-95 within the project study area, just south of Pembroke Road in Broward County. Table 2-2 shows the percent distribution between passenger cars and commercial vehicles at three points over the last 10 years.

Passenger cars, as a proportion of total vehicles, have remained relatively constant over the last 10 years, increasing from 93.4 percent in 1995 to 93.8 percent in 2003. The total commercial vehicles are generally split evenly between single and multi-unit trucks, with multi-unit trucks representing 3.2 percent in 2003 while light trucks represented 3.0 percent. In analyzing the various project alternatives, trucks were assumed to be prohibited from any of the HOT lane sections of the project alternatives, although theoretically all vehicle classes might be eligible to use the elevated lanes in Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 since separate HOV lanes are provided.

Table 2-2 Vehicle Class Distributions   Commercial Vehicles   Year Passenger Cars Single Unit Multi-Unit Total Total Vehicles 1995 1999 2003 Count Percent Count  Percent Count Percent 192,091 93.4% 199,813 93.5% 224,537 93.8% 8,004 3.9% 7,480 3.5% 7,189 3.0% 5,336 2.6% 6,411 3.0% 7,668 3.2% 13,545 6.6% 13,891 6.5% 14,857 6.2% 205,636 100.0% 213,704 100.0% 239,394 100.0% Source: Florida Department of Transportation

Travel Patterns

A limited travel pattern and characteristic survey was undertaken as part of the study. License plate images were obtained at a pedestrian overpass location south of the Golden Glades Interchange and on selected ramp locations along the corridor.

Figure 2-7 shows the proportional distribution of license plate by zip code of vehicle registration. As might be expected, vehicle registrations are most heavily concentrated along the I-95 corridor itself, in eastern Miami Dade and Broward Counties. The heaviest concentrations were found in close proximity to the county line.

License plate surveys were also conducted at a major park-and-ride in the vicinity of the Golden Glades Interchange. Figure 2-8 shows the zip code distributions of license plates from that location; these are heavily concentrated along the eastern portion of the Broward/Miami-Dade County line, just north of the Golden Glades Interchange. That park-and-ride facility provides express bus service to and from downtown Miami; consistent with the distribution pattern of vehicle registrations.

To provide a general assessment of the relative distribution of trip patterns along this section of I-95, WSA performed a select link analysis at the northern and southern ends of the corridor, using the base year trip tables from the SERPM travel demand model. These are graphically shown in Figure 2-9.
 
The left side of the figure displays the distribution of trips to and from the north end of the corridor, at a select link location just south of I-595. Of trips using I-95 in Fort Lauderdale, 67 percent are traveling to or from local interchanges north of the Golden Glades Interchange. About 8 percent of the traffic is oriented to the Golden Glades Interchange itself, mostly the Palmetto Expressway, while another 8 percent is found to be using local interchanges between the Florida Turnpike and S.R. 112. About 17 percent of the trips on I-95 south of I-595 continue through the entire length of the corridor, to or from S.R. 112, S.R. 836 or points south.

The right side of the graphic shows the distribution of travel patterns from a select link location just north of S.R. 112, near the south end of the project. About 40 percent of I-95 traffic in this location comes from local interchanges between S.R. 112 and the Golden Glades Interchange. Almost one-fourth of traffic is using Florida’s Turnpike or the Palmetto Expressway, while about 36 percent is traveling to local interchanges in Broward County, or to I-595 and north. Through trips represent about 18 percent, comparable to the proportion of through trips at the northern select link location.

 

Vehicle Occupancy Distribution

Vehicle occupancy levels are extremely critical to this analysis, recognizing that all of the alternatives have at least a portion of the project which will be operated as HOT lanes. As noted previously, each of the alternatives was analyzed under two operational scenarios, one assuming carpools with two or more occupants would gain toll-free access while another limited this to vehicles with three or more occupants.

Figure 2-10 shows the estimated vehicle occupancy distribution along the I-95 corridor for typical weekday conditions. Data is shown separately for northbound and southbound directions and for A.M. and P.M. peak period conditions. This data was obtained from the 2004 I-95 High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Monitoring report, produced for FDOT. The occupancy distributions were obtained at a location near NW 79th Street in Miami-Dade County. In that study, periodic counts were obtained of vehicle occupancies in both the HOV lane and immediately adjacent general purpose lane.

WSA reviewed this information and made adjustments to reflect the total volume of traffic in all four general purpose lanes. This resulted in the development of occupancy distributions across all five lanes at this location, which is shown in Figure 2-10.

 

 

 

As might be expected, the highest category of occupancy distribution is the single-occupant vehicle, ranging from 80.5 to 84.1 percent of total traffic. Vehicles with two occupants generally represent between 14.7 and 17.9 percent of the total. Vehicles with three or more occupants represented a very small percentage of traffic, as low as 0.9 percent in the northbound A.M. peak hour to 2.7 percent in the southbound direction.

It is important to note that vehicles with two or more occupants represent an extremely high percentage of total HOV traffic. This suggests that if the definition of carpools was increased from two to three occupants, a significant amount of additional capacity would be opened up in the HOV lanes. This is an important consideration in this study analysis.

Trip Characteristics

A limited trip characteristics survey was undertaken, using a mailback approach from vehicles observed in the I-95 corridor. Figure 2-11 presents a summary of the trip purpose and trip frequency distributions which were found. These were from survey respondents, all of which were driving on I-95 during the period of the survey.

Trips to and from work was the primary peak period trip purpose, with about 74 percent of respondents indicating this. Other trip purposes were relatively evenly distributed during the peak period. About one-third of off-peak users were also commuters, although another one-third were conducting company or personal business.

In terms of trip frequency, two-thirds of peak period travelers made the trip five or more times per week. Only 15 percent were infrequent travelers. As might be expected, during off-peak hours, high frequency trips declined to 28 percent of the total, while low frequency trips (one or less per week) increased to 39 percent of the total.

 

Travel speed profiles

Congestion levels are extremely important when considering managed lanes projects. An extensive program of speed-delay studies were undertaken, using GPS measuring devices, in A.M. peak, P.M. peak and off-peak conditions. A total of 55 speed-delay runs were operated in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, in either the northbound or southbound direction, on I-95. Six to eight runs were made in each major direction in A.M. and P.M. peak periods in Miami-Dade County; approximately five runs were made in each peak period in Broward County.

For each speed and delay run within Miami-Dade County, vehicles entered I-95 at the Ives Dairy Road Interchange and continued to a point south of I-395 in downtown Miami, or in the reverse direction. Speed and delay runs in Broward County were also conducted between Ives Dairy Road and I-595. The typical Miami-Dade County run covered about 13.5 miles while the typical Broward County portion covered about 8.3 miles.

GPS technology was used to track actual travel speeds, by distance traveled, over the length of each corridor. This is useful in showing bottleneck locations and specific areas where speeds drop below posted speed limits.

Miami-Dade Speed Profiles

Figure 2-12 shows southbound A.M. peak period speed profiles for six speed-delay runs in Miami-Dade County. For each run, the observed operating speed is tracked, by mile post and interchange location. All of these speed runs cover a distance of about 13.5 miles. The total run time and overall average operating speed is shown for each of the six discrete runs. The earliest run began at 6:02 A.M., and was found to have an overall average operating speed of 60.4 MPH. In general this reflects LOS D travel conditions, and only for a short distance did speeds fall below 50 MPH.

However, by the run beginning at 6:29 A.M., a significant degradation of speed is shown, particularly south of the Golden Glades Interchange. Here speeds are shown to drop to as low as 10 MPH or less, with an overall average speed of 38.6 MPH. By 7:13 A.M., average speeds dropped to 36 MPH, with the vast majority of delays experienced south of the Golden Glades Interchange. Speeds continue to decrease, dropping to a low of 21.3 MPH for a speed and delay run which began at Ives Dairy Road at 8:28 A.M. In that case, almost the entire distance between the Golden Glades Interchange and I-395 was run at 20 MPH or less. In fact, the average operating speed between 167th Street and I-395 was found to be just 17.3 MPH, with 33 minutes required to go less than 10 miles.

By 9:30 A.M., conditions had begun to improve, the overall average speed was found to be about 50.6 MPH. Only in a short section between 62nd Street and S.R. 112 did high levels of congestion occur.

 

 

Figure 2-13 shows comparable information in the northbound direction, for the P.M. peak period. In this case, the travel time runs began in downtown Miami just south of the I-395 Interchange and extended north to Ives Dairy Road. Beginning at 4:10 P.M. congestion is found over most of the length of I-95 south of the Golden Glades Interchange. The overall operating speed was computed at 31.1 MPH, operating speeds improved north of the Golden Glades Interchange, since there is a significant reduction in traffic north of Florida’s Turnpike.  By 4:44 P.M., average speeds dropped to just 19.8 MPH, with continual delays and travel speeds between 10 and 20 MPH for 9 continuous miles south of the Golden Glades Interchange. In fact, in this section of the run alone, speeds averaged just 14.6 MPH, with over 35 minutes required to travel only 8.5 miles. Free flowing managed lanes in this section of I-95 would save travelers 25 minutes or more.
 
Average speeds progressively improved as the P.M. peak period progressed, reaching about 30 MPH at 6:17 and 41.5 MPH at 7:06. Over time, the length of congested travel decreases, with the heaviest congestion lasting the longest time at a section between 95th Street and 151st Street.

 

 

Table 2-3 presents a summary of average times and average speeds for all travel time runs performed in Miami-Dade County. This includes both peak and off-peak as well as northbound and southbound directions. As previously noted, heavy congestion exists in the southbound morning peak and northbound evening peak periods. In the off-peak travel directions, relatively free-flow conditions exist in the morning while some degradation of service is experienced in the southbound direction in the P.M. peak. Mid-day operating speeds are generally between 60 and 64 MPH, with the exception of one southbound run.

Table 2-3 Summary of Average Speeds Miami - Dade County (Ives Dairy Rd - I-395) 13.5 Miles   SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND   Start Time Minutes Average Speed Start Time Minutes Average Speed AM Peak 6:02 6:29 7:13 7:42 8:28 9:06 9:30 13.4 21.0 22.5 32.0 38.0 27.0 16.0 60.4 38.6 36.0 25.3 21.3 30.0 50.6 6:38 7:38 8:27 9:36 12.6 12.9 13.0 13.2 64.3 62.8 62.3 61.4 Mid-Day 10:10 11:24 12:34 1:09 3:23 13.0 13.7 13.0 12.6 15.3 62.3 59.1 62.3 64.3 52.9 11:33 12:24 1:33 13.5 13.0 12.8 60.0 62.3 63.3 PM Peak 3:52 4:18 5:40 6:29 15.1 23.5 14.8 15.1 53.6 34.5 54.7 53.6 4:10 4:44 5:20 5:57 6:17 6:56 7:06 26.0 41.0 40.0 35.0 27.0 22.0 19.5 31.1 19.8 20.3 23.1 30.0 36.8 41.5

Broward County Speed Profiles

Figure 2-14 shows peak period operating speed profiles in the Broward County portion of the study area. In this case, both northbound A.M. peak and southbound P.M. peak runs are shown.
 
For the most part, relatively little delay was found in the northbound direction, with the three peak period runs shown all averaging speeds in the vicinity of 60 MPH or higher. In the southbound P.M. peak, some congestion was found, with average speeds in the range of 25-30 MPH for the 8.3 mile trip between I-595 and Ives Dairy Road. However, by 4:34 P.M., still within the P.M. peak period, average speeds had improved to about 52 MPH.

 

 

A summary of all travel time runs performed in Broward County are shown in Table 2-4. In general, operating conditions in the Broward County portion of the project are not as congested as in the Miami-Dade portion of the project. However, conditions are indicative of a “near breakdown” operation; that is, as traffic demands continue to grow, even modestly in future years, the length and duration of congested sections will likely increase. Also, even small incidents will likely cause a breakdown in normal operations.

Table 2-4 Summary of Average Speeds Broward County (Ives Dairy Rd - I-595) 8.3 Miles   SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND   Start Time Minutes Average Speed Start Time Minutes Average Speed AM Peak 6:14 7:11 7:36 8:01 8:45 7.8 7.7 8.5 7.8 7.6 63.9 64.7 58.6 63.9 65.6 6:18 7:18 7:43 8:09 9:01 7.5 8.0 8.6 8.2 7.8 66.4 62.3 58.0 60.7 63.9 Mid-Day 11:35 12:23 1:20 8.0 7.7 7.9 62.3 64.7 63.0 11:30 12:36 1:11 7.8 7.9 7.4 63.9 63.0 67.3 PM Peak 3:41 4:16 4:34 5:29 6:51 19.5 17.2 9.5 10.9 7.6 25.5 28.9 52.4 45.7 65.6 3:58 4:24 5:24 6:16 7.9 7.8 7.7 7.6 63.0 63.9 64.7 65.6

Back to Top

A detailed review of the socioeconomic characteristics of the area affecting I-95 was completed in 2005. Due to the importance of socioeconomic data used in the modeling of future travel demand, an independent economics consultant – The Washington Economics Group (WEG) was contracted to provide a detailed review of the most recent socioeconomic forecasts for Miami-Dade and Broward Counties.

Socioeconomic data is one of the most important input variables used in the traffic forecast modeling process. It is the primary factor in determining the number of vehicle trips that are generated within any given area. The intensity and relative orientation of housing and employment development influence the manner in which travel patterns may change over the projection period.

Details of the review and methods used in developing the updated projections were provided by WEG in a separate report submitted previously. However, a general overview of the patterns of growth that are expected to occur over the next 25 years in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties is included in this Chapter.

Population, Household and Employment Projections

The results of the WEG analysis are projections for population, housing, and employment in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties at discrete years – 2010, 2020, and 2030. Table 3-1 provides a summary of these projections on a county basis together with historical data beginning in 1980. Population and household unit forecasts through 2020 for Miami-Dade are expected to continue to grow at rates which are consistent with those during the previous 20 years. Beyond 2020, the rate of growth is forecasted to be 0.7 percent per year. Average annual job growth for Miami-Dade is projected at a rate similar to population growth, an average of 1.1 percent per year through 2020. Beyond 2020, the estimated rate of growth is reduced to 0.5 percent per year.

Table 3-1 Socioeconomic Trends and Projections Miami-Dade County Category Population Households Employment 1980 1,625,509 609,830 AAPC 1.8 1.3 1990 1,937,194 692,355 AAPC 1.3 1.1 2000 2,204,713 774,339 1,183,282 AAPC 1.3 1.2 1.1 2010 2,503,991 870,475 1,320,134 AAPC 1.4 1.3 1.1 2020 2,873,373 990,607 1,479,598 AAPC 0.7 0.7 0.5 2030 3,096,134 1,066,939 1,558,727 Broward County Category Population Households Employment 1980 1,018,257 417,517 AAPC 2.1 2.4 1990 1,255,488 528,442 AAPC 2.5 2.2 2000 1,601,918 654,199 651,360 AAPC 1.0 0.9 0.9 2010 1,774,811 714,294 714,805 AAPC 1.3 1.0 1.3 2020 2,020,635 791,675 813,966 AAPC 0.5 0.4 1.0 2030 2,128,313 827,134 901,407 AAPC - Average Annual Percent Change Sources: 1980, 1990 and 2000 from FDOT, 2010, 2020 and 2030 from WEG.

Broward County forecasts of future population and housing units are somewhat lower than was experienced from 1980 to 2000. From 2000 to 2020 the rate of growth is approximately one-half of past experience. As discussed in more detail in the WEG report, this change is based on a number of factors directly related to the fact that the supply of vacant land for residential development in Broward County is substantially depleted. Employment growth in Broward County is forecasted to be 0.9 percent per year through 2010 and 1.3 percent annually from 2010 to 2020. Beyond 2020, the rate of growth is forecasted to be 1.0 percent per year.

The forecasts for each category by county are shown graphically in Figure 3-1. The overall change from 2000 to 2030 of each of the forecast categories is also shown.

 

 

Forecasts by Regional Area

In developing its forecast, WEG divided the counties into 13 geographical areas – 8 within Miami-Dade County and 5 within Broward County. The 13 areas are displayed in Figure 3-2.
 

 

Table 3-2 shows the population projections for each of the 13 regional areas. In Miami-Dade County, population is forecasted to grow by almost 300,000 people between 2000 and 2010, and by more than 369,000 between 2010 and 2020. Beyond 2020, forecasted growth in population over the next ten years is just under 223,000. In Broward County, population is expected to increase by 173,000 between 2000 and 2010, and by about 246,000 during the following ten years. From 2020 to 2030, population is forecasted to grow much slower at 108,000.

Table 3-2 Population Forecast by Subregional Area Miami-Dade Reg. Area North East North West N. Central East N. Central West S. Central East S. Central West South East South West Subtotal 2000 378,411 261,098 533,351 116,873 473,044 269,917 105,822 66,197 2,204,713 Increment 28,780 28,978 54,010 30,342 30,102 56,844 51,974 18,248 299,278 AAPC 0.7 1.1 1.0 2.3 0.6 1.9 4.1 2.5 1.3 2010 407,191 290,076 587,361 147,215 503,146 326,761 157,796 84,445 2,503,991 Increment 35,214 23,250 53,114 43,801 31,669 64,092 82,444 35,798 369,382 AAPC 0.8 0.8 0.9 2.6 0.6 1.8 4.3 3.6 1.4 2020 442,405 313,326 640,475 191,016 534,815 390,853 240,240 120,243 2,873,373 Increment 25,432 15,758 41,468 22,326 27,820 49,629 25,457 14,871 222,761 AAPC 0.6 0.5 0.6 1.1 0.5 1.2 1.0 1.2 0.7 2030 467,837 329,084 681,943 213,342 562,635 440,482 265,697 135,114 3,096,134 Broward Reg. Area North N. Central East N. Central West South East South West Subtotal Total 2000 334,798 377,057 292,485 363,105 234,473 1,601,918 3,806,631 Increment 32,785 41,793 25,629 51,228 21,458 172,893 472,171 AAPC 0.9 1.1 0.8 1.3 0.9 1.0 1.2 2010 367,583 418,850 318,114 414,333 255,931 1,774,811 4,278,802 Increment 34,855 33,303 53,124 56,152 68,390 245,824 615,206 AAPC 0.9 0.8 1.6 1.3 2.4 1.3 1.4 2020 402,438 452,153 371,238 470,485 324,321 2,020,635 4,894,008 Increment 18,654 23,955 10,186 54,883 0 107,678 330,439 AAPC 0.5 0.5 0.3 1.1 0.0 0.5 0.7 2030 421,092 476,108 381,424 525,368 324,321 2,128,313 5,224,447

Within Miami-Dade County, the most rapid rates of future population growth are expected to be in the southeastern sector well south of the I-95 Corridor. Population is expected to increase from just under 106,000 in 2000 to over 240,000 by 2020. The north-central west sector, generally along Florida’s Turnpike Homestead Extension in Northwest Miami-Dade County, also is forecasted to show high levels of growth. Along the immediate project corridor itself, more modest rates of growth are forecast overall. These include the northeast and north-central east Miami-Dade County sectors, generally forecasted to grow at or below 1 percent per year in population.

In Broward County, the most rapid rates of growth are forecast in the southeast and southwest portion. The southeast sector, which is within the immediate vicinity of the I-95 Corridor, is expected to see relatively high levels of growth through 2020, with population increasing from just over 363,000 to over 470,000 by 2020. By 2030, population in the southeastern section of Broward County is expected to reach more than 525,000. The relative distribution of population growth by traffic zone is shown in Figure 3-3. Those traffic zones shaded in progressively darker shades of brown indicate areas of highest population growth. Along the immediate I-95 Corridor, this includes traffic zones within the vicinity of Hollywood within Broward County as well as some zones in far northeastern Miami-Dade County near North Miami Beach and Adventura.

The central core of the I-95 project, generally between the Golden Glades Interchange and Downtown Miami, is expected to experience only modest traffic growth as this portion of the area is largely built out.

 

 

Table 3-3 shows the household projections for each of the 13 regional areas. Because household and population growth are intertwined, the pattern of housing growth shown over the forecast period is consistent with that of the population growth pattern. The ratio of new persons to new housing units is approximately 3.0 throughout the forecast period for both counties. Over the forecast period, Miami-Dade County is expected to add almost 293,000 housing units, while Broward County is expected to add around 173,000 new units.

Table 3-3 Household Forecast by Subregional Area Miami-Dade Reg. Area North East North West N. Central East N. Central West S. Central East S. Central West South East South West Subtotal 2000 133,419 88,944 200,535 39,583 168,696 86,950 34,278 21,934 774,339 Increment 8,688 9,139 18,493 9,821 9,449 17,652 17,191 5,713 96,146 AAPC 0.6 1.0 0.9 2.2 0.5 1.9 4.1 2.3 1.2 2010 142,107 98,083 219,028 49,404 178,145 104,602 51,469 27,647 870,485 Increment 11,395 7,612 18,606 14,505 10,826 19,475 26,290 11,413 120,122 AAPC 0.8 0.8 0.8 2.6 0.6 1.7 4.2 3.5 1.3 2020 153,502 105,695 237,634 63,909 188,971 124,077 77,759 39,060 990,607 Increment 8,658 5,050 15,202 7,508 10,056 15,635 9,402 4,821 76,332 AAPC 0.6 0.5 0.6 1.1 0.5 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.7 2030 162,160 110,745 252,836 71,417 199,027 139,712 87,161 43,881 1,066,939 Broward Reg. Area North N. Central East N. Central West South East South West Subtotal Total 2000 135,701 166,100 118,954 150,906 82,538 654,199 1,428,538 Increment 11,100 15,427 8,283 19,235 6,050 60,095 156,241 AAPC 0.8 0.9 0.7 1.2 0.7 0.9 1.0 2010 146,801 181,527 127,237 170,141 88,588 714,294 1,584,779 Increment 10,811 11,601 17,211 20,641 17,117 77,381 197,503 AAPC 0.7 0.6 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.0 1.2 2020 157,612 193,128 144,448 190,782 105,705 791,675 1,782,282 Increment 5,678 7,344 3,034 19,403 0 35,459 111,791 AAPC 0.4 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 2030 163,290 200,472 147,482 210,185 105,705 827,134 1,894,073

Figure 3-4 shows the distribution of household growth by traffic zone. Total incremental numbers of households between 2000 and 2030 are depicted in progressively deeper shades of color.

 

 

As with population, the largest number of new household units in the immediate corridor is anticipated in the southeastern portion of Broward County, generally in the Hollywood and Hallendale areas. Pockets of strong growth are also shown in portions of Miami Beach and North Miami Beach, while the immediate section of I-95 between the Golden Glades Interchange and Downtown Miami is forecasted to have only modest levels of new housing development.

Table 3-4 also shows the employment projections for each of the 13 regional areas. Over the forecast period, Miami-Dade County is expected to add more than 375,000 new jobs, while Broward County can expect to add 250,000. The employment forecast consists of industrial, commercial, and service related employment categories. In Miami-Dade County, 1.7 percent of job growth is forecasted to be industrial while 35.2 percent is forecasted to be commercial, with the remaining 63.1 percent falling into the service employment category. Broward County industrial employment growth is forecasted to account for 11.2 percent of the total employment growth, while commercial and service related employment growth is forecasted to account for 32.6 percent and 56.2 percent, respectively.

Table 3-4 Total Employment Forecast by Subregional Area Miami-Dade Reg. Area North East North West N. Central East N. Central West S. Central East S. Central West South East South West Subtotal 2000 143,039 88,919 384,759 178,431 290,709 48,196 26,816 22,413 1,183,282 Increment 15,778 11,972 41,376 15,996 30,530 10,589 7,386 3,225 136,852 AAPC 1.1 1.3 1.0 0.9 1.0 2.0 2.5 1.4 1.1 2010 158,817 100,891 426,135 194,427 321,239 58,785 34,202 25,638 1,320,134 Increment 8,458 12,725 34,903 22,625 55,243 7,853 10,420 7,237 159,464 AAPC 0.5 1.2 0.8 1.1 1.6 1.3 2.7 2.5 1.1 2020 167,275 113,616 461,038 217,052 376,482 66,638 44,622 32,875 1,479,598 Increment 5,294 7,125 25,578 20,081 8,350 4,984 3,933 3,784 79,129 AAPC 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.7 0.8 1.1 0.5 2030 172,569 120,741 486,616 237,133 384,832 71,622 48,555 36,659 1,558,727 Broward Reg. Area North N. Central East N. Central West South East South West Subtotal Total 2000 125,630 231,554 91,786 151,296 51,094 651,360 1,834,642 Increment 17,370 11,137 9,684 14,942 10,312 63,445 200,297 AAPC 1.3 0.5 1.0 0.9 1.9 0.9 1.0 2010 143,000 242,691 101,470 166,238 61,406 714,805 2,034,939 Increment 20,345 15,256 19,036 16,602 27,922 99,161 258,625 AAPC 1.3 0.6 1.7 1.0 3.8 1.3 1.2 2020 163,345 257,947 120,506 182,840 89,328 813,966 2,293,564 Increment 27,821 14,989 10,411 20,338 13,882 87,441 166,570 AAPC 1.6 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.0 0.7 2030 191,166 272,936 130,917 203,178 103,210 901,407 2,460,134

Within Miami-Dade County, relatively high levels of employment growth are forecasted in the south-central west, southeast and southwest sectors. These areas are generally south of the I-95 Corridor. The most rapid rate of employment growth is forecasted generally east of U.S. Route 1 in the Homestead area. Heavy employment growth is also anticipated in areas west of the HEFT. Miami-Dade sectors in the immediate vicinity of I-95 show more modest levels of employment growth, generally averaging 1 percent per year through 2010 and lower rates thereafter. This is already a heavily built out section of the county.

Within Broward County, high levels of employment growth are forecasted for the southwest and north-central west sectors. Both of these sectors are along the I-75 Corridor, and considerably west of I-95. Along I-95 itself, about 50,000 jobs are expected to be added in the southeast Broward sector, with more than 65,000 added in the north sector.

The general distribution of employment growth between 2000 and 2030 is shown graphically in Figure 3-5. In general, the darker shades of green indicate areas of high employment growth.
 
As shown in Figure 3-5, employment growth is expected to be especially high between the HEFT and Palmetto Expressways, especially west of Miami International Airport. Other pockets of high employment growth include sectors along I-75 in Broward County and in the area between Fort Lauderdale and Hollywood within Broward County. Relatively strong employment growth is also shown in areas east of I-95 in the City of Miami.

Figure 3-5
Distribution of Employment Growth (2000-2030)

Summary

Considerably more detailed information about the economic analysis is included in the report prepared by WEG. That report provides an excellent summary of economic drivers in the county and a detailed rationale underlying the WEG review and adjustment of socioeconomic forecasts.

The economic forecasts were provided to WSA at the traffic analysis zone level. This was then used to develop updated trip matrices reflecting future travel demands at 2010, 2020, and 2030 levels. The socioeconomic forecasts provided by WEG varied slightly in some cases from the baseline forecasts used in the original SERPM model, although the differences were not significant.

The reader is encouraged to review the WEG report in its entirety for a more detailed description of Miami-Dade and Broward Counties economic forces and conditions.

Back to Top

Market research is an important element that provides key analysis inputs when conducting any comprehensive traffic and revenue study. As part of the overall I-95 Managed Lane Comprehensive Traffic and Revenue Study work program two (2) market research approaches were employed.
 
The first was in the form of stated preference surveys which were aimed at gauging the willingness of motorists to pay for a given amount of time savings. This value of time was derived through the stated preference survey process conducted on drivers currently utilizing the portion of I-95 which comprises the study corridor. The second was a public outreach approach which included the conduct of focus groups which tested the will and reaction of Miami-Dade County citizens to potential future strategies planned for the I-95 project corridor. This chapter provides a summary of the results of these two market research approaches.

Stated Preference Surveys  

The concept of the driver’s value of time is central in determining the revenue estimates for travel on a tolled facility. To understand its role in the estimation of tolled facility traffic and revenue assessments, one must broadly sketch out the overall modeling process. In broad terms, the overall modeling process can be described as follows:

1. Demand for travel in a corridor is estimated.
2. A fraction of that travel is allocated to transit; the remainder is allocated to the road network.
3. Travel times are estimated on the tolled facility and its competing non-tolled facilities for various travel movements (origin-destinations). The amount of time savings offered by the tolled facility is estimated. The portion of the corridor traveling population that is willing to pay the prevailing toll for the estimated time savings is allocated to the tolled facility. From this, traffic and toll revenue are calculated for the tolled facility. This last step is reiterated within an equilibrium assignment process to allow for multiple alternatives for travelers.

To accomplish this assessment, one must know what the traveling population is willing to pay for a given amount of time saving. The value of time for the I-95 corridor in Miami was derived from stated preference surveys conducted of current drivers in the corridor by WSA’s subconsultant, Resource Systems Group (RSG). The full report summarizing the survey and its results is included as Appendix B. This chapter provides a summary of that report.

Survey Administration Plan

The survey was administered by RSG at various locations in Miami-Dade and Broward counties between June 18 and June 27, 2005. Intercept locations were chosen to access a diverse sample of travelers across income levels, race and ethnicity, and age. Two Miami area public relations firms, Communikatz and Charesse Chester & Associates (CCA) provided assistance in identifying key segments of the area population and developing strategies to enlist participation of these respondents.
 
Specific survey sites within each targeted location were venues with high pedestrian traffic in a setting where respondents are most likely to have time to stop for the survey. Locations that are close to the study corridor tend to have the highest incidence of people who have made a recent trip that used or could have used the study portion of I-95. Survey sites included driver’s license offices, shopping centers and retail locations, community and recreation facilities, colleges and community education centers.

The survey was developed in English, Spanish, and Creole languages to support a diverse sample of respondents. Attendants at each of the intercept sites were fluent in English, Spanish, and Creole, in addition to having expertise regarding the computer-based survey instrument.

Table 4-1 lists the intercept administration sites by date. More than 1,000 qualifying respondents completed the survey at intercept sites during the 11 days of administration.

Table 4-1 Intercept Survey Sites Date Friday, June 16, 2006 Sunday, June 18, 2006 Monday, June 19, 2006 Tuesday, June 20, 2006 Wednesday, June 21, 2006 Thursday, June 22, 2006 Friday, June 23, 2006 Saturday, June 24, 2006 Sunday, June 25, 2006 Monday, June 26, 2006 Tuesday, June 27, 2006 Wednesday, June 28, 2006 Thursday, June 29, 2006 Location County Square Driver’s License Office Aventura Mall Dania Jai-Alai Galleria Mall Lauderhill Mall Aventura Mall Cobb Theater at Miami Lakes and Dolphin Mall Galleria Mall Lauderhill Mall Florida Career College Fort Lauderdale Driver’s License Office Office Depot Pembroke Road Driver’s License Office Florida Career College Miami Gardens Driver’s License Office Miami Northside Driver’s License Office Fort Lauderdale Driver’s License Office Miami Central Driver’s License Office Miami Northside Driver’s License Office Bunche Park Driver’s License Office County Square Driver’s License Office Miami Northside Driver’s License Office Galleria Mall Lauderdale Lakes Driver’s License Office North Dade Justice Center Driver’s License Office Regions Bank Aventura Mall Cobb Theater at Miami Lakes and Dolphin Mall Office Depot Aventura Mall Cobb Theater at Miami Lakes and Dolphin Mall Miami Lakes Technical Education Center North Miami Adult Education Center Turner Technical Adult Education Center County Square Driver’s License Office County Square Driver’s License Office Miami Central Driver’s License Office Bunche Park Driver’s License Office Bunche Park Driver’s License Office Fort Lauderdale Driver’s License Office Lauderdale Lakes Driver’s License Office Toussant L'Overture Elementary School County Miami-Dade Miami-Dade Broward Broward Broward Miami-Dade Miami-Dade Broward Broward Broward Broward Miami-Dade Broward Broward Miami-Dade Miami-Dade Broward Miami-Dade Miami-Dade Miami-Dade Miami-Dade Miami-Dade Broward Broward Miami-Dade Miami-Dade Miami-Dade Miami-Dade Miami-Dade Miami-Dade Miami-Dade Miami-Dade Miami-Dade Miami-Dade Miami-Dade Miami-Dade Miami-Dade Miami-Dade Broward Broward Miami-Dade

Survey Approach

The stated preference survey was designed to identify the travel patterns and preferences of drivers who currently use or could reasonably use I-95 between I-595 and S.R. 836. The survey approach employed a computer-assisted self-interview (CASI) technique. The survey instrument was programmed using customized software developed by RSG for administration via laptop computers at activity sites and online through RSG’s SurveyCafe.com website. The customized computer-based survey software adapts to the trip characteristics of each respondent, making the questionnaire realistic for each individual, and it and presents complex ideas in a simple manner. Electronic validation of each question eliminates item nonresponse and prevents the entry of invalid inputs. Responses to each question are stored directly to a database, where they are available for review and tabulation.

Survey Questionnaire

The stated preference survey questionnaire was comprised of four main sections:

• Trip description - These questions collected detailed information about each traveler’s most recent trip in the corridor. Information collected in this section included: origin, destination, whether the trip was based at home, day of week, time of travel, direction of travel, trip purpose, trip frequency, mode of transportation, vehicle occupancy, delays experienced, and current SunPass® usage, among others. If travelers did not use I-95 for this trip, they were asked why they did not use I-95 and whether they chose their time of day purposely to avoid congestion, if applicable.
• Project Information – The second section of the survey provided a description of the proposed managed lanes, including the location and configuration of the lanes, the managed lanes concept, and requirements for all vehicles using the managed lanes to be equipped with a SunPass® transponder.
• Stated Preference Scenarios – Respondents who traveled by automobile were presented with hypothetical stated preference scenarios based on the trip information they provided in the first section of the survey. In each of eight scenarios, respondents were asked to choose one of three options for a hypothetical future trip:

1. Driving alone on the new I-95 managed lanes with a toll.
2. Driving in a two- or three-person carpool on the new I-95 managed lanes with a toll or toll-free.
3. Driving toll-free on the I-95 general purpose lanes (for current I-95 users) or on their current route (for travelers who could have but did not use I-95)

• For the carpool option, Option 2, occupancy requirements for free travel on the managed lanes and other parameters were varied based on the respondents’ current reported occupancy level. Travel times, toll costs, and vehicle occupancy are also key attributes of the travel options. These attributes were presented at different values or “levels” in each of the respondent’s eight scenarios, determined using characteristics of the respondent’s recent trip, such as the distance traveled or potentially traveled on I-95 and any tolls paid on the reported trip.
• Debrief and Demographic Questions – In the last section of the survey, participants were asked follow-up questions designed to provide insight about why certain choices were made in the stated preference section, including why some respondents never selected the new managed lanes options; how new information might affect previous choices; and testing usage of potential new BRT and van services. Standard demographic information such as household size, gender, employment status, age, zip code, and household income was also collected in this section. At the end of the survey, respondents were also given the opportunity to provide free-form comments about I-95.

Survey Results

A total of 1,251 respondents completed the stated preference survey; 87 percent from respondents at intercept sites and the remainder through the Internet-based survey. The full details of the survey responses are provided in the RSG report in Appendix B. Some of the more significant responses to the survey questions are shown below.

Income and Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents

The sample was comprised of 59 percent men and 41 percent women. The median age of the sample was in the category of 35-44 years old; 85 percent were employed either part-time or full-time. A small portion (2 percent) reported no vehicle in the household but most (69 percent) had one or two vehicles. The median household income of the sample was between $20,000 and $39,999 per year, and nearly two-thirds reported household income less than $60,000 per year. This is consistent with the median household income for Miami-Dade and Broward Counties collected in the 2000 Census.

Time of Day and Purpose

Peak travel periods were defined as weekday trips between the hours of 6:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. or 4:00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. Fifty percent of respondents reported a trip in the peak period, with 33 percent in the morning peak and 17 percent in the afternoon peak. Respondents making off-peak trips on weekdays were asked whether they were traveling outside peak periods to avoid traffic delays; 63 percent said they were.

Slightly more than half (53 percent) of all trips made during peak periods were work trips. Figure 4-1 shows the distribution of trip purpose across the survey sample by period.

Trip Duration

The median total travel time of trips in the sample was 45 minutes. The median of travel time spent on I-95 was in the category of 30-44 minutes. The median distance between entry/exit points on I-95 that were chosen by respondents (estimated distance traveled on I-95) was in the range of 9 to 13 miles. Figure 4-2 shows the distribution of total travel time.

Trip Frequency

The frequency of travel for the trips described varied according to trip purpose. Almost 70 percent of trips to and from work occurred at least five times per week, while over 90 percent of shopping, social or recreational, and personal trips occurred less than five times per week and almost half of these types of trips occurred less than once per week (Figure 4-3)

HOV Lanes

All non-transit respondents who used I-95 for their trip were asked whether or not they used the HOV lane during their reference trip, regardless of their current vehicle occupancy. Half (52 percent) of all high occupancy vehicles (HOVs) used the HOV lane, and 21 percent of SOVs reported using it. A few travelers (5 percent) were not sure whether they used the HOV lane or not.

Current SunPass® Usage

After being provided with a description of a SunPass® transponder, respondents were asked whether they currently own one or if they plan to purchase one in the future. Twenty-eight percent of respondents said that they currently owned a SunPass® transponder; while 22 percent said they planned to purchase one. Half of the sample (50 percent) said that they did not have a transponder and did not plan to purchase one.

Stated Preference Debrief Questions

After finishing the stated preference portion of the survey, the 36 percent of respondents who never choose the managed lanes option were asked why not. Respondents could select multiple reasons. Although 26 percent were opposed to paying a toll, 50 percent of respondents said that the time savings presented to them was not worth the toll cost, and 40 percent of respondents said that the toll was too high (Figure 4-4).

Modeling

The stated preference data from the survey were compiled into an ALOGIT dataset used to support estimation of the coefficients of a multinomial logit-based mode choice model and later estimation of individual coefficients for each respondent in the sample using a Hierarchical Bayes estimation technique¹. Data from the choice experiments were expanded into a dataset that contained eight observations for each of the 1,233 automobile respondents, yielding a total of 9,864 observations. These eight choice observations consist of the data from individual survey screens, each of which was one experiment of a 16-experiment orthogonal design with three choice alternatives customized by current vehicle occupancy:

Single occupant vehicles:

• I-95 new managed lanes driving alone with a toll paid using SunPass®;
• I-95 new managed lanes in a carpool with SunPass® and a possible toll; and
• Existing general-purpose lanes (or current non-I 95 route) with no toll.

Two-occupant carpools:

• I-95 new managed lanes driving alone with a toll paid using SunPass®;
• I-95 new managed lanes in a two-person carpool with SunPass® and a possible toll; and
• Existing general-purpose lanes in a two-person carpool with no toll.

Carpools with three or more occupants:

• I-95 new managed lanes driving alone with a toll paid using SunPass®;
• I-95 new managed lanes in a three-person carpool with SunPass® toll-free; and
• Existing general-purpose lanes in a three-person carpool with no toll.

A set of diagnostic model runs was conducted to ensure that the data were consistent with the original stated preference experimental design and to identify data outliers. Outliers in the data were identified in several ways, including identification of extreme values in the input data—very long travel times, unrealistic calculated vehicle speeds on I-95, and very short distances traveled on I-95 (less than 2 miles)—as well as the estimation identification of responses with low choice probabilities (for which the model showed a likelihood of selecting the option that was chosen of less than 0.025). Ultimately, 8,768 observations (data from 1,096 respondents) were used to estimate the model results in this report.

Traveler Segmentation

A total of four segments based on time of day and trip purpose were identified and modeled separately. The dataset is divided into four segments:

• Peak period work trips;
• Peak period non-work trips;
• Off-peak period work trips; and
• Off-peak period non-work trips.

Work trips included only travelers who were making a trip to or from work. Business-related travel was classified as non-work.

Two different peak specifications were tested: peak time of day only, and peak time of day and direction. In the first specification, peak period trips were defined as trips made by respondents who traveled on weekdays between 6:00 and 9:00 A.M. or 4:00 and 7:00 P.M. In the second specification, peak period trips were defined as southbound weekday trips between 6:00 and 9:00 A.M. or northbound weekday trips between 4:00 and 7:00 P.M. Trips made during the peak period in a reverse-commute direction were classified as off-peak. In both specifications, all weekend trips were considered off-peak. Ultimately, peak period by time of day only was found to provide the best model fit, and was used for the final specification.

General Model Structure

The quantitative relationships between the variables that affect choices and choice probabilities are specified in the utility functions. Coefficients for the variables in these utility functions can be statistically estimated using maximum likelihood procedures. A single general model structure was estimated for all model segments. The time coefficient applies to all options and the cost coefficient applies to the options that would or could possibly have a toll (managed lanes driving alone or in a two-person carpool). Some other coefficients are option-specific.

All model segments include the same variables, and separate coefficients values were estimated for each individual in the sample. The coefficients estimated in the model are shown in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2 Model Coefficients Coefficient Time Cost Distance Two-person carpool Three-person carpool Carpool inertia General purpose lanes constant Alternate route constant No SunPass® constant Units minutes dollars* miles (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) Description Total travel time in minutes applied to all alternatives Toll cost in dollars divided by the log of household income in thousands of dollars divided by occupancy ^0.6 Log of total trip distance in miles applied to the managed lanes alternatives Dummy variable applied to the alternatives shown as a two-person carpool Dummy variable applied to the alternatives shown as a three-person carpool Constant to capture willingness of current carpoolers to remain in a carpool Constant applied to the general-purpose lanes alternative if the respondent’s trip used I-95 Constant applied to the alternate route alternative if the respondent’s trip did not use I-95 Constant to capture disutility of having to obtain SunPass® to use the managed lanes, applied to the general purpose lanes or alternate route alternative

The travel time coefficient is applicable to all alternatives and represents the sensitivity to total travel time in minutes.

Toll cost is applicable to all tolled alternatives and represents sensitivity to total trip toll cost in dollars. A respondent’s sensitivity to toll cost can vary with their income level. To account for this, several income effects on toll cost were tested. These effects included cost divided by a code representing the household income category, log of a household income code, household income in thousands of dollars, and the log of household income in thousands of dollars. Toll cost divided by the log of household income in thousands of dollars was found to be most statistically significant and was included in the model.

Various occupancy effects on toll cost were also tested to account for cost sharing among occupants traveling in HOVs. Toll cost divided by occupancy to the power of 0.6 was found to be statistically significant and included in the model.
 
Managed lanes distance is a positive coefficient for managed lanes options, indicating an increased likelihood of using the managed lanes for longer distance trips.

The two- and three-person carpool variables represent the sensitivity to number of vehicle occupants. The carpool inertia coefficient captures the increased likelihood of choosing carpool for travelers who are already in a carpool.

The general-purpose lanes constant and alternate route constants are applied to the third alternative and capture utility or disutility of the non-managed lanes alternative that cannot be explained by the other variables in the model such as time, cost, and occupancy.

No SunPass® transponder is a variable included on the general purpose lanes that shows an increased likelihood of using general purpose lanes (rather than managed lanes) for travelers who do not currently have SunPass® and do not plan to acquire it.
 
Several other variables and constants were tested beyond what is presented in this final specification, but were found to be insignificant or to worsen the overall fit of the model to the data.

Model Coefficients and Value-of-Time

After testing hundreds of multinomial logit model specifications using ALOGIT, a final specification was selected and used for the individual coefficient estimation using a Hierarchical Bayes technique. This produces individual choice model coefficients for each respondent in the sample, which in-turn provides implied values of travel time savings for each individual respondent as well as the distribution of values of travel time savings across the sample.

The implied value that travelers place on their time when making a route choice decision on their reported trip is determined using the marginal rate of substitution of the travel time and toll cost coefficients. In addition to using the individual-specific time and cost coefficients, the individuals’ reported income level and vehicle occupancy are used in the computation of individual value of time. The median values of time for the segments range from $7.65 per hour to $9.30 per hour (Table 4-3).

Table 4-3 Median Values-of-Time   Median Value-of-Time Travel Segment Peak  work Peak  non-work(1) Off-peak  work Off-peak  non-work $ per hour $7.65 $9.30 $8.37 $8.06 $ per minute $0.128 $0.155 $0.140 $0.134 (1) Adjusted from raw data indicated $13.01 per hour and $0.22 per minute.

Focus Groups

Public involvement is a crucial element of any public project. Recognizing the importance for public involvement WSA engaged Kelley Swofford Roy, Inc. (KSR), a Florida based marketing firm to assist with the public outreach task of the overall I-95 Managed Lane work program.

Focus Group Administration Plan

The public outreach program associated with the  Proposed I-95 Managed Lane analysis relied on focus groups to test the will and reaction of Miami-Dade County citizens to potential strategies planned for the project corridor portion of I-95. The value of input and reaction from individual Miami-Dade citizens will play a critical role in the decision-making process as FDOT considers future potential strategies for I-95.

A total of 196 citizens participated in 15 sessions conducted between October 27, 2004 and February 28, 2005. Six of the sessions, including 81 participants, were conducted among I-95 roadway users who drive primarily in single occupancy vehicles (SOV) to commute to and from work. Four of the sessions, included 55 participants, were conducted among I-95 roadway users who drive primarily with one or more passengers and use the I-95 HOV lanes to commute to and from work. Both the participants in the SOV and HOV lanes confirmed as a prerequisite that they drive at least 10 miles on I-95 in Miami-Dade County on most work days. Additionally, five of the sessions, including 60 participants were conducted among Miami-Dade residents who use Miami-Dade transit as their primary means to commute to and from work.        

In total 30 percent of the 196 participants were Hispanic, 35 percent Caucasian, 29 percent African American and 6 percent Creole as indicated in Figure 4-5. Each of the sessions averaged close to two hours in length. Twelve of the 15 focus groups were conducted in English, two in Spanish, and one in Creole. One of the Transit panels was composed exclusively of African heritage participants. The two Spanish panels, one an SOV panel and the other a Transit panel, recruited participants whose first language is Spanish.

A total of 96 men and 100 women comprised the 196 participants. In the SOV panels there were 41 men and 40 women. In the HOV panels there were 26 men and 29 women. In the Transit panels there were 29 men and 31 women. Occupations were diverse and very representative including clericals, government, professionals, and a few students.Participants for the sessions were selected from each of the major zip code groupings within Miami-Dade County to insure a broad countywide sampling of opinions. Because the selection process was stratified in this way the quantitative conclusions and percentages represent the participants’ opinions on the topics covered in the groups and no specific conclusions can be made on the margin of error if these results were projected countywide.

Focus Group Survey Methodology

The survey methodology utilized in the focus groups was developed by Dr. William R. Roy. The Foquand(sm) process is more formalized than traditional qualitative focus groups. It uses much larger focus panels averaging from 12 to 14 participants. Under this methodology participants recorded their reactions to a topic area, both quantitatively using rating scales and qualitatively by completing open-end questions, before the open discussion begins on that topic area.  This made it possible to assess individual perceptions and opinions before the discussion begins to modify those reactions. As a result the individual reaction of each of the participants is included in this analysis, not just the comments of the discussion participants, as is the case in traditional focus groups. This provides a much broader base of analytic information than is possible through the traditional focus group approach.

Percentages shown subsequently in this section are always based on the number of respondents, which can change from one question to another because all respondents did not always record their answers to all questions. On rating questions, the median was used for comparative purposes. This was arrived at by arraying all respondents’ ratings from the highest to the lowest and then identifying the rating that is halfway down the scale as the median. For example if there were 51 responses to a rating question, the rating given by the 26th respondent down the rating scale would be the median. The percentage of all respondents who gave a rating at the high end of the scale that is a 10, 9, or 8 as well as the percentage of all respondents who gave a rating at the low end of the scale that is a 3, 2, or 1 was also examined. In most cases the majority of ratings tend to skew toward one end of the scale or another. However in some cases we find a “polarized” response. This means that there were substantial differences of opinion with nearly equal ratings at both the high and low ends of the scale.
 
The full report summarizing the focus group results is included as Appendix C of this document. This section provides a summary of that report.

Summary of Focus Group Results

As stated previously, the focus group session participants represented a broad cross section of Miami-Dade I-95 single occupant vehicle drivers (SOV), I-95 two or more occupant vehicles (HOV) and Transit users, most of whom did not use I-95 for their Transit commute. The panels were conducted between October 27, 2004 and February 28, 2005. Approximately 30 percent of the participants were Hispanic, 35 percent Caucasian, 29 percent African American, and 6 percent Creole. A brief summary of the most important findings follows:

• 48 percent of SOV and 36 percent of HOV participants drive cars equipped with SunPass®. The majority of both SOV and HOV participants used I-95 to commute to work, occasionally into other counties. 86 percent of the SOV and 91 percent of HOV participants indicated that their trip on I-95 takes them into Broward and Palm Beach counties, at least occasionally;
• 58 percent of HOV participants use car or vanpools compared to 16 percent for SOV participants, who are reluctant to add passengers. Most HOV/SOV users would not favor mass transit unless schedules/service improved significantly;
• When asked to speculate on what it would take to get SOV and HOV participants to consider using mass transit “more routes/destinations” and “better schedules” were mentioned the most;
• Both SOV and HOV users were generally satisfied with I-95. The biggest negative in using I-95 is “too much traffic,” for which the HOV lane provides a satisfactory peak hour alternative. SOV participants also said I-95 was “quicker.” Both SOV and HOV participants mentioned “more exits than toll roads” as a positive;
• SOV users gave higher marks to FDOT’s care of I-95 than HOV users. Most liked the idea of extending the HOV lane’s length, but opposed extending hours of operation to 24/7;
• When the concept of “managed lanes based on open road tolling” was introduced in the panels, the majority of SOV and Transit participants liked the idea while HOV users were more polarized and far less positive, because it would disrupt their use of the HOV lanes. However, 76 percent of both SOV and HOV participants acknowledged they would use the managed lanes, at least occasionally, with nearly 20 percent saying they would use them all the time, if they could afford to. Only 11 percent of SOV participants and 20 percent of HOV participants say they will never use these lanes because they “don’t want to pay any tolls”;
• When the topic of specific toll levels for the managed lanes was introduced, beginning with a $6 one way toll, most SOV and HOV participants became more hesitant because of cost with SOV showing more price elasticity than HOV participants, who showed some interest in adding passengers to travel free. The toll discussion turned off more HOV than SOV participants toward the “managed lanes” concept;
• The “managed lanes” toll discussion produced increased interest in considering express bus service or adding passengers or considering a vanpool if it was convenient as an alternative to paying high tolls, even though 54 percent of the SOV participants and 25 percent of the HOV participants still said they would “most likely continue to commute by myself in my car”;
• Participants were given more information about the economic and job potential associated with mixed use development areas along the I-95 “managed lanes.” When, following the description of these economic development areas, participants were asked to evaluate a series of statements about the benefits of “managed lanes,” overall reactions were consistently much more positive than negative;
• When participants were given a list of statements about the degree to which the addition of the I-95 managed lanes will improve the community, most agreed it would be very positive;
• 48 percent of the Transit participants commute by transit part of the time and get a ride with friends or in a car or van pool the rest of the time. 44 percent use transit or transit plus walking all the time. 40 percent use transit because it is “less stressful;” 38 percent because it “saves money;” 37 percent because they have “no car,” and 32 percent because it is the “easiest way to get there.” Overall, Transit participants were “satisfied” with MDT; and
• While many Transit participants were happy with their current jobs, they acknowledged that transit limitations restricted their career options. Many saw the “managed lanes” concept as a way to improve and expand transit service, thereby leading to improved career and living opportunities. 56 percent said better public transportation choices are “very important” in their ability to get a better job.

Back to Top

As discussed in previous chapters, a total of six project alternatives were subjected to preliminary traffic and revenue analysis. This included the development of multi-level detailed traffic models, an assessment of optimum toll levels, estimation of traffic volumes by time of day and travel direction, estimation of revenue potential and a general assessment of operational benefits. Each of the six physical project alternatives were considered under two operational scenarios:

• Assuming vehicles with two or more occupants could use the facility toll-free (HOV-2+); and
• Assuming vehicles with three or more occupants could use the facility toll-free (HOV-3+).

In practice, Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 were found to be impractical in peak periods under the HOV-2+ scenario, and parts of the full analysis were undertaken for these alternatives only under the HOV-3+ option.

This Chapter is intended to concisely summarize the results of this extensive alternatives analysis. Detailed study findings were presented to the Department, together with a comparative analysis to identify the most promising options. Those most promising alternatives were subjected to more refined, detailed analysis; the results of which are presented in Chapter 6.

In addition to an overview of the analytical approach used, this Chapter summarizes the results of the initial alternatives analysis. A general summary of traffic and revenue potential is included for each alternative. More detailed information regarding estimated traffic for each alternative is presented in a series of graphics included in the Appendix to this report.

Modeling Approach

Figure 5-1 presents an overview of the methodology used to develop estimates of traffic and revenue for each of the six project alternatives. A traffic and revenue study attempts to answer three overall questions:

• How much demand exists in the corridor today;
• How much will the demand grow in the future; and
• What share of traffic can be expected to use the toll facility and what will drivers be willing to pay?

A detailed profile of existing demand was collected as part of the study and was summarized previously in Chapter 2. This included hourly traffic profiles by travel direction, travel time surveys, vehicle occupancy counts and more. This became the basic foundation of the travel demand models used in the analysis.

The overall modeling approach used in the study actually required the development of three independent models.
These included:

• Regional model for global demand estimates – The global demand is an estimate of the total amount of traffic that would be expected to be using the I-95 corridor, under both the existing or improved conditions. These estimates were based on the results of the independent economic growth assessment for the region that was performed as part of the study, and made use of the Tri-County SERPM regional model.
• Travel time simulation model - A traffic model of the I-95 Managed Lane corridor was developed using the VISSIM microsimulation software to identify changes in travel time and delay on different segments of the general purpose lanes under various alternative project configurations. Motorists’ willingness to pay a toll to use express toll lanes depend heavily on congestion levels and traffic backups in the toll-free general purpose lanes. The simulation model is an enhanced tool to provide a better indication of delay conditions under varying levels of demand.
• The market share micro-model – This model is used to estimate the share of total traffic on I-95 that would choose the managed lanes versus the toll-free general purpose lanes under varying operating conditions and toll rates. Micro-model trip tables were calibrated directly to the observed base year hourly control volumes on I-95 mainline and ramp locations, as discussed above. The share of corridor traffic in the managed lanes is based on several factors, including location of access points, differences in configurations, time savings offered by the managed lanes and, of course, the toll rates being charged.

Global Demand Estimates

The corridor global traffic demand is defined as the total traffic traveling in the I-95 Managed Lane corridor. Global demand estimates were prepared using trip tables developed using modified socioeconomic forecasts with the SERPM regional travel demand model. The Washington Economics Group, Inc. (WEG), a Miami-Dade County based economic consultant, conducted an independent review of the underlying socioeconomic forecast used to develop the SERPM model trip tables. Based on this review, revisions were made to the SERPM socioeconomic data sets at traffic zone level. These revised socioeconomic data sets were then used to develop revised trip tables for use in this study analysis.

The regional travel demand model was used in two ways: to provide the base travel patterns for the micro-model subarea and to develop growth characteristics for the micro-model subarea.

The calibration process for the regional model used for this study included the following steps:

• Develop trip tables at 2004, 2010, 2020, and 2030 levels for a.m., midday, p.m., and overnight time periods. Divide trip tables into SOV, HOV-2, HOV-3+ and truck components;
• Adjust assignment parameters including link speeds and capacities, and speed/flow relationships; and
• Extract micro-model subarea travel information from base and future years.

The SERPM network included the latest Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), as defined by the MPO’s in the three county areas that are covered by the model. Specific modifications to this plan related only to assumptions regarding the six Managed Lane (ML) alternative project configurations. As noted earlier, a set of independent economic forecasts were developed for use in this study. These housing and employment forecasts were used to develop updated trip tables for use in this study.

The subarea trip tables used in the micro-model were initially extracted from regionwide traffic assignments at base-year (2004) levels. These trip tables were used as “seed matrices” in a calibration process that adjusted the trip tables to traffic volumes representing the average hourly volume (for each of the time periods) for I-95 ramps and mainlines for the analysis intervals used in the micromodel, which are smaller than those used in the regional model. The hourly traffic volume profile summarized previously was used to identify appropriate analysis intervals for use in this study.

The analysis periods used in the windowed model and the micro-model have been defined as follows:

• A.M. 1 – A. M. Pre-Peak Shoulder – 6:00 - 7:00 A.M.
• A.M. 2 – A.M. Peak Period – 7:00 - 8:00 A.M.
• A.M. 3 – A.M. Post Peak Shoulder – 8:00 - 9:00 A.M.
• MD – Midday Period – 9:00 A.M. - 3:00 P.M.
• P.M. 1 – P.M. Pre-Peak Shoulder - 3:00 - 4:30 P.M.
• P.M. 2 – P.M. Peak Period - 4:30 - 6:00 P.M.
• P.M. 3 – P.M. Post-Peak Shoulder - 6:00 - 7:00 P.M.

The overnight period from 7:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. was not analyzed explicitly. The traffic and toll revenue forecasts presented later in this report assume a certain fixed percentage of traffic and revenue will occur during the overnight hours, as well as on weekends.

Future-year (2010, 2020, and 2030) traffic assignments using the regional model were made to identify potential changes in travel patterns in the corridor. Among other things, these travel patterns are likely to be affected by:

• Forecasted growth in the region;
• The addition of new capacity to the freeway in the form of the MLs being studied herein;
• Highway improvements to other freeways in the region; and
• Changes to the ramp configurations as part of these improvements.

Trip tables representing the micro-model subarea were extracted from each set of runs and compared to those developed for the base year to estimate zonal growth rates, which were then applied to the calibrated base-year subarea matrices.

Travel Time Simulation Model (VISSIM)

Traditional traffic assignment models do not well replicate the impact of merging and weaving maneuvers on freeway capacity, nor can they reflect the impact of downstream queuing on freeway segments. WSA has used a microscopic simulation model called VISSIM to assist in estimating the impacts of the project travel speeds on different segments of the freeway. VISSIM attempts to model each vehicle as a separate entity. The roadway geometry and interaction with other vehicles influences the behavior of each vehicle in the model. A certain level of randomness in vehicle behavior was also introduced.

A series of VISSIM runs were made using differing assumptions on traffic shifts to the MLs for each of the six analysis time periods, at 2010 and 2020 levels. As traffic shifts into the MLs, the amount of traffic in the general purpose lanes would decrease, resulting in lower congestion levels in the general purpose lanes. A total of six runs were made for each of the six primary analysis periods for each direction. Within each time period, for each link, a relationship was developed between the “traffic demand” on the link and its modeled travel speed. By graphing the relationship between traffic demand and travel speed for all six runs for each mainline segment, WSA developed scenario-specific volume-delay curves for each mainline link on the general purpose lanes.

Each link in the micro-model was then tagged with a user code to identify a curve to be used to estimate travel speeds for that link during the micro-model assignment process. Links with less weaving and merging tended to be able to accommodate higher traffic volumes at higher speeds before breaking down. Certain sections of the freeway, which may have a large entering ramp volume, tended to break down at lower demand levels, and also may break down more quickly. Other sections of freeway may appear to break down at relatively low levels of demand, but may actually be affected by downstream congestion and queuing from these downstream bottlenecks.

Market Share Micro-Model

The extracted micro-model subarea used for this study is of a size that covers the freeway from south of the   I-95/S.R. 836 Interchange to north of I-595, and includes arterials and other freeway links within three to four miles on either side of I-95. The micro-model package included six alternative networks and three sets of alternative trip tables that were used to estimate traffic and revenue for the various combinations of project configuration/tolling alternatives.

In the micro-model, travel time between a path using the tolled MLs was compared to travel time on a path using the next best free routes (most likely the general purpose lanes or frontage roads). For each travel movement, the proportion of motorists expected to use the MLs is a function of the computed time savings and the cost to use the lanes (cost-per-minute saved) vs. the value placed on time savings by the motorist value of time (VOT).

The share of each traffic movement that is captured by the MLs is based on an estimate of the assumed distribution of the VOT, also developed from the stated preference surveys. It was assumed that motorists with a VOT greater than the cost per minute saved would tend to choose the MLs while those with a lower VOT would tend not to choose the lanes.

The micro-model relies on developing an equilibrium condition between the toll cost and the estimated time savings. If more traffic uses the MLs, there is less congestion in the free lanes and lower time savings. Less time savings would result in less traffic choosing the MLs. For each toll rate level, there exists an equilibrium point between the level of traffic congestion in the free lanes (time savings) and the amount of traffic willing to pay a toll to save that same amount of time. At low toll levels, there is a higher propensity to use the MLs, and there is a lower congestion level in the free lanes. At higher toll levels, there is less traffic in the MLs and also more congestion in the free lanes.

A full range of toll rates were tested, from $0.05 per mile to $0.60 per mile, for each time period and travel direction. The toll rates chosen for use in the traffic and revenue analysis generally reflect those that maximize revenues for each individual time period. During certain peak periods in the 2020 and 2030 assignments, checks for capacity constraints in the MLs indicated a need to use higher toll rates to manage demand to maintain an acceptable level of service at one or two locations in the system. A higher range of toll rates were tested and chosen in those cases, which is reflected in the traffic and revenues presented subsequently in this Chapter.

Vehicle Categories

The micro-model for each of the three trip tables were separated into five components: SOV work, SOV non-work, HOV-2 work, HOV-2 non-work and HOV-3+, are assigned simultaneously until an equilibrium condition was reached for that particular toll rate. In the tolling alternatives that involved free passage for either HOV-2+ or HOV-3+ traffic, the HOV traffic was allowed free access to the MLs.

Before the analysis began, FDOT determined that trucks would not be allowed to use the MLs. As a result, WSA separated out a portion of the micro-model trip tables to represent trucks. This trip table was assigned to the arterial streets and general purpose lanes only and used as a preload volume for the main equilibrium assignments.

It is noted that the preliminary traffic and revenue analyses conducted for the six project alternatives initially assumed lower proportions of vehicles with three or more occupants than the final analysis (Chapter 6). The lower levels were consistent with currently observed HOV percentages along existing sections of I-95. However, once the two most promising alternatives were identified, trip tables were refined to allow for some increase in the share of vehicles with three or more occupants in future years. This reflected the potential for increases in ridesharing in the future as congestion levels increase and the restricted use of HOV lanes in other parts of the region may be limited to vehicles with three or more occupants. The higher HOV-3+ share assumptions also provided a slightly more conservative platform when estimating traffic and revenue.

Hence, traffic and revenue results for the preferred alternatives as described in Chapter 6 are slightly different than those described in Chapter 5.

Alternatives Evaluated

Table 5-1 presents a summary of the six alternatives analyzed in the analysis, including the different assumptions regarding vehicle eligibility and whether or not tolls are charged or free access is provided.

Alternative 1 would simply use the existing HOV lane capacity, and would convert the HOV lanes to HOT operation. It was initially assessed under both operating scenarios (that is HOV-2+ and HOV-3+ being considered free). Preliminary analysis showed, however, that there was very little capacity available to “sell” to SOV traffic if vehicles with two or more occupants are continued to be allowed toll-free access to the HOT lanes in the future.

Alternative 2 featured the use of two reversible HOT lanes south of the Golden Glades Interchange. This would result in the elimination of one HOV lane (in the minor travel direction). North of the Golden Glades Interchange, the single HOT lane in each direction would continue to be used.

Again, the initial assessment looked at both HOV-2+ and HOV-3+ being free. The preliminary analysis showed that after 2010, sufficient capacity to sell to single-occupant vehicles would be available only during shoulder and off-peak hours; hence, only limited analysis of this option was undertaken. A full analysis of the HOV-3+ alternative was completed.

Alternative 3 involved a three-lane HOT system south of the Golden Glades Interchange, which would incorporate the use of a moveable barrier. This would permit two HOT lanes in the major travel direction while still retaining one HOT lane in the minor direction. The preliminary analysis showed that this scenario would also have difficulty under an HOV-2 definition, at least in the minor travel direction.

Alternative 4 was the first of three alternatives involving the assumed construction of an elevated roadway segment south of the Golden Glades Interchange. In this case, the existing HOV lanes would be retained at the lower roadway level and available for carpools only. Two additional express toll lanes would be constructed, most likely elevated above the existing roadway. In Alternative 4, two reversible express toll lanes would be implemented, with both lanes operated southbound in the morning peak and northbound in the afternoon peak. This scenario would be viable under both the HOV-2+ and HOV-3+ scenarios, recognizing that HOV traffic would be allowed to use the HOV lanes themselves south of the Golden Glades Interchange. This is shown to the right side of Table 5-1.

Alternative 5 would involve the construction of a three-lane elevated roadway and the retention of the existing HOV lanes south of the Golden Glades Interchange. The three elevated express toll lanes would include a moveable barrier which would permit two lanes to be operated in the major direction and one lane to be operated in the minor direction.

Finally, Alternative 6 would be the same as Alternative 5, except four elevated express toll lanes would be constructed, two in each travel direction. The existing HOV lanes would be retained at existing roadway levels south of the Golden Glades Interchange, while north of the Golden Glades Interchange the single HOV lane in each direction would be converted to HOT operation.

Table 5-1 Proposed I-95 Managed Lanes Alternative Evaluation Assumption ML North of Golden Glades ML North of Golden Glades HOV South of Golden Glades Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6 Toll Scenario HOV2+ free HOV3+ free HOV2+ free HOV3+ free HOV2+ free HOV3+ free HOV2+ free HOV3+ free HOV2+ free HOV3+ free HOV2+ free HOV3+ free SOV Pay Pay Pay Pay Pay Pay Pay Pay Pay Pay Pay Pay HOV2 Free Pay Free Pay Free Pay Free Pay Free Pay Free Pay HOV3+ Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free SOV Pay Pay Pay Pay Pay Pay Pay Pay Pay Pay Pay Pay HOV2 Free Pay Free Pay Free Pay Pay Pay Pay Pay Pay Pay HOV3+ Free Free Free Free Free Free Pay Pay Pay Pay Pay Pay SOV --- --- --- --- --- --- Banned Banned Banned Banned Banned Banned HOV2 --- --- --- --- --- --- Allowed Banned Allowed Banned Allowed Banned HOV3+ --- --- --- --- --- --- Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed

Optimum Toll Rates

Using the calibrated “micro-model,” a series of traffic assignments were made at various toll rates at each of three analysis years, 2010, 2020, and 2030. A range of toll rates were tested for each travel time period (e.g., a.m. shoulder, a.m. peak, midday, etc.). Working toll sensitivity curves were prepared for each time increment, showing the relative revenue potential at each of about a dozen alternative toll rates. In addition, traffic assigned to the managed lanes was reviewed for reasonableness, and for potential overloads based on available capacity on each project cross section.

For each analysis year, and each alternative, under both the HOV-2+ (where viable) and the HOV-3+ scenarios, an optimum toll rate was selected. Rates were assessed in terms of cents per mile. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that the same per-mile toll rate would be in effect over the entire length of the managed lane facility, in each respective travel direction. Differential optimum rates were often found for northbound versus southbound travel, but an overall consistent rate was used per direction over the entire length of the facility.

In practice, depending on alternative, there were varying amounts of available capacity to sell to non-HOV traffic. As such, optimum toll rates may vary by section of the road. It was often found, for example, that toll rates needed to manage demand in the northern portion of the project, where just one HOT lane was available in each travel direction, determined the optimum toll rate over the entire length of the facility. In a more refined analysis, it may be appropriate to consider variable rates by point within the system.

Table 5-2 shows optimum toll rates for each of the six project alternatives under the HOV-2+ free operating scenario. That is, vehicles with two or more occupants were assumed to be allowed to use the managed lanes without paying a toll.

As shown in Table 5-2, in many cases, there was little or no capacity available to sell to non-HOV traffic under the HOV-2+ condition. This is highlighted in green shading, with no optimum toll rate shown. During this period of time, in the respective analysis years, it was determined that HOV-2+ toll-free demand would reach, or nearly reach, the total available capacity of the HOT lane.

As shown in Table 5-2, under Alternative 1 there was little or no capacity to sell to non-HOV traffic at virtually all daylight hours by 2010 and, of course, beyond. Under Alternative 2, which featured two managed lanes in the major travel direction south of the Golden Glades Interchange, adequate capacity would be available in all periods of 2010, but would generally not be available in peak hours at 2020 and 2030 levels. Similar results are shown for Alternative 3 under the HOV-2+ condition; ultimately yielding a conclusion that Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would only be operationally viable, over the long-term, if the definition of carpool was increased from two occupants to three occupants.

Table 5-2 Optimum Per Mile Rates HOV 2+ Operating Scenario     Northbound Alternative 2010 AM1 AM2 AM3 MD1 MD2 PM1 PM2 PM3 Time Periods 6:00-7:00 a.m. 7:00-8:00 a.m. 8:00-9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 3:00-4:30 p.m. 4:30-6:00 p.m. 6:00-7:00 p.m. 1 - - - - - - - - 2 0.10 0.45 0.35 0.05 0.10 0.25 0.30 0.15 3 0.20 - - - 0.05 0.35 0.30 0.25 4 0.05 0.25 0.10 0.05 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.20 5 0.10 0.35 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.20 6 0.10 0.40 0.25 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.20     Southbound Alternative 2010 AM1 AM2 AM3 MD1 MD2 PM1 PM2 PM3 Time Periods 6:00-7:00 a.m. 7:00-8:00 a.m. 8:00-9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 3:00-4:30 p.m. 4:30-6:00 p.m. 6:00-7:00 p.m. 1 - - - - - - - - 2 0.20 0.60 0.40 0.10 0.05 0.15 0.20 0.15 3 0.25 0.60 0.45 0.05 - - - - 4 0.20 0.35 0.30 0.15 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.05 5 0.20 0.35 0.30 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.25 0.15 6 0.20 0.35 0.30 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.25 0.15       Northbound Alternative 2020 AM1 AM2 AM3 MD1 MD2 PM1 PM2 PM3 Time Periods 6:00-7:00 a.m. 7:00-8:00 a.m. 8:00-9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 3:00-4:30 p.m. 4:30-6:00 p.m. 6:00-7:00 p.m. 1 - - - - - - - - 2 0.30 - 0.40 0.20 0.35 - - - 3 - - - - 0.35 - - - 4 0.15 0.45 0.25 0.05 0.20 0..35 0.30 0.30 5 0.35 0.55 0.45 0.20 0.20 0.35 0.30 0.30 6 0.35 0.50 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.30 0.30     Southbound Alternative 2020 AM1 AM2 AM3 MD1 MD2 PM1 PM2 PM3 Time Periods 6:00-7:00 a.m. 7:00-8:00 a.m. 8:00-9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 3:00-4:30 p.m. 4:30-6:00 p.m. 6:00-7:00 p.m. 1 - - - - - - - - 2 0.40 - 0.60 0.35 0.15 0.30 - 0.30 3 0.40 - 0.45 0.35 - - - - 4 0.25 0.45 0.45 0.20 0.05 0.25 0.35 0.15 5 0.25 0.45 0.45 0.20 0.20 0.35 0.40 0.30 6 0.25 0.45 0.45 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.30       Northbound Alternative 2030 AM1 AM2 AM3 MD1 MD2 PM1 PM2 PM3 Time Periods 6:00-7:00 a.m. 7:00-8:00 a.m. 8:00-9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 3:00-4:30 p.m. 4:30-6:00 p.m. 6:00-7:00 p.m. 1 - - - - - - - - 2 0.45 - - 0.20 0.45 - - - 3 - - - - 0.45 - - - 4 0.45 - - 0.05 0.20 0.35 0.35 0.35 5 0.40 0.60 0.55 0.20 0.20 0.35 0.35 0.35 6 0.35 0.90 0.45 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.35     Southbound Alternative 2030 AM1 AM2 AM3 MD1 MD2 PM1 PM2 PM3 Time Periods 6:00-7:00 a.m. 7:00-8:00 a.m. 8:00-9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 3:00-4:30 p.m. 4:30-6:00 p.m. 6:00-7:00 p.m. 1 - - - - - - - - 2 0.45 - - 0.20 0.45 - - - 3 - - - - 0.45 - - - 4 0.45 - - 0.05 0.20 0.35 0.35 0.35 5 0.40 0.55 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.45 0.35 6 0.40 0.55 0.40 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.30 Indicates time periods when Managed Lanes would accommodate HOV's only. Indicates time periods where demand is above available capacity along selected project mainline segments at optimum per mile toll rates. Per Mile Toll Rates Calculated in 2005 Dollars

For Alternatives 4, 5 and 6, optimum toll rates are shown in almost all operating hours. Only in the major direction peak hour in 2030 was this found to not be viable under Alternative 4, and it would be viable throughout under Alternatives 5 and 6.

Under Alternative 4, for example, in the southbound travel direction, the optimum toll in the a.m. pre-peak shoulder period (between 6:00 and 7:00 A.M.) was found to be $0.20 per mile in 2010. This increased to $0.25 by 2020 and to $0.40 by 2030. In the morning peak hour, between 7:00 and 8:00 A.M., in the southbound direction, optimum tolls ranged from $0.35 per mile in 2010 to $0.55 per mile in 2020.
  
In contrast, northbound toll rates in the morning peak period were found to be considerably lower, while p.m. peak period optimum toll rates were found to be higher, as might be expected. This is because of a slight directional imbalance in favor of the morning peak southbound and the afternoon peak in the northbound direction.

Under Alternative 6, the optimum toll in the morning peak hour was found to be $0.35 in 2010 southbound and $0.40 northbound. The higher northbound rate was actually dictated by peak northbound demands in the single lane sections in Broward County. In the afternoon peak hour, peak period tolls of $0.25 per mile would be sufficient in both travel directions.

By 2030, morning peak hour rates would reach as much as $0.90 in the northbound direction, driven heavily by excess demand in the northernmost portions of the project in Broward County. A more reasonable $0.55 per mile was found as optimum levels in the southbound direction.

In general, optimal tolls increased in proportion with overall travel demand, with lower rates during shoulder and midday periods and higher rates in the peak periods, as might be expected. Also, over time optimal toll rates needed to manage demand and optimize revenue are shown to increase as overall traffic levels continue to increase on I-95 along with congestion levels in the general purpose lanes.

Table 5-3 provides similar information for the six project alternatives under the HOV-3+ free operating scenario. This case reflects a condition where the regional definition of carpools is increased to vehicles with three or more occupants. In this case, all alternatives for all time periods would be operationally viable. Optimum tolls are shown to get relatively high, particularly in the morning peak period northbound, again driven by limited amounts of capacity, primarily in the Broward County section of the project. Optimal toll rates are shown for each alternative and each time period, following a similar pattern to that shown in Table 5-2.

Table 5-3 Optimum Per Mile Rates HOV 3+ Operating Scenario     Northbound Alternative 2010 AM1 AM2 AM3 MD1 MD2 PM1 PM2 PM3 Time Periods 6:00-7:00 a.m. 7:00-8:00 a.m. 8:00-9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 3:00-4:30 p.m. 4:30-6:00 p.m. 6:00-7:00 p.m. 1 0.25 0.50 0.35 0.15 0.15 0.35 0.35 0.35 2 0.15 0.50 0.35 0.05 0.15 0.35 0.35 0.35 3 0.30 0.60 0.35 0.15 0.15 0.35 0.35 0.30 4 0.10 0.30 0.15 0.05 0.15 0.30 0.30 0.35 5 0.25 0.45 0.35 0.15 0.15 0.30 0.30 0.35 6 0.25 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.35     Southbound Alternative 2010 AM1 AM2 AM3 MD1 MD2 PM1 PM2 PM3 Time Periods 6:00-7:00 a.m. 7:00-8:00 a.m. 8:00-9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 3:00-4:30 p.m. 4:30-6:00 p.m. 6:00-7:00 p.m. 1 0.30 0.55 0.40 0.15 0.15 0.35 0.35 0.35 2 0.20 0.50 0.40 0.15 0.10 0.30 0.40 0.30 3 0.30 0.50 0.40 0.15 0.15 0.40 0.45 0.35 4 0.25 0.40 0.30 0.15 0.05 0.20 0.30 0.20 5 0.25 0.40 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.30 0.35 0.30 6 0.25 0.40 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.30 0.35 0.30       Northbound Alternative 2020 AM1 AM2 AM3 MD1 MD2 PM1 PM2 PM3 Time Periods 6:00-7:00 a.m. 7:00-8:00 a.m. 8:00-9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 3:00-4:30 p.m. 4:30-6:00 p.m. 6:00-7:00 p.m. 1 0.40 0.90 0.55 0.35 0.35 0.50 0.60 0.45 2 0.30 0.90 0.45 0.20 0.35 0.50 0.45 0.40 3 0.45 1.00 0.60 0.45 0.35 0.45 0.50 0.35 4 0.25 0.80 0.40 0.10 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.35 5 0.35 0.80 0.55 0.35 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.35 6 0.35 0.80 0.50 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.35 Southbound Alternative 2020 AM1 AM2 AM3 MD1 MD2 PM1 PM2 PM3 Time Periods 6:00-7:00 a.m. 7:00-8:00 a.m. 8:00-9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 3:00-4:30 p.m. 4:30-6:00 p.m. 6:00-7:00 p.m. 1 0.40 0.90 0.55 0.35 0.35 0.55 0.50 0.45 2 0.35 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.45 3 0.35 0.70 0.45 0.30 0.45 0.55 0.60 0.50 4 0.35 0.60 0.50 0.30 0.10 0.40 0.40 0.40 5 0.35 0.60 0.50 0.30 0.35 0.45 0.50 0.45 6 0.35 0.60 0.50 0.30 0.30 0.40 0.40 0.40       Northbound Alternative 2030 AM1 AM2 AM3 MD1 MD2 PM1 PM2 PM3 Time Periods 6:00-7:00 a.m. 7:00-8:00 a.m. 8:00-9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 3:00-4:30 p.m. 4:30-6:00 p.m. 6:00-7:00 p.m. 1 0.50 1.20 0.80 0.40 0.40 0.80 0.80 0.55 2 0.50 1.20 0.90 0.25 0.30 0.55 0.55 0.45 3 0.70 1.20 0.90 0.50 0.35 0.60 0.60 0.50 4 0.45 1.20 0.90 0.25 0.35 0.60 0.60 0.50 5 0.55 1.20 0.80 0.40 0.30 0.45 0.50 0.40 6 0.55 1.20 0.60 0.35 0.35 0.45 0.50 0.40 Southbound Alternative 2030 AM1 AM2 AM3 MD1 MD2 PM1 PM2 PM3 Time Periods 6:00-7:00 a.m. 7:00-8:00 a.m. 8:00-9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 3:00-4:30 p.m. 4:30-6:00 p.m. 6:00-7:00 p.m. 1 0.45 1.10 0.55 0.40 0.40 0.55 0.60 0.50 2 0.40 1.10 0.50 0.30 0.25 0.60 0.55 0.55 3 0.35 1.10 0.70 0.30 0.45 0.70 0.80 0.55 4 0.35 0.60 0.55 0.30 0.15 0.55 0.40 0.40 5 0.35 0.60 0.55 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.45 6 0.35 0.60 0.55 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.55 0.45 Indicates time periods when Managed Lanes would accommodate HOV's only. Per Mile Toll Rates Calculated in 2005 Dollars.

Those periods highlighted in yellow indicate instances where travel demand in the managed lanes on one or two sections of the project would be slightly over nominal free-flow operating capacity but still within the overall theoretical capacity of the lane. In such cases, the optimal toll was selected which generated the best relationship between revenue and traffic service. In all time periods without shading, the optimum toll rates shown would be sufficient to manage demand and ensure a minimum of Level of Service C operating conditions.

Alternative 1

A brief summary of the preliminary traffic and revenue analysis for Alternative 1 is presented in this section. As previously described in Chapter 1, Alternative 1 would involve converting the existing single HOV lanes in each direction to HOT operation. Also as noted previously, under an HOV-2+ definition of carpools, this scenario was found to be generally unviable for HOT operation, since little or no capacity would remain available after serving vehicles with two or more occupants.

The traffic analysis was conducted along the entire length of the facility and with assignment results produced for SOV, HOV-2, HOV-3+ and truck traffic components. Table 5-4 shows the traffic distribution by northbound versus southbound direction, at a representative link on I-95 for morning and afternoon peak hour conditions. Information in Table 5-4 reflects a location between 95th Street and 103rd Street at 2020 traffic assignment levels.

Table 5-4 Peak Hour Corridor Traffic Distribution - Alternative 1 Southbound Northbound Operating Scenario HOV-2+ Free   HOV-2+ Free HOV-3+ Free HOV-3+ Free Peak Hour AM   PM AM PM Vehicle Type SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio General Purpose 7.5 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.9 9.2 1.14 7.1 1.3 0.0 1.3 0.7 9.1 1.09 6.8 1.7 0.0 1.7 0.9 9.4 1.16 6.0 2.2 0.0 2.2 0.7 8.9 1.07 HOT/Toll Lanes 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.90 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.90 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.0 1.4 0.67 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.0 1.4 0.67 HOV Lane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- Total 7.5 2.6 0.1 2.7 0.9 11.1 1.10 7.1 3.1 0.1 3.2 0.7 11.0 1.05 7.7 2.0 0.2 2.2 0.9 10.8 1.07 6.9 2.6 0.1 2.7 0.7 10.3 0.99 Percent HOT/Toll 0.0% 69.2% 100.0% 70.4% --- 17.1% 0.0% 58.1% 100.0% 59.4% --- 17.3% 11.7% 15.0% 100.0% 22.7% --- 13.0% 13.0% 15.4% 100.0% 18.5% --- 13.6% General Purpose 7.4 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.9 9.0 1.12 6.5 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.8 8.4 1.04 6.6 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.9 9.1 1.13 5.2 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.8 7.9 0.98 HOT/Toll Lanes 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.90 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.90 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.0 1.3 0.62 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.0 1.4 0.67 HOV Lane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- Total 7.4 2.5 0.1 2.6 0.9 10.9 1.08 6.5 2.9 0.1 3.0 0.8 10.3 1.01 7.5 1.9 0.1 2.0 0.9 10.4 1.04 6.1 2.3 0.1 2.4 0.8 9.3 0.93 Percent HOT/Toll 0.0% 72.0% 100.0% 73.1% --- 17.4% 0.0% 62.1% 100.0% 63.3% --- 18.4% 12.0% 15.8% 100.0% 20.0% --- 12.5% 14.8% 17.4% 100.0% 20.8% --- 15.1%

The table shows traffic assigned to general purpose lanes, the HOT/toll lanes and, where applicable, separate HOV lanes (not applicable under Alternative 1). The table also shows the proportion of total traffic for each category assigned to the HOT/toll lanes, as well as the estimated volume/ capacity ratio on general purpose lanes and, where appropriate, in the HOT lanes.

As shown in Table 5-4, there is sufficient demand in the HOT lanes from HOV traffic alone under the HOV-2+ operating scenario. For example, in the a.m. peak hour, southbound direction, an estimated 1,800 vehicles with two or more occupants were assigned to the HOT lane, and this represented just 69.2 percent of the total.

After adding in vehicles with three or more occupants, total traffic demand in the HOT lane is estimated at 1,900 per hour, above the desired free-flow operating capacity of the lane, even without permitting SOV traffic to buy in.

Similar relationships are shown under the HOV-2 scenario in the northbound direction. In this case, the HOV lane is able to accommodate between 62 and 72 percent of total HOV demand, even without allowing any SOV traffic into the lanes.

It is also noted that under this condition, the general purpose lanes are, in most cases, over capacity. The lower half of Table 5-4 shows the estimated distribution of traffic at 2020 levels under an HOV-3+ scenario. Since there are significantly fewer vehicles with three or more occupants than two or more occupants, a significant amount of capacity is opened up in the HOT lanes for sale to non-HOV traffic. Under this operating condition, both SOV and HOV-2 vehicles are assumed to be required to pay a toll.

In the a.m. peak southbound direction, for example, an estimated 900 SOVs would be expected to buy into the single managed lane at this location, reflecting about 11.7 percent of the total estimated SOV demand in the southbound direction. An additional 300 vehicles with two occupants, about 15 percent of the total, would be expected to buy in. All 200 of the vehicles with three or more occupants would be assumed to use the lane (toll free) bringing total traffic in the HOT lane to about 1,400 per hour. This reflects a volume/capacity ratio of 0.67 and would be expected to provide for free-flow operating conditions.

At the same time, total demand in the four general purpose lanes would be estimated at about 9,400 vehicles. This results in a volume/capacity ratio at this section of 1.16, which would equate to extremely congested conditions.

Similar relationships are shown for both the morning and evening peak hour conditions in both the northbound and southbound direction. Total traffic in the HOT lane including SOV and HOV traffic, is estimated to range between 1,300 and 1,400 in both travel directions, although significantly different optimum toll rates would be used by travel direction. Finally, it is important to recognize that all trucks are assumed to be in the general purpose lanes and are assumed to be banned from the HOT lanes.

Figure 5-2 shows estimated total weekday toll traffic in the managed lanes on each mainline section between I-595 and I-395. Under Alternative 1, only one HOT lane is available in each direction over the entire length of the facility. The yellow shading at the southern end of the project indicates a short elevated section, which would still have only a single lane each way.

Volumes are shown in thousands, with the blue figures representing estimated traffic at 2010 levels and the red figures representing estimated traffic at 2030 levels. This is total weekday traffic; volumes would vary from hour to hour by travel direction, based on toll rate and amount of available capacity to sell.

In 2010, estimated weekday toll users of the managed lanes would range from about 9,500 at the north end of the facility to a peak of about 28,000 in the vicinity of 95th Street. At the south end of the project, total toll paying traffic would be expected to drop to 19,200.

It should be kept in mind that only toll paying traffic is shown in Figure 5-2. In addition, vehicles with three or more occupants would also use the facility toll-free. Figure 5-2 represents the HOV-3 operating condition; Alternative 1 was not considered to be operationally viable under the HOV-2+ case.

Preliminary estimates of daily toll transactions and annual toll revenue are summarized for Alternative 1 in Table 5-5. In this case, figures are shown only for the HOV-3+ free condition. Total tolled vehicles estimated to use the managed lanes are shown for each of the seven analysis periods, by travel direction. Also shown is the average toll rate assessed to those vehicles and the result in revenue for each period of the day.

For example, in 2010, under the HOV-3+ condition, during the morning peak hour (7:00 to 8:00 A.M.) an estimated 1,810 tolled vehicles would use the managed lanes in the northbound direction, paying an average toll of $4.91. In the southbound direction, toll traffic is estimated at 1,760, paying an average toll of $5.03. It is noted that the tolled vehicles represent the total toll traffic entering the managed lanes at all points of entry, not necessarily the volume at any one location along the roadway. It is also noted that traffic appears to be heaviest in the midday hours, although the toll rate charged in those hours is considerably lower. It should be kept in mind that the midday period reflects six hours of traffic, indicating a total usage in the range of 1,000 vehicles per hour, on average, at much lower toll rates.

Table 5-5 Estimated Toll Transactions and Revenue - Alternative 1 Year 2010 - HOV2+Free   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Average Toll - - - - - - - Revenue $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Tolled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Average Toll - - - - - - - Total Daily Revenue $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Annual Average Total Tolled Transactions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Revenue $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Year 2010 - HOV3+Free Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled 1,050 1,810 1,520 6,500 2,210 2,300 1,170 16,560 4,654,000 12,751 25,392 Average Toll $2.53 4.91 3.36 1.39 3.23 3.20 3.18 27132 Revenue $2,660 8,880 5,110 9,040 7,130 7,350 3,720 $43,890 Tolled 1,190 1,760 1,750 6,520 2,010 2,180 1,010 16,420 4,614,000 12,641 Average Toll $2.50 5.03 3.52 1.34 3.43 3.44 3.59 Total Daily Revenue $2,980 8,860 6,160 8,760 6,900 7,510 3,630 $44,800 Annual Average Total Tolled Transactions 2,240 3,570 3,270 13,020 4,220 4,480 2,180 32,980 9,268,000 25,392 Revenue $5,640 17,740 11,270 17,800 14,030 14,860 7,350 $88,690 $24,923,000 $68,282   Year 2020 - HOV2+Free Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Average Toll - - - - - - - Revenue $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Tolled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Average Toll - - - - - - - Total Daily Revenue $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Annual Average Total Tolled Transactions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Revenue $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Year 2020 - HOV3+Free Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled 1,350 1,970 1,720 7,870 2,340 2,190 1,500 18,940 5,322,000 14,581 28,540 Average Toll $4.09 8.79 5.51 3.24 4.86 5.67 4.27 Revenue $5,520 17,310 9,470 25,510 11,370 12,410 6,410 $88,000 Tolled 1,400 1,410 1,750 7,730 1,980 2,400 1,460 18,130 5,095,000 13,959 Average Toll $3.50 8.71 5.02 3.14 5.73 5.15 4.60 Total Daily Revenue $4,900 12,280 8,780 24,270 11,350 12,360 6,710 $80,650 Annual Average Total Tolled Transactions 2,750 3,380 3,470 15,600 4,320 4,590 2,960 37,070 10,417,000 28,540 Revenue $10,420 29,590 18,250 49,780 22,720 24,770 13,120 $168,650 $47,392,000 $129,841   Year 2030 - HOV2+Free Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Average Toll - - - - - - - Revenue $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Tolled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 Average Toll - - - - - - - Total Daily Revenue $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Annual Average Total Tolled Transactions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Revenue $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 0 0 Year 2030 - HOV3+Free Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled 1,870 2,720 2,110 7,870 1,930 2,060 1,590 20,150 5,662,000 15,512 30,087 Average Toll $5.18 11.58 7.66 3.81 7.98 7.73 5.42 Revenue $9,690 31,490 16,170 29,950 15,410 15,920 8,620 $127,250 Tolled 1,360 1,410 1,980 7,520 2,570 2,500 1,590 18,930 5,320,000 14,575 Average Toll $3.99 10.35 5.07 3.73 5.70 6.23 5.19 Total Daily Revenue $5,430 14,640 10,030 28,040 14,660 15,570 8,250 $96,620 Annual Average Total Tolled Transactions 3,230 4,130 4,090 15,390 4,500 4,560 3,180 39,080 10,982,000 30,088 Revenue $15,120 46,130 26,200 57,990 30,070 31,490 16,870 $223,870 $62,910,000 $172,356 Note: Revenues do not consider effects of ramp-up of demand. All toll revenue calculations in 2005 dollars.

In 2010, it is estimated that a total of just under 33,000 vehicles per typical weekday would use the managed lanes. This would generate average weekday revenue estimated at $88,690 per weekday. This is raised to annual levels by assuming weekend traffic is 25 percent of estimated weekday traffic.

Weekday revenue is estimated at $24,923,000 in 2010. This would be expected to increase to more than $47 million by 2020 and to almost $63 million per year by 2030. It is important to note, however, that relatively small volumes of toll traffic would be estimated to use the managed lanes and, in peak periods, relatively high toll rates would be required to manage demand. For example, by the year 2030, the average toll would be in the range of $10.00 to $12.00 during the morning peak depending on direction.

Alternative 2

Under Alternative 2, south of the Golden Glades Interchange, two reversible HOT lanes would be provided, both assumed to operate in the major direction of travel. In the morning peak, the two lanes would operate southbound, but no HOV or HOT lane would be provided in the northbound direction. In the afternoon peak period, the lanes would operate northbound, with no HOV or HOT lane operated in the southbound direction. North of the golden Glades Interchange, a single HOT lane in each direction would continue to be provided.

Table 5-6 shows the peak hour corridor traffic distribution for Alternative 2. In this case, with the a.m. and p.m. peak hour, usage of the HOT lanes was assumed to be limited to HOV traffic only under the HOV-2+ scenario. Total HOV demand in the HOT lane is estimated at 3,200 vehicles, close to the optimal capacity of free-flow conditions during the morning peak. No traffic is shown in the HOT lanes in the northbound direction a.m. peak since no such lanes would exist. In the afternoon peak, HOV demand is estimated at 3,400, again close to the free-flow operating capacity of the two-lane reversible HOT roadway. Hence, this scenario is not viable under HOV-2+ free operations.

Under the HOV-3+ free case the scenario does operate, with an estimated 3,100 vehicles per hour in this section of the reversible roadway in the a.m. peak southbound, and about 2,800 vehicles per hour in the p.m. peak northbound. It is important to note that operating conditions in the general purpose lanes actually deteriorate in the minor traffic direction by virtue of the elimination of the HOV lane in the minor direction under this Alternative.

About one-fourth of total SOV traffic in the southbound morning peak and northbound evening peak would be assumed to buy into the two available lanes. A similar proportion of vehicles with two or more occupants would buy in, while virtually 100 percent of vehicles with three or more occupants would be accommodated toll-free. In total, the managed lanes would accommodate about one-fourth of the total demand, with three-fourths still using the four toll-free general purpose lanes.

Table 5-6 Peak Hour Corridor Traffic Distribution - Alternative 2 Southbound Northbound Operating Scenario HOV-2+ Free HOV-2+ Free HOV-3+ Free HOV-3+ Free Peak Hour AM PM AM PM Vehicle Type SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio General Purpose 8.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.9 9.0 1.12 6.2 2.4 0.1 2.5 0.7 9.4 1.12 6.7 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.9 9.2 1.14 6.3 2.3 0.1 2.4 0.7 9.4 1.12 HOT/Toll Lanes 0.0 3.0 0.2 3.2 0.0 3.2 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 2.3 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.0 3.1 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- HOV Lane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- Total 8.0 3.1 0.2 3.3 0.9 12.2 1.45 6.2 2.4 0.1 2.5 0.7 9.4 1.12 9.0 2.2 0.2 2.4 0.9 12.3 1.46 6.3 2.3 0.1 2.4 0.7 9.4 1.12 Percent HOT/Toll 0.0% 96.8% 100.0% 97.0% --- 26.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% --- 0.0% 25.6% 27.3% 100.0% 33.3% ---   25.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% --- 0.0% General Purpose 7.0 1.7 0.1 1.8 0.8 9.6 1.16 7.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.8 8.4 0.93 7.0 1.6 0.1 1.7 0.8 9.5 1.15 6.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.8 8.8 1.08 HOT/Toll Lanes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.04 0.0 3.3 0.1 3.4 0.0 3.4 0.81 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 2.0 0.7 0.1 0.8 0.0 2.8 0.67 HOV Lane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- Total 7.0 1.7 0.1 1.8 0.8 9.6 0.81 7.5 3.4 0.1 3.5 0.8 11.8 0.97 7.0 1.6 0.1 1.7 0.8 9.5 0.80 8.0 2.7 0.1 2.8 0.8 11.6 0.95 Percent HOT/Toll 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% --- 0.0% --- 0.0% 97.1% 100.0% 97.1% --- 28.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ---   0.0% --- 25.0% 25.9% 100.0% 28.6% --- 24.1%

Figure 5-3 shows estimated weekday traffic for Alternative 2 under the HOV-3+ condition. Again, volumes are shown at 2010 and 2030 levels, in blue and red, respectively. Total weekday volumes range from 12,200 vehicles per day at the south end of the project to a peak of just under 20,000 vehicles per day in the vicinity of 95th Street in 2010. Peak volumes reached more than 26,000 by 2030, although revenue increased significantly because of the need for higher toll rates.

It should be kept in mind that south of the Golden Glades Interchange (Florida’s Turnpike), two reversible lanes are provided. North of this location, only a single HOT lane in each travel direction would be operated.

Table 5-7 shows estimated daily toll transactions and annual toll revenue for Alternative 2. Estimates are shown for 2010, 2020 and 2030 levels. Under Alternative 2, assuming a continuation of the HOV-2+ definition of carpools, the HOT lanes would have only very limited capacity to sell during peak hours in 2010, and would be available for non-HOV traffic only in off-peak and shoulder hours in years 2020 and 2030. This significantly reduced traffic and revenue potential under the HOV-2+ free scenario as shown in Table 5-7.

For example, in 2010, annual toll transactions are estimated at about 4.7 million, expected to produce about $8.2 million in revenue with an HOV-2 definition of carpools. If free vehicles are limited to those with three or more occupants, toll transactions would increase to an estimated 10.5 million and revenue to just under $25 million in the same year.
 
By 2030, revenue potential under an HOV-2+ scenario is reduced to just under $4.2 million, since the lanes would primarily be available during midday hours only for non-HOV traffic. However, if only vehicles with three or more occupants are granted toll-free access, revenue potential would increase to over $63 million, a 12-fold increase in revenue potential between the two operating scenarios.

Under the HOV-3+ condition, average peak hour tolls in 2010 were generally in the range of $3.28 to $4.52 depending on hour and direction of travel. Lower average toll rates were found in shoulder and off-peak hours, of course. By 2030, with increasing levels of demand and increasing congestion levels in the general purpose lanes, a.m. peak hour toll rates reached as high as $10.00 for the average trip, although this was heavily driven by severe capacity limitations on the single HOT lane sections of the project, mostly in Broward County. The p.m. peak hour tolls were somewhat more reasonable, generally in the range of $5.00 - $6.00.

Table 5-7 Estimated Toll Transactions and Revenue - Alternative 2 Year 2010 - HOV2+Free Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 550 560 330 4,500 1,080 790 840 8,650 2,431,000 6,660 12,857 Average Toll $0.91 4.11 3.12 0.80 2.30 2.68 1.73 Revenue $500 2,300 1,030 3,580 2,480 2,120 1,200 $13,210 Tolled Trips 1,160 880 1,240 3,370 490 460 450 8,050 2,262,000 6,197 Average Toll $0 5.78 3.87 0.57 1.39 1.93 1.38 Total Daily Revenue $2,070 5,090 4800 1910 680 890 620 $16,060 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 1,710 1,440 1,570 7,870 1,570 1,250 1,290 16,700 4,693,000 12,858 Revenue $2,570 7,390 5830 5490 3160 3010 1820 29,270 8,225,000 22,534 Year 2010 - HOV3+Free Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 1,030 1,750 980 10,240 3,010 3,110 1,460 21,580 6,064,000 16,614 28,715 Average Toll $1.26 4.07 3.12 0.85 3.26 3.28 3.26 31,310 Revenue $1,300 7,120 3,060 8,680 9,820 10,200 4,760 $44,940 Tolled Trips 1,770 3,220 2,560 4,640 1,420 1,230 880 15,720 4,417,000 12,101 Average Toll $2.63 4.52 3.65 1.03 2.64 3.67 2.68 Total Daily Revenue $4,650 14,540 9,350 4,790 3,750 4,520 2,360 $43,960 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 2,800 4,970 3,540 14,880 4,430 4,340 2,340 37,300 10,482,000 28,718 Revenue $5,950 21,660 12,410 13,470 13,570 14,720 7,120 $88,900 $24,982,000 $68,444   Year 2020 - HOV2+Free Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 360 0 590 3,200 0 0 0 4,150 1,166,000 3,195 7,274 Average Toll $2.86 -- 3.75 1.19 -- -- -- Revenue $1,030 0 2,210 3,810 0 0 0 $7,050 Tolled Trips 1,050 0 900 2,580 430 0 340 5,300 1,489,000 4,079 Average Toll $3.50 -- 6.21 1.85 2.74 -- 2.79 Total Daily Revenue $3,670 0 5,590 4,770 1180 0 950 $16,160 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 1,410 0 1,490 5,780 430 0 340 9,450 2,656,000 7,277 Revenue $4,700 0 7800 8580 1180 0 950 $23,210 $6,522,000 $17,868 Year 2020 - HOV3+Free Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 1,170 1,970 1,810 9,400 3,520 4,140 2,470 24,480 6,879,000 18,847 35,077 Average Toll $2.62 7.69 3.73 2.79 4.87 4.31 3.76 Revenue $3,070 15,140 6,750 26,180 17,140 17,830 9,280 $95,390 Tolled Trips 2,410 3,820 3,210 7,150 1,540 1,890 1,060 21,080 5,924,000 16,230 Average Toll $3.16 5.44 4.15 2.09 4.51 4.43 4.11 Total Daily Revenue $7,610 20,770 13,330 14,970 6,950 8,380 4,360 $76,370 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 3,580 5,790 5,020 16,550 5,060 6,030 3,530 45,560 12,803,000 35,077 Revenue $10,680 35,910 20,080 41,150 24,090 26,210 13,640 $171,760 $48,266,000 $132,236   Year 2030 - HOV2+Free Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 450 0 0 2,950 0 0 0 3,400 955,000 2,616 5,249 Average Toll $4.29 -- -- 1.30 -- -- -- Revenue $1,930 0 0 3,830 0 0 0 $5,760 Tolled Trips 1,080 0 0 2,340 0 0 0 3,420 961,000 2,633 Average Toll $3.69 -- -- 2.32 -- -- -- Total Daily Revenue $3,980 0 0 5,440 0 0 0 $9,420 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 1,530 0 0 5,290 0 0 0 6,820 1,916,000 5,249 Revenue $5,910 0 0 9,270 0 0 0 $15,180 $4,266,000 $11,688 Year 2030 - HOV3+Free Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 1,600 2,630 1,790 11,730 4,290 4,370 2,760 29,170 8,197,000 22,458 37,902 Average Toll $4.29 10.63 7.75 2.63 5.38 5.35 4.36 Revenue $6,870 27,950 13,880 30,810 23,100 23,370 12,020 $138,000 Tolled Trips 2,320 1,930 3,100 7,490 1,740 2,340 1,140 20,060 5,637,000 15,444 Average Toll $3.68 10.81 4.74 2.41 5.45 4.82 5.01 Total Daily Revenue $8,530 20,870 14,680 18,050 9,490 11,270 5,710 $88,600 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 3,920 4,560 4,890 19,220 6,030 6,710 3,900 49,230 13,834,000 37,901 Revenue $15,400 48,820 28,560 48,860 32,590 34,640 17,730 $226,600 $63,677,000 $174,458 Note: Revenues do not consider effects of ramp-up of demand. All toll revenue calculations in 2005 dollars.

Alternative 3
Under Alternative 3, three total HOT lanes would be operated on I-95 south of the Golden Glades Interchange. This would permit two lanes in the major direction and one lane in the minor direction, with a moveable barrier assumed between the two directions of travel. In the a.m. peak period, two lanes would operate southbound; while in the p.m. peak hours two lanes would operate northbound. As with each alternative, north of the Golden Glades Interchange only a single HOT lane in each direction would be operated.

Table 5-8 shows peak hour corridor traffic distribution between 95th and 103rd Streets at 2020 levels for Alternative 3. As with the first two Alternatives, in peak hours under the HOV-2+ free scenario, the lanes would be limited to use by carpools; hence, no SOV traffic is assigned to the HOT lanes.
 
Under the HOV-3+ operating scenario, an estimated 2,200 single-occupant vehicles would choose to use the toll lanes in the southbound direction in the morning peak hour, representing an estimated 24.4 percent of total SOV demand. An additional 500 vehicles with two occupants would also pay a toll to use the lanes, while an additional 200 vehicles with three or more occupants would use the lanes toll-free. While this would result in a total demand of 2,900, this would represent only 69 percent of the capacity in the southbound direction since two lanes would be available under this scenario.

Table 5-8 Peak Hour Corridor Traffic Distribution - Alternative 3 Southbound Northbound Operating Scenario HOV-2+ Free HOV-2+ Free HOV-3+ Free HOV-3+ Free Peak Hour AM PM AM PM Vehicle Type SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio General Purpose 7.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.9 8.9 1.11 6.9 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.7 9.0 1.08 6.8 1.7 0.0 1.7 0.9 9.4 1.16 6.2 2.3 0.0 2.3 0.7 9.2 1.10 HOT/Toll Lanes 0.0 3.1 0.2 3.3 0.0 3.3 0.79 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.90 2.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.0 2.9 0.69 1.2 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.0 1.8 0.86 HOV Lane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- Total 7.9 3.2 0.2 3.4 0.9 12.2 1.01 6.9 3.2 0.1 3.3 0.7 10.9 1.05 9.0 2.2 0.2 2.4 0.9 12.3 1.02 7.4 2.7 0.2 2.9 0.7 11.0 1.05 Percent HOT/Toll 0.0% 96.9% 100.0% 97.1% --- 27.0% --- 0.0% 56.3% 100.0% 57.6% --- 17.4% --- 24.4% 22.7% 100.0% 29.2% --- 23.6% --- 16.2% 14.8% 100.0% 20.7% --- 16.4% --- General Purpose 7.6 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.9 9.2 1.14 7.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.8 8.5 1.05 6.6 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.9 9.1 1.13 5.9 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.8 8.7 1.07 HOT/Toll Lanes 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.90 0.0 3.4 0.1 3.5 0.0 3.5 0.83 1.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.0 1.6 0.76 2.2 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.0 3.0 0.71 HOV Lane 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- Total 7.6 2.5 0.1 2.6 0.9 11.1 1.10 7.6 3.5 0.1 3.6 0.8 12.0 0.98 7.8 1.9 0.1 2.0 0.9 10.7 1.06 8.1 2.6 0.2 2.8 0.8 11.7 0.96 Percent HOT/Toll 0.0% 72.0% 100.0% 73.1% --- 17.1% --- 0.0% 97.1% 100.0% 97.2% --- 29.2% --- 15.4% 15.8% 100.0% 20.0% --- 15.0% --- 27.2% 23.1% 100.0% 28.6% --- 25.6% ---

As shown in Table 5-8, with the HOV-3+ operating condition, levels of service would remain quite high in the major travel direction, notwithstanding the significant proportion of SOV and HOV-2 traffic choosing to use the managed lanes. In the minor direction, where only one HOT lane was available, total demand was found to still be less than capacity, but some minor degradation of operating speeds could be experienced.
 
Figure 5-4 shows estimated total weekday traffic volumes on the managed lanes under Alternative 3, assuming the HOV-3+ operating scenario. Traffic estimates under an HOV-2 operating condition would be much lower, since the lanes would only be available to toll-paying traffic for a limited number of hours each day.

Weekday traffic under the HOV-3+ option in 2010 would be expected to range from 12,300 on the single-lane sections just south of I-595 to as high as 43,000 vehicles per weekday near 95th Street. Peak volumes would increase to more than 50,000 on a weekday basis by 2030.
 
Forecasted traffic under Alternative 3 is considerably higher than Alternative 2 in project sections south of the Golden Glades Interchange. This is, in part, due to the fact that under Alternative 2, the HOT lanes are only operated in peak and shoulder hours, and only in one direction of travel. Under Alternative 3, the HOT lanes are open during all hours and at least one lane is provided in both travel directions.

Table 5-9 shows estimated toll transactions and annual revenue for Alternative 3. Under this alternative, the HOT lanes would be available to non-carpool traffic only during certain hours, under the HOV-2+ free scenario. As such, revenue for the scenario is estimated at about $7 million in 2010 with an HOV-2+  carpool definition and more than $38 million under an HOV-3+ carpool definition, an increase of more than 5 times. This dramatic difference is due to the fact that a very high proportion of current carpools have only two occupants and trip tables provided in the models used in this analysis had relatively few HOV-3+ vehicles in future years.

It is noted that in the refined analysis for the preferred project alternatives, the growth in HOV-3+ traffic was increased, and a slightly higher proportion of carpools were assumed to have three or more occupants, as discussed subsequently in Chapter 6.

Annual revenue potential remains relatively stable in 2020 and 2030 under the HOV-2+ free scenario. This is due to the fact that the number of hours and amount of capacity available “to sell” to non-carpool traffic continues to decrease over time. By contrast, under the HOV-3+ scenario, revenue potential increases from about $38 million in 2010 to $73 million in 2020 and $93 million in 2030.

Table 5-9 Estimated Toll Transactions and Revenue - Alternative 3 Year 2010 - HOV2+Free Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 390 0 0 2,880 820 1,000 600 5,690 1,599,000 4,381 8,792 Average Toll $2.23 -- -- 0.93 3.01 2.67 2.12 Revenue $870 0 0 2,680 2,470 2,670 1,270 $9,960 Tolled Trips 1,060 950 1,140 2,580 0 0 0 5,730 1,610,000 4,411 Average Toll $2.15 5.88 4.28 0.88 -- -- -- Total Daily Revenue $2,280 5,590 4,880 2,260 0 0 0 $15,010 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 1,450 950 1,140 5,460 820 1,000 600 11,420 3,209,000 8,792 Revenue $3,150 5,590 4,880 4,940 2,470 2,670 1,270 $24,970 $7,017,000 $19,225 Year 2010 - HOV3+Free Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 1,380 2,260 2,070 10,060 3,330 3,520 2,050 24,670 6,933,000 18,995 38,028 Average Toll $2.93 4.91 3.36 1.39 3.23 3.20 3.18 41,554 Revenue $4,050 13,500 7,140 13,580 10,840 11,370 5,620 $66,100 Tolled Trips 1,940 3,250 2,750 9,730 2,720 2,600 1,730 24,720 6,947,000 19,033 Average Toll $2.65 4.59 3.61 1.33 3.86 4.46 3.42 Total Daily Revenue $5,140 14,910 9,940 12,900 10,500 11,590 5,920 $70,900 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 3,320 5,510 4,820 19,790 6,050 6,120 3,780 49,390 13,879,000 38,025 Revenue $9,190 28,410 17,080 26,480 21,340 22,960 11,540 $137,000 $38,498,000 $105,474   Year 2020 - HOV2+Free Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 0 0 0 2,500 0 0 0 2,500 703,000 1,926 5,397 Average Toll -- -- -- 2.99 -- -- -- Revenue $0 0 0 7,470 0 0 0 $7,470 Tolled Trips 1,100 0 1,370 2,040 0 0 0 4,510 1,267,000 3,471 Average Toll $3.52 -- 4.53 2.95 -- -- -- Total Daily Revenue $3,870 0 6,200 6,020 0 0 0 $16,090 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 1,100 0 1,370 4,540 0 0 0 7,010 1,970,000 5,397 Revenue $3,870 0 6,200 13,490 0 0 0 $23,560 $6,621,000 $18,140 Year 2020 - HOV3+Free Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 1,830 2,480 2,270 11,280 4,230 4,880 2,970 29,940 8,413,000 23,049 44,953 Average Toll $4.57 10.08 6.07 3.61 4.29 4.35 3.23 Revenue $8,370 25,000 13,790 40,690 18,150 21,230 9,580 $136,810 Tolled Trips 2,530 3,500 3,240 11,540 2,890 2,880 1,870 28,450 7,995,000 21,904 Average Toll $3.13 6.24 4.13 3.35 5.58 6.23 5.12 Total Daily Revenue $7,930 21,840 13,380 38,680 16,140 17,940 9,570 $125,480 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 4,360 5,980 5,510 22,820 7,120 7,760 4,840 58,390 16,408,000 44,953 Revenue $16,300 46,840 27,170 79,370 34,290 39,170 19,150 $262,290 $73,706,000 $201,934   Year 2030 - HOV2+Free Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 0 0 0 1,940 0 0 0 1,940 545,000 1,493 4,288 Average Toll -- -- -- 3.73 -- -- -- Revenue $0 0 0 7,240 0 0 0 $7,240 Tolled Trips 950 0 1,000 1,680 0 0 0 3,630 1,020,000 2,795 Average Toll $4.03 -- 6.26 3.63 -- -- -- Total Daily Revenue $3,830 0 6,260 6,100 0 0 0 $16,190 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 950 0 1,000 3,620 0 0 0 5,570 1,565,000 4,288 Revenue $3,830 0 6,260 13,340 0 0 0 $23,430 $6,584,000 $18,038 Year 2030 - HOV3+Free Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 2,050 3,580 2,560 12,310 4,200 5,030 2,700 32,430 9,113,000 24,967 45,863 Average Toll $7.39 12.01 9.33 3.76 5.86 5.51 4.80 Revenue $15,150 42,990 23,880 46,300 24,620 27,730 12,970 $193,640 Tolled Trips 2,790 2,370 2,090 12,930 2,620 2,330 2,010 27,140 7,627,000 20,896 Average Toll $3.14 9.43 6.30 3.40 7.45 8.31 5.71 Total Daily Revenue $8,760 22,340 13,170 44,010 19,530 19,360 11,470 $138,640 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 4,840 5,950 4,650 25,240 6,820 7,360 4,710 59,570 16,740,000 45,863 Revenue $23,910 65,330 37,050 90,310 44,150 47,090 24,440 $332,280 $93,374,000 $255,819 Note: Revenues do not consider effects of ramp-up of demand. All toll revenue calculations in 2005 dollars.

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 is the first option which introduces the proposed elevated roadway south of the Golden Glades Interchange. Under this scenario, the elevated roadway would have two reversible lanes between Florida’s Turnpike and downtown Miami. All of the lanes would be operated southbound in the morning peak hour and northbound in the afternoon peak hour. All traffic using the elevated lanes would be required to pay a toll; although the existing HOV lanes would remain available on the current roadway for carpool traffic.

North of the Golden Glades Interchange, the project would have one HOT lane in each travel direction. Only non-carpool vehicles would be required to pay a toll to use the Golden Glades Interchange and I-595.
 
Table 5-10 shows the peak hour corridor traffic distribution for Alternative 4 at 2020 levels in the vicinity of 95th Street. In this section, the existing HOV lanes would continue to remain available for high-occupant traffic. The elevated toll lanes would carry only toll traffic. The toll lanes, under this alternative, would be operated only southbound in the a.m. peak period and only northbound in the p.m. peak period. The HOV lanes would, of course, remain available in both directions during both peak periods.

Table 5-10 Peak Hour Corridor Traffic Distribution - Alternative 4 Southbound Northbound Operating Scenario HOV-2+ Free HOV-2+ Free HOV-3+ Free HOV-3+ Free Peak Hour AM PM AM PM Vehicle Type SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio General Purpose 7.4 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.9 9.1 1.13 6.4 1.3 0.0 1.3 0.6 8.3 0.98 6.7 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.9 9.2 1.14 5.7 2.1 0.0 2.1 0.6 8.4 0.99 HOT/Toll Lanes 2.3 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.7 1.29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 2.6 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.2 --- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- HOV Lane 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.20 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.20 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.10 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.10 Total 9.7 3.0 0.1 3.1 0.9 13.7 1.32 6.4 3.1 0.1 3.2 0.6 10.2 0.97 9.3 2.2 0.2 2.4 0.9 12.6 1.22 5.7 2.1 0.2 2.3 0.6 8.6 0.83 Percent HOT/Toll 23.7% 13.3% 0.0% 12.9% --- 19.7% --- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% --- 0.0% --- 28.0% 27.3% 0.0% 25.0% --- 25.4% --- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% --- 0.0% --- General Purpose 7.8 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.8 9.6 1.04 6.6 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.7 8.4 0.93 7.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 0.8 9.6 1.16 5.9 1.8 0.0 1.8 0.7 8.4 1.01 HOT/Toll Lanes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.07 1.8 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.3 1.13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --- 2.3 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 3.0 0.71 HOV Lane 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.9 0.0 1.9 --- 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.9 0.0 1.9 --- 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.10 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.10 Total 7.8 2.8 0.1 2.9 0.8 11.5 0.82 8.4 3.4 0.1 3.5 0.7 12.6 0.88 7.0 1.8 0.2 2.0 0.8 9.8 0.71 8.2 2.5 0.2 2.7 0.7 11.6 0.81 Percent HOT/Toll 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% --- 0.0% --- 21.4% 14.7% 0.0% 14.3% --- 18.3% --- 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% --- 0.0% --- 28.0% 28.0% 0.0% 25.9% --- 25.9% ---

Under the HOV-2+ free scenario, in the a.m. peak hour, an estimated 2,700 vehicles would use the elevated tolled lanes. This would represent less than 70 percent of available capacity and would ensure free-flow condition. About 24 percent of single-occupant vehicle traffic on this section of I-95 was assigned to the tolled lanes, in addition to about 13.3 percent of vehicles with two or more occupants. Most of the two-occupant vehicles would be expected to use the toll-free HOV lane, although this was found to be operating at about 95 percent of theoretical capacity, in a somewhat degraded operating speed condition.

In the afternoon peak hour, the elevated roadway would be operated northbound. At optimum toll rates, an estimated 2,300 vehicles would be in the tolled lanes, or about 21 percent of SOV traffic. Again, the single HOV lane would be operating near capacity under the HOV-2 condition. If the carpool definition was changed to three or more occupants, the HOV lanes would become wide open, generally estimated to serve about 200 vehicles per hour. Traffic would increase in the tolled lanes, in both the morning and afternoon peak conditions, largely due to a slight increase in congestion in the general purpose lanes. This would be due to the fact that the majority of HOV traffic which could use the HOV lanes under a two-person carpool definition would be forced out of the carpool lanes and into the general purpose lanes or toll lanes. Overall, the tolled lanes would accommodate about 25 percent of morning and afternoon peak hour in the major travel direction in the vicinity of 95th Street.

Figure 5-5 shows estimated average weekday toll managed lane volumes under both the HOV-2+ and HOV-3+ conditions. As might be expected, weekday tolled traffic levels would be considerably higher under the HOV-3+ option. This is due to both the fact that additional capacity is made available “to sell” in the HOT lanes and that operating conditions degrade slightly in the general purpose lanes due to the shift of two-occupant vehicle traffic out of the HOV lanes.

 

 

Under the HOV-2+ definition, weekday traffic in 2010 on the single lane sections (shown in blue) would average less than 4,000 vehicles per weekday. This would increase to as much as 11,200 on the elevated roadway sections south of the Golden Glades Interchange. By 2030, the traffic on the reversible elevated roadway south of Golden Glades would increase to as much as 22,700 vehicles per weekday.

With a three-occupant definition of carpools, significantly higher volumes are estimated for Alternative 4. In the single lane sections, in 2010, as much as 9,200 vehicles per weekday would be expected, increasing to as much as 18,500 vehicles per weekday by 2030. In the two-lane reversible elevated roadway section, peak volumes reach almost 27,000 vehicles in the vicinity of 95th Street by 2030.

The volumes on the elevated section under Alternative 4 seem relatively low in comparison to some other options. This is in part due to the fact that this roadway is assumed to be open only in the major travel direction and only during a.m. and p.m. peak and shoulder hours. In addition, the existing HOV lanes remain available for carpool traffic, probably located beneath the elevated roadway.

Table 5-11 provides a summary of estimated daily toll transactions and annual toll revenue for Alternative 4. In 2010, under the HOV-2+ free scenario, revenue is estimated at $7.6 million, increasing to $19.1 million by 2030. Annual transactions under the HOV-2 scenario would increase from about 3.8 million in 2010 to 7.6 million in 2020, but would then show relatively little growth by 2030 as HOT operation would be limited to HOV traffic only during morning and afternoon peaks in the major travel directions.

Consistent with other scenarios, considerably higher revenue potential is shown under Alternative 4 assuming the HOV-3+ definition of carpools. Toll paying traffic would be permitted to use the HOT lanes during all periods in both travel directions over at least a portion of the facility. Annual revenue would increase from $16.3 million in 2010 to $44.5 million by 2030, more than double revenue estimated under the HOV-2+ scenarios.

Table 5-11 Estimated Toll Transactions and Revenue - Alternative 4 Year 2010 - HOV2+Free   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 250 450 320 1,090 1,830 2,020 1,260 7,220 2,029,000 5,559 10,447 Average Toll $0.40 1.87 0.72 0.97 2.13 2.14 1.69 Revenue $100 840 230 1,060 3,900 4,320 2,130 $12,580 Tolled Trips 1,010 2,410 1,710 240 290 390 300 6,350 1,784,000 4,888 Average Toll $1.52 3.01 2.72 0.96 0.76 1.03 0.40 Total Daily Revenue $1,540 7,250 4,650 230 220 400 120 $14,410 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 1,260 2,860 2,030 1,330 2,120 2,410 1,560 13,570 3,813,000 10,447 Revenue $1,640 8,090 4,880 1,290 4,120 4,720 2,250 $26,990 $7,584,000 $20,778 Year 2010 - HOV3+Free   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 340 1,000 560 4,200 3,060 3,000 1,480 13,640 3,833,000 10,501 19,663 Average Toll $0.74 2.12 1.13 1.25 2.72 2.79 3.04 21,279 Revenue $250 2,120 630 5,270 8,330 8,360 4,500 $29,460 Tolled Trips 1,850 3,400 3,010 1,670 680 830 460 11,900 3,344,000 9,162 Average Toll $2.04 3.46 2.67 1.01 1.40 2.08 1.37 Total Daily Revenue $3,780 11,750 8,050 1,680 950 1,730 630 $28,570 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 2,190 4,400 3,570 5,870 3,740 3,830 1,940 25,540 7,177,000 19,663 Revenue $4,030 13,870 8,680 6,950 9,280 10,090 5,130 $58,030 $16,307,000 $44,677   Year 2020 - HOV2+Free   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 380 720 510 5,920 3,080 37,550 1,960 16,320 4,586,000 12,564 20,956 Average Toll $1.13 3.28 1.84 0.91 3.02 2.58 2.58 Revenue $430 2,360 940 5,400 9,290 9,690 5,050 $33,160 Tolled Trips 1,940 2,990 1,910 3,080 260 320 400 10,900 3,063,000 8,392 Average Toll $2.07 3.91 4.07 1.05 1.77 2.41 1.08 Total Daily Revenue $4,020 11,700 7,780 3,220 460 770 430 $28,380 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 2,320 3,710 2,420 9,000 3,340 4,070 2,360 27,220 7,649,000 20,956 Revenue $4,450 14,060 8,720 8,620 9,750 10,460 5,480 $61,540 $17,293,000 $47,378 Year 2020 - HOV3+Free   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 560 1,170 780 7,410 4,550 4,940 2,490 21,900 6,154,000 16,860 28,408 Average Toll $1.86 5.53 2.92 2.36 3.29 3.49 3.24 Revenue $1,040 6,470 2,280 17,490 14,950 17,265 8,050 $67,575 Tolled Trips 2,110 3,610 2,370 4,220 870 1,280 540 15,000 4,215,000 11,548 Average Toll $3.00 5.21 4.70 1.65 2.86 2.82 2.83 Total Daily Revenue $6,330 18,815 11,130 6,960 2,490 3,610 1,530 $50,865 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 2,670 4,780 3,150 11,630 5,420 6,220 3,030 36,900 10,369,000 28,408 Revenue $7,370 25,285 13,410 24,450 17,440 20,875 9,610 $118,440 $33,283,000 $91,186   Year 2030 - HOV2+Free   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 310 0 0 7,650 3,890 3,930 2,190 17,970 5,050,000 13,836 21,611 Average Toll $3.29 -- -- 0.90 3.06 3.06 3.03 Revenue $1,020 0 0 6,890 11,900 12,010 6,640 $38,460 Tolled Trips 1,240 2,530 2,330 3,790 0 0 210 10,100 2,838,000 7,775 Average Toll $3.07 4.90 3.68 1.13 -- -- 2.48 Total Daily Revenue $3,810 12,390 8,570 4,280 0 0 520 $29,570 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 1,550 2,530 2,330 11,440 3,890 3,930 2,400 28,070 7,888,000 21,611 Revenue $4,830 12,390 8,570 11,170 11,900 12,010 7,160 $68,030 $19,117,000 $52,375 Year 2030 - HOV3+Free   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 930 2,300 1,370 8,430 4,520 4,790 2,880 25,220 7,087,000 19,416 32,019 Average Toll $3.24 8.03 4.13 2.51 4.27 4.50 3.72 Revenue $3,010 18,470 5,660 21,130 19,300 21,560 10,710 $99,840 Tolled Trips 2,160 3,870 2,320 4,610 870 1,760 780 16,370 4,600,000 12,603 Average Toll $3.11 5.23 5.27 1.92 3.91 2.80 2.81 Total Daily Revenue $6,720 20,245 12,220 8,840 3,400 4,920 2,190 $58,535 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 3,090 6,170 3,690 13,040 5,390 6,550 3,660 41,590 11,687,000 32,019 Revenue $9,730 38,715 17,880 29,970 22,700 26,480 12,900 $158,375 $44,505,000 $121,932 Note: Revenues do not consider effects of ramp-up of demand. All toll revenue calculations in 2005 dollars.

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 would be similar to Alternative 4, except the elevated roadway would provide a total of three lanes. Two of these would be operated in the major direction (e.g., southbound in the morning peak) and one lane would be operated in the minor direction. A moveable barrier would be provided between the two directions of travel along the elevated section. North of the Golden Glades Interchange, a single HOT lane in each direction was assumed.

Table 5-12 shows estimated traffic in the HOV and general purpose lanes under Alternative 5 at a location near 95th Street. Under the HOV-2+ free scenario, an estimated 2,700 vehicles would be expected to use the elevated toll lanes in the southbound direction, or about two-thirds of available capacity. In the a.m. peak in the northbound direction, the single elevated toll lane would be estimated to handle 1,800 or about 90 percent of available capacity. Slightly lower levels of demand were found in the p.m. peak period for the elevated roadway.

Higher traffic estimates are shown in the elevated toll lanes for the HOV-3+ operating scenario. This is due to the fact that most of the traffic which could use the toll-free HOV lanes would shift to the general purpose and toll lanes, with the change in carpool definition. In the morning peak hour southbound direction, an estimated 3,200 vehicles would be expected to pay a toll at this location, representing about three-fourths of available elevated roadway capacity. In the afternoon peak, an estimated 3,000 vehicles would use the tolled elevated express lanes. In all peak hours, demand for the HOV lanes would be quite low, recognizing the increase in the number of occupants required to use the lanes.

Table 5-12 Peak Hour Corridor Traffic Distribution - Alternative 5 Southbound Northbound Operating Scenario HOV-2+ Free HOV-2+ Free HOV-3+ Free HOV-3+ Free Peak Hour AM PM AM PM Vehicle Type SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio General Purpose 7.4 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.9 9.1 1.13 6.5 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.7 8.3 1.00 6.7 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.9 9.2 1.14 5.8 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.7 8.4 1.01 HOT/Toll Lanes 2.3 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.7 1.29 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.7 0.81 2.6 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.2 1.52 1.2 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.7 0.81 HOV Lane 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.20 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.20 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.10 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.10 Total 9.7 3.0 0.1 3.1 0.9 13.7 1.12 7.8 3.3 0.1 3.4 0.7 11.9 0.96 9.3 2.2 0.2 2.4 0.9 12.6 1.04 7.0 2.4 0.2 2.6 0.7 10.3 0.84 Percent HOT/Toll 23.7% 13.3% 0.0% 12.9% --- 19.7% --- 16.7% 12.1% 0.0% 11.8% --- 14.3% --- 28.0% 27.3% 0.0% 25.0% --- 25.4% --- 17.1% 20.8% 0.0% 19.2% --- 16.5% --- General Purpose 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.8 8.8 1.04 6.6 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.7 8.4 0.93 6.8 1.5 0.0 1.5 0.8 9.1 1.11 5.9 1.8 0.0 1.8 0.7 8.4 1.01 HOT/Toll Lanes 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.8 1.07 1.8 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.3 1.13 1.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.8 0.43 2.3 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 3.0 0.71 HOV Lane 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.9 0.0 1.9 --- 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.9 0.0 1.9 --- 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.10 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.10 Total 8.7 2.9 0.1 3.0 0.8 12.5 0.88 8.4 3.4 0.1 3.5 0.7 12.6 0.88 8.2 1.9 0.2 2.1 0.8 11.1 0.80 8.2 2.5 0.2 2.7 0.7 11.6 0.81 Percent HOT/Toll 19.5% 3.4% 0.0% 3.3% --- 14.4% --- 21.4% 14.7% 0.0% 14.3% --- 18.3% --- 17.1% 21.1% 0.0% 19.0% --- 16.2% --- 28.0% 28.0% 0.0% 25.9% --- 25.9% ---

Figure 5-6 shows estimated weekday traffic at 2010 and 2030 levels for Alternative 5. The figure shows traffic estimates for both the HOV-2+ and HOV-3+ scenarios. The traffic on the elevated roadway section would range between 21,400 and 28,300 in 2010. This would increase to as much as 50,000 vehicles per weekday, in the vicinity of 95th Street, even with the HOV-2+ carpool definition.

If the definition of carpools increases to three or more occupants, traffic estimates on the managed lanes would increase. 2010 estimates for the elevated roadway section are considerably higher, reaching as much as 38,400, although traffic in 2030 is only slightly higher, reflecting the overall levels of congestion which will be experienced across all lanes by 2030.

 

 

Table 5-13 shows transactions and toll revenue estimates for Alternative 5. Under this scenario, the HOT and tolled express lanes would be opened to traffic during all time periods in both travel directions, under either the HOV-2+ or HOV-3+ scenarios. If carpools remain defined as two or more occupants, annual revenue would be expected to reach about $13.7 million in 2010 under this scenario, increasing to more than $45 million by 2030. If the definition of carpools is increased to three or more occupants, revenue would increase to $28.4 million in 2010 to almost $80 million per year by 2030.

Table 5-13 Estimated Toll Transactions and Revenue - Alternative 5 Year 2010 - HOV2+Free   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 870 1,610 1,180 4,400 1,830 2,020 1,260 13,170 3,701,000 10,140 22,573 Average Toll $1.14 3.46 2.03 0.95 2.13 2.14 1.69 Revenue $990 5,570 2,390 4,170 3,900 4,320 2,130 $23,470 Tolled Trips 1,010 2,410 1,710 6,550 1,690 1,900 880 16,150 4,538,000 12,433 Average Toll $1.52 3.01 2.72 0.49 1.85 2.24 1.45 Total Daily Revenue $1,540 7,250 4,650 3,200 3,120 4,250 1,280 $25,290 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 1,880 4,020 2,890 10,950 3,520 3,920 2,140 29,320 8,239,000 22,573 Revenue $2,530 12,820 7,040 7,370 7,020 8,570 3,410 $48,760 $13,702,000 $37,540 Year 2010 - HOV3+Free   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 1,070 2,020 1,460 7,170 3,060 3,000 1,480 19,260 5,412,000 14,827 31,657 Average Toll $2.38 4.56 3.40 1.39 2.72 2.79 3.04 33,257 Revenue $2,550 9,220 4,970 9,990 8,330 8,360 4,500 $47,920 Tolled Trips 1,850 3,400 3,010 6,790 2,620 2,870 1,320 21,860 6,143,000 16,830 Average Toll $2.04 3.46 2.67 1.30 2.87 3.30 2.85 Total Daily Revenue $3,780 11,750 8,050 8,820 7,510 9,470 3,760 $53,140 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 2,920 5,420 4,470 13,960 5,680 5,870 2,800 41,120 11,555,000 31,658 Revenue $6,330 20,970 13,020 18,810 15,840 17,830 8,260 $101,060 $28,399,000 $77,805   Year 2020 - HOV2+Free   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 1,100 2,080 1,520 9,880 3,080 3,750 1,960 23,370 6,567,000 17,992 35,507 Average Toll $3.13 5.56 4.39 1.78 3.02 2.58 2.58 Revenue $3,770 11,555 6,670 17,580 9,290 9,690 5,050 $63,605 Tolled Trips 1,940 2,990 1,910 9,310 2,510 2,630 1,460 22,750 6,393,000 17,515 Average Toll $2.07 3.91 4.07 1.66 3.13 3.53 2.74 Total Daily Revenue $4,020 11,700 7,780 15,500 7,850 9,290 4,000 $60,140 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 3,040 5,070 3,430 19,190 5,590 6,380 3,420 46,120 12,960,000 35,507 Revenue $7,790 23,255 14,450 33,080 17,140 18,980 9,050 $123,745 $34,774,000 $95,271 Year 2020 - HOV3+Free   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 1,920 2,410 1,870 10,850 4,550 4,940 2,490 29,030 8,158,000 22,351 43,124 Average Toll $3.51 8.18 5.58 2.94 3.29 3.49 3.24 Revenue $6,730 19,720 10,430 31,950 14,950 17,265 8,080 $109,125 Tolled Trips 2,110 3,610 2,370 10,990 3,100 3,030 1,770 26,980 7,582,000 20,773 Average Toll $3.00 5.21 4.70 2.85 4.46 5.00 4.42 Total Daily Revenue $6,330 18,815 11,130 31,360 13,820 15,150 7,830 $104,435 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 4,030 6,020 4,240 21,840 7,650 7,970 4,260 56,010 15,739,000 43,121 Revenue $13,060 38,535 21,560 63,310 28,770 32,415 15,910 $213,560 $60,012,000 $164,416   Year 2030 - HOV2+Free   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 1,840 3,000 2,040 12,020 3,890 3,930 2,190 28,910 8,124,000 22,258 41,083 Average Toll $4.17 6.24 5.72 1.80 3.06 3.06 3.03 Revenue $7,680 18,715 11,670 21,590 11,900 12,010 6,640 $90,205 Tolled Trips 1,240 2,530 2,330 11,360 2,650 2,700 1,640 24,450 6,871,000 18,825 Average Toll $3.07 4.90 3.68 1.72 3.62 4.07 3.21 Total Daily Revenue $3,810 12,390 8,570 19,570 9,600 11,000 5,260 $70,200 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 3,080 5,530 4,370 23,380 6,540 6,630 3,830 53,360 14,995,000 41,082 Revenue $11,490 31,105 20,240 41,160 21,500 23,010 11,900 $160,405 $45,075,000 $123,493 Year 2030 - HOV3+Free   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 2,070 3,410 2,150 12,110 4,520 4,790 2,880 31,930 8,973,000 24,584 46,872 Average Toll $6.00 12.15 8.66 3.15 4.27 4.50 3.72 Revenue $12,410 41,430 18,620 38,120 19,300 21,560 10,710 $162,150 Tolled Trips 2,160 3,870 2,320 12,120 3,270 3,130 2,080 28,950 8,135,000 22,288 Average Toll $3.11 5.23 5.27 3.10 5.01 6.04 4.51 Total Daily Revenue $6,720 20,245 12,220 37,520 16,380 18,890 9,390 $121,365 annual average Total Tolled Trips 4,230 7,280 4,470 24,230 7,790 7,920 4,960 60,880 17,108,000 46,871 Revenue $19,130 61,675 30,840 75,640 35,680 40,450 20,100 $283,515 $79,671,000 $218,277 Note: Revenues do not consider effects of ramp-up of demand. All toll revenue calculations in 2005 dollars.

Alternative 6

Alternative 6 was the largest option studied, and would involve construction of a four-lane elevated roadway between the Golden Glades Interchange and downtown Miami. Two new tolled express lanes would be provided in each travel direction between the Turnpike and downtown Miami. North of this point, a single HOT lane would be provided in each direction as far north as I-595.

The peak hour corridor traffic distribution at 2020 levels in the vicinity of 95th Street is shown for Alternative 6 in Table 5-14. Under the HOV-2+ free scenario, traffic in the morning peak hour is estimated to range from 2,300 in the northbound direction to 2,700 in the southbound direction, all well within the available two lanes of capacity in each travel direction. Slightly lower volumes are shown in the p.m. peak, but still more than 2,000 per hour per direction. In general, the toll lanes are accommodating between 17.5 and 19.7 percent of total traffic demand in peak hours.

If the definition of carpools is increased to three or more occupants, volumes on the toll lanes also increase, generally to 3,000 or more in the major travel direction and about 2,600 in the minor travel direction in both peaks. On a peak hour basis, the elevated toll lanes carry about 25 percent of total corridor traffic on I-95 in the vicinity of 95th Street under this Alternative.

Note that the general purpose lanes are always at or slightly above capacity under all scenarios. This is easy to understand, recognizing that motorists will only pay a toll to buy into the managed lanes if there are congested conditions in the general purpose lanes. However, the construction of the additional elevated roadway enables a significant increase in total traffic on I-95, as compared to the “no build” condition.

Table 5-14 Peak Hour Corridor Traffic Distribution - Alternative 6 Southbound Northbound Operating Scenario HOV-2+ Free HOV-2+ Free HOV-3+ Free HOV-3+ Free Peak Hour AM PM AM PM Vehicle Type SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio SOV HOV2 HOV3+ HOV Trucks   Total Vol./Cap. Ratio General Purpose 7.4 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.9 9.1 1.13 6.3 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 8.0 0.97 6.7 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.9 9.2 1.14 5.2 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.7 7.8 0.95 HOT/Toll Lanes 2.3 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.7 1.29 1.6 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.1 1.00 2.6 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.2 0.76 1.9 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 2.6 0.62 HOV Lane 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.20 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.20 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.10 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.10 Total 9.7 3.0 0.1 3.1 0.9 13.7 0.97 7.9 3.3 0.1 3.4 0.7 12.0 0.84 9.3 2.2 0.2 2.4 0.9 12.6 0.90 7.1 2.6 0.2 2.8 0.7 10.6 0.75 Percent HOT/Toll 23.7% 13.3% 0.0% 12.9% --- 19.7% --- 20.3% 15.2% 0.0% 14.7% --- 17.5% --- 28.0% 27.3% 0.0% 25.0% --- 25.4% --- 26.8% 26.9% 0.0% 25.0% --- 24.5% --- General Purpose 7.0 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.8 8.7 1.04 6.6 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.7 8.4 0.93 6.6 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.8 9.0 1.10 5.9 1.8 0.0 1.8 0.7 8.4 1.01 HOT/Toll Lanes 2.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.3 1.07 1.8 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.3 1.13 2.2 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.6 0.62 2.3 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 3.0 0.71 HOV Lane 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.9 0.0 1.9 --- 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.90 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.10 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.10 Total 9.0 3.0 0.1 3.1 0.8 12.9 0.91 8.4 3.4 0.1 3.5 0.7 12.6 0.88 8.8 2.0 0.2 2.2 0.8 11.8 0.84 8.2 2.5 0.2 2.7 0.7 11.6 0.81 Percent HOT/Toll 22.2% 10.0% 0.0% 9.7% --- 17.8% --- 21.4% 14.7% 0.0% 14.3% --- 18.3% --- 25.0% 20.0% 0.0% 18.2% --- 22.0% --- 28.0% 28.0% 0.0% 25.9% --- 25.9% ---

Figure 5-7 shows estimated average toll paying weekday traffic on the managed lanes under Alternative 6. Again, in this case, traffic estimates are shown for both the HOV-2+ and HOV-3+ scenarios. It should be kept in mind that in the single lane HOT sections, shown in Figure 5-7 in blue, only toll paying traffic is shown. In addition, HOV traffic would also use these lanes toll free. This HOV traffic is not specifically shown in Figure 5-7. In the elevated roadway section, south of the Golden Glades Interchange, all traffic would be required to pay a toll; hence, the traffic estimates in this section reflect total vehicles.

 

 

 

By 2030, total weekday traffic in the vicinity of 95th Street is estimated to reach 54,000 vehicles per typical weekday under the HOV-2+ alternative. This would increase to more than 60,000 vehicles per day under an HOV-3+ definition by 2030. Traffic in the single lane HOT sections would be considerably lower.

Transactions and revenue for Alternative 6 are presented in Table 5-15. This scenario represents the maximum project configuration, and was found to have the highest annual revenue potential, under either an HOV-2+ or HOV-3+ scenario.

If the carpool definition is retained at two or more occupants, annual revenue in the opening year (2010) is estimated at just under $15 million. This would be based on a weekday average of about 33,000 toll transactions. Average toll rates would reach between $3.00 and $4.00 during peak hours.
 
By 2030, annual revenue under the HOV-2+ scenario would increase to more than $50 million. The highest peak hour tolls would reach as much as $9.25 but only in one travel direction during one peak period. Most peak hour rates would be closer to $5.00 or less.

If the carpool definition is increased to three or more, average toll rates would increase slightly and revenue would increase significantly. Revenue in 2010 is estimated at $31.1 million, increasing to more than $86 million per year by 2030. All revenues presented in this chapter for Alternative 6 and each of the other alternatives, are in 2005 dollars. They have not been adjusted for inflation in future years.

Table 5-15 Estimated Toll Transactions and Revenue - Alternative 6 Year 2010 - HOV2+Free   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 1,040 1,770 1,110 5,880 1,830 2,020 1,260 14,910 4,190,000 11,479 25,268 Average Toll $1.11 3.66 2.47 0.93 2.13 2.14 1.69 Revenue $1,150 6,475 2,740 5,470 3,900 4,320 2,130 $26,185 Tolled Trips 1,010 2,410 1,710 7,970 1,770 2,070 970 17,910 5,033,000 13,789 Average Toll $1.52 3.01 2.72 0.48 1.84 2.22 1.44 Total Daily Revenue $1,540 7,250 4,650 3,800 3,260 4,600 1,400 $26,500 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 2,050 4,180 2,820 13,850 3,600 4,090 2,230 32,820 9,223,000 25,268 Revenue $2,690 13,725 7,390 9,270 7,160 8,920 3,530 $52,685 $14,805,000 $40,562 Year 2010 - HOV3+Free   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 1,240 2,890 1,920 7,290 3,060 3,000 1,480 20,880 5,867,000 16,074 34,814 Average Toll $2.40 3.83 2.95 1.74 2.72 2.79 3.04 33,257 Revenue $2,970 11,065 5,670 12,690 8,330 8,360 4,500 $53,585 Tolled Trips 1,850 3,400 3,010 8,680 2,820 3,130 1,450 24,340 6,840,000 18,740 Average Toll $2.04 3.46 2.67 1.30 2.85 3.27 2.83 Total Daily Revenue $3,780 11,750 8,050 11,260 8,050 10,220 4,100 $52,210 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 3,090 6,290 4,930 15,970 5,880 6,130 2,930 45,220 12,707,000 34,814 Revenue $6,750 22,815 13,720 23,950 16,380 18,580 8,600 $110,795 $31,135,000 $85,301   Year 2020 - HOV2+Free   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 1,210 2,590 2,260 10,530 3,080 3,750 1,960 25,380 7,132,000 19,540 38,255 Average Toll $3.43 5.01 3.38 2.17 3.02 2.58 2.58 Revenue $4,150 12,970 7,650 22,830 9,290 9,690 5,050 $71,630 Tolled Trips 1,940 2,990 1,910 9,990 2,510 2,630 1,460 22,750 6,831,000 18,715 Average Toll $2.07 3.91 4.07 2.04 3.11 3.06 2.72 Total Daily Revenue $4,020 11,700 7,780 20,330 8,330 9,960 4,190 $66,310 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 3,150 5,580 4,170 20,520 5,760 7,010 3,500 49,690 13,963,000 38,255 Revenue $8,170 24,670 15,430 43,160 17,620 19,650 9,240 $137,940 $38,763,000 $106,200 Year 2020 - HOV3+Free   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 2,120 3,230 2,280 13,820 4,550 4,940 2,490 33,430 9,394,000 25,737 51,044 Average Toll $3.52 7.44 5.09 2.78 3.29 3.49 3.24 Revenue $7,460 24,020 11,600 38,380 14,950 17,265 8,080 $121,755 Tolled Trips 2,110 3,610 2,370 14,280 3,880 4,500 2,120 32,870 9,237,000 25,307 Average Toll $3.00 5.21 4.70 2.67 3.87 3.75 3.91 Total Daily Revenue $6,330 18,815 11,130 38,150 15,010 16,885 8,280 $114,600 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 4,230 6,840 4,650 28,100 8,430 9,440 4,610 66,300 18,631,000 51,044 Revenue $13,790 42,835 22,730 76,530 29,960 34,150 16,360 $236,355 $66,418,000 $181,967   Year 2030 - HOV2+Free   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 2,350 2,490 2,740 12,380 3,890 3,930 2,190 29,970 8,422,000 23,074 44,022 Average Toll $3.49 9.25 4.52 2.20 3.06 3.06 3.03 Revenue $8,200 23,040 12,390 27,210 11,900 12,010 6,640 $101,390 Tolled Trips 1,240 2,530 2,330 12,050 3,300 3,680 2,080 27,210 7,646,000 20,948 Average Toll $3.07 4.90 3.68 2.09 3.12 3.10 2.72 Total Daily Revenue $3,810 12,390 8,570 25,200 10,300 11,410 5,650 $77,330 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 3,590 5,020 5,070 24,430 7,190 7,610 4,270 57,180 16,068,000 44,022 Revenue $12,010 35,430 20,960 52,410 22,200 23,420 12,290 $178,720 $50,222,000 $137,595 Year 2030 - HOV3+Free   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD (9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total annual Daily average Both directions Tolled Trips 2,160 4,300 3,290 13,540 4,520 4,790 2,880 35,480 9,970,000 27,315 52,660 Average Toll $5.90 11.23 6.16 3.24 4.27 4.50 3.72 Revenue $12,740 48,310 20,260 43,880 19,300 21,560 10,710 $176,760 Tolled Trips 2,160 3,870 2,320 13,980 4,500 3,780 2,310 32,920 9,251,000 25,345 Average Toll $3.11 4.97 5.27 3.12 3.87 5.34 4.44 Total Daily Revenue $6,720 19,245 12,220 43,670 17,410 20,170 10,250 $129,685 Annual Average Total Tolled Trips 4,230 8,170 5,610 27,520 9,020 8,570 5,190 68,400 19,221,000 52,660 Revenue $19,460 67,555 32,480 87,550 36,710 41,730 20,960 $306,445 $86,114,000 $235,929 Note: Revenues do not consider effects of ramp-up of demand. All toll revenue calculations in 2005 dollars.

Comparison of Alternatives

A comparison of relevant attributes of the different alternatives was conducted to aid in selecting the most promising scenarios for more detailed analysis. Figure 5-8 presents a summary of this comparison. A total of seven comparative evaluation criteria were considered, three of which were analyzed separately for impacts in the major and minor direction. This is due to the fact that some of the options feature reversible lanes or an imbalanced number of lanes by direction and may have different operational viability in one direction versus the other.

A ratings scale ranging from “-3” to “+3” was used for each alternative with respect to each attribute. In general, the more positive the number, the more favorable the rating.

Overall Operational Viability

This attribute focused primarily on the overall ability for a particular alternative to function properly. Alternative 1 was given a -2 rating, primarily because no new capacity is provided and it is simply operationally unviable under the HOV-2+ definition of carpools. Alternative 2 received a favorable rating in the major travel direction, but a negative rating in the minor direction, largely due to the fact that south of the Golden Glades Interchange the existing HOV lane would be removed in the minor direction. Alternative 3 would provide positive operational attributes in the major direction but slightly negative in the minor direction. Alternatives 5 and 6 would provide additional capacity in both travel directions and therefore improve overall operational viability.

Capacity Impacts

This attribute considered whether or not a particular scenario provided additional effective capacity as compared to the current capacity configurations. In the major travel direction, each of the alternatives would provide some relative improvement in available capacity, although this was quite minimal under Alternative 1. However, in the minor direction, Alternative 2 would actually result in a reduction in capacity in the minor travel direction and was given a -2 rating. Maximum additional capacity would come for Alternatives 4, 5 and 6, by virtue of construction of the elevated  toll  lanes  south  of  the  Golden  Glades   Interchange,  while  retaining  all  10 existing lanes on I-95.

Congestion Relief

Alternatives 4, 5 and 6 would provide the maximum benefits in terms of congestion relief, since about one-fourth of total traffic would be expected to use the elevated roadway at much higher operating speeds. Somewhat less positive results would be expected with Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, although all are shown to be positive. The only scenario which would be expected to worsen congestion would be Alternative 2, which would actually involve the taking away of an existing HOV lane in the minor travel direction, south of the Golden Glades Interchange.

Note that the conversion of existing HOV lanes with open access to the restricted access configuration under HOT operation could slightly degrade operating conditions in the general purpose lanes under a few scenarios. This would be most prominent under Alternative 1, which would involve conversion of single HOV lanes to single HOT lanes over the entire length of the corridor. However, each of the alternatives were assumed to retain single HOT lanes in each direction north of the Golden Glades Interchange, where some negative impacts on general purpose lane operations could result from constrained access to HOV traffic.

Demand Management Ability

This attribute relates to the ability to effectively manage demand through pricing. It was not a decisive criteria in most cases, however, demand management was found to be particularly difficult under Alternative 1 where there was only a very limited amount, if any, capacity to sell.

Reasonableness of Toll Rates

In general, the more difficult the demand management problem, the higher the toll rates. Hence, the most reasonable toll rates were found for those alternatives where the maximum amount of additional capacity was being added, namely Alternatives 4, 5 and 6. The highest toll rates, with the minimal benefit, was found for Alternative 1, since no new true capacity was being added.

Revenue Potential

Each of the six alternatives would have some potential to generate additional revenue. The highest revenue potential is found with Alternatives 3 and 6. Revenue potential is an extremely important criteria, since revenue will be used to at least partially offset the construction cost of the project.

Capital Cost

While not directly part of the traffic and revenue study, rough approximations of capital cost for each alternative were developed by another consultant for the Department of Transportation. In this case, all costs are shown as negative values, with the higher cost having the more negative factor. The most costly alternatives, not surprisingly, were found to be Alternatives 4, 5 and 6, which would involve construction of elevated roadway sections above the existing I-95 lanes south of the Golden Glades Interchange. The least expensive options were those scenarios which primarily made use of existing HOV lanes.

Overall Ranking

The various ratings were mathematically added to get an overall ranking. The highest positive ratings were found for Alternatives 5 and 6, significantly outdistancing each of the other alternatives. These were also the only alternatives that would fully manage demand during all hours of the day in each analysis year. Alternatives 1 and 2 resulted in a composite negative attribute rating while Alternatives 3 and 4 were in the middle.

Based on an extensive review of the preliminary findings, and the results of this comparative analysis, the Department selected Alternatives 5 and 6 as the most promising options. These two alternatives were then subjected to more detailed, refined traffic, revenue, and operational analysis, as discussed further in Chapter 6.

Back to Top

Following completion of the preliminary analysis of the six project alternatives, the Florida Department of Transportation selected two of the most promising alternatives for more detailed final analysis. As discussed previously in Chapter 5, Alternatives 5 and 6 were selected for final evaluation. In addition, FDOT selected the HOV-3+ operating scenario for analysis, and traffic and revenue estimates for these options are included in this chapter. In practice, either of these alternatives could also be implemented under the HOV-2+ operating scenario, although somewhat lower traffic and revenue potential would be anticipated.

In conducting the final analysis, adjustments were made to the proportion of total passenger cars assumed to have three or more occupants. HOV-3+ traffic was increased, recognizing the potential for some increases in vehicle occupancy over current levels, as congestion conditions become more serious in future years. New trip tables were developed for each vehicle category and a complete updated traffic assignment process was undertaken for Alternatives 5 and 6 to arrive at the final traffic and revenue estimates provided herein.

An updated toll sensitivity analysis was also conducted to determine optimum toll rates under the higher HOV-3+ condition. This chapter provides a summary of the toll sensitivity analysis, including toll sensitivity and operating performance curves for selected periods of the day for each of the two alternatives.

Annual revenue forecasts were developed for each option and adjusted in the early years to reflect the “ramp-up” phenomena usually experienced on most new toll facilities. Revenues were prepared initially in 2005 dollars, and ultimately adjusted to reflect inflation over the projection period which extended from 2010 to 2030.

A preliminary analysis of toll operations and toll system requirements was also undertaken. Potential locations of electronic tolling zones, along with preliminary estimates of system capital costs and operating costs were also prepared. Estimated operating costs associated with toll collection were then deducted from revenue estimates to arrive at a “base case” forecast of annual net revenues to potentially be available in support of possible financing.

Finally, a limited number of “sensitivity tests” were conducted to gauge the sensitivity of the base case revenue forecasts to certain changes in basic study assumptions. In this case, the potential impacts of higher or lower perceived values of travel time were tested, together with a lower long-term economic growth scenario.

Recap of Preferred Alternatives

FDOT selected Alternatives 5 and 6 for more detailed evaluation. For purposes of continuity, a brief recap of each scenario is provided below.

Alternative 5

The conceptual configuration of Alternative 5 is shown in Figure 6-1. The full project, if implemented in its entirety, would extend from I-595 on the north to downtown Miami, at a location just south of I-395/S.R. 836. Between I-595 and the Golden Glades Interchange, the existing two HOV lanes would simply be converted to HOT operation and non-HOV traffic would be permitted to “buy in.” It was assumed that restricted points of access would be provided along the HOT lanes, and both HOV and non-HOV traffic would not be permitted to weave in and out continuously of the HOV lane, as they are permitted today.

In addition, under both final alternatives, it was assumed that the definition of a high-occupant vehicle would be increased to vehicles with three or more occupants. Under this operating scenario, a significant amount of new capacity would be freed up in the HOV lanes to be potentially used by non-HOV traffic for a toll.

As noted previously, however, it is important to note that in conducting the refined final analysis, WSA assumed a slightly higher share of total passenger car traffic would have three or more occupants, but this would still be well below the current volumes of HOVs under a definition of two or more occupants.

South of the Golden Glades Interchange, a new elevated roadway would be constructed, probably in the median of the I-95 main lanes. As shown in Figure 6-1, the elevated section would have a total of three travel lanes. It would also include a moveable barrier between travel directions, permitting the three lanes to be operated as two lanes in the major direction and one lane in the minor travel direction at all times. Access to and from the elevated roadway would be available at both the Golden Glades Interchange, including direct access from Florida’s Turnpike, and downtown Miami, as well as at four intermediate locations along the route. Direct ramps would be provided from the lower level main lanes to and from the upper level main lanes at these discrete locations.

It is also important to recognize that south of the Golden Glades Interchange, the existing HOV lanes would continue to remain available for carpool traffic, toll free. However, it was assumed that the restriction on carpool usage of these lanes would still be limited to vehicles with three or more occupants, even though toll traffic was not permitted in the section south of the Golden Glades Interchange.

All traffic using the elevated roadway, regardless of vehicle occupancy, was assumed to be required to pay a toll. Tolls would be variable by time of day, and the current toll rate in effect would be displayed on variable message signs at each potential access point.

 

Alternative 6

The general configuration of Alternative 6 is shown in Figure 6-2. This alternative would be identical to Alternative 5 except that the elevated roadway section would be constructed with four travel lanes and a fixed median barrier. The elevated roadway would operate with two lanes southbound and two lanes northbound between the Golden Glades Interchange and downtown Miami. In addition to the north and south end of the elevated road, direct access between the lower level main lanes and the upper roadway would be provided at several intermediate locations.

All traffic using the elevated roadway would be required to pay a toll. South of the Golden Glades Interchange, the existing HOV lanes would remain available for carpool traffic, but this would be limited to vehicles with three or more occupants. As with Alternative 5, north of the Golden Glades Interchange, only a single HOT lane would be provided in each direction. In this section, there would be restricted points of access and toll-free carpool traffic would be limited to vehicles with three or more occupants.

 

 

Basic Assumptions

Estimates of traffic and revenue for the proposed I-95 Managed Lanes project included in this report are predicated on the following basic assumptions, all of which are considered reasonable for purposes of this analysis:

1. The managed lanes, under either Alternatives 5 or 6, would be assumed to open to traffic on January 1, 2010;
2. The project configurations, vehicle restrictions, proposed access locations and per-mile toll rates will be as described in this report;
3. Commercial vehicles will be prohibited from using the managed lanes under either scenario;
4. Tolls would be collected by means of electronic toll collection, presumably SunPass®. No cash collection would be provided. Electronic tolls would be assessed based on distance traveled, with an assumed minimum toll equal to the equivalent toll for a nominal distance of five miles of travel;
5. Electronic toll operations are assumed to be actively monitored and strictly enforced to minimize potential revenue loss due to toll evasion. No adjustments have been made to toll revenue estimates included in this report for toll evasion;
6. Estimates of annual toll revenue included in this report have been adjusted to reflect “ramp-up” during the first three years of operation;
7. An inflation rate of 2.5 percent per year from a base of 2005 was assumed to inflate toll revenue and toll collection operating costs to future year levels;
8. Transportation improvements assumed in the SERPM model would be implemented – no other competing routes or capacity improvements would be implemented within the forecast period and no additional general purpose lane capacity would be provided along the I-95 corridor between I-595 and downtown Miami;
9. Economic growth in the study corridor will generally follow the independent economic assessment provided by Washington Economics Group, as documented in a separate report dated August 15, 2005, entitled “I-95 Corridor Economic Analysis”;
10. The proportion of passenger cars with three or more occupants will increase slightly over current levels, but will not generally exceed 6 percent of total passenger car traffic;
11. Other non-revenue vehicles permitted to use the managed lanes, including various types such as zero emission vehicles, motorcycles, etc., will not exceed an additional 1 percent of total passenger car traffic;
12. The proposed managed lanes would be well-maintained, efficiently operated and effectively signed and promoted to encourage maximum usage;
13. Motor fuel will remain in adequate supply and increases in price will not substantially exceed the overall rate of inflation over the long term; and
14. No local, regional or national emergency will arise which would abnormally restrict the use of motor vehicles.

Any significant departure from these basic assumptions could impact estimated traffic and toll revenue for the proposed I-95 Managed Lanes facility; and such impacts could be material.

Alternative 5 Traffic and Revenue Analysis

This section of the report describes the detailed traffic and revenue analysis for Alternative 5. It will discuss the optimum toll rate analysis, detailed estimates of weekday traffic for various future years, a summary of estimated operational impacts and estimated annual transactions and revenue.

Refined Optimum Rate Analysis

Managed lanes projects such as that being contemplated on I-95 in southeast Florida typically make use of variable tolls by time of day. In general, tolls are increased during periods of high congestion while lower tolls are used in off-peak hours.

The determination of optimum toll rates of a managed lanes facility is considerably different than that of a typical toll facility. Optimum rates for managed lanes can be dictated by three, sometimes conflicting criteria:

• Maximizing toll revenue potential;
• Maximizing demand in the managed lanes to assure a congestion free ride; and
• Optimizing the distribution of traffic between the untolled general purpose lanes and the tolled managed lanes.

Most times, the objectives of revenue maximization and demand management generally function in concert, although the demand management objective usually controls in the event of a conflict. That is, in some cases it may be necessary to use rates beyond the revenue maximizing point to effectively manage demand in the managed lanes. This might more likely occur under high congestion conditions, typically later in the forecast period.

However, the objectives of revenue maximization and optimization of demand between free and tolled lanes may well be in conflict. Revenue maximization may occur at one toll rate, but will result in traffic on the tolled managed lanes of well below the capacity of those lanes. It may be an objective to increase the amount of traffic served by the managed lanes, thereby reducing demand and congestion in the general purpose lanes. This optimum distribution is often attained at toll rates below those which would produce maximum revenue potential.

For purposes of this study, traffic and revenue estimates have typically been based on toll rates which meet the first two objectives, that is, revenue maximization and managing demand in the managed lanes themselves. While the third objective was not specifically considered in selecting optimum rates, a rate sensitivity analysis was conducted which included a review of impacts on revenue, transactions, and speed in both the managed lanes and the general purpose lanes.

A wide range of typical per mile toll rates were tested for each analysis period in each travel direction. As noted previously, there were seven analysis periods used in the study generally extending from 6:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Separate traffic assignments were run, at up to 12 different toll rates, for each of these analysis periods. Toll sensitivity curves were produced for each alternative, for each analysis period, for each analysis year for the full range of rates. An illustrative example of the toll sensitivity results for Alternative 5 is shown in Figure 6-3.

This figure shows results of the toll sensitivity analysis at 2010 levels, in both the northbound and southbound directions. Three of the seven analysis periods are shown for illustrative purposes:

• A.M. peak:  6:00 to 7:00 A.M.;
• Midday:  9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M.; and
• P.M. Peak:  4:30 – 6:00 P.M.

Rate sensitivity results are shown separately for the northbound and southbound direction for each of these three periods. In addition to revenue optimization curves, estimated toll transactions in the managed lanes at progressively higher toll rates are also shown, together with estimated average operating speeds over the entire length of the managed lane facility in both the managed lanes and in the adjacent general purpose lanes in the respective directions of travel.

For example, in the southbound direction, A.M. peak period, the optimum toll was found to be approximately $0.40. This is shown to produce maximum revenue potential as shown by the green shaded curve. Lower estimated revenue has estimated lower toll rates, while higher toll rates result in reduced revenue.

The center portion shows what would be expected to happen to toll transactions in the managed lanes as toll rates are increased. In the A.M. peak southbound direction, transactions would be reduced from about 6,000 to about 2,700 in the one hour period when tolls are increased to $0.40 per mile. Transactions drop to very low levels at toll rates of $0.80 per mile or above.

 

 

Referring to the lower portion of Figure 6-3, as toll rates in the managed lanes increase, traffic is shifted from the managed lanes back to the general purpose lanes. This results in increased operating speeds in the managed lanes while degrading operating speeds in the general purpose lanes. For example, at the very lowest toll rates tested ($0.05 per mile) speeds in the managed lanes would average about 50 MPH while speeds in the general purpose lanes would average about 40 MPH. As rates are increased to the optimum levels, $0.40 per mile, operating speeds in the managed lanes increase to just under 70 MPH while operating speeds in the general purpose lanes would decrease to an average of about 33 MPH.

As might be expected during the midday hours, revenue potential would be somewhat lower, notwithstanding the fact that the midday period extends six hours, as compared with just one hour for the A.M. peak period. Toll transactions drop steadily from about 8,000 over the six-hour period at a rate of $0.10 per mile to less than 500 total tolled vehicles at a midday rate of $0.40 per mile. The optimum rate is shown at $0.10 with revenues expected to decrease precipitously at any higher toll rates during the midday period. Operating speeds are also quite a bit higher in both the managed lanes and general purpose lanes during the midday.

In the P.M. peak, the optimum toll rate for 2010 southbound was found to be $0.35, generated from an estimated 2,700 vehicles over the 90 minute period. The managed lanes would operate at free-flow conditions, generally at about 65 MPH while the general purpose lanes would operate at an average of about 40 MPH. Similar information is shown for the northbound direction on the right side of Figure 6-3. The A.M. peak revenue maximization point is slightly higher in the northbound direction. This may appear counter-intuitive when viewed from a perspective of Miami-Dade County, but revenue optimization in this case is influenced by the strong northbound directionality of A.M. peak traffic in the Broward County portion of the project. Northbound midday optimum tolls were found to be about $0.15 per mile while P.M. peak northbound optimum tolls were found to be about $0.30 per mile.

It is noted that the significant differential in available capacity between the northern half of the project and the southern half of the project, together with inconsistent directional splits, often resulted in optimized rates which might be different than if the facility were examined as two separate projects. If FDOT considered, for example, constructing only the southern portion of the project (i.e., south of Golden Glades Interchange), optimum rates might be somewhat different, given the higher amount of available capacity to sell and the differential difference in directional imbalances.

Rate optimization under this study was based on revenue optimization over the entire 20-mile length of the facility, and not optimum rates in any one portion of the project. Prior to actual project implementation, refined toll rate analyses might be undertaken which could suggest differential pricing, by direction, by section of the project.

Figure 6-4 shows similar information for Alternative 5 at 2030 levels. In this case, total volumes have increased and optimal toll levels have increased as well.

For example, in the A.M. peak southbound direction, the optimum toll was found to be $0.60 per mile. This would produce operating speeds in the managed lanes of about 67 MPH, although operating speeds in the general purpose lanes in the southbound direction would have dropped to an average of about 27 MPH.

By 2030, general purpose lane speeds even in the midday hours would average in the range of 40-45 MPH. P.M. peak speeds in the general purpose lanes were modeled at about 30 MPH.

 

 

Table 6-1 provides a summary of optimum toll rates per mile by each of the seven periods in each of the travel directions. Note that these toll rates are shown in 2005 dollars, and are not adjusted for inflation. In 2010, northbound toll rates would range between $0.15 per mile in midday hours and $0.45 per mile in the A.M. peak. Southbound rates would range between $0.10 per mile in the midday hours and $0.40 per mile in the A.M. peak.

The highest peak hour tolls would increase over time, as might be expected. The A.M. peak hour was found to have the highest optimum tolls in all years. It is noted, however, that in later years the selected toll rates were needed primarily to meet demand management and not necessarily revenue maximization. The single-lane sections in Broward County usually prove to be the most critical in terms of increasing rates to manage demand. Again, as noted above, a refined pricing assessment might suggest differential rates be used by section of the project. This study assumed the same rates would be used in a given direction over the entire length of the facility.

Estimated Weekday Traffic

Estimated weekday traffic volumes along I-95 between S.R. 836 and I-595 are shown at 2010 levels in Figure 6-5. The northern section of the project is shown in red, representing a single HOT lane in each travel direction. Access points are found between Miami Gardens Drive and Ives Dairy Road and between Hollywood Boulevard and Sheridan Street. South of the Golden Glades Interchange, there would be both the elevated toll facility, shown in green, and the existing single HOV lanes in each direction, noted in violet.

Table 6-1 Optimum Per Mile Toll Rates By Period Alternative 5 Higher Share HOV 3+ 2010 AM1 AM2 AM3 MD1 MD2 PM1 PM2 PM3 2020 AM1 AM2 AM3 MD1 MD2 PM1 PM2 PM3 2030 AM1 AM2 AM3 MD1 MD2 PM1 PM2 PM3 Time Periods 6:00-7:00 a.m. 7:00-8:00 a.m. 8:00-9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 3:00-4:30 p.m. 4:30-6:00 p.m. 6:00-7:00 p.m. 6:00-7:00 a.m. 7:00-8:00 a.m. 8:00-9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 3:00-4:30 p.m. 4:30-6:00 p.m. 6:00-7:00 p.m. 6:00-7:00 a.m. 7:00-8:00 a.m. 8:00-9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 3:00-4:30 p.m. 4:30-6:00 p.m. 6:00-7:00 p.m. Northbound $0.20 0.45 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.30 0.25 0.35 $0.35 0.70 0.45 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.45 0.35 $0.50 1.20 0.70 0.35 0.30 0.40 0.45 0.35 Southbound $0.25 0.40 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.35 0.25 $0.30 0.55 0.40 0.30 0.30 0.45 0.45 0.40 $0.30 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.35 0.50 0.50 0.45

For each segment of the managed lanes, estimated volumes are shown, in thousands, for each period of the day, and by each vehicle category; single-occupant vehicles, vehicles with two occupants and vehicles with three or more occupants. All trucks would be required to use the general purpose lanes, so only passenger car traffic is shown in the managed lanes themselves. Each box also shows total period vehicles and total daily traffic by vehicle type in each travel direction.

Volumes are also shown, in thousands, for total weekday traffic in each travel direction in the general purpose lanes. These are shown in black.

In the northern section, with a single HOT lane each way, total directional daily volumes generally range from about 5,000 to just over 9,000 per direction. This includes both toll paying traffic and toll-free HOV-3+ vehicles. For example, in the vicinity of Miami Gardens Drive, total two-way traffic in the managed lanes is estimated at 18,000 vehicles per day. Of these, approximately 4,200 vehicles would be toll-free cars with three or more occupants. A total of 11,100 single-occupant vehicles per day were estimated to buy into the lanes together with about 3,500 vehicles per day with two occupants.

At the same location, in the eight toll-free lanes, over 185,000 vehicles per day are shown. This indicates that only about 10-11 percent of daily traffic would be expected to use the HOT lanes in this area of the project.

 

 

Along the elevated section of Alternative 5, generally south of the Golden Glades Interchange, volumes are considerably higher. The peak load point is shown to be in the vicinity of 103rd Street, where almost 38,000 daily vehicles would use the three elevated lanes. In the morning peak hour, southbound direction, an estimated 3,900 vehicles would use the lanes. In the P.M. peak, northbound direction, traffic is estimated at 3,300 vehicles during that hour, although this represents a 90-minute period. The highest period volumes are shown to be during the midday, although this period represents six hours; hence average hourly volumes are generally in the range of 1,000 to 1,200.

About 7,600 vehicles per day would use the elevated express lanes for access to and from S.R. 112/I-195. Approximately 14,700 vehicles per day would exit or enter at S.R. 836 or I-395, and the remaining 12,500 vehicles per day would be destined to and from downtown Miami.

It is important to recognize that volumes at 2010 levels would represent the first year of operation, immediately following the opening of the additional capacity. Hence, traffic volumes would be at the lowest levels.

Figure 6-6 provides similar estimates for Alternative 5 at 2020 levels. A significant increase in traffic is shown, with peak load point volumes reaching almost 50,000 on the elevated lanes. This would occur in the vicinity of 103rd Street, where the four general purpose lanes would carry almost 340,000 and the HOV lanes would carry an additional 24,000. This suggests that the total vehicle throughput in the vicinity of 103rd Street in 2020 would reach about 410,000, with the additional elevated lanes constructed. This reflects a significant increase in the total vehicle throughput of I-95; without the construction of the elevated lanes, maximum traffic would probably be closer to 360,000.

Volumes are also somewhat higher on the single lane section in far northern Miami-Dade and southern Broward County. At the north end of the project, almost 20,000 vehicles per day would use the two single HOT lanes.

 

 

Figure 6-7 shows traffic estimates for Alternative 5 at 2030 levels. The trip tables used in the analysis had relatively small levels of total growth between 2020 and 2030. Traffic on the elevated roadway itself at the peak load point increased to about 51,000 vehicles, but at a higher toll rate. As shown subsequently, revenue increased significantly. By 2030, almost 25,000 vehicles per day would use the single HOT lanes at the northern end of the project, with the peak loadings in this section occurring in the vicinity of Miami Gardens Drive, estimated at 32,000 vehicles per day.

 

Estimated Operational Impacts

The implementation of managed lanes under Alternative 5 would have positive operational impacts on both the managed lanes and general purpose lanes on I-95. Figure 6-8 displays comparative operating speeds in the general purpose and HOV (or managed lanes) under both the build and no-build conditions. Speeds reflect overall average speeds in the southbound direction, in the A.M. or P.M. peak period over the 20-mile length of the project. It should be kept in mind that this includes both the elevated section, where significant new capacity is added and all existing capacity is retained, as well as the northern half in which the existing HOV lanes are simply converted to managed lanes.

In the A.M. peak southbound direction, general purpose lane speeds under the no-build condition would average about 30 MPH. This would increase to about 34 MPH under the build condition, even for people not choosing to use the managed lanes. Improvement is also shown in HOV lane speed, which under the build condition would be converted to managed lanes. It should be kept in mind that the HOV lane speed under the no-build condition in Figure 6-8 reflects the HOV-3+ condition. HOV lane speeds would be much less – as much as 25 MPH less – if the current definition of carpools (two or more occupants) remains in effect through 2010. Under that condition, significantly greater time savings would be shown for the managed lanes.

Perhaps most importantly, while managed lane speeds are only slightly higher than HOV lane speeds, due primarily to the high speed elevated express roadway south of the Golden Glades Interchange, a far greater number of total vehicles on I-95 are able to use the managed lanes at the higher speeds under the build condition than under the no build.

Similar relationships are shown in the A.M. northbound condition and in the P.M. peak condition as well.

Figure 6-9 shows a comparison of estimated operating speeds under Alternative 5 at 2030 levels. In this case, general purpose lane speeds under the no-build condition will have increased significantly, particularly in the A.M. peak southbound direction, where overall average speeds over the entire length of the roadway would fall below 20 MPH. Average peak hour speeds in the general purpose lanes would be 30 MPH or less in both directions, in both peak periods.

By comparison, with Alternative 5, general purpose lane speeds would typically increase, by as much as 8 MPH under the build condition. Managed lane speeds are shown to consistently average about 70 MPH, as compared to about 65 MPH in the HOV lanes.

Typical Time Savings Via Managed Lanes

Motorists will choose to pay a toll to use the managed lanes primarily to save time. Hence, time savings for typical movements provide useful insight into the operating conditions and into the rationale of why motorists would pay to use the lanes. Table 6-2 shows estimated time savings for typical movements under Alternative 5 at Year 2020 levels. Time savings are shown for typical A.M. and P.M. peak-hour conditions, in both the northbound and southbound direction.

Four typical movements are shown, including a full length trip as well as partial trips in the northern and southern half of the project. For a movement from B to C, covering a total of 22.6 mils, use of the managed lanes in the A.M. peak period would save an estimated 25.2 minutes, as compared to the more congested general purpose lanes. The general purpose lanes would require just over 46 minutes to travel the 22 miles while travel time in the managed lanes was modeled at just 20.8 minutes.

Between movements A to C, generally from Ives Dairy Road to downtown Miami, the general purpose lanes would take 32.6 minutes, as compared to just 13.8 minutes in the managed lanes. A movement on the elevated section alone, between the Golden Glades Interchange and downtown Miami would save about 11.0 minutes in the morning peak hour southbound but 8 minutes in the P.M. peak period in the same direction.

Similar time savings are shown on the right side of Table 6-2 for northbound movements.

Estimated Transactions and Revenue

Table 6-3 shows refined estimates of transaction and revenue, by time period, for the I-95 Managed Lanes under Alternative 5. The upper portion of the table shows estimates for year 2010. Tolled transactions in each period represent the total number of entering vehicles in the northbound or southbound directions on a typical weekday. In the northbound direction, for example, in 2010, a total of 18,700 weekday toll paying vehicles would be estimated to use the managed lanes. In the southbound direction, an additional 21,430 tolled vehicles are estimated for a total two-way weekday transactions estimated at 40,130.

For each period, the average toll is also shown. In the modeling process itself, toll rates were assessed for each movement based on the distance traveled on the managed lanes. The average toll shown in Table 6-3 reflects simply the overall average toll payment of the various different movements assigned to the project. Each movement has its own particular toll.

In the southbound direction, for example, the average toll during the morning pre-peak shoulder period, between 6:00 A.M. and 7:00 A.M. was found to be $2.03. The 1,700 tolled vehicles entering at this rate will produce estimated weekday revenue between 6:00 A.M. and 7:00 A.M. estimated at $3,450. Between 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 A.M. the average toll would increase to $3.63 before decreasing to $2.70 between 8:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. and to just $0.92 between 9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M.

Table 6-3 Estimated Refined Transactions and Revenue Alternative 5 Year 2010   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD ( 9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total Annual Daily average Both directions Tolled 1,160 1,900 1,580 6,210 2,830 3,650 1,370 18,700 5,255,000 14,397 30,896 Average Toll $1.98 4.64 2.94 1.39 2.74 2.28 3.04 36,537 Revenue $2,300 8,810 4,640 8,650 7,750 8,340 4,160 $44,650 Tolled 1,700 2,780 2,670 7,870 2,380 2,650 1,380 21,430 6,022,000 16,499 Average Toll $2.03 3.63 2.70 0.92 2.84 3.26 2.44 Total Daily Revenue $3,450 10,100 7,220 7,260 6,760 8,650 3,370 $46,810   Annual Average Total Tolled Transactions 2,860 4,680 4,250 14,080 5,210 6,300 2,750 40,130 11,277,000 30,896 Revenue $5,750 18,910 11,860 15,910 14,510 16,990 7,530 $91,460 $25,701,000 $70,414   Year 2020   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD ( 9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total Annual Daily average Both directions Tolled 1,800 2,460 2,070 10,490 3,980 3,810 2,280 26,890 7,556,000 20,701 41,104 Average Toll $3.51 7.22 4.58 2.74 3.31 3.76 3.22 Revenue $6,320 17,770 9,480 28,780 13,170 14,320 7,350 $97,190 Tolled 2,350 3,150 2,830 10,360 2,840 3,100 1,870 26,500 7,447,000 20,403 Average Toll $2.57 5.03 3.72 2.62 4.45 4.45 3.95 Total Daily Revenue $6,040 15,850 10,530 27,140 12,630 13,800 7,390 $93,380   Annual Average Total Tolled Transactions 4,150 5,610 4,900 20,850 6,820 6,910 4,150 53,390 15,003,000 41,104 Revenue $12,360 33,620 20,010 55,920 25,800 28,120 14,740 $190,570 $53,552,000 $146,718   Year 2030   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD ( 9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total Annual Daily average Both directions Tolled 2,080 2,980 2,300 11,390 4,500 4,040 2,900 30,190 8,484,000 23,244 44,502 Average Toll $5.40 12.45 7.50 2.98 3.78 4.31 3.25 Revenue $11,230 37,110 17,250 33,890 17,030 17,400 9,420 $143,330 Tolled 2,340 2,950 2,700 11,490 2,950 3,270 1,910 27,610 7,759,000 21,258 Average Toll $2.63 5.54 4.23 2.88 5.01 5.04 4.49 Total Daily Revenue $6,150 16,350 11,420 33,090 14,770 16,480 8,570 $106,830   Annual Average Total Tolled Transactions 4,420 5,930 5,000 22,880 7,450 7,310 4,810 57,800 16,242,000 44,499 Revenue $17,380 53,460 28,670 66,980 31,800 33,880 17,990 $250,160 $70,297,000 $192,595

Weekday revenue was estimated at $44,650 in the northbound direction and $46,810 in the southbound direction, for a two-directional total of just under $91,500 per typical weekday.

Estimated weekday transactions and revenue were “annualized” by using an annualization factor of 281 equivalent weekdays per year. This recognizes the fact that weekend day traffic and revenue on the managed lanes would likely be considerably lower, generally assumed to be between 25 and 30 percent of typical weekdays.

In 2010, annual toll transactions were estimated at almost 11.3 million. Annual revenue is estimated at $25.7 million.
Similar information is shown for years 2020 and 2030. In future years toll rates grow progressively higher, particularly in peak periods. The average toll reaches as high as $12.45 in the northbound morning peak hour between 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 A.M., but this was a very unusual case and was limited to that isolated hour. Tolls in most other hours were generally less than $6.00. It should be noted that average toll rates and revenue estimates shown in Table 6-3 are in 2005 dollars. They are adjusted to reflect inflation subsequently in the analysis.

In 2020, annual transactions are estimated at about 15.0 million, generating revenue of more than $53.5 million. By 2030, annual transactions increased to about 16.2 million, resulting in annual revenue estimated at $70.3 million.

Estimated Daily Transactions and Annual Toll Revenue

Table 6-4 shows estimated daily transactions and annual toll revenue between 2010 and 2030. The daily trips include both toll free and tolled trips. It is emphasized that the scenario selected for final evaluation assumed the definition of carpools would be increased to vehicles with three or more occupants; thereby significantly reducing the number of toll-free trips.

In 2010 average daily trips (seven day average) are estimated at just under 31,000. This is estimated to produce annual toll revenue of $15,678,000. Annual revenue is expected to increase to $53.5 million by 2020 and $70.3 million by 2030.

Total trips using the managed lanes would increase from an estimated 36,800 vehicles per day to over 56,000 vehicles per day, an average annual increase of about 2.1 percent per year. Toll-free trips are shown to grow faster than tolled trips. This is due to both the assumed increasing trend in vehicles with three or more occupants, plus the effect of significant increases in toll rates between the analysis years. The increasing rates tend to reduce the amount of toll transaction growth in the managed lanes, while resulting in significant revenue increases.

For example, over the 20-year forecast interval shown in Table 6-4, toll transactions grow an average of just 1.8 percent per year. By contrast, the average annual growth in revenue is estimated at about 7.8 percent per year, even before recognizing inflation. This is indicative of the significant amount of toll rate increases which would be needed to continue to manage demand. In addition, it reflects the influence of ramp-up during the first three years of operation, where particularly high rates of revenue growth can be expected.

In the 17 years between 2013 (the first year after the nominal ramp-up period) and 2030, average annual revenue growth is estimated at about 4.7 percent.

Table 6-4 Estimated Daily Transactions and Annual Toll Revenue Alternative 5 Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Toll-Free Trips 5,849 6,102 6,366 6,642 6,930 7,230 7,543 7,870 8,211 8,567 8,937 9,172 9,413 9,660 9,914 10,174 10,441 10,715 10,996 11,285 11,581 Tolled Trips 30,896 31,791 32,712 33,659 34,634 35,637 36,669 37,731 38,824 39,948 41,104 41,432 41,762 42,095 42,431 42,769 43,110 43,454 43,801 44,150 44,502 Total Trips 36,745 37,893 39,078 40,301 41,564 42,867 44,212 45,601 47,035 48,515 50,041 50,604 51,175 51,755 52,345 52,943 53,551 54,169 54,797 55,435 56,083 Total Annual Toll Revenue (1) $15,678,000 22,487,000 28,129,000 32,033,000 34,473,000 37,099,000 39,925,000 42,966,000 46,239,000 49,761,000 53,552,000 55,029,000 56,547,000 58,106,000 59,709,000 61,356,000 63,048,000 64,787,000 66,574,000 68,410,000 70,297,000 Average Annual Percent Change 2010-2020 2020-2030 2010-2030 4.3 2.6 3.5 2.9 0.8 1.8 3.1 1.1 2.1 13.1 2.7 7.8 NOTE: Revenues have been adjusted to reflect the ramp-up during the first three years of operation. '(1) All tolls revenue calculated in 2005 dollars.

Alternative 6

Alternative 6 was the largest configuration studied, and would feature the construction of four elevated toll lanes along I-95 south of the Golden Glades Interchange. Two lanes would be operated in both travel directions, during all hours of the day. North of the Golden Glades Interchange, a single HOT lane would be provided in each travel direction as far north as I-595.

Refined Optimum Rate Analysis

A range of alternative toll rates were tested for Alternative 6 using the final refined micro-model. This version of the model included higher assumptions regarding the proportion of vehicles with three or more occupants. Figure 6-10 shows toll sensitivity curves for Alternative 6 during three of the seven periods analyzed. These include the a.m. peak hour, midday and p.m. peak period. Once again, curves are shown simultaneously for toll revenue potential, toll transactions in the managed lanes and average operating speed on both the managed lanes and the general purpose lanes. Curves are also shown separately for northbound and southbound directions. Curves in Figure 6-10 represent 2010 travel conditions.

Under Alternative 6, in the southbound direction, the optimum morning peak period toll was found to be $0.40 per mile in 2010. This resulted in peak hour transactions of just under 3,000, and free-flow operating speeds of just under 70 MPH in the managed lanes. By contrast, average operating speeds in the general purpose lanes were estimated at 33 MPH.

The optimum toll during midday hours was, of course, found to be somewhat lower, at $0.15 per mile. Above this rate, toll revenue potential would drop precipitously, as the majority of traffic would opt to not pay the toll and use the general purpose lanes. This is due to the fact that midday operating speeds in the general purpose lanes are much better, as shown along the lower portion of Figure 6-10. At a toll rate of $0.10, operating speeds in the general purpose lanes were found to be about 53 MPH in the midday period.

In the p.m. peak period, northbound direction, optimum tolls were estimated at $0.25 in 2010. Average travel speeds in the general purpose lanes were estimated at 43 MPH, as compared to about 68 MPH in the managed lanes.

 

 

Figure 6-11 depicts the results of the toll sensitivity analysis at 2030 levels for Alternative 6. In this case, maximum revenue in the southbound direction morning peak would be derived at $0.60 per mile, while maximum revenue in the northbound direction in the afternoon is estimated at $0.45 per mile. The highest optimum toll was found in the a.m. peak northbound direction, dictated heavily by severe congested conditions in the single-lane HOT section in Broward County.

It is interesting to note that midday optimum toll levels will have reached $0.30 per mile by 2030, as travel speeds degrade even during off-peak hours in the general purpose lanes. The midday hours are shown to have higher revenue potential then most of the peak hours. To some extent this is an illusion, and reflects the fact that the midday period covers six hours of traffic, while the a.m. peak hour, for example, represents only a single hour. Still, Figure 6-11 shows that operating conditions in the general purpose lanes will have deteriorated significantly even during the midday hours by 2030.

In peak hours, operating speeds in the general purpose lanes will average less than 30 MPH or less over the 20-mile length of the project. This would result in significant delays to users of the general purpose lanes and would make the managed lanes more attractive. Under these conditions, motorists would be more willing to pay higher tolls, as shown by the revenue maximization toll levels at 2030.

 

 

Table 6-5 shows optimum per mile toll rates by time period for Alternative 6. Optimum rates are shown for 2010, 2020 and 2030 levels. In the southbound direction, morning peak hour, the optimum per-mile rate would be $0.40 per mile in 2010. In the same direction during midday hours, an optimum toll of $0.15 per mile was found, while in the p.m. peak hour the optimum toll was $0.30 per mile.

Table 6-5 Optimum Per Mile Toll Rates by Period Alternative 6 Higher Share HOV 3+ (2005 Dollars) 2010 AM1 AM2 AM3 MD1 MD2 PM1 PM2 PM3 2020 AM1 AM2 AM3 MD1 MD2 PM1 PM2 PM3 2030 AM1 AM2 AM3 MD1 MD2 PM1 PM2 PM3 Time Periods 6:00-7:00 a.m. 7:00-8:00 a.m. 8:00-9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 3:00-4:30 p.m. 4:30-6:00 p.m. 6:00-7:00 p.m. 6:00-7:00 a.m. 7:00-8:00 a.m. 8:00-9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 3:00-4:30 p.m. 4:30-6:00 p.m. 6:00-7:00 p.m. 6:00-7:00 a.m. 7:00-8:00 a.m. 8:00-9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. 3:00-4:30 p.m. 4:30-6:00 p.m. 6:00-7:00 p.m. Northbound $0.25 0.40 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.30 0.25 0.35 $0.35 0.55 0.45 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.35 $0.45 1.00 0.60 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.35 Southbound $0.25 0.40 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.30 0.35 0.30 $0.30 0.55 0.40 0.30 0.30 0.40 0.40 0.40 $0.30 0.60 0.45 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.40

It should be noted that the optimum tolls shown in Table 6-5 generally reflect the toll which would be expected to generate maximum revenue. In some cases, higher tolls were required to reduce demand in the managed lanes to available capacity. In most cases, this was dictated by the single-lane HOT section in proximity to I-595. If only the elevated roadway section was constructed, and the single HOV lanes north of Golden Glades were not converted to HOT operation, optimum toll levels for the elevated toll section might be somewhat different.

It is further noted that toll rates which generate maximum revenue potential may, in some cases, result in traffic in the managed lanes which is less than the free-flow capacity. This was found to be true in the elevated roadway section, where two toll lanes are provided in each travel direction, and none of the capacity is used by toll-free carpools. Somewhat higher traffic levels could be achieved on the elevated section, possibly resulting in improved operating speeds in the general purpose lanes on I-95, if slightly lower toll rates were used.

Estimated Weekday Traffic

Figures 6-12, 6-13 and 6-14 show estimated weekday traffic by analysis period on the managed lanes under Alternative 6. Figure 6-12 shows estimates for 2010, the nominal assumed opening year of operation for purposes of this study. In the a.m. peak southbound direction, an estimated 2,400 vehicles would pay a toll to use the elevated roadway. In the two morning shoulder hours combined, an estimated 3,900 vehicles would use the road. Over the 13 hours covered by the analysis periods, just under 20,000 vehicles per weekday would use the elevated roadway in the vicinity of 103rd Street.

Similar daily estimates are shown in the northbound direction. However, heavier volumes are shown in the p.m. peak in the northbound direction, estimated at 3,300 in the northbound peak hour itself.

The overall peak load point on the system is just north of 103rd Street. At that location, the general purpose lanes are estimated to handle almost 303,000 vehicles per day while the toll-free HOV lanes would handle about 15,000 vehicles with three or more occupants. The elevated lanes would handle about 40,000 total vehicles in 2010 at this location, resulting in a total weekday traffic flow through this section of I-95 estimated at 358,000.

This total volume would likely not be able to be achieved without the construction of the elevated roadway. Total volumes would be well in excess of 300,000 vehicles for the entire distance between the Golden Glades Interchange and S.R. 112, with the elevated roadway carrying between 28,000 and 40,000 depending on location.

North of the Golden Glades Interchange, traffic estimates under Alternative 6 are similar to Alternative 5. At this highest load point, near Miami Gardens Drive, the single HOT lanes would carry almost 20,000 vehicles per day, including toll-free vehicles with three or more occupants.

 

 

Figure 6-13 shows similar information at 2020 levels. By that point, total traffic on I-95 in the vicinity of 103rd Street will have increased to over 440,000 vehicles per day, of which almost 60,000 would be in the elevated managed lanes. Another 23,000 would be in the HOV lanes located below the managed lanes and over 320,000 were assigned to the general purpose lanes. This would reflect severe congestion levels as shown previously in the toll sensitivity curves. It would result in a significant time savings for motorists willing to pay a toll to use the managed lanes. Peak hour volumes in the managed lanes are estimated at about 3,400 near 103rd Street, only slightly higher than the volume estimates for 2010. However, these are at considerably higher toll rates and higher revenue would be generated as a result.

 

 

Figure 6-14 shows weekday traffic estimates for the year 2030 for Alternative 6. In general, these reflect relatively low levels of growth in traffic in the managed lanes, which are essentially at capacity in the single-lane locations in Broward County. To manage demand in that section, rates are raised levels which significantly constrain traffic growth on the elevated roadway section. As noted previously, higher volumes could be anticipated on the elevated section if lower tolls were used or if the HOV lanes north of the Golden Glades Interchange were not converted to HOT operation.

 

Estimated Operational Impacts

A comparison of average operating speeds in the general purpose lanes and the HOV/managed lanes under a build versus no-build condition are shown for Alternative 6 in Figure 6-15. Average speeds are shown for northbound and southbound travel directions in both a.m. and p.m. peaks. At 2010 levels, average southbound speeds in the general purpose lanes are estimated at 30 MPH in the morning peak and about 40 MPH in the afternoon peak. In both cases, general purpose lane speeds would be slightly improved with the construction of Alternative 6. However, given the significant toll rates charged for use of the managed lanes, there would still be a significant difference in speeds between the general purpose and the managed lanes under the build condition. Managed lane speeds were modeled at 70 MPH over the entire length of the facility. This compares with nominal average speeds of 65 MPH in the single HOV lanes, both of which reflected coded network speeds.

Figure 6-16 shows the same information at 2030 levels. In this case, average operating speeds have decreased significantly in the general purpose lanes, to as low as 18 MPH in the southbound direction morning peak hour under the no-build condition. This has improved to about 26 MPH under the build condition, an increase of almost 45 percent in average operating speed with the construction of the managed lanes.

Typical time-distance relationships under Alternative 6 are shown in Table 6-6 for four typical movements. For the end-to-end through movement, use of the managed lanes in the southbound direction in the a.m. peak period would save 24.3 minutes at 2020 levels. Use of just the elevated managed lane portion in the southbound direction, between Golden Glades Interchange and downtown Miami would save 14.5 minutes.

Table 6-6 also shows typical northbound savings in the morning peak hour. In the Broward County portion, with just a single HOT lane, users of the managed lanes would save an average of 13.0 minutes over the general purpose lanes between Ives Dairy Road and I-595. Time savings between downtown Miami and the Golden Glades Interchange were estimated at 14.5 in 2020.

Estimated Transactions and Revenue

Refined estimates of toll transactions and revenue, by time period, are shown in Table 6-7 for Alternative 6. The upper portion of the table shows estimates for year 2010. Toll transactions in each period represent the total number of entering vehicles in the northbound or southbound directions on a typical weekday. In the northbound direction, for example, in 2010 a total of 21,120 weekday toll paying
vehicles would be estimated to use the managed lanes. In the southbound direction, an additional 21,280 toll vehicles are estimated, for a two-way total of 42,400 on a typical
weekday.

Note that only toll traffic is shown. In addition, north of the Golden Glades Interchange, some high-occupant vehicles would be able to use the single lanes toll free. In this refined analysis, HOV was assumed to be defined as vehicles with three or more occupants.

For each analysis period, the average toll is also shown. In the modeling process itself, toll rates were assessed for each movement based on the distance traveled in the managed lanes. The average toll shown in Table 6-7 reflects the overall average toll payment of the various different movements assigned to the project. In the assignment process itself, each individual travel movement had its own particular toll.

In the morning peak hour southbound direction, between 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 A.M., the average toll was found to be $3.63. An estimated 2,780 toll vehicles would enter the managed lanes in the southbound direction at this rate, producing estimated revenue between 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 A.M. of $10,100.

Table 6-7 Estimated Refined Transactions and Revenue Alternative 6 Year 2010   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD ( 9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total Annual Daily average Both directions   Tolled 1,150 2,410 1,790 7,920 2,830 3,650 1,370 21,120 5,935,000 16,260 32,644 Average Toll $2.42 4.01 2.96 1.39 2.74 2.28 3.04 38,433   Revenue $2,780 9,660 5,290 10,970 7,750 8,340 4,160 $48,950   Tolled 1,700 2,780 2,670 7,520 2,510 2,840 1,260 21,280 5,980,000 16,384 Average Toll $2.03 3.63 2.70 1.28 2.83 3.28 2.86 Total Daily   Revenue $3,450 10,100 7,220 9,660 7,110 9,320 3,600 $50,460   Annual Average Total Tolled Transactions 2,850 5,190 4,460 15,440 5,340 6,490 2,630 42,400 11,915,000 32,644   Revenue $6,230 19,760 12,510 20,630 14,860 17,660 7,760 $99,410 $27,935,000 $76,534   Year 2020 'Alternative 6 HOV3+Free   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD ( 9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total Annual Daily average Both directions Tolled 2,020 3,580 2,470 12,530 3,980 3,810 2,280 30,670 8,619,000 23,614 47,165 Average Toll $3.52 5.44 4.50 2.76 3.31 3.76 3.22 Revenue $7,110 19,470 11,110 34,630 13,170 14,320 7,350 $107,160 Tolled 2,350 3,150 2,830 12,830 3,550 3,980 1,900 30,590 8,596,000 23,551 Average Toll $2.57 5.03 3.72 2.65 3.87 3.86 3.92 Total Daily Revenue $6,040 15,850 10,530 34,000 13,730 15,350 7,440 $102,940   Annual Average Total Tolled Transactions 4,370 6,730 5,300 25,360 7,530 7,790 4,180 61,260 17,215,000 47,164 Revenue $13,150 35,320 21,640 68,630 26,900 29,670 14,790 $210,100 $59,040,000 $161,753   Year 2030 'Alternative 6 HOV3+Free   Northbound Southbound Both Directions Time Period AM1 (6-7) AM2 (7-8) AM3 (8-9) MD ( 9-15) PM1 (15-16:30) PM2 (16:30-18) PM3 (18-19) Weekday Total Total Annual Daily average Both directions Tolled 2,460 3,700 2,850 12,030 4,500 4,040 2,900 32,480 9,127,000 25,005 48,701 Average Toll $4.73 10.19 6.23 3.22 3.78 4.31 3.25 Revenue $11,640 37,710 17,760 38,680 17,030 17,400 9,420 $149,640 Tolled 2,340 2,950 2,700 12,500 4,040 3,940 2,310 30,780 8,649,000 23,696 Average Toll $2.63 5.54 4.23 3.05 3.89 4.41 3.93 Total Daily Revenue $6,150 16,350 11,420 38,160 15,700 17,360 9,080 $114,220   Annual Average Total Tolled Transactions 4,800 6,650 5,550 24,530 8,540 7,980 5,210 63,260 17,777,000 48,704 Revenue $17,790 54,060 29,180 76,840 32,730 34,760 18,500 $263,860 $74,147,000 $203,142 NOTE: Revenues do not consider effects of ramp-up of demand. All tolls revenue calcutated in 2005 dollars

For all the periods in 2010, weekday revenue is estimated at $48,950 in the northbound direction and $50,460 in the southbound direction, for a two-directional total of just under $100,000 for a typical weekday. Estimated weekday transactions and revenue were annualized by using an annualization factor of 281 equivalent weekdays per year. This recognized the fact that weekend day traffic and revenue on the managed lanes would likely be considerably lower than weekdays, generally assumed to be between 25 and 30 percent of typical weekdays.

In 2010, annual toll transactions were estimated at about 11.9 million. Annual revenue was estimated at $27.9 million.

Similar information is shown for the years 2020 and 2030 in Table 6-7. In future years toll rates grow progressively higher, particularly in peak periods. The average toll in 2030 reaches $5.54 in the morning peak hour in the southbound direction. In the p.m. peak, northbound, average toll reaches $4.31. The highest toll is shown in the northbound direction in the a.m. peak, dictated by severe congestion conditions and the need to manage demand in the single lane HOT section in Broward County.

Estimated Daily Transactions and Annual Toll Revenue

Table 6-8 shows estimated daily transactions and annual toll revenue for the 20-year projection period between 2010 and 2030. The daily trips include both toll-free and tolled trips. It is emphasized that the scenario selected for final evaluation assumed the definition of carpools would be increased to vehicles with three or more occupants, thereby significantly reducing the number of toll-free trips. It is also noted that under Alternative 6, the existing toll-free HOV lanes would be retained beneath the elevated roadway south of the Golden Glades Interchange. Hence, carpool traffic could use those lanes and all traffic using the elevated roadway would pay tolls. As such, the toll-free traffic shown in Table 6-8 reflects only HOV vehicles entering north of the Golden Glades Interchange.

Table 6-8 Estimated Daily Transactions and Annual Toll Revenue Alternative 6 Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Toll-Free Trips 5,976 6,250 6,536 6,836 7,149 7,477 7,820 8,178 8,553 8,945 9,354 9,661 9,978 10,306 10,644 10,993 11,354 11,727 12,112 12,510 12,921 Tolled Trips 32,644 33,868 35,138 36,455 37,822 39,240 40,711 42,237 43,820 45,463 47,165 47,316 47,468 47,620 47,773 47,926 48,080 48,234 48,389 48,544 48,701 Total Trips 38,620 40,118 41,674 43,291 44,971 46,717 48,531 50,415 52,373 54,408 56,519 56,977 57,446 57,926 58,417 58,919 59,434 59,961 60,501 61,054 61,622 Total Annual Toll Revenue (1) $17,040,000 24,476,000 30,661,000 34,966,000 37,683,000 40,611,000 43,767,000 47,168,000 50,833,000 54,783,000 59,040,000 60,401,000 61,793,000 63,217,000 64,673,000 66,164,000 67,688,000 69,248,000 70,844,000 72,477,000 74,147,000 Average Annual Percent Change 2010-2020 2020-2030 2010-2030 4.5 3.3 3.9 3.7 0.3 2.0 3.9 0.9 2.4 13.2 2.3 7.6 NOTE: Revenues have been adjusted to reflect the ramp-up during the first three years of operation. '(1) All tolls revenue calculated in 2005 dollars.

Total average daily traffic (7-day basis) is estimated at 38,620 in 2010. This is expected to increase to 61,622 by 2030, a long-term overall average increase of just 2.4 percent per year. This relatively low traffic growth is attributed to the need for continuing increases in toll rates to manage demand, particularly on the northern portion of the project. In some cases, excess capacity would remain available in the elevated roadway section if constant tolls were used, as assumed in this study. More efficient use of the elevated lanes, and therefore increased traffic levels, might be achieved if the HOV lanes were not converted to HOT operation north of the Golden Glades Interchange or if differential pricing was used for the managed lane south of Florida’s Turnpike.

Annual revenue in 2010 is estimated at $17.0 million. This would be expected to increase to $74.1 million by 2030, an average annual increase of 7.6 percent per year. This high rate of revenue growth is mostly due to continuing increases in toll rates, in real terms, needed to manage demand. It is noted that all revenue estimates shown in Table 6-8 are in 2005 dollars.

Toll Operations Concept

As noted previously, all toll collection on the managed lanes would be by means of SunPass® electronic toll collection. It is possible that vehicles without SunPass® could also be permitted to use the lanes in the future, by using some form of video tolling. That was not taken into consideration for purposes of this analysis, although it is anticipated that the estimated share of I-95 traffic expected to use the managed lanes at any given time could be achieved from SunPass® users alone.

No toll plazas would be constructed and no cash would be accepted. A series of electronic toll zones would be constructed on gantries across the roadways at various locations.

Figure 6-17 shows the location of the seven toll zones which would be needed between various points of access. Three types of toll zones would be constructed:

• A toll zone on single managed lanes sections with a separate “declaration lane” for carpools;
• A toll zone in a single managed lane section without a declaration lane; and
• Toll zones on multiple managed lane sections, namely the elevated roadway sections, with no declaration lane.

In the area north of the Golden Glades Interchange, both toll paying non-HOV traffic as well as toll-free carpools would use the single lane in each direction. This would present some problems, since vehicles with three or more occupants should not be assessed a toll for use in the managed lanes. There may be circumstances when vehicles equipped with SunPass® may also have three or more occupants. To accommodate this, the two electronic toll zones at the northern end of the project would include a second lane at the immediate toll zone area for carpools. This would be referred to as a declaration lane.

Just north of the Golden Glades Interchange, an additional toll zone would be constructed on the single-lane section. However, traffic in this section must continue on to the elevated roadway section. Hence, all vehicles in this portion of the road would be assessed a toll, regardless of occupancy level. Southbound traffic not wishing to use the elevated roadway would be required to exit at Miami Gardens Drive.

No declaration lanes would be required at toll zones on the elevated roadway. On the elevated roadway section, under Alternative 6, four toll lanes would be provided, two in each direction. Under Alternative 5, one northbound, one southbound and one reversible electronic toll lane would be provided at each of the four toll zones shown in green in Figure 6-17.

Each of the seven toll zones would be connected by a fiber optics communication system with a central system. This would be the location where accounts would be managed and revenue would actually be collected.

Also shown in Figure 6-17 is a number of managed lane entrance signs. These would be dynamic message signs which would be used to display the current toll rate in effect at each possible point of entry.
 
A typical single lane entry zone is shown in Figure 6-18. Only paint striping buffers would be established between the tolled lane and the toll-free lanes. At each access point itself, the inside shoulder would be used for through travelers in the HOT lane to facilitate stripped exit and entry lanes. A gantry would be constructed across all travel lanes, with a dynamic message sign showing the current toll rate in effect for those vehicles in the general purpose lanes who may consider entering the toll lanes.

 

 

Figure 6-19 shows a typical single lane tolling zone with separate declaration lane. This would be indicative of the two northernmost toll zones on the I-95 managed lanes, located in Broward County. In the immediate vicinity of the toll zone itself, a second lane would be added. Figure 6-19 shows a “nested” toll zone arrangement would permit one additional lane would be added in each toll zone without requiring additional right-of-way.

Two gantries would be constructed in each toll zone. The toll lane (shown as that lane closest to the general purpose lanes in each toll zone) would include an electronic toll reader on the downstream gantry and a violation enforcement system, including digital imaging cameras, on the upstream gantry. No equipment would be required in the HOV lane, since tolls would not be assessed to carpools.

 

 

Figure 6-20 shows a typical toll zone on an elevated section. Here no separate declaration lanes are required since all vehicles would be required to pay a toll. Figure 6-20 shows a typical toll zone for Alternative 6, with two fixed travel lanes in each direction. In each case, the actual electronic toll reading equipment would be on the downstream gantry while the violation enforcement system and digital cameras would be on the upstream, aimed at the rear license plate of passing vehicles. This is similar to the current configuration of express SunPass® lanes on Florida Turnpike and MDX toll facilities.

Figure 6-20
Typical Elevated Section Toll Zone

Overall System Configuration

As shown in Figure 6-21, a central system would be the heart of the overall toll collection system concept. It would be connected via fiber optics or other communication techniques with each of the seven toll zones. It would also be connected with each of the dynamic message signs and would control the toll rates displayed at any given moment.

As each vehicle passes through the toll zone, an initial passage transaction would be recorded. The central system would analyze all transactions received and reconstruct the individual passage events into individual vehicle transactions. Vehicle transaction information would then be sent to the SunPass® accounts management system, currently operated by Florida’s Turnpike. Violation data would be handled by a violation enforcement system, either jointly with Florida Turnpike or as an individualized I-95 operation.

Finally, customer service centers would be located at least two locations, nominally one in Broward County and at least one in Miami-Dade County. These customer service centers would offer customers an opportunity to purchase transponders, pay bills, make account inquiries, and more. The customer service centers would, of course, be linked to the central system and would be indirectly linked to the SunPass® account management center, which would actually continue to be responsible for SunPass® account administration, as is currently the case.

Estimated Capital Cost

A summary of estimated capital cost for toll equipment development and installation and testing is shown in Table 6-9. Equipment is estimated at about $13.1 million under Alternative 5 and about $13.3 million under Alternative 6. An additional amount of approximately $6 million would be required for installation and civil works, including the various gantries and various message signs.

Software and system development is estimated at just under $4 million and engineering and testing is estimated at $2.2 million. A 20 percent contingency is included in all estimates.

The total system cost is estimated at $25.2 million for Alternative 5 and $25.9 million for Alternative 6. The reason the cost estimates are so close is that the only difference between the two alternatives is that Alternative 5 would have three elevated lanes with one reversible lane, while Alternative 6 would have four elevated lanes. To facilitate reversible operation, essentially the same equipment would be required in Alternative 5 and Alternative 6.

All costs shown in Table 6-9 are in 2005 dollars.

Table 6-9 Summary of Estimated Capital Costs I-95 Managed Lanes   Alternative Scenarios   Capital Equipment Software/Documentation/PM Installation/Civil Engineering   Total Alternative 5   $13,111,200   $3,960,000   $5,934,000   $2,239,650 $25,244,850 Alternative 6   $13,344,000   $3,960,000   $6,294,000   $2,274,750 $25,872,750 Assumptions 1. Cost are estimated at 2005 USD. 2. Installation and Civil costs include only toll system, gantry and DMS related costs. 3. System includes front end violation enforcement equipment. 4. System cost includes a fiber backbone, WAN/LAN configuration. 5. CCTV Equipment is included in each lane for ITS integration. 6. 20% Contingency Included in all estimates.

Estimated Toll Collection, Operation and Maintenance Costs

Table 6-10 provides a summary of estimated annual toll operations and toll system maintenance cost. Operations are estimated at $4.3 million under Alternative 5 and $3.8 million under Alternative 6. The primary difference is that an additional $600,000 per year is estimated for Alternative 5 for operation of the reversible lanes on the elevated roadway section. Such operation is not required under Alternative 6.

The estimated operating cost was based on staffing estimates for administration, assumptions on maintenance of the toll equipment itself and an estimated SunPass® processing fee of $0.08 per vehicle transaction. This assumes that individual gantry transactions are reconstructed into single vehicle trips before being submitted to processing for the SunPass® system. Estimates shown in Table 6-10 were based on traffic estimates in 2010. All costs are shown in 2005 dollars.

In subsequent tables, operating costs were inflated to reflect future-year levels. In addition, ETC processing costs were increased by the estimated increase in toll transactions. It is emphasized that operating costs shown in Table 6-10, and throughout this report, only relate to toll operations and toll system maintenance. It does not include roadway maintenance or rehabilitation/renewal costs.

Table 6-10 Summary of Estimated Operation and Maintenance Costs I-95 Managed Lanes   Alternative Scenarios Annual Operation & Maintenance Staffing   System Maintenance   Enforcement/Incident Management   ETC Processing   Total Alternative 5   $1,029,000   $1,276,800   $1,500,000   $550,318 $4,356,120 Alternative 6   $1,029,000   $676,800   $1,500,000   $581,452 $3,787,250 Assumptions 1. ETC Transactions to be processed via SunPass Account Management System 2. Cost are estimated at 2005 USD. 3. All Estimates based on 2010 traffic volumes.

Estimated Annual Net Revenue

Estimated annual net revenue was determined by deducting estimated maintenance and operating costs from forecasted toll revenue. Before doing so, toll revenue estimates were adjusted to reflect ramp-up during the first three years of operation. This yielded adjusted toll revenue estimates in 2005 dollars.

Revenue forecasts were then adjusted to reflect the affect of inflation from 2005 levels on. A nominal 2.5 percent per year inflation adjustment factor was used.

Alternative 5

Estimated annual net revenue for Alternative 5 is presented in Table 6-11. After adjusting for inflation, revenue in the opening year (2010) is estimated at $17.7 million for Alternative 5. This is projected to increase to $77.6 million in 2020 and more than $130 million in 2030. With inflation and real increases in toll rates, the average annual rate of revenue growth between 2013 (the first year following ramp-up adjustments) and 2030 is estimated at more than 7.3 percent per year.

Table 6-11 Estimated Annual Net Revenue Alternative 5   Operations and Maintenance Costs (2)   Year 2010(1) 2011(1) 2012(1) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Annual Transactions 6,879,000 9,434,000 11,283,000 12,286,000 12,641,000 13,008,000 13,384,000 13,772,000 14,171,000 14,581,000 15,003,000 15,123,000 15,243,000 15,365,000 15,487,000 15,611,000 15,735,000 15,861,000 15,987,000 16,115,000 16,243,000 Annual Revenue in 2005 Dollars $15,678,000 22,487,000 28,129,000 32,033,000 34,473,000 37,099,000 39,925,000 42,966,000 46,239,000 49,761,000 53,552,000 55,029,000 56,547,000 58,106,000 59,709,000 61,356,000 63,048,000 64,787,000 66,574,000 68,410,000 70,297,000 Annual Revenue in Future Year Dollars $17,738,000 26,078,000 33,436,000 39,029,000 43,052,000 47,490,000 52,385,000 57,785,000 63,741,000 70,312,000 77,559,000 81,691,000 86,043,000 90,626,000 95,454,000 100,539,000 105,895,000 111,536,000 117,477,000 123,735,000 130,327,000 ETC Processing $  623,000 875,000 1,073,000 1,198,000 1,263,000 1,332,000 1,405,000 1,482,000 1,563,000 1,648,000 1,738,000 1,796,000 1,856,000 1,917,000 1,981,000 2,046,000 2,114,000 2,184,000 2,257,000 2,332,000 2,409,000 Maintenance $  4,306,000 4,414,000 4,524,000 4,637,000 4,753,000 4,872,000 4,994,000 5,118,000 5,246,000 5,377,000 5,512,000 5,650,000 5,791,000 5,936,000 6,084,000 6,236,000 6,392,000 6,552,000 6,716,000 6,884,000 7,056,000 Total $4,929,000 5,289,000 5,597,000 5,835,000 6,016,000 6,204,000 6,399,000 6,600,000 6,809,000 7,025,000 7,250,000 7,446,000 7,647,000 7,853,000 8,065,000 8,282,000 8,506,000 8,736,000 8,973,000 9,216,000 9,465,000 Annual Net Revenue $12,809,000 $20,789,000 $27,839,000 $33,194,000 $37,036,000 $41,286,000 $45,986,000 $51,185,000 $56,932,000 $63,287,000 $70,309,000 $74,245,000 $78,396,000 $82,773,000 $87,389,000 $92,257,000 $97,389,000 $102,800,000 $108,504,000 $114,519,000 $120,862,000 (1) Annual transactions and revenue estimates have been adjusted to reflect ramp-up during the first three years of operations. (2) Operations and Maintenance Costs are in future year dollars.

Operating and maintenance costs associated with the toll collection system were also inflated to future-year levels. Toll related operating expenses would be expected to increase from just under $5 million in 2010 to almost $9.5 million by 2030. As shown in Table 6-11, this would yield annual net revenue ranging from $12.8 million in 2010 to $120.9 million in 2030.

Alternative 6

Annual net revenue estimates for Alternative 6 are presented in Table 6-12. In this case, estimated annual revenue, after adjustment for inflation, is shown to be $19.3 million in 2010 increasing to $85.5 million in 2020 and $137.5 million in 2030. In general, adjusted revenue estimates for Alternative 6 are slightly higher than Alternative 5. The revenue differential between the two alternatives is reduced, to some extent, by the need to manage demand on the single-lane HOT section in Broward County under each alternative. As noted previously, if a separate pricing structure was used for the elevated roadway section, or if the HOV lanes north of the Golden Glades Interchange were not converted to HOT operation, it is possible that higher revenues would be shown for Alternative 6.

Toll related operating costs under Alternative 6 is actually slightly lower, recognizing the elimination of the need for managing reversibility of the center lane under Alternative 5. Toll related operating costs are estimated at $4.3 million in 2010 increasing to about $8.6 million in 2030.

Annual net revenue would increase from $15 million in 2010 to almost $129 million by 2030.

This represents a significant level of net revenue potential for the I-95 managed lanes, especially under Alternative 6. This study did not address the capital cost of constructing the facility, which would be expected to be quite high. Nonetheless, the study shows that a very significant part of total project cost could likely be amortized from net revenue generated by the managed lanes.

Table 6-12 Estimated Annual Net Revenue Alternative 6   Operations and Maintenance Costs (2)   Year 2010(1) 2011(1) 2012(1) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Annual Transactions      7,268,000    10,050,000    12,120,000    13,306,000    13,805,000    14,323,000    14,860,000    15,417,000    15,994,000    16,594,000    17,215,000    17,270,000    17,326,000    17,381,000    17,437,000    17,493,000    17,549,000    17,605,000    17,662,000    17,719,000    17,777,000 Annual Revenue in 2005 Dollars $17,040,000 24,476,000 30,661,000 34,966,000 37,683,000 40,611,000 43,767,000 47,168,000 50,833,000 54,783,000 59,040,000 60,401,000 61,793,000 63,217,000 64,673,000 66,164,000 67,688,000 69,248,000 70,844,000 72,477,000 74,147,000 Annual Revenue in Future Year Dollars $19,280,000 28,385,000 36,446,000 42,603,000 47,061,000 51,986,000 57,426,000 63,436,000 70,074,000 77,407,000 85,508,000 89,665,000 94,025,000 98,596,000 103,390,000 108,417,000 113,688,000 119,216,000 125,012,000 131,091,000 137,464,000 ETC Processing  $    658,000 932,000 1,153,000 1,297,000 1,379,000 1,467,000 1,560,000 1,659,000 1,764,000 1,876,000 1,995,000 2,051,000 2,109,000 2,169,000 2,230,000 2,293,000 2,358,000 2,425,000 2,493,000 2,564,000 2,637,000 Maintenance $  3,627,000 3,718,000 3,811,000 3,906,000 4,004,000 4,104,000 4,206,000 4,311,000 4,419,000 4,530,000 4,643,000 4,759,000 4,878,000 5,000,000 5,125,000 5,253,000 5,384,000 5,519,000 5,657,000 5,798,000 5,943,000 Total $4,285,000 4,650,000 4,964,000 5,203,000 5,383,000 5,571,000 5,766,000 5,970,000 6,183,000 6,406,000 6,638,000 6,810,000 6,987,000 7,169,000 7,355,000 7,546,000 7,742,000 7,944,000 8,150,000 8,362,000 8,580,000 Annual Net Revenue $14,995,000 $23,735,000 $31,482,000 $37,400,000 $41,678,000 $46,415,000 $51,660,000 $57,466,000 $63,891,000 $71,001,000 $78,870,000 $82,855,000 $87,038,000 $91,427,000 $96,035,000 $100,871,000 $105,946,000 $111,272,000 $116,862,000 $122,729,000 $128,884,000 (1) Annual transactions and revenue estimates have been adjusted to reflect ramp-up during the first three years of operations. (2) Operations and Maintenance Costs are in future year dollars.

Summary

A comparison of net revenues for Alternative 5 and Alternative 6 is shown in Figure 6-22. As noted previously, annual revenue and net revenue under Alternative 6 would be higher than Alternative 5. By 2030, the nominally assumed 20th year of operation, annual revenue under Alternative 6 will reach almost $140 million, while net revenue would reach almost $130 million.

Note there is a significant difference in the rate of transaction and revenue growth under both alternatives. Estimated toll transactions in the managed lanes grow only a relatively small amount through 2020 then remain almost constant through 2030. During the same period of time, annual revenue continues to increase significantly. This is due to the fact that toll rates will continue to be increased to effectively manage demand over the years. This would suppress transaction growth in the managed lanes, but would significantly increase toll revenue. Revenue growth is further enhanced by the effect of inflation, which of course does not influence transaction growth.

Depending on the ultimate project configuration, it may be possible to permit some additional growth in toll transactions by not raising rates quite as high. Under the current study, the single lane section in Broward County was the driving force in raising rates to relatively high levels, thereby limiting the ability of transaction growth, even in other sections of the project where capacity was available. Nonetheless, Figure 6-22 shows that very significant revenue could be generated from managed lanes on I-95.

It is also noted that depending on the plan of finance, a typical bond issue may well extend over a period of 40 or more years. 2030 represents just the 20th year of operation for purposes of this study. Revenue would continue to grow, due to both inflation and real toll increases beyond 2030, even though the forecast in this study was not extended beyond 2030. This would further add to the bonding capacity which might be used to at least partially offset project cost of managed lanes on one of the busiest sections of interstate highway in the State of Florida and in the U.S.

Sensitivity Tests

Tables 6-11 and 6-12 show estimated base case traffic and revenue for the most promising scenarios, Alternative 5 and Alternative 6. However, any forecast of the future, and particularly traffic and revenue forecasts for start-up toll facilities such as the proposed I-95 managed lanes, are subject to considerably uncertainty. As such, in traffic and revenue studies such as this, it is appropriate to perform certain “sensitivity tests” in an effort to test the sensitivity of the revenue forecasts to changes in certain input parameters or basic assumptions.

In this study, three such sensitivity tests were performed:

• A reduced economic (and traffic) growth scenario;
• An increase in the value of time used in the modeling process; and
• A decrease in the value of time used in the modeling process.

For purposes of testing alternative growth, the rate of traffic growth in the micro-model between 2010 and 2020 and 2030 was reduced by 50 percent. To clarify; future-year traffic was not reduced by 50 percent but rather the rate of traffic growth was reduced.

As shown in Table 6-13, this would be expected to have a negative impact on toll revenue in the range of 25.5 percent in 2010, increasing to 46.3 percent by 2030, under Alternative 5. Similar inputs are shown for Alternative 6.

Table 6-13 Sensitivity Test Results Alternative 5 with Higher Share HOV3+ Daily Transaction Impacts Daily Toll Revenue Impacts Scenario Base Case 50% Reduced Growth (1) Difference Percent Difference 25% Reduced VOT (2) Difference Percent Difference 25% Increased VOT (3) Difference Percent Difference 2010 Tolled Trips  39,940 34,130 (5,810) (14.5) 38,090 (1,850) (4.6) 40,520 580 1.5 2020 Tolled Trips  54,570 41,510 (13,060) (23.9) 51,940 (2,630) (4.8) 54,790 220 0.4 2030 Tolled Trips  58,560 45,800 (12,760) (21.8) 54,660 (3,900) (6.7) 58,970 410 0.7 2010 Toll Revenue $90,600 $67,520 (23,080) (25.5) $68,530 (22,070) (24.4) $114,930 24,330 26.9 2020 Toll Revenue $190,780 $112,690 (78,090) (40.9) $143,080 (47,700) (25.0) $238,180 47,400 24.8 2030 Toll Revenue $249,760 $134,110 (115,650) (46.3) $184,960 (64,800) (25.9) $271,270 21,510 8.6   Alternative 6 with Higher Share HOV3+ Daily Transaction Impacts Daily Toll Revenue Impacts Scenario Base Case 50% Reduced Growth (1) Difference Percent Difference 25% Reduced VOT (2) Difference Percent Difference 25% Increased VOT (3) Difference Percent Difference 2010 Tolled Trips  42,400 35,910 (4,030) (9.5) 38,940 (1,000) (2.4) 42,540 140 0.3 2020 Tolled Trips  61,260 45,820   (15,440)       (25.2) 59,420     (1,840)         (3.0) 62,300      1,040          1.7 2030 Tolled Trips  63,260 48,720 (14,540) (23.0) 59,730 (3,530) (5.6) 66,440 3,180 5.0 2010 Toll Revenue $99,410 $70,610 (19,990) (20.1) $72,450 (18,150) (18.3) $124,270 24,860 25.0 2020 Toll Revenue $210,100 $120,210 (89,890) (42.8) $157,630 (52,470) (25.0) $263,050 52,950 25.2 2030 Toll Revenue $263,860 $139,710 (124,150) (47.1) $196,900 (66,960) (25.4) $331,760 67,900 25.7 (1) Assumes decrease of 50 percent below base trip table growth (2) Assumes 25 percent reduction in base VOT's (3) Assumes 25 percent increase in base VOT's

Increasing the value of time used in the modeling process by 25 percent would essentially increase revenue potential by the same 25 percent by 2030. Similarly, a decrease in value of time of 25 percent would reduce revenue potential by about the same amount over the long term. This indicates that the traffic and revenue estimates for the I-95 managed lanes are heavily dependent on both the average and distribution of perceived values of time of motorists traveling in the corridor.

This study attempted to quantify value of time through the conduct of extensive stated preference surveys. However, value of time is an elusive variable, which is known to vary by individual person and by situation at the time of any given trip.

It is not uncommon for revenue potential on managed lane facilities to be highly sensitive to small changes in model inputs. This is due to the sensitive equilibrium balance between the managed lanes and the congested toll-free lanes. Small changes in total demand or small changes in parameters such as value of time can result in significant changes in actual traffic and revenue experience.

Disclaimer

Traffic and revenue estimates for the I-95 managed lane project included in this report are based on generally accepted reasonable analytical procedures, as described herein. However, any forecast of the future is subject to considerably uncertainty, and no assurance can be made that forecasted traffic and revenue will actually be achieved. Actual traffic and revenue on the I-95 managed lanes may well differ from forecasts, due to economic conditions, operational conditions, unusual circumstances and other factors outside the control of the forecasters. Such differences could be material.

In addition, annual revenue forecasts included in this report are intended to represent a general trend over the long-term of the project life, and not necessarily the revenue in any given year. Traffic and revenue in any given year may well vary from forecast based on circumstances which cannot be known at this time.

Back to Top