SoCal Represenatives Raise Concerns

[carter]

From the LA Times:

An experiment to charge solo drivers to use speedier carpool lanes on two of Los Angeles' most congested freeways has hit renewed opposition in Congress as two influential lawmakers — a Republican and a Democrat — say the plan is unfair to taxpayers and would create a two-tier transportation system for rich and poor.

Rep. Gary G. Miller of Diamond Bar, the senior California Republican on the House Transportation Committee, said the toll of up to $1.40 a mile during peak periods "absolutely infuriates me." Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) said it would set up a "traffic system of haves and have-nots."

Miller is exploring legislation to put the brakes on the project on the 110 and 10 freeways even though it is in the late planning stages. He has also gained an important ally in his fight to block similar projects in the future: House Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica (R-Fla.).

There's a great deal of evidence to suggest these concerns are unfounded. Where HOT lanes are in place, they tend to be used equally regardless of income status, and working class individuals tend to be among the most content with paying extra to save time.

Generally, they can even reduce congestion on non-toll lanes.

And as Jarrett Walker points out:

Congestion is the result of underpricing. If you give away 500 free concert tickets to the first 500 people in line, you'll get 500 people standing in line, some of them overnight. These people are paying time to save money. Current prevailing road pricing policy requires all motorists to act like these frugal concertgoers. Motorists are required to pay for road use in time, rather than in money, even though some would rather do the opposite and our cities would be safer and more efficient if they could. Current road pricing policy requires motorists to save money, a renewable resource, by expending time, the least renewable resource of all.

[regen]

While congestion pricing could improve traffic flow, it is not beneficial to block carpoolers from using the HOV lane if they don't buy a new transponder. The Transit Coalition has been pointing this problem out to Metro for a year, to no avail.

The congressional representatives are justified in raising concerns about the displacement of casual carpoolers, for whom tax dollars were spent to build HOV lanes, to enable a flawed implementation of congestion pricing.

There is no legal or technical necessity for Metro to implement congestion pricing in this manner. The Highway Patrol will be enforcing the exclusion of casual carpoolers from the HOV lanes, but there will be no physical barriers or toll gates to be opened, so if Metro wanted to, it could allow casual carpoolers to continue using the HOV lanes.

[rubbertoe]

Looks like the ball is about to star rolling. Meeting on April 5th to hear about the Adams Blvd improvements, with a discussion of the next steps:



Regen,
Not sure what you mean by "There is no legal or technical necessity for Metro to implement congestion pricing in this manner". If you mean the basic premise of the 1 year experiment to turn the lanes in HOT lanes, then the legal necessity would be the $210 million that the Feds have provided for various improvements for the project plus the buses purchased.

If you mean that Metro didn't have to necessarily exclude casual carpoolers who don't have transponders when they set up their criteria for HOT lane use, then I see your point.

One day when I had some time, I read through the report that discussed some of these issues, like:
1) rationale for requiring all vehicles that use the lanes to have transponders (in short, it would be unworkable otherwise).
2) how to get transponders into the hands of drivers who might have trouble affording them (discounted set up fees).
3) how to handle cases where someone who doesn't typically ever use the HOT lanes (like bus riders), but might have a sick child needing a doctors visit, could get to use the lanes free of charge (by having a system where someone who rides the bus gets a free HOT pass for every N bus rides for example).

The LA Times had a good editorial supporting the lanes today:
www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-carpool-20110317,0,15024.story

Like they say, it is a one year experiment so lets try it out. If it improves both the HOT lane speeds and the other lanes speeds, and generates money to be plowed back into the transit corridor, then I'm all for it.

If they use some of that money to punch the HOT lanes the remaining 1.5 miles to downtown somehow, or even past, then I'm turning cartwheels and naming my first child after them

Reports are here:
www.metro.net/projects/expresslanes/public-reports/

RT