|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Apr 10, 2013 8:42:15 GMT -8
All,
Just read a story in the L.A. Times this morning concerning the initial report of the first 3 months of the I-110 toll lanes. While the carpool lanes are seeing increased speeds the other lanes are seeing decreased speeds. The story goes on to say that this has been the experience in other cities that have done similar tolling, but that over time the speeds do improve in the non-toll lanes too.
The part that I found most interesting is that the maintenance cost was $2.9 million, while the toll revenue was only $3.0 million. Those of us dreaming of large $$$ being generated for eventual infusion into the corridor will find that $100,000 won't go very far. Of course, this $$$ will likely go up over time with higher use and/or tolls, and maintenance will probably not go up at a corresponding rate.
It will be interesting to see what the eventual level of $$$ available is, assuming of course that they keep the lanes as toll lanes. But it looks like we will not be seeing anywhere near $20 million per year.
RT
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Apr 10, 2013 10:33:03 GMT -8
I'm kind of rooting for this to be a spectacular failure. I don't think we should pay billions in taxes to build car pool lanes only to have them sold to a private company so only rich people can drive on them. Private roads for the wealthy make sense only as a driveway, not on the interstate.
|
|
|
|
Post by RMoses on Apr 10, 2013 11:21:31 GMT -8
3 months is hardly enough time for a test, I recently used the 110 lanes (as a passenger) and worked out great coming from Long Beach.
However, I think it is completely asinine that you are excluded from the carpool designation unless you have a transponder. The shortsighted decision by default eliminates tourists, business travelers and a good portion of the local population who will never invest in a transponder. The monthly maintenance fee alone is a major deterrent.
|
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Apr 10, 2013 12:58:57 GMT -8
I'm kind of rooting for this to be a spectacular failure. I don't think we should pay billions in taxes to build car pool lanes only to have them sold to a private company so only rich people can drive on them. Private roads for the wealthy make sense only as a driveway, not on the interstate. This is not about giving private roads to the wealthy. This will relieve traffic for the general purpose lanes, plus the fact even the poorest are riding these on the Metro Silver Line and the other various buses on the corridor. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 10, 2013 14:12:15 GMT -8
I'm kind of rooting for this to be a spectacular failure. I don't think we should pay billions in taxes to build car pool lanes only to have them sold to a private company so only rich people can drive on them. Private roads for the wealthy make sense only as a driveway, not on the interstate. Nothing was sold to a private company. Also, carpools can still ride them for free. Also, public transit riders of course can still ride with improved service as a result of this. Originally, these lanes were both busways (on the 10 and 110) not really for private cars. If the cars want to pay to support transit, I am all for it. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on Apr 10, 2013 22:51:13 GMT -8
Nothing was sold to a private company. Also, carpools can still ride them for free. Also, public transit riders of course can still ride with improved service as a result of this. Originally, these lanes were both busways (on the 10 and 110) not really for private cars. If the cars want to pay to support transit, I am all for it. A family of ten is bringing their van from bakersfield to disney. They cant ride for free. Does that make any sense? Ten people in one vehicle, why are they being forced into the congestion? |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 11, 2013 8:41:50 GMT -8
Nothing was sold to a private company. Also, carpools can still ride them for free. Also, public transit riders of course can still ride with improved service as a result of this. Originally, these lanes were both busways (on the 10 and 110) not really for private cars. If the cars want to pay to support transit, I am all for it. A family of ten is bringing their van from bakersfield to disney. They cant ride for free. Does that make any sense? Ten people in one vehicle, why are they being forced into the congestion? For the occasional carpooler it is a negative, although the carpool lanes are really meant to encourage carpooling, especially to work during rush hour. The family from Bakersfield was going to drive their van anyway. They wouldn't have used these freeways to go to Disneyland. They would go down the 5 Freeway where there are almost no carpool lanes anyway. Giving everyone a transponder for free even though they may never use it would just result in a waste of taxpayer funds as people would lose them. Another side benefit to this is that all the cheaters are being dissuaded from using the carpool lane as there is basically no enforcement of the current carpool lanes for violators. The toll lanes solve this. I imagine the extra congestion in the main lanes will go down as more people get transponders. |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 29, 2014 10:46:33 GMT -8
I had my first opportunity to use one of the reverse-Robin-Hood private lanes of traffic stolen from the public on the 110 a few weeks ago as I was carpooling with a friend.
There's zero reason I'd have one of the doohickeys they steal money from every month because I use these trickle down traffic lanes so very rarely. If we make the rich pay less taxes... whoops, I mean, take the rich out of traffic and force more poor people into fewer lanes the traffic benefits of faster times for rich people will obviously trickle down to the whole system
I just waited for the fine to show up in my mail (this is satisfying because it forces those trickle down traffic promoting bastards to pay postage, hah), and then paid the massive $1.70 fee online. LOL. I can't wait for these class warfare lanes to go away.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 30, 2014 8:43:13 GMT -8
I had my first opportunity to use one of the reverse-Robin-Hood private lanes of traffic stolen from the public on the 110 a few weeks ago as I was carpooling with a friend. There's zero reason I'd have one of the doohickeys they steal money from every month because I use these trickle down traffic lanes so very rarely. If we make the rich pay less taxes... whoops, I mean, take the rich out of traffic and force more poor people into fewer lanes the traffic benefits of faster times for rich people will obviously trickle down to the whole system I just waited for the fine to show up in my mail (this is satisfying because it forces those trickle down traffic promoting bastards to pay postage, hah), and then paid the massive $1.70 fee online. LOL. I can't wait for these class warfare lanes to go away. You are likely going to be waiting your whole life for these to go away as they are becoming more common around the state. The Bay Area is adding them and there are likely to be more in LA and the Inland Empire. Overall, they seem to be quite popular as transit advocates like the extra funds they produce for additional transit, regular carpoolers like the fact that carpoolers who just happened to have their kid in the car or solo cheaters who normally clog the lanes are now gone, or the occasional user who normally wouldn't want to pay extra now has the chance to avoid traffic in case of being in a hurry once in a while. The ones in San Diego have been around for years and aren't going anywhere. With the Highway Trust Fund bankrupt, tolls are going to be necessary in many more situations. In many areas of the country including Orange County, tolls are common and becoming increasingly so. In LA itself they have not been, but that will change. Carpool lanes were once very controversial themselves, but now are much more accepted. HOT Lanes are going through the same thing and already becoming more common and accepted as evidenced around the State. With the gas tax not keeping up with inflation and people also using less gasoline in general, there is a massive shortfall in maintaining our federal highways that people don't appreciate. Money is going to have to come from somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 3, 2014 12:33:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Apr 21, 2014 12:43:36 GMT -8
Just looking through the upcoming Metro board material and see that the final ExpressLanes report is now online. Here is a link to the website where the report is located: www.metro.net/projects/expresslanes/public-reports/And the link from the board agenda that shows a summary: media.metro.net/board/Items/2014/04_april/20140424rbmitem34.pdfIt looks like they are moving in the direction of doing the following three things: 1. The board will vote to continue the operation of the lanes as HOT lanes. 2. Ask the state to allow for continued tolling authority beyond the January 15, 2015 date. 3. Look into asking the state to allow for the issuing of debt related to future tolling revenue. The estimated debt could be around $78 million to $205 million. Presumably they would then need to decide what to spend that money on. RT |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Apr 22, 2014 11:52:37 GMT -8
News article on the Metro report: www.dailynews.com/environment-and-nature/20140421/expresslanes-report-shows-better-results-on-10-than-on-110Some highlights: 1. Speed is up on I-10 in both HOT and general lanes (2 minute reduction!) 2. Ridership on Silver Line increased 27% since toll began and Metro increased frequency of Silver Line after construction ended (YES, 27 freaking percent) 3. Speed is about the same as before the HOT conversion on I-110 for evening commute, but morning commute is 2 minutes faster 4. 117 new van pools were added after toll begin I think the results speak for themselves. The HOT lanes are pretty successful thus far in moving more people faster. |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Apr 22, 2014 12:12:33 GMT -8
Just looking through the upcoming Metro board material and see that the final ExpressLanes report is now online. Here is a link to the website where the report is located: www.metro.net/projects/expresslanes/public-reports/And the link from the board agenda that shows a summary: media.metro.net/board/Items/2014/04_april/20140424rbmitem34.pdfIt looks like they are moving in the direction of doing the following three things: 1. The board will vote to continue the operation of the lanes as HOT lanes. 2. Ask the state to allow for continued tolling authority beyond the January 15, 2015 date. 3. Look into asking the state to allow for the issuing of debt related to future tolling revenue. The estimated debt could be around $78 million to $205 million. Presumably they would then need to decide what to spend that money on. RT Interesting on the debt. Metro's portion for double tracking a portion of the San Bernardino Metrolink Line is $63M. This is unfunded as of now. Would be nice to see a few dollars from here to fund this worthy project as the Express Trains on this line are at capacity. |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 20, 2015 13:49:49 GMT -8
Bart,
Glad to see that you have resumed the Weekly Transit eNewsletter, which I just received. I started monthly contributions several months back. I'm curious why when I look through the list of possible projects for the 2016 transit measure, there is nothing about extending the Harbor Freeway Transitway from it's current Northern terminus to downtown? Right now it ends about 1.5 short of wher eit needs to go, and there is always a big bottleneck right there. I did see that extending it South to the 405 is listed as a possible project.
Can you shed any light on why this is? It seems like a no brainer to do this if we are talking about things that need to get done, especially given the $$$ amounts being discussed.
My initial thought was that maybe the extension to downtown might be done as part of the toll reinvestment in the corridor. Maybe that is the ultimate plan? Bond the revenue to come up with the money to extend it to downtown?
RT
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 20, 2015 15:16:04 GMT -8
Bart, Glad to see that you have resumed the Weekly Transit eNewsletter, which I just received. I started monthly contributions several months back. I'm curious why when I look through the list of possible projects for the 2016 transit measure, there is nothing about extending the Harbor Freeway Transitway from it's current Northern terminus to downtown? Right now it ends about 1.5 short of wher eit needs to go, and there is always a big bottleneck right there. I did see that extending it South to the 405 is listed as a possible project. Can you shed any light on why this is? It seems like a no brainer to do this if we are talking about things that need to get done, especially given the $$$ amounts being discussed. My initial thought was that maybe the extension to downtown might be done as part of the toll reinvestment in the corridor. Maybe that is the ultimate plan? Bond the revenue to come up with the money to extend it to downtown? RT That would be an unbelievably expensive project far in excess of any revenues generated from tolls. You are talking about a ton of off and on ramps that would need to be rebuilt. Either way, they can't really get past the 10 Freeway without rebuilding the entire interchange there. The other way would be to just reprogram a current lane into the toll lane, but that wouldn't leave much in the way of free lanes in this corridor as the freeway already narrows here. Down by the 405 you don't have the same land constraints and the same amount of off and on-ramps so it would be a much easier project to expand the freeway here. |
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Oct 21, 2015 13:49:24 GMT -8
Bart, Glad to see that you have resumed the Weekly Transit eNewsletter, which I just received. I started monthly contributions several months back. I'm curious why when I look through the list of possible projects for the 2016 transit measure, there is nothing about extending the Harbor Freeway Transitway from it's current Northern terminus to downtown? Right now it ends about 1.5 short of wher eit needs to go, and there is always a big bottleneck right there. I did see that extending it South to the 405 is listed as a possible project. Can you shed any light on why this is? It seems like a no brainer to do this if we are talking about things that need to get done, especially given the $$$ amounts being discussed. My initial thought was that maybe the extension to downtown might be done as part of the toll reinvestment in the corridor. Maybe that is the ultimate plan? Bond the revenue to come up with the money to extend it to downtown? RT That would be an unbelievably expensive project far in excess of any revenues generated from tolls. You are talking about a ton of off and on ramps that would need to be rebuilt. Either way, they can't really get past the 10 Freeway without rebuilding the entire interchange there. The other way would be to just reprogram a current lane into the toll lane, but that wouldn't leave much in the way of free lanes in this corridor as the freeway already narrows here. Down by the 405 you don't have the same land constraints and the same amount of off and on-ramps so it would be a much easier project to expand the freeway here. I was thinking that you could have a single lane running each direction from the current terminus the 1.5 miles to downtown. The stub is already there to go North. You would only need a single exit downtown somewhere, and a single entry. No other entry/exit points except for downtown. Concerning the 10, just build over it. The best place to merge with the 110 would be right after the 10 merges before downtown. RT |
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 21, 2015 16:20:38 GMT -8
That would be an unbelievably expensive project far in excess of any revenues generated from tolls. You are talking about a ton of off and on ramps that would need to be rebuilt. Either way, they can't really get past the 10 Freeway without rebuilding the entire interchange there. The other way would be to just reprogram a current lane into the toll lane, but that wouldn't leave much in the way of free lanes in this corridor as the freeway already narrows here. Down by the 405 you don't have the same land constraints and the same amount of off and on-ramps so it would be a much easier project to expand the freeway here. I was thinking that you could have a single lane running each direction from the current terminus the 1.5 miles to downtown. The stub is already there to go North. You would only need a single exit downtown somewhere, and a single entry. No other entry/exit points except for downtown. Concerning the 10, just build over it. The best place to merge with the 110 would be right after the 10 merges before downtown. RT Not sure there is enough of a shoulder here to sink a foundation for a structure over the freeway here and the question of how to merge this into the existing freeway without expanding the freeway would be a big issue. Would be complicated and expensive at a minimum. I am pretty sure the project was initially designed to connect to the El Monte Busway (aka the Silver Line) not go north of the 10. |
|
|
|
Post by johanragle on Oct 22, 2015 8:16:58 GMT -8
Not sure there is enough of a shoulder here to sink a foundation for a structure over the freeway here and the question of how to merge this into the existing freeway without expanding the freeway would be a big issue. Would be complicated and expensive at a minimum. I am pretty sure the project was initially designed to connect to the El Monte Busway (aka the Silver Line) not go north of the 10. Considering the El Monte Busway ends at Union Station, which is off of US-101, it would still make more sense for an extension to follow the 110 up to the 4-level. Otherwise it would have to detour around East LA since the 10 is so broken up. |
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Oct 22, 2015 13:29:39 GMT -8
Rather than extend the physical HOT lane, I think the most cost effective way is to convert Flower to exclusive HOT access with signal priority for Expo line. The signal priority will also help cars in the HOT lane(s) get to/from Downtown core faster than using Figueroa. We kill two birds with one stone - effective HOT access to/from Downtown LA, and Expo line move that much faster with signal priority. See concept hereWe will need to construct a small bridge to cross Adams Blvd to give Flower St direct access to the HOT lanes on the 110. Note that this is not a suggestion to turn Flower St into a mini-freeway. The idea is to use signal controls (no left or right turns allowed between Olympic and Washington) and and signal priority for Expo Line to effectively extend 110 HOT lanes to Olympic Blvd. There will still be signals at intersections on Flower St but it will be prioritized for Expo Line trains, which will benefit cars going in the same N-S direction as the trains. Cross traffic and pedestrian access will remain the same today (or potentially enhanced due to road diet). Flower is 3 lanes wide in most of the stretch in question so we can do 1 lane each direction for general traffic and have room for wider sidewalks and/or bike lanes. Or we can have 1 direction each for HOT and maintain 1 south bound lane for non-HOT local access. |
|
