Congestion pricing to 110 freeway?

As part of a deal-in-the-making over transit funding, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is proposing to move the congestion pricing plan for Los Angeles County to the 110 freeway from the 210 freeway.

The stretch of the 110 south of downtown has been a candidate for a toll lane since last year, but the 10 and 210 were chosen instead to try to improve east-west travel between L.A., the San Gabriel Valley and the Inland Empire.

Villaraigosa met with legislators from the San Gabriel Valley late last month and proposed the exchange, said Walter Hughes, chief of staff to Assemblyman Ed Hernandez. Hughes said that he thought the move was motivated by two concerns -- the 10 and 210 plan didn't have the support of the State Legislature and the mayor was trying to win support for a half-cent sales tax for mass transit funding he wants to place on the November ballot.

"San Gabriel Valley caucus members had concerns and so they [the mayor's office] figured to alleviate those concerns they would look to move those toll roads to a different stretch of freeway," Hughes said.

The mayor's press office on Monday afternoon declined comment on the 110 proposal. Another source in the state legislature who had direct knowledge of the meeting with the mayor confirmed the exchange. The swap, I'm hearing, was suggested to the mayor by San Gabriel Valley interests -- again, something his office would not comment on.

Bottom line: if congestion pricing happens in Los Angeles County, it will be on the 10 freeway from downtown to El Monte and the 110 freeway from just south of downtown to the Artesia transit center at 182nd Street.

For more background on all this, click below.

There's a lot of background here, so I'll try to quickly summarize:

This past spring, the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded Los Angeles County $213 million in new buses, rail cars and other transit improvements. In exchange, the federal agency asked that the county convert carpool lanes on two freeways -- the 10 and 210 -- into variable toll lanes. The toll changes by time of day, the idea being to use high tolls during the busiest times to discourage too many people from using the lanes. That results in faster speeds. (Click here for a Q&A I wrote about the subject in May).

The Bush Administration is enamored with the idea, saying that such market-based tolls can clear up congestion and raise money for mass transit. In fact, the idea also has support from across the political spectrum, but didn't go over particularly well here because the 10 and 210 only have one carpool lane in each direction. If carpools with more than three people and buses are allowed into the lane for free -- as is being discussed -- there isn't that much capacity to sell.

Plus, it didn't help that the stretches of the 10 and 210 under consideration were both in the San Gabriel Valley. Some public officials -- such as Rep. Hilda Solis and state Sen. Gloria Romero -- have suggested that most of the burden of the tolls would fall on their constituents.

On the other hand, the 110 has two carpool lanes in each direction between the 10 and 105 freeways. That means there is more capacity to sell to individual motorists willing to pay the toll.

Fast forward to the present. Villaraigosa wants to ask voters in November to raise the county sales tax by a half-cent to raise money for mass transit and road projects. Legislators from the San Gabriel Valley are interested, but have two beefs: congestion pricing and Villaraigosa's unwillingness as a Metro board member to vote for $80 million in seed money for construction of the Gold Line extension from Pasadena to the east.

The mayor's office, too, isn't happy. They don't understand why the San Gabriel Valley is jeopardizing $213 million in buses and rail cars that the county would get as part of the congestion pricing plan. Why give the area  $80 million if they are going to forfeit $213 million?

So, that's the background. If you are not thoroughly confused, then you either work for a politician directly involved with the negotiation or you are a very careful reader. In either case, tolls could be headed to the 110.

--Steve Hymon

Comments

[Bart Reed]

"Why give the Valley $80 million if they are going to forfeit $213 million? "

Some times things are really complicated. The Mayor and his Reason Foundation allies David Fleming and Jaime da la Vega want to impose a HOT Lane on any "freeway" they can. It doesn't matter that the "freeway" HOV Lanes are at capacity during the Rush Hour. They choose the San Gabriel Valley 210 and 10, because it is outside the political scope of the Mayor: i.e. the City of Los Angeles. If the HOT Lanes become a disaster (this happened once before in 2000), than the political fallout won't be on the Mayor, but local San Gabriel Valley officials.

To add to insult and injury, NO buses or train sets have been ordered, nor has any type of agreement been written to get this $213 million. Get this, by adding some more buses on this freeway, it will somehow take 300-500 cars an hour off the 210 / 10 as people will flock to the new bus service and there will be extra capacity on the freeway to charge motorists a fee to drive in the HOV Lanes. Vapor Agreement, Vapor Funds. On the other hand, Gold Line construction can start within one year and the Line can be opened in 3 years to provide real choices between sitting on the jammed freeway.

[D. Malcolm Carson]

Good. The 110 is a much better candidate for the congestion pricing pilot than the 210. As noted above, there are plenty of alternatives along that corridor, the Blue Line, the Harbor Transitway with its express buses, Rapid service on Broadway. The SGV politicians are right in that the pilot should be spread around, not just concentrated in one part of the County. The 10 and the 110 are the best places to start.

If it decreases the pressure on MTA to fund the Gold Line extention, all the better. The Gold Line extention is pretty low on the list of transit priorities based on any kind of objective measure of projected ridership and/or congestion relief. Sure, in an ideal world of unlimited funding, it would be a great idea. But that's not the world we live in, so other more pressing items should be funded first. Make the Gold Line extention contingent on passing the half-cent sales tax, and then maybe the SGV politicians can direct their energies towards that.

[jeremy]

i thought the idea here was that revenue generated from the HOT lanes would help improve transit around the areas charged. so being that nothing has happened transit wise in the SGV sparing the north, with there gold line. but that is not much use to us in the central and souther areas.

this money could be used to improve bus service east and west outside of rush hour. and perhaps weekends when every road in san gabriel becomes a parking lot due to foodies and shoppers

[Tony Fernandez]

How much does the SGV need compared to every other part of LA County? Not much: the only problem in the SGV is the freeways, and that's only bad during rush hours.

As for putting this on the 110, that doesn't sound too bad to me. You have express buses on the Harbor Freeway, the Blue Line, and plenty of Rapid Buses. There are a lot of options for commuters along that corridor.

As for those who commute from the SGV to Pasadena or downtown? Good luck. There's no convenient Metrolink station east of El Monte, there is only one Rapid Line, and if you want to get to Pasadena, then it is nearly impossible to get there except by driving (unless of course you want to go on a 2 hour bus ride).

[cmyk]

Why give the Valley $80 million if they are going to forfeit $213 million?

Isn't it obvious? Sure, LA County will get $213 million, but how much of that will end up being spent in the SGV? Not a whole lot, considering the mayor's record.

The valley is on it's own and would be fools not to guarantee $80mill in exchange for allowing the congestion pricing to ride the backs of its constituents.