Toll lanes next to freeways: Separate transportation for the rich?

The following essay is the second of a guest series on HOT lanes by Damien Newton, author of the blog Street Heat LA. Read Part 1 here.

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-90 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-90 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.

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

Photo by Don Bartletti / LAT

Comments

[Kate]

The danger is that when transit starts receiving dedicated money from HOT lanes, other funding goes out the window. That's what has happened in any number of states that use lottery money to finance public education--and there are plenty of classrooms that don't see that money, anyhow. This might be a great solution, but there needs to be careful public accounting for what goes in and what is distributed.

[Dan W.]

I think it this is worth a try at least on a test basis.

What doesn't work for me are soccer moms and dads getting to use the carpool lanes just because they have kids in the car.

Carpool lanes should be taking other drivers off the road. If "Hot Lanes" are not used, the laws should be changed requiring two or even three adults in the car to use the lanes. Then they serve their intended purpose.

[andy]

Can your logic be more twisted? Roads built on public lands should be for free public use. If there is congestion, then more lanes should be built using property taxes. Where is all tax money going for those new homes in Riverside? Some of it should be going to pay for a new 91! Where is all the gas tax revenue going for all those new commuters in Riverside? It should be gong to build a new 91! I already pay taxes, why should I be doubly taxed just to use a toll road? Why is there a toll road on public land in the first place. I'm for private enterprise but put these private toll roads on private property and don't use any tax moneys on them!

[Dan W.]

"If there is congestion, then more lanes should be built using property taxes. "

Here's the unfortunate newsflash. The limits of road building and sprawl have been reached and the best days of the "car culture" are long behind us.

But, I agree that developers should have to fork out more for transportation improvements.

[Duane Laible]

It's SR 91, not SR 90

[Cassandra]

HOT lanes are not necessarily a bad idea; however, MTA's proposed application of the HOT lanes is what worries me (and most people I know). Much, if not all, of the dissention stems from the fact that MTA has not shown that existing lane rules (2+ passengers) will continue to give users a “free ride” – and if they do allow this, how long will it last? (SR-91 gives carpools of 3 or more a half price break, but not a free ride during peak hours.)

The problem here is not the lanes themselves, but the fact that MTA is proposing using existing carpool lanes, without any given plans to replace these lanes. That is why the studies you have listed here do not speak to MTA's plans for the areas of LA causing the uproar – to my knowledge, they are studies showing reduced congestion in areas which did not have previously existing HOV lanes.

It is not just the MTA's lack of finesse in proposing the HOT lanes that is causing the uproar against them.

MTA is trying to use a pre-existing system which tax and transit money built for a specific purpose (faster lanes to reward those who are doing their part; hopefully reducing the burden on our freeways and making life better for all) and turn it toward a different purpose (toll lanes).

These lanes are poorly suited to be toll lanes. While many of them are "separated" from the main freeway, the separation is often either slight (a double line) or absolute (I-110), and only applies to a single lane of freeway. Put on top of that the facts that people tend to speed in the HOT lanes and try to cheat the lanes whenever possible (drive the 91 to see this in action), and you have the recipe for either high-speed crashes (we see these already with people jumping the carpool lane) or severe delays (or worse) caused by emergency vehicles being unable to reach an accident in a single lane that is isolated from all other traffic.

Any construction to build or modify these lanes will severely impact existing traffic without any proven additional benefit to those commuters. It seems highly doubtful that MORE people will use the toll lanes than are using the carpool lanes today, or if they do, that it will somehow lead to fewer cars on the road than the existing HOV lanes. Throw on top of that the varying studies existing on HOT lanes and funding (as seen in Atlanta and Cincinnati), and it looks possible that the HOT lanes will not be able to support much more than their own construction and maintenance, much less actively contribute to local transit funds, unless they have extraordinarily high price points ($1+/mile, the highest toll in the US, as seen on the 10-mile stretch of SR-91).

To remedy some of these stumbling blocks, MTA could:
A) Charge everyone to use the highways in specific high-volume areas.
B) Maintain both HOT (or regular toll) and HOA lanes, or allow 2+ passengers a free pass.
C) Create the HOT lanes ONLY in locations or areas which do not already have HOA lanes
D) Rework the plan in a way which will show a true reduction in congestion across all freeways without turning people off to the idea of carpooling (a good, if painful, start would be to "eat" an extra lane on all highways where the HOT lanes are placed)

It is possible that their latest plans include all or part of these solutions – if this is the case, I stand corrected, and I would like to hear more about their proposals (and wish that they would publish them more clearly).

Otherwise you will be hard-pressed to convince me (and many others) that the goal of the HOT lanes is to reduce congestion.

Don't get me wrong - raising money for transportation, especially trains/busses/subways is a very good thing. What MTA has proposed to date seems a half-baked attempt to raise these funds which will have long-reaching effects on the way LA continues to treat and perceive transit.

Specifically, if the toll is used primarily for mass transit, drivers will continue to see public transportation as a burden rather than an asset.

[Eric]

So for the record, this article says that SR-90 has hot lanes when it is really the Riverside Freeway (SR-91) that has the toll lanes. The toll lanes have not made traffic any better on highway 91, and should probably be elminated. Widening freeways only seems to accomadate more traffic and the wrong type of growth. Clearly, we need to analyze our transportation system in Southern California and figure something out that works better than freeways. Maintenance and upkeep of freeways should be very important, but we should also be funding new methods of tranportation that feed into employment and entertainment centers. Sure, not everyone works in Downtown, Century City or Irvine, but a large number of people do, and by providing adequate and freequent transportation to these places from residential areas we can significantly cut down on traffic. Maybe a socal counties transportation tax, similar to the one in the Bay Area that funds BART might be something we should consider as well. One thing is for sure though, if there are 20 lanes on I-5, traffic will still probably be the same.

[Damien Newton]

Cassandra, you've written about half of my next article on this already!

Metro's plans aren't really finalized yet and they have to go through an extensive public process. I can't think of many examples where existing HOV Lanes have been turned into Toll Lanes, so Metro has the opportunity to really create a model for the rest of the country (or to really mess things up in an unprecedented way). Fortunately, we'll all have a chance to have our say before the plan is finalized.

Andy, there have been plenty of studies done that show that automobile usage is as heavily subsidized (even with gas taxes) than other forms of transportation. There are also studies that show that adding more lanes to highways actually brings more traffic and is a temporary solution at best. Just look at the highways along the east and west coast! They're jam packed at rush hours, even as more and more lanes are built. The best plan to reduce congestion in the long term is to get more people per car and to provide other options to car travel.

A well thought out HOT Lanes plan does both of those things.

[Damien Newton]

The SR90/SR91 was a typo and my bad. This is what happens when you read too many stories on toll lanes over the course of a week, your eyes become heavy, 1's start to look like 0's...

[Robert Kalonian]

Toll lanes are long overdue in Los Angeles. Less talk, more action. And I'm not just talking about the politicians. People need to stop thinking of themselves and instead keep in mind what's good for the entire metropolis. Same goes of the subway argument, airport expansion, etc. It is this politically-correctness that's kept us so far behind the curve on transportation, and in the long run, it has ended up hurting the most impoverished residents of Los Angeles. As the second largest city in the country, there is no good reason why we shouldn't already have a network of toll roads, subways, light rail and rapid busways. (Sorry if I'm a little off the mark, but just had to get that out.)

[Ray]

If we really want to clear up congestion on our roadways, and seriously reduce carbon emissions, we should make all freeways toll roads (with strict accounting as to how the money is spent). Not large tolls, but enough to get Californians out of the one car, one occupant mindset. It's obvious that we cannot continue with our "business as ususal" transportation philosophy.

[Lost in Alvin]

Why didn't this posting mention that Metro is calling for converting lanes already built by public monies for this HOT program?

This is typical Westside hypocrisy.

How would Damien feel if we took a lane out of Sunset Blvd and a lane out of Wilshire Blvd and turn them into HOT lanes? For people out in Azusa and La Puente and Wilmington, that would be equivalent.

:astly, why can't we elect public officials with the chutzpah to go to Washington and get our tax money back?!? Do people realize that California is only getting approximately 75 cents back for every dollar it sends to the federal government? We are subsidizing transportation programs in Texas and Missouri and South Carolina while our transportation system is reminiscent of Mexico City.

[John Bard]

I have a solution to the gridlock/traffic crawl that would solve it at a stroke.

Unfortunately it will never EVER be used, but here's my plan anyway.
Every household should be allowed only ONE car on the road at any given time (except for medical emergencies), or pay a heavy fine.
This restriction would concentrate the minds of the 2, 3, 4, 5-car households to plan their trips more carefully - and to utilize car pooling, public transport, or to buy scooters/motorcycles/bikes etc. instead of a car.
In a very short time you would see clearer streets and cleaner air - and a tidal wave of support for enhanced public transport!
As I said before, it'll never happen because everyone would insist that they couldn't POSSIBLY live without using their cars every day.

[stewart]

can you spell tax?

[Bryan T]

Andy wrote: "Roads built on public lands should be for free public use."

Nonsense! Do we let people use the public airports for free? Or public harbors, or ship locks, or major bridges? No -- we charge a reasonable fee for their use, which pays for operations and maintenance.

We should charge reasonable fees for the use of roads during rush hour, because freeway capacity is a scarce resource that we've clearly run out of.

[Damien Newton]

Actually Lost in Alvin, it's typical urbanite hypocrisy...has nothing to do with living on the Westside. Since I either work from home or have to commute downtown, I almost never get in my car which is used only for long distance (over 100 mile) trips and church on Sunday. I bike about 5 miles to a Red Line stop, lock my bike in a locker I rent, and take the train downtown. So, when I do commute, I leave almost zero carbon footprint and pay for both my transit trip (through a fare) and my bike parking.

As for your other points, the federal funding problem lies in the formula used to hand out transportation dollars to the states. Since it gives much more to freeways than to transit, it's not a surprise that the states with smaller populations and lots of highways connecting these rural enclaves are getting the largest share of the transportation funding pie. If we can get them to change the formula, the easiest way would be to change the president, then we'll see more of those transportation dollars coming back to us.

And for your first point, this is one post in a series...we'll do a whole column on the challenges posed by converting HOV lanes into HOT lanes.

[Hugh Jorgan]

A quick solution: why not encourage businesses to take deliveries/make shipments at night and/or weekends? Allow office and factory workers to start work at times other than 8AM (or telecommute, but I know how much employers dislike that idea). This requires no extra highway lanes to be built (toll or otherwise), or regular lanes converted into pay-as-you-go.

Once the big rigs, bob tails, oil tankers, etc. are moving at other than 'rush hour', you'll be pleasantly surprised by the swift and smooth commute.

An incentive (tax break?) combined with disciplinary action for non-compliance (increased taxes?) will go a long way towards easing the congestion. Believe me, I hate taxes! I wouldn't be mentioning it now, if the situation wasn't so desperate.

We altered the traffic pattern for the 1980's Olympics, we can do it again - for ourselves! We can do this!

[Dan W.]

"can you spell tax?"

-------------

So?

You can't get something for nothing and something-for-nothing conservativism is what gives us our huge budget deficits. We cannot have low taxes, solid infrastructure, quality public services and strong protective services (military/police/fire). We can have any three of those things, but not four. Reaganomics has failed under three Presidencies now.

The wealthy in this country are grossly undertaxed as it is. If getting them pay more to drive in a hot lane is what it takes to make them pay more of their fare share, that is fine by me.

[Roger Pariseau]

Keep things as they are now but make ALL lanes toll roads. One occupant (the driver) pays full toll. Two adult occupants, half toll. Three or more adult occupants, no toll. The idea is to reduce congestion by encouraging folks to car pool. How about a dollar a mile for the single occupant vehicle? It's either do something such as this or force all commuters to use mass transit.