Streetsblog Los Angeles

Two of the nation’s leading lefty commentators weighed in on transportation incentives last Friday, when both economist Paul Krugman at the New York Times and Matt Yglesias at Slate went on a congestion pricing kick.

Krugman kicked things off by remarking that the surest way to reduce the costs imposed on society by drivers is to “get the incentives right, and charge large fees for driving in congestion.”

Yglesias took it one step further, pointing out how a variable fee on roads could lead to a virtuous cycle of better transit service and higher ridership:

Congestion fees are a kind of force multiplier for transit. After all, in some big American cities the peak congestion charge would have to get quite hefty at some times of the day. Some folks will respond to that by paying the fee, some by time-shifting their driving to a less-crowded hour, and some by riding transit. A bus, after all, is a great mechanism for spreading the cost of road access across a large number of people. And while with highways the quality of the service provided declines with the number of users (traffic jams), with well-designed transit it goes the other way. The more people who want to travel on a particular transit route, the more financially viable it is to provide high-frequency service. And high-frequency service is the key to real-world transit useability.

As Krugman noted, congestion pricing is an important mechanism to account for the cost imposed by drivers on society in the form of lost time. Anything that brings the actual price of our transportation decisions in line with the cost to society will be a boon for transit, biking, and walking relative to the status quo.

The flipside of congestion pricing would be to account for the social benefits of non-automotive modes by subsidizing them. The European Cyclists Federation currently has an interesting proposal on this front. With the European Union examining the “internalisation of external costs for all modes of transport, the ECF is advocating for a policy that would function as a kind of carrot, rewarding cyclists through tax rebates and incentives. Meanwhile, in America, we actually have a “symbolic” bike tax gaining traction in Washington state.

Image via Metro

This weekend, Express Lanes opened on 14 miles of the I-10 between Alameda Street in downtown Los Angeles and the 605 freeway. The lanes converted existing HOV lanes to HOV/HOT lanes during non-peak hours. This means solo-car commuters can buy their way into the carpool lane if they have a FastTrack transponder. Carpoolers will also need to purchase the transponder. This need is controversial.

But what hasn’t been controversial is the actual conversion. When New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a congestion pricing fee for some lanes in New York City, the press and many community groups went into over drive. In Los Angeles, there were a handful of angry letters sent to the Metro Board of Directors, and there seems to be grumbling about the transpoder requirement for carpools. Other than that, the hysteria is on hold. Or even non-existent.

The worst coverage of ExpressLanes, and really the only negative mainstream coverage, came from ABC 7′s super reporter David Ono. Ono interviews presidents, travels to disaster zones, and is one of ABC’s anchors. I’m guessing at some point he’s going to look back at this story and regret it. Basically, Ono goes for a ride with a driver next to the I-110 ExpressLanes and does a “man on the street” story that is more than a little slanted against the project.

After the video, read on to see what Ono got wrong.

Read more…

In 2008, when Metro first proposed experimenting with converting High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV Lanes) lanes to High Occupancy Toll Lanes (HOT Lanes) a casual observer might have thought the future of the Republic was endangered. Editorial boards sounded the alarm, the Times’ Tim Rutton wrote a series of semi-coherent opinion pieces, Metro Board members warned of class warfare and a group of Congress Members made a silly video (no longer available online) and warned they would pull Metro funding if they went forward.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas and Metro Board Member Richard Katz at the Express Lanes Groundbreaking. Photo:

This Saturday, ExpressLanes opened along 11 miles of the 110, starting just north of the 91 Freeway to Adams Boulevard, just south of the 10 Freeway. Single passenger vehicles will now be able to buy their way into the former HOV lane with the zero-emission cars, carpools and transit vehicles if the lane is not already congested. Drivers will need a transponder purchasable through Metro.  By accepting federal funds for the program, Metro was able to purchase clean buses, refurbish the El Monte Bus Terminal and make other improvements. Metro is also planning on a second pilot program on the I-10 early next year.

Metro’s fact sheet is available here.

Not only is the Republic safe following the opening, but the naysayers were nowhere to be found. The only politician throwing cold water on the day was Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, who wondered if Metro timed the opening to occur after the vote on Measure J earlier last week. The San Gabriel Valley Tribune wrote a pensive editorial asking, “Are Toll Lanes a Slippery Slope,” but their intent was not to bury the project before it had a chance to succeed. The SGV Tribune stated:

This is an innovative attempt to ease congestion on two of the most troublesome commutes, and a worthy exercise for a region beset with myriad traffic problems. But it’s another step on what could be a slippery slope for Southern California toward pay-as-you-go highways. It may be the best solution for our roads, but it’s a decision that must be made with full public buy in.

To be sure, most of the media coverage that did occur found drivers willing to grumble about the toll lanes even as Metro officials and Mayor Villaraigosa gushed about the lane openings. As one would expect, most of the comments betrayed a lack of basic civics understanding. A sample of the comments can be read at the coverage of the Times, ABC7 and NBC4.

Most of the comments are by solo carpoolers, who now have an option to buy a congestion free trip that they couldn’t before. In other words, most of the people who are complaining will not be impacted by the new program. Read more…

A banner from The Transit Coalition's "We Want Toll Lanes Done Right" page for the I-91 in the Inland Empire.

On November 10, the I-110 ExpressLanes, a type of “congestion pricing” or HOT Lane System, will open on the I-110 from just South of the 91 Freeway going north all the way to just South of the I-10. Early next year, the similar lanes will open on the I-10. In both cases, single-occupancy vehicles will be allowed into what are currently high occupancy or low-emission vehicle lanes (HOV Lanes) for a small cost per mile which will vary pending congestion conditions. If there is too much congestion in the ExpressLane, then it will be closed to all but the carpoolers.

“Everywhere it’s been tried, congestion has gone down,” Mayor Villaraigosa told Streetsblog in our July interview when discussing Metro’s ExpressLanes plan. The Mayor also pointed to the over $200 million Metro received to be a test case for HOV to HOT lane conversion that allowed Metro to refurbish the El Monte transit center, increase bus access along the corridor, purchase 100 new vans for its van pool program, and a laundry list of other improvements.

Yet, many in the transit community fear the coming ExpressLanes, worrying that a “less than smooth” implementation could set the idea of road pricing back a generation in L.A. County.

Nicholas Ventrone, with The Transit Coalition, is one of those that is worried. He warns that by requiring anyone that uses the ExpressLanes, even those doing so “for free” because of a carpool, to have a transponder; Metro is creating an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and undermining support for the project. Read more…

Earlier this week, Metro and Caltrans broke ground on the I-10 and I-110 to convert HOV Lanes into variable toll lanes that also allow carpools free access to the lanes.  Metro received $210 million for the project from the federal government, most of which will go into transit improvements for the impacted corridors.  The project removes almost no cars (only the very few that are electric or zero emission) that can currently use the carpool lanes, but will charge solo car drivers somewhere between twenty-five cents and $1.40 per mile.

Supervisor Ridley-Thomas, Richard Katz and Mayor Villaraigosa pose for pictures for the groundbreaking of an unpopular project. Photo:L.A. Weekly

The truth is, we don’t really know how this project is going to shake out.  Nowhere in America has anyone converted HOV Lanes to toll lanes of any sort, and you can’t even really call the plan “congestion pricing” because the toll option will be removed when there are too many carpools in the lanes for them to run efficiently.  The uncertainty about the result is why USDOT was willing to pay Metro so much to experiment with the program.

Unfortunately, almost none of this information has penetrated the larger public consciousness.  Comments on news websites are running somewhere between 80%-90% against the project.  Most of the comments are wildy uninformed.  Because since you’ll doubtless end up in a conversation about this at some point, Streetsblog proudly presents the answers to most of the misinformed comments out there.  And if you like reading crazy comments sections, Steve Lopez’s defense of the project seems to have drawn the craziest comments, with KPCC and the Times’ regular coverage coming in second. Read more…

There won't be a fee for active transponders for regular users of the system. Image: Wikipedia

One of the major concerns many people have with Metro’s ExpressLanes project, which will convert HOV Lanes on parts of the I-10 and I-110 to variable toll lanes, is that the carpoolers who currently use those lanes will lose their incentive to carpool.  Metro addressed those concerns when they announced that carpool drivers would be allowed to continue to use those lanes.  However, those concerns were rekindled when news broke that Metro will charge $3 per month for using the transponder needed to legally access the lanes.

However, that feel apparently only applies to occasional users of the transponder.  Responding to some comments on Streetsblog, Rick Jager of Metro Media Relations writes:

The monthly $3 maintenance fee is waived when the customer uses the ExpressLanes four trips per month or more whether carpooling, vanpooling of SOV (Single Occupancy Vehicle) and that fee is also waived for low income commuters as well.

Thus, if you’re a regular commuter, than you won’t be paying any more than they are now to use the lanes: nothing.

Thanks to a new report being presented to the Metro Board of Directors later this month, a clearer picture is emerging on how drivers will be able to access the variable toll lanes on the I-10 and I-110 as part of Metro’s “Express Lanes” program.  The plan to turn High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes into High Occupancy and Toll (HOT) Lanes on these two highways has drawn criticism from both conservatives who see it as double-taxation and liberals who see it as creating a two-tiered transportation system.

Image: Wikipedia

To access ExpressLanes on the 10 and 110, car owners will need to purchase a “FasTrack” responder that will automatically deduct the toll cost from a credit card connected to the responder.  An owner can list as many cars as he or she wants on the transponder.  Each time the vehicle passes underneath a toll collection site, the account is debited to pay the toll. If a vehicle does not have a transponder or if a transponder is not detected at the Toll Plaza, a camera photographs the vehicle and its license plate for processing. If the license plate is registered as belonging to a FasTrak user, the account is debited only the toll charge, and no penalty is charged.  If there is no FasTrack account, the owner of the vehicle is charged for using the lane and issued a ticket.

Yes, transponders bought for use on the I-10 and I-110 can be used on other HOT Lanes that use FasTrack.

One of the main arguments against Congestion Pricing is the “Lexus Lanes” argument.  This argument posits that only the rich support road pricing because it allows them to buy their way out of traffic.  However, polling shows roughly equal support for congestion pricing among people of all income levels because even people who would only use the lanes in an emergency appreciate the opportunity for a congestion free commute.  However, for it to be practical for ExpressLanes to be useful to occasional riders, the transponders needed to access the lanes need to be affordable and easy to purchase. Read more…

Just in the nick of time, as the congestion pricing debate heats up again in Los Angeles, our friends at Streetfilms released Moving Beyond the Automobile: Congestion Pricing.  The value of Streetfilms could hardly be better illustrated than by comparing “MBA: Congestion Pricing” to this piece by KTLA on the same issue. Here’s a hint, the KTLA piece doesn’t even mention the idea of creating a “congestion free lane of traffic.”

Gary Miller speaks on stimulus spending at a 2009 press conference while Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair John Mica looking on. Mica is reportedly backing Miller's plan to end Metro's Express Lanes project. Photo: GOP House and Infrastructure Committee/Flickr

Congressman Gary Miller (R-OC) and Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-LA) have teamed up to try and stop Metro’s “Express Lanes” project to allow single-passenger vehicles to buy their way in to the carpool lane on the I-10 and I-110 HOV Lanes.  Just as we did with the bike lanes opinion piece in City Watch yesterday, it’s important to take a look at the arguments against congestion pricing, because we’re going to start seeing them a lot in the press.

First off, let’s look at the given reasons for opposing congestion pricing from Miller and Waters to the Times:

Even though driving in the carpool lane is voluntary, Miller said the toll would be tantamount to a double taxation on motorists, who already paid gasoline taxes to build the freeway lanes.

“If you want to do a toll road, build a toll road with private funds,” he said in a Capitol Hill interview. “But don’t use taxpayers’ dollars to build a road and then charge them to use it.” Read more…