News and Information Congestion pricing is the concept of charging for the use of a transportation facility, such as a roadway, based on the level of traffic congestion. The greater the level of congestion, usually occurring during morning and evening rush hours, the higher the cost to use the facility. Congestion pricing is not a panacea for congestion relief, but it is an important tool that many cities throughout the world have instituted or are exploring as a means to reduce congestion. It has been proven to ease congestion by shifting some rush hour highway traffic to other transportation modes such as vanpools and freeway express buses or to off-peak periods by charging for use of selected roads during a selected time. It has worked successfully in London, Stockholm, Singapore, Minneapolis, San Diego, and Orange County. Because it provides another alternative to managing traffic flow, which is growing increasingly worse. To fulfill our obligation to the people of Los Angeles County, Metro must consider all reasonable options that may contribute to improving our mobility and quality of life. As with any complex issue, many factors contribute to identifying and implementing solutions. At least a few of these challenges include increased population, increased flow of material goods on roadways, more auto ownership and declining funding from gas tax revenue and state and federal governments. Congestion pricing is one approach for efficiently managing capacity on our busy roadways by: In the United States, the conversion of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes is one way to manage congestion. When driving on a HOT lane, the driver pays a toll that varies according to: Monitoring congestion makes it possible to control the traffic levels at all times and maintain the traffic speed at 50 mph. Congestion pricing, when integrating with other traffic management options, would help improve the travel speed of the managed lanes as well as the general-purpose lane. What kind of demonstration projects is Metro considering for the Los Angeles region? Under the current proposal, carpool lanes would be converted to HOT lanes along the following freeways: Metro has proposed a one-year demonstration pilot project to convert certain carpool lanes into High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes to give drivers (whether solo or carpooler) the option to drive on these facilities (at an minimum speed of 50 m.p.h.) in return for toll payments. When would the tolls be added to the demonstration projects? Implementation of the one year pilot program (I-10, I-110 and I-210) is expected to start summer 2009. Why select these three projects? These demonstration projects meet one or more basic criteria for successful congestion pricing: How would the toll be paid or collected? The latest technology involves an easy to use electronic "fast pass" collection system so that patrons do not have to wait in line at toll booths. Are there any HOT lanes being used in Southern California? Yes. Two examples of HOT lanes in Southern California include SR 91 in Orange County and I-15 in San Diego. In December of 1995, Orange County opened four 10-mile toll lanes in the median of the existing State Route 91; actual toll revenues in fiscal year 2007 amounted to $44 million, about $5.0 million more than projected. Since December 1996 solo drivers on an eight-mile stretch of the I-15 in northern San Diego County have been allowed to use the express lanes on San Diego County's I-15 for a fee, while carpoolers continue to travel free of charge. Will education programs describe how the public can reduce congestion? Yes. Educating and engaging the public regarding commuting choices is part of the outreach program on congestion reduction that Metro will conduct over the next several months. An early step in encouraging the public to adjust their commuting behavior is to remind the public that viable alternative transit options exist such as express bus service, adequate park-and-ride lot capacity, and efficient commuter rail and vanpool options. According to the 2000 Census, 70 percent of Los Angeles County commuters drive alone to work, and only 7 percent use transit. Consequently, outreach to major employers in the region will be particularly important. Employers and employees are primary users of road infrastructure and key stakeholders in the development of financial or other incentives to reduce congestion. Such incentives may include employer-paid transit subsidies, telecommuting options, and staggered work shifts. How much would it cost to use a "toll" lane? Various pricing formulas will be evaluated in the Metro study. In other metropolitan areas tolls range from $4.00 to $10.00 during peak commute hours. Pricing will be determined as we develop our operating plan. What would those funds generated be used for? Revenues generated by the tolls will be used first to pay for the operations of the managed lanes. It is expected that any additional revenues generated from the tolls will be used to improve or enhanced transportation services along or near the managed corridors. These may include additional bus and rail services, roadway improvements, and other complementary services. Doesn't congestion pricing favor wealthy commuters? Congestion pricing benefits all because it provides more options to commuters from all walks of life. Each commuter may select which mode makes the most sense to her or him in terms of cost and travel time. At certain times of day, the least expensive travel options—ride sharing and transit—may also be the fastest. Revenues generated from tolls not needed for the operations of the lanes would be used to fund improvements to mass transit, which many low income families depend on. Additionally, buses and vanpools would be exempt from any HOT-lane charges. This means that anyone commuting by these modes—whatever his or her income—would travel without paying the toll. Why can't carpool lanes help more with congestion? Perhaps the most serious challenge Los Angeles County carpool lanes face is that they are now so popular that they are getting too crowded. Right now, several carpool lanes in Los Angeles County are close to reaching a maximum desirable operating capacity. To ensure these lanes continue to be effective, we must find ways to better manage the flow. One of the options is by implementing managed lane concepts such as congestion pricing. Metro, Caltrans and the Southern California Association of Governments in coordination with Los Angeles County and other major transportation stakeholders are applying for funding for the Congestion-Reduction Demonstration Initiatives under the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) to do demonstration projects that involve converting High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes along the: There are actually two separate activities taking place at Metro in pursuit of roadway pricing options. First is the USDOT grant which approval may determined as early as January 2008. If so, the demonstrations could commence about 18 months later. The second activity is a study directed by Metro's Board that requires completion of a countywide study to produce no less than three recommendations for roadway pricing within Los Angeles County. These demonstration projects would commence the following year.
Transportation
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
LA Moves towards More HOT Lanes
Monday, March 10, 2008
LA HOT lanes pros and cons
2/8/08 The following essay is the first of a guest series on HOT lanes by Damien Newton, author of the blog Street Heat LA. In Los Angeles, it's not hard to picture yourself missing a plane or an important meeting because you're caught in traffic. Figuring out how to end L.A.'s traffic nightmare has become a top issue not just for transportation planners, but also for Mayor Villaraigosa, the City Council and Metro Board Members. Yet, when Metro announced it was submitting a funding proposal to pay for a congestion pricing plan, the reaction was near-uniformly negative. Before going on, let's make clear what congestion pricing is. Metro defines congestion pricing as "charging for the use of a transportation facility, such as a roadway, based on the level of traffic congestion. The greater the level of congestion, usually occurring morning and evening rush hours, the higher the cost to use the facility." The particular plan being proposed involves so-called high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, which have a price that fluctuates with demand and the number of people in the car. Much of the current anger comes because Metro is, in some instances, going to take lanes that are currently HOV lanes and change them to HOT lanes. Many people see this as a new tax on people driving hybrids or carpooling. When the L.A. Times asked people to e-mail them their comments, the response was negative: "every reader who e-mailed us said they hated it." LA City Beat described the public reaction as similar to what would happen if a small tactical nuclear bomb went off. When it comes to public reaction, Metro only has itself to blame. When New York City decided to propose a congestion pricing plan, Mayor Michael Bloomberg realized such a proposal would be controversial. Before releasing his plan to the public, Bloomberg enlisted allies. Leaders of environmental and transportation reform groups were given special briefings and banded together to promote the plan and win over a skeptical public. The key to gaining approval was knowing what the benefits of the plan would be. Congestion pricing proponents were able to paint a complete picture of the benefits: lower air pollution, better transit service (funds generated go right back to transit) and less highway congestion. New York City hasn't unified around a single congestion pricing plan, but several different plans are being discussed at the moment, and the natural allies for congestion pricing have kept the most ambitious plans on the table. In L.A., it hasn't worked out that way. If there was a head's-up to transportation reformers and environmentalists, it didn't energize anyone enough to get them to speak up for the proposal. The silence from potential supporters is deafening. If HOT lanes are ever going to catch on with the general public, these leaders have to join the debate. Right now, the discussion in the public is about whether or not tolls can solve congestion. It's not one Metro can win on their own. A massive and organic PR campaign would change the debate and focus people on the positives (clean air, better transit) instead of the costs. The dispute against Metro's plan (which incidentally, hasn't been completed yet) can usually be traced back to one of four arguments: 1) This is just another tax. Each of the four arguments show at least some misunderstanding of what an HOT lane really is, and each will be discussed in future posts. Recently, I heard someone discussing Metro's plans to add variable toll lanes (HOT lanes) in place of HOV lanes say, "Wealthy people can buy a better ride and would have negative impact on those that can't afford it. 30% of the (City of LA's) population is at poverty level." This statement wasn't from someone who is ignorant of transportation policies. It was from L.A. City Council Member Richard Alarcón, a former Metro Board Member and current member of the Council's Transportation Committee. Alarcón is the second Council Member (and second member of the Council's 5-person transportation committee) to speak out against HOT Lanes, joining Tom LaBonge. But does the argument hold true? Are HOT lanes really just special congestion-free roads for the rich? The history of HOT lanes on California roads suggests that any debate over Metro's pricing plans shouldn't be steeped in class warfare. This may seem counterintuitive to people. Why would people of lesser means be more supportive of a road-pricing plan that makes commutes more expensive for those that wish to drive quickly? Put simply, because most money collected from HOT lanes (although SR-91 is an exception to this rule) goes toward transit projects, and because people of all means prefer having a congestion-free lane in emergencies or special events. HOT lanes, where they have been tried, have been popular with drivers. SR-90 SR-91 in Orange County has some of the oldest HOT lanes in the country. Studies show that they're used by people of all economic backgrounds. An FHWA report shows that 40% of all vehicles (and probably a higher number of people that travel on the road since carpoolers and transit buses are likely to use HOT lanes) on SR-91 in Orange County are using the HOT lanes to travel. Just farther South, in San Diego, surveys show that support for HOT lanes is stronger among people of low and moderate circumstances than with people who would be considered well-off. One organization with a national perspective that helped debunk the "Lexus Lanes" argument is the Democratic Leadership Council. Its report on HOT lanes matched the findings from our two local examples "... studies of HOT lanes have shown that a representative mix of commuters use them, not just the wealthy. Moreover, commuters in the regular lanes benefit from reduced congestion... it is low-to-moderate income commuters who most often encounter the kind of work or family emergencies that can be eased by the ability to occasionally buy a quick commute." As far as how proceeds from HOT lanes will be used in L.A. County, Metro claims that all profits will be put into transit projects along the corridor where the money is collected. In her most recent "online chat," Metro Board chair Pam O'Connor stated that, "... any money collected -- although this is far from a huge money-making tool -- would be used to increase other transit options along the corridor like van pool subsidies and add more freeway express buses to help everyone move better … especially those who use transit or carpool." Given California's recent history of spending transportation funds on non-transportation projects, it's natural for people to be skeptical of this claim. Metro can somewhat calm these fears by passing either a resolution affirming the desire to use HOT lane funds for transit, or Metro can put this principle in the final plan that the Board passes this spring. If HOT lanes become a new pool for keeping fares low or funding transit projects, then the benefit to the poor people who are "excluded" from using HOT lanes will far outweigh the cost of having more cars on the non-toll lanes. Back when opening HOV Lanes was the craze around the country, government officials promised commuters that these new lanes would provide congestion relief for all those who chose to carpool to work (or other destinations) and would reduce congestion for everyone else by encouraging more people to carpool. While that may have been true at one time, as the population and vehicle miles traveled in Southern California continue to grow, it becomes less and less true every year. Last summer, federal officials reprimanded the State of California because our HOV lanes are too congested. The feds specifically noted that the problem is worse in Los Angeles and Orange counties than in the rest of the state. While handing out 85,000 stickers allowing HOV access to hybrid owners certainly didn't help matters, CALTRANS officials stated that HOV lanes were filling up because the population was growing faster than expected. As this trend continues, even the HOV Lanes that are still providing free-flowing traffic now will get more and more congested. CALTRANS' first reaction to HOV overcrowding was to crack down on HOV lane cheaters. While this may provide some short term relief, even if CALTRANS managed to clear every cheat out of the lanes, the population growth would again over-crowd the lanes and lead to congestion. Of course, having a tolling system to gain entrance to HOT lanes would eliminate cheating altogether. Some would argue that the HOV overcrowding is good news. The lanes are overcrowded because more and more people are choosing to commute in car pools and the numbers of single-occupant commuters is going down. Unfortunately, the numbers don't back that statement up. The percentage of people who commute via car pooling in Los Angeles County has remained static. According to the U.S. Census, in 2002 12.8% of commuters in LA County commuted by car, but by 2006 that figure fell to 12%. Because neither 2002 nor 2006 were years when a full census was completed, the change in the percent of commuters who chose car pooling is within the margin for error of the survey. The figures for Orange County show a slight increase in both number and percent of commuters who car pool, but that figure is also within the margin for error. (I had to go to www.census.gov and do the math myself; I couldn't find a link that had these numbers. Feel free to double check me.) In short, despite their popularity, HOV lanes aren't causing single passenger commuters to switch to a carpool. Metro deserves credit for recognizing that the HOV system around Los Angeles is slowly, but surely, failing. In order to protect its investment (HOV Lanes cost a lot of money)!, and to be able to fulfill their promise of a congestion-free commute for some, Metro decided to look into HOT Lanes, i.e. converting HOV lanes into variable toll lanes with the cost depending on the number of people in the car and the time of day. This decision has been criticized as being unfair to carpoolers, unfair to hybrid owners and unfair to those people trying to make the most responsible decisions when choosing transportation. While it's unfortunate that LA is growing too quickly for HOV lanes to fulfill the promise of a congestion-free commute for the most-responsible of us, what would be most unfair is a government agency that sees a system that is failing and doesn't do anything about it because the solution might be politically unpopular. Visit Damien Newton's blog, Street Heat LA, for more on L.A. transportation matters
2) This plan will disproportionately help the rich.
3) Drivers already pay too much for roads.
4) The plan (yet to be finished or released) doesn't make any sense.
