Streetsblog Los Angeles

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…

Metro will look at five corridors to convert HOV lanes to HOT lanes. For a better look, visit our Google Map

Throughout 2008, local politicians and the media seemed to be in a race to see who could say more substance-free attacks on converting HOV Lanes on two Los Angeles freeeways.  In particular, politicians of both parties representing the San Gabriel Valley, including Member of Congress, State Senators and County Supervisors on the Metro Board, threw such a fit they managed to get one freeway, the I-210, removed from the proposal.

Along with those nasty off-peak toll lanes, these leaders managed to chase off hundreds of millions of federal dollars for transit improvements that the federal government was offering as a carrot to agencies for a one-year pilot program.  If you consider that Metro’s final plan for the pilot project won’t remove any cars from the HOV lanes that are being converted, those “leaders” have to be smarting that they basically gave away a hundred million dollars.  Yet, outside of Streetsblog, nobody has seemed to call them on it.

Which is why it is somewhat surprising to see the San Gabriel Valley Tribune publish an editorial that’s basically a lukewarm embrace of Metro’s plans to study converting HOV to variable toll lanes on five more stretches of L.A. County freeways…especially since this time there’s no promise of transit improvements to go with the toll lanes.  The editorial recognizes that someone has to pay to maintain our highway system, and it might as well be the people that use it.

Metro will look at five corridors to convert HOV lanes to HOT lanes. For a better look, visit our Google Map

Drivers willing to pay an extra fee for a congestion free commute could get some good news in the coming months.

Buried in a Metro Board Subcommittee report is an interesting update on Metro’s congestion pricing plans.  In addition to turning standard HOV Lanes on the I-10 and I-110 into HOV and toll lanes during non peak hour periods, a move that seems more about capacity expansion plan than congestion reduction; the MTA is also planning to study whether to bring congestion pricing in some form or another to five more stretches of Los Angeles County Highways.

Staff is proposing to study five stretches of highway to assess the feasibility of expanding their Congestion Pricing program.  If you can’t read the map above, the report recommends studying:

• 1-1 05, from 1-405 to 1-605
• 1-405, from 1-105 to 1-5 north of LAX
• SR91, from 1-1 10 to the Orange County Line
• SR57, from SR60 to the Orange County Line
• Additional consideration may also be warranted for the 1-10 between 1-605 and the San Bernardino County Line.

These corridors were selected based on a criteria created by the federal government.  Every corridor was rated on connectivity, constructability, transit benefits and revenue potential.  This last category is a tricky issue for Metro who stated over and over again, in the face of harsh media criticism, that their congestion pricing plans are about reducing congestion and protecting investment in HOV lanes.  The “revenue potential” of these tolls was just a bonus.

At this point, Metro isn’t using the term “Express Lanes” to discuss the study.  “Express Lanes” is the term they created for their almost-congestion-pricing pilot plans for the I-10 and I-110 that will begin construction sometime in 2011.  As we discussed earlier, the Express Lanes concept, which doesn’t change any part of the road pattern during rush hour, would allow drivers of single passenger vehicles to buy a congestion free ride during non-peak hours by buying their way into the carpool lane.

Instead, Express Lanes’ impact on peak hour travel time is limited to the transit expansion projects that the federal government paid for to entice Metro to experiment with HOV/Express Lanes conversion.

As for these five corridors, Metro staff says its way to soon to know what form, if any, congestion pricing might take.  But one thing is for certain, Metro’s plans for congestion pricing in existing HOV lanes go way beyond a one year pilot study on the I-10 and I-110.

In 1992, a new state law required that every county, through its transportation authority, submit something called a “Congestion Management Plan” (CMP) so that the state could see the impact the transportation dollars dolled out from the new gas tax would have around the state.  The CMP would set baselines, analyze the state of transportation, and set out the plan for dealing with transportation.

For Los Angeles County, Metro is the agency responsible for putting together the local plan, and omorrow, the Metro Board will meet to consider adoption of the 2010 CMP, a mammoth 265 page document that’s available on their website.  Metro is also charged with insuring that every city is in compliance with the plan, or cities could lose their share of the gas tax revenue.

The content of the local CMP has changed dramatically over the decades.  Back in the 1990′s, Metro and its member cities, especially the City of Los Angeles, seemed most concerned with reducing car trips to reduce congestion.  This 1996 story from the Daily News quotes a City Manager for Westlake Village explaining their plan to come into compliance:

“The Congestion Management Program is an attempt to reduce congestion in Los Angeles County by reducing the total number of vehicle trips,” explained City Manager Ray Taylor

To be fair, there is some talk of using carpool programs and work from home programs to reduce congestion, there is a far greater focus on “road improvements” such as some of the new freeways that have been added to the network since 1992 and the 480 miles of new carpool lanes.

As for new strategies, to fight congestion; the plan focuses on densifying development and charging developers a fee for congestion created by new development.   This “Congestion Mitigation Fee” shouldn’t be confused with “Congestion Pricing.”  The former applies to developers and development.  The latter allows agencies to collect money for use of less congested lanes on freeways.  For a more detailed explanation of “Congestion Mitigation Fees” visit the Streetsblog story when from 2008 when Metro first proposed and studied the fees. Read more…

An
analysis using the Balanced Transportation Analyzer shows how much time
individual drivers steal from fellow drivers by choosing to drive into
the New York City CBD.

It’s not often that you get to
see your work set off a Eureka moment for someone else — particularly
when that someone is from a different
culture. But I had that experience recently, and it seems worth sharing
on
Streetsblog in light of the interest shown today in my analysis of the travel
delay costs from FreshDirect deliveries.

I presented a paper last week at an international forum on
traffic congestion in Guangzhou, China.
People in that city are beginning to look at congestion pricing, and I was asked
to discuss why the Bloomberg toll plan failed politically.

As part of my talk,
I described the “social delay costs”
from an additional car trip into the center of Manhattan — literally,
the total time that all road users combined spend in traffic because
any one of them decided to drive. Afterwards, one of the organizers, a
professor of transportation engineering, asked me to present a
technical version of my paper to his students at South China
University of Technology.

The next day, when I came to the
part about social-delay
costs, the professor peppered me with questions about my methodology.
As I went
through the steps — basically, every trip takes up an incremental
amount of limited street space, which lowers speeds, which adds to
everyone’s travel times — the professor
grew more intrigued. It wasn’t that the idea itself was new, but that
if
traffic speeds and other baseline data were known, then the
delay-impact of one
trip could be quantified. And,
moreover, that the impact varied enormously depending on the time of day: when
there is ample spare road capacity, say, in the middle of the night, an extra
trip has little discernible impact, whereas one trip during congested peak
times adds several hours to the aggregate time that all other vehicles must
spend on the road.

I daresay that for the professor, my elucidation of one
trip’s delay costs helped move congestion pricing from the realm of
abstraction to something tangible and, perhaps, essential. If a peak trip to
the center of New York or some other city can impose one or two hundred minutes
worth of delays on others — and if no driver is ever called on to take that impact
into consideration — then of course the city will be awash in gridlock. No city, not
even Guangzhou, despite an emerging
21st century transit infrastructure of Bus Rapid Transit and new
subway lines, will be able to forestall the tide of free driving.

Read more…