IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/itsrrp/qt64m0j5gc.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Comparative Safety Study of Limited versus Continuous Access High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Facilities

Author

Listed:
  • Jang, Kitae MS
  • Ragland, David R. PhD
  • Chan, Ching-Yao PhD

Abstract

The report summarizes the findings from comparative studies of safety performance between two different types of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) facilities in California - continuous access versus limited access. The findings show that HOV facilities with limited access offer no safety advantages over those with continuous access, whether measured by percentage of collisions, collisions per mile, collisions per VMT, or collision severity. As part of the present research, the authors investigated the relationship between HOV design features and safety performance of HOV facilities. One key design feature is shoulder/total width. The findings indicate that maintaining adequate shoulder and total width is essential, and a quantitative estimate for the relationship between shoulder and total width versus safety performance of HOV lanes is provided. Additionally, findings from investigating other influential factors on safety performance of HOV facilities, including design features of ingress/egress section in limited access HOV facilities, congestion, High Collision Concentration Locations and etc., were also documented. While further research is needed, results to date suggest that improvements in HOV facility performance can be achieved by improved HOV facility design.

Suggested Citation

  • Jang, Kitae MS & Ragland, David R. PhD & Chan, Ching-Yao PhD, 2009. "A Comparative Safety Study of Limited versus Continuous Access High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Facilities," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt64m0j5gc, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:itsrrp:qt64m0j5gc
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/64m0j5gc.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:itsrrp:qt64m0j5gc. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/itucbus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.