Another reason why Toll Lane Congestion Pricing should be real-time

A surprising study conducted by Michael Janson and David Levinson of the University of Minnesota shows that their state's high occupancy toll lane system attracts more vehicles and free carpoolers whenever tolls are set higher, and that's not factoring in added traffic congestion.

The study includes two years of MnPass Express toll lane data along two freeways. A series of unannounced toll manipulations for non-carpoolers--certainly a questionable motive--was done to collect data and responses from motorists. The MnPass Express Lanes is a toll lane facility that supports free non-transponder 2+ carpooling--a notion we support and advocate; so the the new findings here will be significant for the campaign We want Toll Lanes done right.

Informed individuals know that Economics 101 teaches the basic logic of supply and demand. One would think that if the toll goes up without demand, the number of toll-paying motorists would go down. So without factoring in added traffic congestion, why would increasing the toll for non-carpools cause more motorists to flock into the high occupancy lane?

According to the researchers, if motorists spot high tolls, they will think that the general purpose lanes will be congested ahead, thus will be inclined to take the high occupancy lane. This shows there's a significant group of solo motorists who are willing to tax themselves into a carpool lane. However, without congestion--as lower tolls show, there is little incentive to use the lane as a toll-paying patron.

Have the researchers uncovered a potential toll lane money making scheme here? We don't have enough evidence to make that judgement just yet, but we'll keep a close watch on a possibility as tolls along the 91 Express Lanes and LA's Metro ExpressLanes are often on the high side even when the general purpose lanes are free flowing.

Want an example? Let's check out the 91 Express Lanes on Christmas Eve. Take a look at the picture to the right. On December 24, 2012 at 2:30 PM, the westbound toll for non 3+ carpools was $2.10. The main freeway lanes were nearly at a free-flowing state between Corona and Orange County as shown in the image--unusual for the 91 during a holiday. Motorists had a high level of comfort passing through into Orange County at that time in the regular lanes. The Level-of-Service was right in between an A and B for the freeway. The toll lanes were in a free-flowing state. If tolls for the 91 Express Lanes were based on real-time traffic congestion, the toll for non-carpoolers should have been under $1 based on what other HOT lane systems charge for a 10 mile trip. A $2.10 toll may entice drivers that the freeway has at least some sort of slowing. The two non-HOV 3+ cars pictured above driving under the toll antennas should not have been in a position to buy their way out of non-existent traffic congestion all due to inflated tolls.

As previously mentioned, high occupancy toll lanes should not be about generating revenue. They should be about moving people. The fact of the matter is that there are non-carpoolers who would be willing to pay a price to access a high occupancy express lane to bypass congestion; however, such a motive absolutely should not be exploited by having high tolls during free-flow conditions. This is a clear example of why congestion pricing tolls should be based on real-time traffic congestion and not on a fixed schedule. Artificially manipulating tolls should also be banned and rates should be based on marketplace demands. While its true that having a fixed toll schedule provides predictable rates, posted tolls that do not reflect real-time traffic demands distorts the corridor's traffic flow by luring more toll-paying cars into the high occupancy lane than necessary and vise versa. Many real-time HOT lane systems have a $.25-$.50 minimum during free-flow conditions and $8-$10 maximum during rush hours for non-carpoolers. Motorists should not be "fooled" into thinking a highway is congested when it really isn't by artificially raising the posted toll beyond the market rate.

Citizens' jump start on feasibility studies

You may have heard the phrase "You can't ride a study" before. However, whenever a public agency pours money into conducting such research, the results often provide critical planning data for The Transit Coalition and the public. We look at such research, ensure any political spin is out, and use this information toward our positions. More often than not, these research-and-development projects come with a high price tag which can creep into the six figure mark.

As transit studies are vital to us, public entities and regulators need to realize that highly useful fact-based transportation data is already available to support such government transportation research. They just need to spend some time to certify existing published facts and common knowledge for contractors tasked to do studies. Reducing redundancy can save taxpayers thousands of dollars per study as the focus would be spotting and addressing red flags on the original ideas. 

Las Vegas Intercity Corridor - Transit Station "Feasbility Study"

Let's suppose an agency needs to research possible intercity transit stops in and out of Las Vegas. Here's a clever piece of data that's out there in cyberspace: A combination of recent time lapse videos showing a transcontinential drive from LAX to Orlando through Las Vegas.

Yes, you heard that right. Courtesy of a YouTube user, we have a cross country time lapse of video imagery of from cost to coast, through Las Vegas, available to watch:

• LAX-Las Vegas Segment
• Las Vegas-Orlando Segment

 A video-savvy researcher can take a look at the video and adjust its playback speed to match real time travel speeds. There it is. Some useful ideas of where to place station stops and rest areas would be available on the spot. The actual government study can then focus on the specifics and finding issues.

As mentioned before, government agencies should review the massive library of current and recent data that is out there to be researched and used for intelligence-driven studies. Agencies should have the power to be able to certify relevant facts and current common knowledge for transportation planning so it doesn't have to be researched a second time all in the name of legal fine print. Even a few hours worth of research at hand can improve research productivity and save big bucks in taxpayer money on studies.

"Feasibility Study" for dual high occupancy carpool/toll lanes on I-15

Want another example? Let's look at the possibility of extending San Diego County's robust and award-winning I-15 Express Lane facility all the way to Victorville. San Diego County is exploring the Escondido-Temecula segment, Riverside County has looked at the segment between Lake Elsinore to Ontario, and San Bernardino County has been studying Ontario-Victorville link since 2008. With the obvious fact of Temecula's big plans to redevelop its western side of the of the city, why not close the Temecula-Lake Elsinore gap? Here's another time lapse of the I-15 between San Diego and Vegas. Could you draw any suggestions of where the direct access ramps to existing transit stations should go? How about the intermediate access points?

Having a set of two high occupancy express lanes in each direction where 2+ or 3+ carpools can travel for free without a transponder and solo drivers have the option to buy their way into the carpool lane works. Link the lanes with direct access ramps for seamless connections to transit centers and park & ride lots. Offer a fast and friendly rapid express bus network with timed connections with the local routes to get up and down the corridor quickly. There's plenty of data out there to build up an impartial case that would support such an expansion. Conducting a real feasibility study for such a robust facility would involve checking for red flags on the initial ideas conceived and providing fact-based solutions to those problems.

High Occupancy Toll Lanes: Productive utilization means moving more people, not cars

There have been many news reports that high occupancy toll lanes throughout the country, namely the  I-495 Express Lanes in Washington DC and Metro ExpressLanes in Los Angeles have been "underutilized" due to vehicle and revenue shortfalls.

Most, if not all, toll lane corridors carry the most vehicles during peak congestion hours. They are often wide open at other times. Without congestion, toll-paying non high occupancy motorists generally have little incentive to use the toll lanes. However, HOT lanes should not be written off just because they don't carry many cars; here's why. Most HOT lane corridors in the nation allow 2+ or 3+ HOV's toll free travel, many of which allow for free non-transponder carpooling. The question is: How many people are moving through the corridor versus vehicles in comparision to the general purpose lanes?

Take a close look at the conceptual graphic to right showing a free flowing I-15 freeway in between the I-10 and SR-60 interchange. The general purpose lanes are carrying at least a dozen vehicles. The conceptual HOT lanes are carrying only 3. Suppose the 12 cars in the regular lanes carried an average of 1.5 passengers. That would mean 18 people traveling. In contrast, the illustrated Megabus in the toll lanes is carrying 50 passengers, the airport shuttle is hauling a family of four, and a single CHP motorcycle officer conducts enforcement. In this example, the HOT lanes are not generating any revenue; however the lanes are moving 55 people in contrast to 18 in the general purpose lanes. If the corridor can move more people per hour with the HOT lanes, under no means are the high occupancy lanes underutilized even though fewer cars are using it.

Public agencies from both the local and state level must understand that proposed high occupancy toll lanes in the Inland Empire should not be public money fountains. HOT lanes should be designed to move more people, not cars. Any revenue collected from non-HOV's should be used to pay for corridor operations which includes mass transit and basic capital improvements. However, the state must also be held accountable for its actions and ensure state transportation and gas tax funding is also making it to the transportation corridor as it should. Under no circumstances should county entities like RCTC be bound to massive debt obligations for highway capacity improvements which should otherwise by state-funded.

Friday Tips: Never quit or give up

The Transit Coalition has long envisioned for multi-modal transportation options for the 91 and I-15 freeway corridors in the Inland Empire. One ongoing threat is continued freeway and highway development without transit infrastructure. Our long term future visions for these major transportation corridors are high speed intercity and commuter rail service from early morning through late night combined with robust high occupancy lanes along the freeways complete with bus transit infrastructure and direct access ramps to/from transit stations.

Judging by RCTC's plans of addressing the chronic traffic congestion of the 91 and the car-oriented nature of the I-15 freeway, such a future vision seems a long way off even with the proposals to extend the 91 Express Lanes further east into Corona, north to Ontario, and south to Lake Elsinore. The Coalition can understand the public's frustration with substandard transportation infrastructure and limited public transit options outside of rush hour. We share your concerns for the future of Inland Empire transportation.

As the state continues to divert transportation and gas tax revenue away from the rails and highways, local agencies like RCTC must look for other means to fund projects, just to get the transportation corridors up to par. Mass transit often loses out when such funding diversions happen. That's why seamless connections between the proposed HOT lanes and adjacent transit stations remain unfunded and transit services remain peak-hour oriented. With the public constantly saying "enough" with the state funding diversions and ongoing anti-business climate, this is no time to give up on these corridors. Our future vision of establishing a robust, multi-modal transportation system for these corridors and the remainder of the Inland Empire remains unshakable and we will not allow funding obstructionism at the state level determine the outcome of this vision.

This week's tip: Never quit or give up whenever you experience trouble. Keep trying and you could convert what appears to be a failure into a victory.

The logic behind the Reason Foundation's view of Los Angeles toll lanes

While no one can deem the Los Angeles Metro ExpressLanes on the 10 and 110 Freeways a success or failure yet, Libertarian pundits exhort patience when discussing expansion of the concept to other freeways. Reason Foundation transportation analyst Baruch Feigenbaum notes that similar toll lanes elsewhere in the country had a slow start but eventually attained the intended goals of reducing travel times on both toll and free lanes, while also enhancing parallel bus service.

For the most part, the Reason Foundation is right; however Feigenbaum leaves out one important fact in the argument. The problem with Feigenbaum's argument--as the Reason Foundation is well aware of--is that Minneapolis, San Diego, and Seattle HOT lanes allow for free non-transponder carpooling. That is, any HOV can get in the toll lanes for free and go without having to pre-register ahead of time or get a toll transponder. That's why traffic flow improved for both the HOT lanes and freeway lanes for these areas as stated in the op-ed. Like LA, Atlanta had a rough start because both of these HOT lanes have ill-advised policies of requiring a toll transponder for toll-free HOV's; non-registered HOV's were displaced from the high occupancy lane, causing traffic to worsen in the regular lanes.

The questions that need to be answered for both LA's and Atlanta's HOT lanes: How many 2+ and 3+ HOV's used the former carpool lanes before the conversion? How many toll-free 2+ or 3+ HOV's are now using the high occupancy lane versus toll-paying non-HOV's? Is there a drop in HOV traffic in the high occupancy lanes?

Does Riverside County really need to go into massive debt to fund the 91 Express Lanes extension?

Why is less and less state transportation tax money making it to the 91?

The Riverside County Transportation Commission voted unanimously to approve a $1.3 billion finance plan to extend the 91 Express Lanes to the I-15 interchange, develop HOT lane direct access ramps to/from the I-15 south, and add a general purpose lane to each side of the 91 through Corona. RCTC's financing strategy includes funds from local Measure A transportation sales-tax collections and anticipated toll revenue. This project is long past due and persons needing to transverse the corridor would welcome the infrastructure upgrades combined with plans to double the existing express bus services and improve rail transit options. However, why does Riverside County need to borrow nearly a half billion dollars in order to get one piece of its transportation infrastructure up to par?

Corona Crawl stuck in decades of massive debt:

The plan includes the selling of bonds and a $435 million federal loan which are to be repaid through tolls, roughly 1/3 of the total bill, but get this: RCTC estimates that it will take a staggering 35 years to collect enough revenue to pay off the debt. RCTC predicts that the agency will be able to use 15 years worth of toll revenue toward corridor improvements. The Commission also planned not to make payments on the loan until 2022 and will not touch the principal debt until 2027. That's decades of sitting debt for one piece of RCTC's highway and HOT lane master plan.

With this massive debt obligation, it would be almost a given that if The Transit Coalition approached OCTA and RCTC and pitched its We want toll lanes done right campaign, the public agencies would most likely point to the lack of revenue as a chief concern. If more toll-free carpoolers are using the lanes than toll-paying non-HOV's and the tolls are based on marketplace demands, how could RCTC possibly pay down the debt?

Displacing state transportation revenue and gas tax funding to "who knows what?"

So why can't Riverside County develop a HOT lane master plan which supports free non-transponder carpooling and bus transit infrastructure despite the fact that entities all over the country have been able to do so in the past? The public can rightly question the state for this problem because the state government continues to divert your tax money dedicated to transportation away from the rails and highways, even though the public has repeatedly said, enough! As reported earlier, state spending on transportation decreased 30% since FY 2007-2008 even through we are paying more in sales taxes, 25% more in government employee retirement benefits, and gas taxes are scheduled to go up yet again in July. When such funding cuts and displacement happen, RCTC must look for other ways to pay for the extension of the 91 high occupancy 3+/toll lanes through Corona and along the I-15. What we end up with is toll lanes enslaved in decades of massive debt without transit infrastructure that mandates all HOV's to preregister for a FasTrak and pay discounted tolls during the PM rush hour. Such policies result in a reduction of HOV traffic instead of single occupancy vehicles for the corridor.

Chances are both OCTA and RCTC would likely consider adopting free non-transponder 3+ carpooling for the 91 Express Lanes if state taxes actually paid for a better portion of the expansion. With the amount of taxes we pay to the state, the 91 Freeway corridor should be completely robust with multi-modal bus transit infrastructure and expanded passenger rail service and rapid express buses from early morning through late night.

The state can also afford it too

Take a look at this finding: Earlier this year, the Reason Foundation released a study, examining 20 years of state highway improvements in seven categories: miles of urban Interstate highways in poor conditions, miles of rural Interstates in poor condition, traffic congestion, deficient bridges, highway fatalities, rural primary roads in poor condition, and the number of rural primary roads flagged as too narrow.

Reason found that in between 1989 and 2008, 11 states made progress in all seven categories. 11 more states improved in six of the seven metrics. 15 scored five. Seven fulfilled four and five states improved in three areas. California, with the highest gas taxes in the nation, was the only state that failed to improve in five of the seven areas, being able to improve only in reducing the number of deficient bridges and slightly curbing fatalities. Freeway surface conditions worsened significantly; take a look at this chart:

• Urban freeways in poor conditions: up 20.7%
• Rural freeways in poor conditions: up 10%
• Rural highway in poor conditions: up 1.1%
• Traffic congestion: up .9%
• Deficient Bridges: down 3.9%
• Fatality Rates: down 1.1%
• Rural roads too narrow: up .1%
• Total disbursements per mile: down $5.84M

The irony: With the high amount of taxes Californians are forking over to the state including a potential 70.1 cents/gallon gas tax come July 1st , we really should have some of the most efficient multi-modal transportation corridors in the world, but with 30% of our transportation tax money being cut from 6 years ago, as KRON 4's Stanley Roberts once said, "to who knows what," we are stuck with insufficient transportation infrastructure and staggering debt.

That "who knows what" might be toward government employee retirement benefits and healthcare. California’s has seen an ongoing chronic fiscal mess with anti-business-friendly regulations and continued tax and fee hikes over the past few years. Now, the local governments are charging carpools to use the high occupancy lanes just to build and maintain transportation infrastructure. It is long past due to reverse this trend.

Therefore, The Transit Coalition will continue to oppose mandatory tolls and transponders on carpoolers and advocate for free non-transponder carpooling on Southern California's high occupancy toll lanes.

More Toll Lane Madness in Los Angeles

Are taxpayers paying for government officials to drive alone in LA high occupancy toll lanes?
 

CBS2 News conducted an exclusive investigation where government vehicles along with some elected officials are using the Metro ExpressLanes without a FasTrak transponder. CBS2 investigative reporter David Goldstein uncovered nearly 4,000 FasTrak violations along the I-10 and I-110 high occupancy toll lanes by government officials. If these vehicle trips were non-HOV's, Metro is rightly owed the nearly $50,000 in outstanding tolls and fines. Talk about potential toll payment and carpool cheating on a massive scale by public officials. These violations exclude responding emergency vehicles, public transit buses, and on-duty Caltrans vehicles; such traffic is rightly exempted.

After Goldstein questioned the public agencies involvled, the entities such as LAX and the City of Los Angeles began to pay up. The question remains: Were the outstanding amounts paid for by the assigned operator of the vehicles or by taxpayers? If the latter, the public official behind the wheel basically got a free ride. To be fair, CBS2 reported that Councilman Tom LaBonge, whose vehicle was caught without a transponder, paid his share from a personal check. However, because CBS2 broke this story, measures must be put into place to prevent potential abuse of the Metro ExpressLanes by government officials. With the exception of law enforcement, first responders and Caltrans trucks, taxpayers should not be paying for government officials to drive alone in the high occupancy express lanes.

Controlling Cheating with Intelligence-Driven Toll Lane Enforcement

This event also clearly shows why the Metro ExpressLanes, the 91 Express Lanes and other high occupancy toll lanes throughout Southern California need free non-transponder carpooling. Under an intelligence-driven enforcement system, if the CHP catches a government employee or elected official driving alone without an active transponder mounted at all times in the HOT lanes, the CHP would issue the driver, not taxpayers, a heavy carpool violation ticket. Once again, both LA County and the state government need to consider increasing the carpool violation base fine to $500 and make it a one-point moving violation to fund increased intelligence-driven enforcement along the highways. That would control suspected toll cheating in the Metro ExpressLanes.

Are free FasTrak accounts good fiscal policy in LA?

Metro's actions are certainly questionable from both a fiscal and enforcement standpoint.

Now through October 25, 2013, Los Angeles County residents who register for a FasTrak account through LA Metro will have their $3 monthly account maintenance fee waived. Infrequent users of the Metro ExpressLanes which included carpoolers complained of the fee which has been a cause of Metro's decision to cut out the fee for a six month period. Now that infrequent users of the HOT lanes within LA County can benefit with a FasTrak account without the monthly maintenance fee, could we potentially see more carpoolers returning to the high occupancy lanes as Metro intended? We might see an increase, but infrequent carpools still need to fork over at least $40 toward prepaid tolls which may never get spent. Don't forget that to travel for free in the Metro ExpressLanes, HOV's need to have LA Metro's switchable FasTrak; patrons with a standard FasTrak can only use the HOT lanes as a toll-paying traveler.

Metro's actions are certainly questionable from both a fiscal and enforcement standpoint. For many agencies, monthly fees placed on inactive FasTrak accounts generally pay for the maintenance of such accounts which would otherwise get paid for by toll revenue. Prior to the complete waiver of monthly fees for LA County residents, four trips per month in the Metro ExpressLanes would waive such fees. The $3 monthly fee for inactive accounts is therefore a very fair price. County taxpayers should not be on the hook, nor should those who intend on using the ExpressLanes solely for free carpooling.

Suppose Metro did see a rapid increase in the number of FasTrak sign up's because of the fee waiver. As the number of FasTrak transponders increase, so does the complexity of combating carpool cheating. In the Metro ExpressLanes, a motorist's switchable FasTrak declares whether the vehicle is traveling as a free HOV or a toll-paying SOV. A prime reason why Metro mandates transponders for all HOV's is the ability of Metro to have a photo enforcement system, but even with the automated system, carpool enforcement still needs to be done by the CHP under an intelligence-driven model. Because such HOV declarations could easily be done through the absence of a transponder, a potential solution that the Coalition has long advocated is to abolish the FasTrak mandate for carpoolers and increasing the fine for carpool cheating. Several other HOT lane corridors throughout the country utilize this model which has encouraged carpooling and reduced HOV violations. If Metro wants to get more free carpoolers into the Metro ExpressLanes and avert the increased traffic congestion in the general purpose lanes, the agency needs to consider free non-transponder carpooling for their toll lanes.

Toll Lanes: What the press needs to question

The new high occupancy toll lanes along the I-10 and I-110 freeways in Los Angeles have been getting much negative press during the last few weeks, but why did this not happen in 1996 when the I-15 carpool lanes in San Diego County underwent the same conversion?

After the Los Angeles Times published a front page article reporting worsened traffic conditions in the main freeway lanes along the I-110 freeway, public views of toll lanes in general have declined. Although toll lanes are really not bad as many think they are, having a policy where "All HOV's must have FasTrak" causes toll lanes to deserve the reputation that they've been getting during the last few weeks.

The Transit Coalition's view of high occupancy toll lanes and congestion pricing is very clear. This mode of transportation works, but HOT lanes must support free non-transponder carpooling.

The questions that the press needs to ask LA Metro are:

1. How many toll-free HOV's versus toll-paying non-HOV's are using the Metro ExpressLanes compared to the original HOV Lanes?
2. Has the number of HOV's decreased in the high occupancy toll lanes?
3. How many HOV's are now using the general purpose lanes?

Traffic has worsened in the general purpose lanes because all of the non FasTrak-registered HOV's were displaced from the former 2+ carpool lanes; all vehicles including HOV's are now mandated to have a FasTrak transponder to use the facility. For toll-free travel, a Metro-issued switchable FasTrak is needed, not just any FasTrak. These are clear facts and here's an example:

The HOT lanes down in San Diego County which permits carpools or FasTrak traffic has better balanced traffic distribution and cut down significantly on commute times because non-registered carpools were never displaced. To be fair, San Diego's latest upgrades included additional lanes, but the actual HOV-to-HOT conversion took place back in 1996 in the original reversible lanes; no new lanes were built at that time and traffic flow did improve in the regular lanes according to reports. Therefore, the I-15 toll lanes didn't receive a negative reputation from the press.

If Metro wants the ExpressLanes to cut down on I-110 commute times, they need to get the displaced HOV's out of the general purpose lanes and back into the high occupancy lanes. If Metro desires to do this while fulfilling its long term goal of reducing the number of solo drivers in the corridor and promote ridesharing, the new regulatory burden on HOV's needs to be repealed. To be fair, most motorcycles and all plate-registered buses (public and private) are exempt from needing a transponder, but the FasTrak mandate for all other HOV's needs to be abolished and that notion needs to be adopted for all other future HOT lanes throughout Southern California. If there's suspected carpool cheating going on, get the CHP to conduct an enforcement sting with media coverage, lobby the state to increase the base fine to $500 and make it a one-point moving violation.

A no-spin view of the Metro ExpressLanes

High occupancy toll lanes done right can provide an efficient multi-modal transportation facility within congested freeway corridors.

There has been much unfair dissent toward the Los Angeles Metro ExpressLanes lately by the public. However, the fact remains that the new Los Angeles HOT lanes are not bad for Southern California; it is the current HOV usage policy that remains undoubtedly questionable and the Transit Coalition will continue to confront it. LA Streetsblog caught ABC7 News spinning the facts when the news channel presented an overall negative report of the high occupancy toll lanes.

The Transit Coalition generally supports multi-modal HOT express lanes and congestion pricing. To be fair, The Coalition did reference this news report in the 2/19/2013 eWeekly Newsletter, but the story reported the fact that overall traffic in the corridor has worsened in the general purpose lanes mainly due to the displacement of non-registered HOV's. This is why the Coalition aims to have the Metro ExpressLanes and all other HOT lanes throughout Southern California allow for any 2+ or 3+ HOV to travel toll free without a transponder. The reasons can be found here. Metro does predict that the increased congestion will phase out as more people register, but the question that needs to be addressed is: How many toll-free HOV's versus toll-paying non-HOV's are using the ExpressLanes compared to the original HOV Lanes? Has the number of HOV's decreased in the high occupancy lanes?

Currently all HOVs except for motorcycles and buses must have a FasTrak to use the Metro ExpressLanes. Any motorcycle can use the lanes for free. Private buses preregister by submitting their license plate numbers. While it's true that the ill-advised policy of mandating all other HOVs need to have a FasTrak transponder needs to be revisited, it's also true that anti-toll lane groups have been unfairly spinning the facts of the ExpressLanes to promote an overall negative public view of HOT lanes in general. That too is counterproductive.

Los Angeles Metro's high occupancy toll lanes accomplished two major productive changes to promote multi-modal mobility: First, new rapid express buses were launched to serve the corridors. Secondly, the HOT lanes allowed any non-HOV to pay a toll with a FasTrak transponder to access the ExpressLanes which funds the bus service and other improvements. In addition, LA Metro's switchable FasTrak could and should set the standard for all FasTrak transponders statewide, eliminating the need to manufacture mylar bags and/or the need to construct and maintain separate lanes underneath the toll antennas. HOT lane facilities can provide a quick and easy throughfare for motorists. If Metro, OCTA, and RCTC can cut out the "Nanny Lane" usage policy and allow free non-transponder HOV usage, high occupancy toll lanes can have a future in Southern California transportation.

Speaking of ExpressLanes, the Los Angeles Times published an anecdote about a person who was sent a citation by the operators of the 91 ExpressLanes. The problem was that his car was nowhere near Orange County and was in fact stored in his garage on the day of the alleged violation. Much of the toll-charging and violation-reporting process is automated. However, operators assure that appeals are reviewed by human beings, with some 900 of these appeals leading to the dismissal of the citation every year.

Why High Occupancy Vehicles are losing freedom with Toll Lanes

Transportation agencies need to put aside the "Nanny Lane" politics for high occupancy toll lanes.


Concept: What an entry point for the 91 Express Lanes would look like if the corridor permitted free non-transponder 3+ HOV's -or- FasTrak.

High occupancy vehicle travel remains a highly popular travel option for many, but incentives to freely rideshare on southland freeways are weakening. Legit HOV's consist of not only commuter carpools which make up approximately 10% of all commuter trips, but also private charter buses, airport shuttles, casino coaches, the Greyhound bus, taxis, caravans, motorcycles, and yes, family trips. Private HOV's contribute toward a robust multi-modal transportation system, but presently, incentives to travel in an HOV are in decline.

Los Angeles Metro's high occupancy toll lanes along the I-110 freeway corridor through South LA accomplished two things: It allowed solo-occupancy vehicles to pay a toll with a FasTrak transponder to access the underutilized $1 billion I-110 Harbor Transitway corridor. New rapid express buses were also brought in to serve the corridor. However, there is little else that shows that the toll lanes have contributed toward getting Southern California moving, and the majority of I-110 commuters know it.

As The Transit Coalition predicted, traffic in the I-110 general purpose lanes has worsened since the November, 2012 carpool-to-ExpressLane lane conversion three months ago, thus repeating the same disaster that occurred in 2011 in Atlanta. Video rants posted to YouTube and toll lane opposition Facebook pages have surfaced on the Internet.

That's because all of the non FasTrak-registered HOV's were displaced from the former 2+ carpool lanes; all vehicles including HOV's are now mandated to have a FasTrak transponder to use the facility. To make matters worse, HOV's with a non-switchable standard FasTrak, which is issued by other public entities all over the state, can only use the LA Metro ExpressLanes as a toll patron.

Let's restate that: There's no way to optimize HOV usage in the ExpressLanes to its fullest potential with the current usage policy, no way. To be fair, Metro predicts that the increased congestion will phase out as more people preregister and ridership on the Metro Silver Line builds up, but The Transit Coalition has objected to such preregistration mandates for HOV's which clearly result in a reduction of HOV traffic instead of single occupancy vehicles. It is a confirmed fact that when HOT lane usage policies mandate transponder registration for HOV's, ridesharing and carpooling is discouraged; solo commuting encouraged.

The very popular 3+ carpool lane along Interstate 10 between LA and El Monte will undergo the same conversion on February 23, and Metro is now proposing additional ExpressLanes through the Newhall Pass on Interstate 5. The Riverside County Transportation Commission also continues on its plans toextend the 91 Express Lanes east into Corona which will include a carpool lane conversion and potential HOT lanes for I-15. Speaking of the I-15 HOT lanes, the Riverside County Transportation Commission scaled back the southernmost segment of the corridor to cut its cost in half, but the shortened project will most likely exacerbate a major southbound bottleneck south of Corona if nothing else is done further south. To be fair, RCTC's proposals include constructing additional lanes to address any worsened congestion impacts, but how do our public agencies think HOV usage is going to flourish if they continue to put pre-registration barriers on such traffic?

The riding public knows that governments cannot expand HOV usage in a corridor by strangling it with regulations that drives non-registered carpools back into traffic-choked general purpose lanes. High occupancy toll lanes can be truly "high occupancy" with free non-transponder carpooling or not, and it seems both Metro and RCTC are saying not. Public agencies need to get back to helping HOV's expand and set aside the "Nanny Lane" politics because serious worsened congestion has already occurred along the I-110 and LA's commuters know it.

Carpools 2 or more only - Corporations OK?

The California Vehicle Code should specifically state that a vehicle occupant for carpool is a born, bodily, living human being.

Once again, loopholes in written law are being exploited at the expense of vehicle registration taxpayers and law abiding freeway motorists. San Rafael political activist Jonathan Frieman has a problem with corporations being defined as persons, but his campaign involves exploiting a loophole in the California Vehicle Code combined with citing the opinion of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. His intent is to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court case.

Frieman traveled solo with corporate paperwork in Bay Area carpool lanes purposely trying to get caught by the CHP so he can get his case through the court system. Citing both CVC 470 and the opinion of the Citizens United case, he frivolously argues that a corporation can count as a passenger to satisfy the occupancy requirement to travel in a 2+ carpool lane. As unusual as it sounds, Frieman actually hopes to keep losing through the court system so he can appeal the corporate personhood case back to the U.S. Supreme Court. He recently lost at the Superior Court level and has planned to appeal.

The Transit Coalition does not take sides on any political matters that do not relate to transportation. However, the state legislature must close the claimed loophole in the California Vehicle Code immediately. Even though Frieman hopes to lose his case throughout the appeals process, should a judge at any level decide to rule in Frieman’s favor, HOV lanes as we know it could be in dire trouble statewide. The legislature needs to write into law who a vehicle occupant is in the California Vehicle Code: a born, bodily, and living human being.

Robust debates in a free democracy are welcome and if Frieman has a solid argument against Citizens United, he should take action. However, exploiting California Vehicle Code loopholes and being a carpool cheater to advance agendas through the courts does nothing to get Southern California moving. And if the CHP took as long as Frieman claimed to catch him driving alone in an HOV lane, lawmakers might as well increase the carpool violation penalty and increase CHP enforcement to better deter carpool cheating. Set the base statewide fine to at least $500 and make it a one-point moving violation.