Tag: managed lanes

convert HOV lanes to Express Lanes

Dan Allison1 Comment

With the establishment of the regional tolling authority, Capitol Area Regional Tolling Authority (CARTA), a joint powers authority (JPA), the opportunity exists for existing HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes to tolled lanes, specifically Express Lanes. HOV lanes had their time, but that time is past. HOV lanes are routinely violated. If you stand on an overpass and look down at vehicles in the HOV lane, you will see that many of them are single occupant vehicles, not high occupancy. You could also do the same while driving, but I’d rather you kept your eye on the road. The HOV 2+, used in the Sacramento region, which requires two occupants, is a pretty low bar, but even that is not achieved by many drivers. HOV lanes, being free, also generate no funds to maintain the lanes.

The SACOG region current has about 144 lane-miles of HOV lanes. It has no HOT (high occupancy toll) lanes, and no Express Lanes (all vehicles tolled, though toll may vary with occupancy or time of day). The map below (pdf) shows the existing HOV lanes (blue), and the HOV lane now being constructed as part of the Fix50 project. I have seen a SACOG map of the intended Managed Lane Network, but am unable to find it at the moment.

While the Yolo 80 project initiated the current tolling effort, SACOG in the 2020 MTP/SCS, identified managed lanes as a key component of both managing traffic and paying for maintenance of the system.

The MTP/SCS identifies these policies directly related to tolling:

  • POLICY 11: Initiate a leadership role in testing and piloting roadway pricing mechanisms, such as facility-based tolling and mileage-based fees, in partnership with the state, federal, and local agencies and private sector organizations.
  • POLICY 12: Take steps to implement tolling or pricing of specific lanes on major facilities, such as freeways, to improve traffic management, reliability, and operations of those facilities and to help raise funding for the cost of building and maintaining large capital investments.
  • POLICY 13: All new major expansion projects on the region’s freeways and expressways should be planned for eventual deployment of pricing options to both manage demand and provide a financing mechanism for capital costs. Any pricing strategy pursued should be sensitive to changes in roadway demand during different parts of the day (peak/off-peak) with the objective of managing demand and providing travel choice.
  • POLICY 14: Revenues generated from facility-based pricing should be used to build and maintain a regional network of paid express lanes and, where surplus revenue is available, on strategic transit services (e.g., express buses) or other mobility solutions that can reduce vehicle miles traveled and provide multiple travel options along priced corridors.

SACOG also has Managed Lane Network webpage, which includes Frequently Asked Questions.

I propose that all HOV lanes in the Sacramento region be converted to Express Lanes within a five year period, and that tolling be managed by CARTA. The reason for five years is that it will take about that long to do the public hearings required by law, to purchase and install the tolling infrastructure, and to determine the amount of tolls and any discounts offered for occupancy or time of day.

There are now so may types of vehicles that might lay claim to discounts that it would be better to charge the same for every vehicle. The road mileage charge, which is being considered by the state, could vary by type of vehicle, particularly to charge by weight which directly corresponds to wear and tear on the roadway, as well as the amount of tire and brake dust generated.

Converting HOV lanes to Express Lanes is the first step. The second step is to convert any lanes in excess of two per direction to Express Lanes (the basic two would remain free, for a period of time), and eventually to toll all lanes on all freeways and bridges. Freeways and bridges are incredibly expensive infrastructure to build and maintain, and users of the freeways and bridges should be paying for this, not the general taxpayer, many of whom never drive (though they do derive some benefit from freight traffic).

For additional posts on managed lanes, see category ‘managed lanes‘.

Yolo 80 thoughts

Dan Allison1 Comment

I often take Capitol Corridor to and from the bay area, and sometimes back from Davis (riding my bike there, usually). My observation is that I-80 is indeed congested at times, never more so than on Friday afternoons with traffic heading to Lake Tahoe area, but to some degree at AM and PM commute times. And of course when there are crashes that slow or stop traffic, which seems to happen pretty regularly. Though transportation agencies and most drivers see this section of I-80 as a bottleneck, and want the congestion solved, I see this section as a control valve on the whole system between the bay area and Nevada. Some people will make a choice to travel at a different time, or to avoid the trip completely, or to use other modes of travel. But many will just sit in traffic and cuss the government for allowing congestion. As the say goes, “You are not stuck in traffic, you ARE traffic”. In that sense, the three lanes each way segment of I-80 through Yolo County serves as the pressure valve on the cooker of motor vehicle traffic. If the bottleneck is removed, traffic will expand to fill the available space, just as the steam does when I turn the valve to release my pressure cooker. Caltrans does not deny that the project will induce more VMT, so it has a list of mitigations for that induced VMT.

Earlier posts on Yolo and related managed lanes issues: Tolling for I-80 managed lanes, no HOV lanes, Yolo 80 teach-in. For existing and future posts, see category ‘managed lanes‘. I’ll have more to say about managed lanes.

There are more or less two views on the Yolo 80 project: Alan Hirsch/Yolo Mobility (and others) believe that we should not expand the freeway or remove the bottleneck. Instead we should better fund transit and rail to provide an alternative to freeway travel. The others, such as YoloTD and Caltrans, believe that expanding transit and rail is important, but we can only fund that with the income from managed lanes. They also want to ‘solve’ the ‘congestion problem’.

HOV lanes should be removed from consideration, as they do not work. Alternatives 2 and 7 in the draft EIR include HOV lanes. I don’t support alternative 6 to add a transit only lane (part-time of full-time) because under this scenario, no source of sufficient funding to run frequent bus service is available, and if no frequent service, a bus lane is a waste of space, whether it is a new lane or an existing lane. This is not to discount the value of transit lanes, but to say they must make sense under current or near term service plans. Alternatives 3 and 4 add HOT (high occupancy toll) lanes, 3 is 2+ occupants, and 4 is 3+ occupants. I don’t know enough to distinguish between these, though I do know that 2+ is common in the bay area and 3+ is common in southern California. However, I don’t think that HOT lanes are the best tolling solution because they allow vehicles with the requisite occupants to avoid tolls completely. They do have some congestion reduction benefits and some VMT reduction benefits, but the research available indicates they don’t have significant benefits, and there are equity implications since it may be mostly higher income commuters and travelers that can arrange for higher occupancy over long distances.

If the corridor is to be widened at all, I believe alternative 5, express lane tolling, is best. It should be designed so that every vehicle (except transit) pays for every trip. There would be discounts for lower income people, probably using the CalFresh or other program discount of 50%. There would be discounts for the number of occupants for users of the FasTrak Flex transponder that can be set to 1, 2, or 3+ occupants. Caltrans is also exploring technology that would allow sensing of number of occupants without this particular transponder. The could be and probably should be discounts for travel during non-congested times when all lanes of the freeway are mostly free-flowing. But every vehicle should be paying something at all times. There is a clear equity advantage to express lane tolling in that all users are paying into the system so that tolls per use can be set lower. People talking about Yolo 80 tolling, including those opposed to any tolling at all, have bandied about charges of $10 to $40, but I believe that express lane tolling would set full price tolling at no more than $5, and likely less. A detailed operations and charges plan would await creation of the tolling authority, so nothing is known for certain about tolls at this time. I have not been able to find any projection of tolls in Caltrans or YoloTD documents, though certainly it may exist.

FasTrak Flex with occupany switch (from VTA)
FasTrak Flex with occupany switch (from VTA); different agencies use different models

My preferred alternative is 1, no build. I want the Yolo bottleneck to remain a bottleneck so that it sets a ceiling on VMT in the entire I-80 corridor from Nevada to San Francisco. We don’t need, now or ever, more motor vehicle capacity. We need travel mode alternatives. The best alternative, I believe, is higher frequency for Capitol Corridor between Roseville and San Jose. Other actions such as better bus service, both local and regional, better walking and bicycling facilities, e-bike subsidies, and effective bike share systems are all part of the solution. More lanes, of whatever type, is not the solution.

Tolling for I-80 managed lanes

Dan Allison5 Comments

Caltrans and Yolo County Transportation District (YoloTD) want to widen Interstate 80 in Yolo County and into Sacramento County. I previously wrote about this project in missing alternatives for Yolo 80 Managed Lanes Project. The list of alternatives seems to continually change. I saw a presentation at the SACOG Transportation Committee meeting this week that had a different list of alternatives. But the one on the Caltrans ‘Yolo 80 Corridor Improvements Project’ website is:

  • Build Alternative 2a: Add a high-occupancy vehicle lane in each direction for use by vehicles with two or more riders (HOV 2+).
  • Build Alternative 2b: Add a high-occupancy vehicle lane in each direction for use by vehicles with two or more riders (HOV 2+) and build an I-80 managed lane direct connector.
  • Build Alternative 3a: Add a high-occupancy toll lane in each direction for free use by vehicles with two or more riders (HOT 2+). Single-occupied vehicles would pay a fee for lane usage.
  • Build Alternative 3b: Add a high-occupancy toll lane in each direction for free use by vehicles with two or more riders (HOT 2+) and build an I-80 managed lane direct connector. Single-occupied vehicles would pay a fee for lane usage.
  • Build Alternative 4a: Add a high-occupancy toll lane in each direction for free use by vehicles with three or more riders (HOT 3+). Vehicles with less than three riders would pay a fee for lane usage.
  • Build Alternative 4b: Add a high-occupancy toll lane in each direction for free use by vehicles with three or more riders (HOT 3+) and build an I-80 managed lane direct connector. Vehicles with less than three riders would pay a fee for lane usage.
  • Build Alternative 5a: Add an express lane in each direction (i.e., everyone would pay a fee to use the lane, regardless of the number of riders).
  • Build Alternative 5b: Add an express lane in each direction (i.e., everyone would pay a fee to use the lane, regardless of number of riders), and build an I-80 managed lane direct connector.
  • Build Alternative 6a: Add a transit-only lane in each direction.
  • Build Alternative 6b: Add a transit-only lane in each direction and build an I-80 managed lane direct connector.
  • Build Alternative 7a: Repurpose the current number one general-purpose lane for use by vehicles with two or more riders (HOV 2+); no new lanes would be constructed.
  • Build Alternative 7b: Repurpose the current number one general-purpose lane for use by vehicles with two or more riders (HOV 2+); no new lanes would be constructed. Build an I-80 managed lane direct connector.

Note that of these 12 alternatives, 10 of them add a lane to the existing six lanes, which is capacity expansion, while 6 of them would be tolled in some manner. High occupancy toll (HOT) lanes charge vehicles that do not meet the minimum passenger count (often 2, but could be 3). Express lanes charge every vehicle using the lane, though there might be discounts for higher occupancy or certain types of vehicles, or certain times of day when there is no congestion.

I will have a lot more to say about the overall project in the future, but this post is about the tolling.

YoloTD, SACOG, and Caltrans are working on an application to the state for a regional tolling authority, a JPA – joint powers authority, that would administer tolls on these managed lanes. The proposal will be before the SACOG board on Monday, for review but not final decision (which would be in January). The two agenda documents are the staff report and the Toll Authority JPA. At the transportation committee meeting, there was general support for tolling and for the JPA, but clear discomfort about Caltrans as the possible lead agency (no one trusts Caltrans these days, though few people will say that publicly). The JPA would initially just be for the Yolo County I-80 section, but would be created so that it could include any managed lanes in the SACOG region. There are no managed lanes in the region currently, but there are in the bay area and southern California.

A tolling authority is probably a good idea. Freeways are tremendously expensive to build and to maintain, and the federal and state gas tax come nowhere close to funding either. Tolling would at least put money in the bank for maintenance. It has been suggested that it could also fund additional service for the Capitol Corridor trains and perhaps better bus service between Davis and Sacramento, but there is nothing in the JPA agreement that obligates such expenditures. It would be up to the JPA board. Income could also be used to construct other managed lanes on freeways in the region. Of course I am opposed to any added lanes, so new managed lanes are not a good use of the income. That is a risk of the JPA, that income could be used to make things worse in other places.

More info (there are quite a number of other media articles from the TV stations):

map of Yolo 80 Project