Today’s Headlines

  • Blumenauer: New Transpo Bill "Extraordinarily Unlikely" Before October (WSJ)
  • Supes Rip AnsaldoBreda (NBC4, Times)
  • Times Editorializes Against AnsaldoBreda
  • Express Lanes Get Their Toll Prices (LAist, Times)
  • Metro Could Use Some Work on Their Communications (CityWatch)
  • Cash for Clunkers Day: Gov’t Subsidized Car Buying Officially Begins (ABC, News)
  • The Final Frontier?  The New Captain Kirk Rides the Bus (TMZ)
  • Bloomberg Tells His SUV Drivers That Idling’s Not Kosher Anymore (AP)
  • So it looks like MTA is proposing adding an extra lane on I-10 to handled the expected demand? LA Times wasn’t very specific on the details but where would the money come from to add a lane? Will the Federal money be enough to pay for an extra lane plus all the buses they are buying???

    The other thing in the article that strikes me as odd is that MTA is talking about testing a transponder system that allows people to “switch off” the device when they are carpooling. The MTA official quoted must not have seen how the 91 toll road works (they have separate toll “gates” for carpool vs non carpool)… I mean having a transponder that can be switched off is hilariously stupid. Why have a transponder at all? And I can’t believe any toll system vendor would deliver a system like that.

  • Wad

    Something is going on along I-10, especially along the Busway. That second lane could really be the second median for the HOV/Busway lane.

  • Stephen

    The reasoning for a transponder with a switch to select the number of people on it is because there is no room to separate a carpool and toll user along these corridors, because they are not reducing the existing entry/exit points. The 91 Express Lanes has only one entrance and exit, so it’s easy to separate them at the automated toll booth at the midpoint. You can’t do that on the Harbor Transitway, where there are multiple points of access. There would be too much merging.

    BTW, 91 Express Lanes requires a Fastrak transponder for carpoolers, just not the one ExpressLanes is proposing (and subsequently the one that BATA is looking to adopt for their project up north).

  • Wad and Stephen are correct. That’s how they explained it to us at the El Monte congestion pricing meeting. On the 10, they are pushing all the general purpose lanes to the outside and shrinking their width, as well as the shoulder. This will allow enough space to put the second “ExpressLane” in. The one interesting thing is that there will not be a fixed barrier between the general purpose lanes and the “ExpressLanes”. Just the regular double yellow stripe, but with enhanced enforcement (paid for by the federal grant) and transponder-generated enforcement (i.e., if you pass one transponder gantry and don’t show up at the next one, and there were no legal exits before then, you might be charged a fine). I still think that folks will game the system and know when to jump in and out to pass a few cars to save them a couple of minutes. After all, on the 10 east of there (through West Covina), there are dozens of cars who use the exit only lanes as passing lanes, merging in at the very last minute over and over again.