Houston Managed Lanes Case Study: The Evolution of the Houston HOV System
CHAPTER THREE—INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
Planning, developing, managing, and operating the HOV and managed lane system can best be described as multi-agency projects requiring multi-agency decisions. TxDOT and METRO have been partners in planning, funding, designing, operating, and enforcing the HOV lane system. Harris County and HCTRA have recently joined the partnership with the consideration of managed lanes. HGAC has also played an important coordination role.
The institutional arrangements among the agencies are evident in both formal agreements and informal working relationships. Memoranda of Agreement and contract documents have been used over the years to identify the specific roles and responsibilities of TxDOT and METRO, and for the financial arrangements on specific projects. Interagency committees have been used to help coordinate projects. Informal working relationships have also played a key role in advancing the HOV and managed lane system.
Formal Agreements
The Houston Office of Transit, the predecessor agency to METRO, was the lead agency in the initial contraflow demonstration project. However, on this and subsequent HOV projects, formal agreements between METRO and TxDOT were used to identify the roles, responsibilities, and financial participation of the two agencies.
METRO and TxDOT initially used a two-stage process for formally adding segments to the HOV lanes. When it was evident that an authorized construction project for an HOV segment was ready to be scheduled, a construction agreement was prepared. The construction agreement spells out each agency’s share of design and construction costs, the contract agency, responsibilities for construction management, engineering, inspection, and other matters specific to the construction of that particular segment.
Initially, most of the individual construction agreements included lengthy provisions covering maintenance, operations, and other matters common to all HOV lanes. This approach resulted in lengthy documents with relatively little that applied to the construction project at hand. The maintenance and operational provisions in each construction agreement required the project construction file to be maintained in perpetuity because it contained the basis for post-construction activities. As different individuals prepared the construction agreements, minor changes in the language covering maintenance and operations were made in some of the documents. As a result, it sometimes became necessary to examine the maintenance and operations provisions of all segments when a question arose.
To address these problems, a Master Operation and Maintenance Agreement covering all of the HOV lanes was executed in 1988. The agreement became the only document needed to address post-construction HOV concerns. Construction agreements ended after project completion, avoiding separate agreements to cover operation and maintenance. When a construction agreement is authorized on an individual segment, it is automatically added to the list of projects covered by the Master Agreement.
Most of the early construction agreement provisions provided that METRO would defray most of the HOV lane cost and that TxDOT would provide experienced personnel to supervise the design, construction, engineering, and inspection. In most cases, the maintenance provisions make METRO responsible for signs, control devices, electrical power, and other items specifically associated with the HOV lanes. TxDOT is responsible for maintaining the HOV lane pavement, barriers, supporting structures, and non-HOV items, and is to perform routine sweeping and litter pickup.
Under the Master Agreement’s operational provisions, METRO is responsible for operating the HOV lanes in accordance with a jointly-prepared Operational Plan, which covers all aspects of operations, enforcement, eligibility, and safety. The Master Agreement required a Management Team, comprised of METRO and TxDOT staff. The Management Team was responsible for preparation of rules and regulations, operating manuals, and amendments to operations plans. The Management Team met monthly and monitored all aspects of the HOV lanes. Researchers from TTI provided support to the Management Team.
The Houston Traffic Management Team (HTMT) was formed in 1981 as an ad hoc group of key individuals from agencies interested in operations. Participating organizations included THD, METRO, the city and county transportation departments, law enforcement agencies, the fire department’s emergency service section, and TTI. The HTMT met on a monthly basis for many years to help coordinate projects and discuss other issues.
TxDOT and METRO have used similar approaches on other projects. For example, TranStar, the Greater Houston transportation emergency management center, was designed and constructed through the cooperative efforts of METRO and TxDOT. Both agencies, along with the City of Houston and Harris County, signed a Memorandum of Agreement creating TranStar. The agreement identified the roles, responsibilities, and financial contributions of the agencies.
TranStar monitors and coordinates all aspects of the traffic management system in the Houston area. TranStar houses METRO, TxDOT, city, and county transportation and enforcement personnel, along with other groups. A Leadership Committee and an Executive Committee, comprised of the top staff and the agency directors, respectively, meet on a regular basis to oversee the operation and management of TranStar.
The two multi-agency agreements on the Katy Freeway managed lanes project represent additional examples of the formal arrangements used to advance projects. As described in the previous chapter, these agreements outline the policies for operating the managed lanes, and identify the roles and responsibilities for funding, design, construction, and operation of the lanes.
The various HOV and managed lane projects have also been incorporated in to the appropriate MPO and state plans. The projects have been included in HGAC’s long-range plans and transportation improvement programs (TIPs). The projects have also been included in the state transportation improvement programs (STIPs).
Informal Arrangements
In many ways, the informal arrangement among staff at TxDOT, METRO, and other agencies have been as important in advancing the HOV and managed lane system in Houston as the formal arrangements. While not always in agreement on every aspect of the system, staff at all levels have developed strong working relationships, trust, and mutual respect. These relationships have played key roles in the development and the operation of the HOV and managed lane system.
During the decades of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, the public and private sectors in Houston shared a positive and aggressive attitude toward projects, including the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) Manned Spacecraft Center and the Astrodome. Staff at the various agencies involved with the I-45 North Contraflow demonstration project shared this positive attitude. Key staff members at OPT and THD developed strong working relationships during the demonstration project. Staff from HGAC, FHWA, and area associations were also important participants in these working groups.
In addition to the formal committees described in the previous section, informal working groups of agency staff helped coordinate the design, development, and operations of different projects. Further, staff from both agencies participated in the various HGAC committees and planning activities. Researchers from TTI also participated In these informal groups, providing technical assistance as needed.
Many of these informal activities continue today. The top staff from the TxDOT Houston District and METRO meet on a monthly basis to discuss projects and topics of mutual interest. Staff from both agencies are located in TranStar, providing opportunities for daily interaction. TxDOT and METRO staff continue to actively participate in HGAC committees and other local groups.
Factors Influencing the HOV and Managed Lane System
A number of factors appear to have helped influence the development, the ongoing operation, and the evolution of the HOV and managed lane system in Houston. These factors include the conditions of the bus systems and freeways in the 1970s and early 1980s, the lack of a regional consensus for rail, and the ongoing entrepreneurial spirit of agencies and individuals.
As noted previously, the privately-owned bus system was in very poor condition when it was purchased by the city. Thus, the major initial task facing the city and later METRO was to rebuild the transit system. This effort focused on new vehicles, new fixed facilities, and new services. Working with TxDOT on the HOV system represented the opportunity to quickly implement an improved transit system for the area. The HOV system also projected a positive image for transit and METRO in those early years.
At the same time, a consensus did not emerge over the role that LRT or heavy rail should play in the Houston area. In 1973, voters defeated the initial HARTA referendum, which included development of a significant heavy rail system. A subsequent bond referendum, which also included a major rail element, was defeated in 1983. A 1988 plan, which included rail, an expanded HOV system, local bus service, and a general mobility program to fund roadway improvements, was approved. The rail component never moved forward, however. The current LRT line has been funded through local sources. As described in the next chapter, the future of rail in the area is still being debated.
The entrepreneurial spirit of the 1950s and 1960s is still alive and well in Houston. This spirit is evidenced by a willingness to explore and develop value pricing programs, managed lanes, TranStar, and other efforts. The culture at the various agencies supports these efforts and risk taking, within the scope of public accountability. Staff at the various agencies continue to explore innovative approaches to address the traffic congestion, mobility concerns, and air quality issues facing the region.
Previous | Table of Contents | Next