Heated anti-HOT lane arguments don't add up

The following is a guest post by Damien Newton, who blogs at Streetsblog LA.

When news broke that the federal government agreed to give Los Angeles $213 million to help fund a congestion pricing pilot program and some mass transit improvements, a certain amount of hysteria broke out in our public discourse.   

Metro’s plan to convert HOV (high-occupancy vehicle, a.k.a. carpool) lanes to HOT (high-occupancy toll) lanes on portions of Interstates 10 and 210 (variable toll lanes depending on the number of people in the vehicle and time of day) has become controversial. In fact, it's the most controversial transportation project since, well, since legislation was debated in the legislature a couple of weeks ago that would allow L.A. County voters to decide whether or not to place a climate change fee on either gasoline or registration of low-efficiency vehicles.

The most common arguments used against the HOT lane proposal can be broken down into three different categories, all discussed in some detail in my previous Emerald City columns. But for those just joining the congestion pricing debate, here's why these anti-HOT lane arguments don’t hold water. (If you want to read some arguments against congestion pricing, here are two pieces from Pasadena Weekly and the Los Angeles Times.)

The most compelling argument against HOT lanes is that it’s not fair to take away the benefit of a free commute with little to no congestion from people that are trying to do the right thing by joining or starting a carpool.  However, we don’t yet know how the pricing structure on the HOT lanes will be structured. Metro hasn’t announced a fee schedule, so defenders of carpoolers could be worrying themselves for nothing.

Once the schedule's nailed down, it very well could be that cars with more than one passenger will be paying a very reduced rate and cars with three or more people driving free. It could also be that cars with two or more passengers will be able to access the HOT lane in non-peak hour periods for free, but have to pay a small fee during peak hours.  The truth is, carpoolers probably won’t be seeing much, if any, of a change in the cost of their commute.

The most popular argument against HOT lanes is the claim that congestion pricing is nothing more than class warfare.  Writers plead with their readers to think of the impact toll lanes, instead of HOV lanes, will have on the poor. I’m not saying that no poor people use the toll lanes on the 10 and 210 but for the most part, this argument is a red herring.

If people really want to help the poor have a better commute, they’ll call for more funding for better transit service.  I don’t think a lot of the working poor are commuting to work in the HOV lanes on the 10, but for those who do, wouldn’t it be better to provide more bus and rail options so that people of lesser means had the option to commute to their job in a more cost-effective way than owning a car and paying for gas and insurance every month?

Also, instead of pompously assuming that we in the typing class know what’s best for “the poor” why don’t we actually ask them what they think?  When someone does, the result is that people of all income levels support HOT lanes once they’re already in place.

My favorite argument against congestion pricing is, “they aren’t called FREEways for nothing.”  Didya see what they did there, emphasized the word free and all...

There’s two snarky responses to this. First, the roads being considered for HOT lanes aren’t called freeways at all. They’re called Interstates. Second, the origin of the word freeway has nothing to do with whether or not there is a toll on the road. It has to do with access to the road being limited to entrance and exit ramps.

Of course, nobody is really arguing over the definition of the word “freeway.”  What they’re trying to do is use the first part of the word to make their point these roads were built with tax dollars and thus drivers (taxpayers) should be allowed to drive on them without paying an additional fee of any sort. 

Let’s ignore for a second the added benefits to commuters that will be caused by increased transit and let’s ignore that the “cost” of the car culture that is caused in large parts by our freeway system far exceeds any gas tax.

In modern times, our transportation dollars are stretched thin.  Funds generated from the existing gas taxes aren’t enough to build and maintain the transportation network, so if drivers aren’t willing to pay more, then the network will collapse. Remember, under congestion pricing, the funds generated will go back into the transportation projects to the corridors from where the funds came. In other words, the corridors that see congestion tolls will also be the ones that see increased transit capacity and better maintained highways. From the initial federal grant Metro has earned, we’ve already seen funds dedicated to buying 60 high-capacity buses and better Metrolink service.

In the end, one of the costs of living in Los Angeles is that there will be congestion on the roads, highways and interstates. There is no magic way to make congestion go away; all governments can do is offer options for people who choose to live and travel here. Congestion pricing, assuming the money goes into funding a better transit system, does just that.

Photo by Don Bartletti / LAT

Comments

[Tom Rubin]

I am a strong supporter of HOT lanes, but not the current MTA proposal to convert very highly utilized HOV lanes to HOT's. The problem is simple - there isn't much unused capacity right now, so the only way to create it is to drive out the current HOV users - HOV-3 on the El Monte HOV/Busway - so that they can be replaced by people who are paying for the priviledge. There is also the technological issue; there is not current any technology that can, with accuracy, identify the number of people in an auto that has not paid the toll. Build new HOT lanes, great idea; convert existing highly utilized HOV lanes to HOT, bad idea -- total roadway capacity will go DOWN.

[Mike]

Solution: Privatize the highway system. Do some searches and see the benefits. All those boogie monsters have been cleaned up. This will help lower taxes and we will have better roads. Do some research and help get the government monkey off your back. Vote Libertarian!