A case for HOT lanes in L.A.

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.
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.

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.

Visit Damien Newton's blog, Street Heat LA, for more on L.A. transportation matters.

Photo by Don Bartletti / LAT

Comments

[Justin]

I think that your point here about politicians and government agencies enlisting like minded civic groups before unveiling new plans is a good one. This is something that every government official or politician should keep in mind when they are about to release ANY new policy to the public.

[sharon]

Part of the problem is that it seems that politicians always want more money to solve situations they or past politicians created and the problem never seems to get solved anyway. This does not apply to just transportation issues.